web analytics
January 24, 2017 / 26 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

(Even More Horrific) Anti-Israel UNSC Resolution Expected

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

For years the United States, the country most even-handed towards Israel, has insisted that only the two parties at issue – Israel and the Palestinian Arabs – can make a final decision about their future relationship. But as the sun sets on the Obama administration, the administration is setting fire to that position. As well as to several others.

It has been two weeks since the United States allowed the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution blaming Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East and punishing the Jewish State for continually refusing to place the neck of its people on the chopping block to the world’s favorite coddled victims – the Palestinian Arabs.

UNSC Resolution 2334, of course, was followed up by Secretary of State John Kerry’s turgid speech, a lowlight of which was his insistence that Israel can be either Jewish or Democratic, it cannot be both. Kerry’s speech castigated Israel for the failure to make peace and recommended serious repercussions only to Israel, which constitute rewards to the violent, terrorism glorifying and perpetuating Palestinian Arabs.

But something worse is coming.

Actually, two things.

Those who spend the bulk of their waking hours focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict are warning the Jewish State that the Paris Peace Summit slated to begin on Sunday will produce a document hog-tying the parties to the failed concept of the “Two State Solution.”

Oh, there is language in the document which pays lip service to the concept of a solution “not being imposed” on the parties, yet that is precisely what UNSC R2334, the Paris Peace Summit “Agreement,” and the upcoming UNSC Resolution seek to do.

The anticipated Paris agreement not only states that the Two State “Solution” (TSS) is the only way to solve the conflict, but it will demand that both sides will not only have to restate their commitment to the TSS, but they must “disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution.”

The Paris Agreement will do more.

It moves the goal post even further into the Palestinian Arab’s fantasy world than it ever has been before. The Agreement will state that the borders between the Palestinian state and Israel will be set on the 1949 Armistice Lines (the Green Line), and that there can be no changes unless the two parties agree to such changes.

Even the UN Resolution recognizing Israel, back in 1947, said that the Old City of Jerusalem should be an international city. Now it’s all part of “Palestine.”

What does that mean? It means “Palestine” only has to negotiate for land once it already has all the territory it could possibly gain ever through negotiations. Got that?

But wait, there’s more.

The Paris Agreement also elevates a “peace” initiative that has always been a non-starter for Israel, the “Arab Peace Initiative,” also known as the Saudi Peace Plan. This new Paris Agreement states that the participants will “restate the validity of the Arab Peace Initiative and highlight its potential for stability in the region.”

Just as with the chimerical Two State Solution, the Arab Peace Initiative will unquestionably make the region far less stable, not more stable. For example, it demands the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. Oh sure, coming right up.

So what new catastrophes for Israel has the Obama administration allowed – some say orchestrated – as it waltzes off the dance floor? The pronouncement that all of the land Israel acquired in defensive wars from the party which was not in possession of that land (nor has it ever been sovereign over any land) now belongs, according to the international community, to the Palestinian Arabs.

The Western Wall, the Mount of Olives, all of the Oslo Accords areas C, B and A, all of it will now be deemed “Palestinian” land, occupied by Israel. The only permissible path to end the Arab Palestinian – Israeli conflict, according to the 72 countries expected to attend the Paris coven, is the one path that has been proven repeatedly to lead not to peace but to more bloodshed.

And once the Paris Peace Partiers approve the document already waiting for their sweaty signatures, it’s off in a flash to the United Nations for yet another calamity.

Why the rush? That’s right. It’s because January 20th is coming. Once Obama leaves office and there’s a new sheriff in Dodge (i.e., D.C.), signing a death warrant for the Jewish State and granting the feverish wishes of the prig-elite who couldn’t be bothered with protecting the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have been slaughtered on their watch will come to an end. So the rush is to do all possible damage before hand, with as much of it as possible impossible to undo.

The whispered fears of another, final anti-Israel UNSC resolution before the end of the Obama era have increased in volume and velocity.

Jonathan Hoffman, a British pro-Israel advocate, reported hearing Britain’s Col. Richard Kemp state at an anti-UNSC R#2334 rally, that the upcoming resolution, buttressed by the document produced in Paris, is expected to be introduced and passed on Jan. 17. That resolution is expected to recognize the state of “Palestine” with its borders fixed along the 1949 (Pre-’67) Armistice Lines.

Now that the Obama administration has revealed itself as determined to breathe life into a phantom Palestinian state regardless of the consequences, supporters of Israel are hoping at least one other permanent member of the Security Council will exercise its veto power.

Great Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May appears to be the single lingering hope for aborting the creation of yet another terrorist state. Perhaps sufficient lobbying by the right parties will enable her to stand up straight and prevent a disaster.

But perhaps those orchestrating these new changes are being too clever. Perhaps, because so very much damage will come from these efforts, so much of which may be irrevocable, it will force the incoming administration to pull the nuclear option – defunding the United Nations.

And by doing so much damage, the Obama Administration may create another previously unimaginable result: unfurling the fingers of those Jews still ardently clinging to the Democratic party.

Wouldn’t that be ironic.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Jews 2nd Largest Religious Group in 115th Congress

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

Out of the 535 members of the incoming US Congress, 30 are Jews, following the 485 members of both houses who define themselves as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center. Jews make up 2% of the US adult population but account for 6% of Congress.

Jews also account for 50% of the Supreme Court.

Lagging behind are the Mormons (who are kind of Christian), with 13 members, Buddhists (3), Hindus (3), Muslims (2), and 1 each: Unitarian Universalists and Unaffiliated.

Among the 293 Republicans elected to serve in the 115th Congress, 291 identify as Christians; there are two Jewish Republicans – Lee Zeldin of New York and David Kustoff of Tennessee, both serving in the House.

The 242 Democrats in Congress include 28 Jews, and those three Buddhists, three Hindus, two Muslims and one Unitarian Universalist. The Democratic delegation also includes the only member of Congress who describes herself as unaffiliated, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona.

In fact, according to Pew, the group that’s most underrepresented are the religiously unaffiliated, which accounts for 23% of the general public but is represented by only 0.2% of Congress.

Two-thirds of Republicans in the new Congress (67%) are Protestant, 27% Catholic. 42% of the Democratic members are Protestants and 37% Catholics.

JNi.Media

Putin Will Not Expel US Diplomats in Retaliation for 35 Banished Russian Agents – Prefers to Wait for Trump

Friday, December 30th, 2016

This story is being updated just before Shabbat in Israel. After an announcement by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that Russia on Friday declared 35 US diplomats persona non grata – 31 embassy personnel in Moscow and four in the St. Petersburg consulate, President Putin decided to let them stay, because, he stated, he prefers to just wait for January 20, when President Trump will take over. This negated Putin’s foreign minister, who stated earlier: “We, of course, cannot leave unanswered insults of this kind – reciprocity is the law of diplomacy and foreign relations.”

The Russian initial announcement followed President Obama’s expelling 35 Russian intelligence agents and sanctioning five Russian entities and four individuals for the cyber attack on the DNC and on individual Democratic Party officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.


This is the earlier version of our story.

“The outgoing US administration of Barack Obama are accusing Russia of every kind of mortal sin,” Lavrov said, suggesting that the White House is “trying to blame us for the failure of its foreign policy initiatives, among other thing. [Obama] has put forward additional accusations without any grounds whatsoever that the Russian state was behind attempts to meddle in the US election campaign, which led to the defeat of the Democratic candidate.”

“Yesterday, the US administration, without providing any facts or evidence, announced a new wave of sanctions against the Russian Federation,” Lavrov continued, noting that “Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), some other Russian agencies and individuals were sanctioned. The sanctions also covered our diplomats. Thirty-five people working in Washington and San Francisco have to leave the US before the end of the day January 1st.”

“Today, I have ordered a number of actions in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election,” President Obama announced on Thursday. “These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”

“I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners,” Obama stated. “Using this new authority, I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information.”

Over the past year or so, the State Dept. has been complaining that the Russian government is harassing of American officials, going as far as to report that two US diplomats, a man and a woman, were slipped date rape drugs in St Petersburg last year. State Dept. spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau in her press briefings would not comment on specific cases but said her department was “troubled by the way our diplomatic and consular staff have been treated over the past two years” in Russia. “We have raised our concerns at the highest levels,” Trudeau said in one briefing. “In particular, the harassment and surveillance of our diplomatic personnel in Moscow by security personnel and traffic police has increased significantly.”

But the Obama announcement Thursday was strictly about Russian hacking and meddling.

In addition, according to Obama, “the State Department is also shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring “persona non grata” 35 Russian intelligence operatives. Finally, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are releasing declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, to help network defenders in the United States and abroad identify, detect, and disrupt Russia’s global campaign of malicious cyber activities.”

Lavrov argued back that the Russian compounds in New York and Maryland closed by the US Administration were used for children’s recreation during the winter holidays.

“We are forbidden to use the property that is the state property of the Russian Federation,” Lavrov said. “These are places for the recreation of the ministry staff in Washington and for the Russian mission to the UN. […] In both cases, the dachas were supposed to be used by children during the winter holidays, the camps traditionally open there. And these dachas have been declared spy nests, as I understand from the statements of the US administration.”

Russia is contemplating the banning of US diplomats from using a vacation house and a warehouse in Moscow, according to Lavrov.

David Israel

Saban, ADL’s Greenblatt: Ellison Clearly an Anti-Semite

Saturday, December 3rd, 2016

Movie mogul and major Democratic party donor Haim Saban on Friday night at a Brookings Institution dinner attacked Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a leading candidate in the race for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, calling him an anti-Semite.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean dropped out of the DNC race on Friday, urging Democrats to elect only a full-time chairman, implying Ellison would not make an effective party leader because of his Congressional commitments. Speaking on Friday to state party chairs in Denver, Ellison said that if he’s elected chairman, he’d consider leaving Congress to devote his attention to rebuilding the party.

The fact that Ellison may be the next Democratic party decision maker stirred up Saban’s harsh response.

Speaking from his table at the dinner, Saban said: “I would just like to clarify something about Keith Ellison and him running for head of the DNC. […] I think it’s important for this audience to know. First, The fact that Keith Ellison is a Muslim is a non-issue at all. That is not an issue. With that out of the way, if you listen to Keith Ellison today and you see his statements, he’s more of a Zionist than Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Begin combined. I mean, really, it’s amazing, it’s a beautiful thing.”

Then Saban delivered his punch line: “[But] if you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted – he is clearly an anti-Semite, an anti-Israel individual. Words matter, and actions matter more. Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party. Now I’ve said what I had to say.”

On Thursday, ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt, not a rightwinger in anyone’s book, issued an almost identical statement, albeit in a less blunt style:

“When Rep. Ellison’s candidacy to be chair of the Democratic National Committee was first reported, ADL did not rush to judgment.  Instead, we took a hard look at the totality of his record on key issues on our agenda. We spoke to numerous leaders in the community and to Mr. Ellison himself. ADL’s subsequent statement on his candidacy appreciated his contrition on some matters, acknowledged areas of commonality but clearly expressed real concern where Rep. Ellison held divergent policy views, particularly related to Israel’s security.

“New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel. In a speech recorded in 2010 to a group of supporters, Rep. Ellison is heard suggesting that American foreign policy in the Middle East is driven by Israel, saying: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

“Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying.  His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

It appears that with or without Ellison at the Helm, rank and file Democrats are abandoning their party’s traditional relationship with the Jewish State. Israeli born Prof. Shibley Telhami, introduced a survey of “American attitudes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” at the at the Brookings Institute Saban Forum 2016, using 1,528 panelists with a 2.5% margin of error, that included the question: “Is Israel an ally or a burden to the United States?”

Most respondents, 76%, across party lines, agreed that Israel is a strategic asset to the U.S. But a majority of Democrats (55%), say that Israel is also a burden.

The breakdown by age of respondents across the lines regarding the notion that Israel is a burden: 61% of people 55 years of age or older disagree that Israel is a burden to the U.S., while 31% agree that it is a burden.

51% of 35 to 54 year olds disagree with the notion of Israel being a burden. But only 49% of 18 to 34 year olds disagree with it.

JNi.Media

Pro-Israel Jewish Democrats Oppose Keith Ellison’s DNC Bid

Friday, November 18th, 2016

By Rafael Medoff

A growing number of pro-Israel activists and Jewish community figures are expressing concern that Minnesota’s U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison will turn the Democratic Party away from Israel if he is elected party chairman.

The election of Ellison “would bode badly for Jews,” longtime Democratic consultant Dr. Hank Sheinkopf told JNS.org. “His positions on Israel fit the pattern, noted by recent research, of identified liberal anti-Israel bias and the movement of Democrats away from Israel.”

Defending Farrakhan

Ellison’s controversial statements and actions date back to the 1990s, when he served as a local spokesman in Minnesota for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam movement. Ellison raised eyebrows when he publicly claimed in 1995 that Farrakhan “is not an anti-Semite.”

Since his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007, Ellison has emerged as one of the most vocal congressional supporters of the Palestinian cause. He has organized letters urging more U.S. pressure on Israel, voted against funding Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system, and spoken at fundraising events for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a hardline anti-Israel group. While visiting Hebron this past summer, Ellison tweeted a photograph of a placard accusing Israel of “apartheid.”

Rabbi Menachem Genack of Englewood, New Jersey, a prominent Jewish supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said he would be “disappointed” if Ellison is chosen as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) because that would “accelerate the process” of pulling the Democratic Party away from its traditional pro-Israel positions. Genack told JNS.org that he will be speaking to his colleagues in the party to explain his “concerns about Ellison’s views on Israel.”

New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat who represents a heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn, strongly criticized the decision by New York’s U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer to endorse Ellison. In an interview with JNS.org, Hikind, asked, “Does Senator Schumer actually believe that there is literally not a single other person in the Democratic Party, anywhere in the country, who would be a better choice than Ellison? Why is Schumer in such a rush to support a candidate who is so unfriendly to Israel?”

Hikind said Ellison “is the most radical candidate imaginable, someone who represents the extreme left wing of the party, which is why he’s being promoted by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and J Street—in other words, Ellison is being backed by all the wrong people if you care about Israel.” The assemblyman noted that Ellison has occasionally claimed to be a friend of Israel, “but if Israel has to depend on support from the Ellisons of the world, it would be in serious trouble.”

Possible defections

Some pro-Israel activists recall, with dismay, Ellison’s efforts to unseat a pro-Israel New Jersey congressman, Steve Rothman, in 2012. Dr. Ben Chouake, president of NORPAC, a Jewish political action committee in northern New Jersey, said it was “extremely unusual” for Ellison to target Rothman, “since Rothman was a fellow Democrat, in a district halfway across the country—what could motivate him to go to such great lengths?” Ellison spoke at mosques in New Jersey, urging Arab-Americans to vote against Rothman.

Chouake told JNS.org he fears that if Ellison is elected chair of the DNC, “one of his priorities will be to pull the party away from Israel.” Ellison represents “the fringe of the Democratic Party, not the center, and would it make even harder for the party to have broad appeal.”

The rise of Ellison could drive Jews out of the Democratic Party, according to Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a private wealth manager who worked in the administrations of New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, and New York Governor George Pataki, a Republican. “There are many longtime Jewish Democrats who are on the fence about whether to stay in a party that has been tilting away from Israel—and if Ellison is elected, I believe a good percentage of them will leave the party,” Wiesenfeld told JNS.org.

Wiesenfeld criticized Schumer’s endorsement of Ellison as “a crass political calculation—he sees the party succumbing to the far left, and he wants to go with the flow so he can retain his position.” He said that “Schumer’s phone should be ringing off the hook with calls from members of the Jewish community, asking ‘What happened to your promise to be a ‘shomer’ (guardian) of Israel?”
Ellison’s office did not return a request for comment from JNS.org.

The only other declared candidate so far for the chairmanship of the DNC is former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. A date for the election has not yet been set. According to party rules, it must take place prior to March 31, 2017. To win, a candidate needs the votes of a majority of the 447 members of the DNC. About one-fourth of the members are the chairs or vice chairs, of state branches of the Democratic Party.

JNS News Service

Senator Boxer Wants to Abolish Electoral College

Thursday, November 17th, 2016

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) who is retiring in January 2017 has introduced he last bill, and it’s a big one. Boxer’s legislation, submitted on Tuesday, will abolish the Electoral College, leaving the choice of a president up to the popular vote.

“In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote,” Boxer said in a statement. “When all the ballots are counted, Hillary Clinton will have won the popular vote by a margin that could exceed 2 million votes, and she is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama.”

“The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately,” Boxer insisted, stressing that “every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.”

Boxer’s bill requires an amendment to the US Constitution (number 28), and three-fourths of the states would be needed to ratify the bill within seven years — should its pass in Congress.

Born in Brooklyn, New York, to Sophie (née Silvershein) and Ira Levy, Barbara Boxer has been the junior Senator from California since 1993. In October 2002, Boxer voted against the joint resolution to authorize the use of military force by the Bush Administration in Iraq. In June 2005, Senators Boxer and Russ Feingold (D-WI) cosponsored Senate Resolution 171 calling for a timeframe for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

President Elect Donald Trump is the fifth person to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. The most recent was George W. Bush in 2000. The other three times all took place in the 19th century. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans would get rid of the electoral college.

“In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,'” Boxer said in her statement. “I couldn’t agree more. One person, one vote!”

JNi.Media

Impotent Rage About Trump Directed at Steve Bannon

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016

It didn’t take haters of president-elect Trump long to shift their negative energy away from Trump and instead focus it towards an easier target: former Breitbart editor-in-chief and newly named Trump’s chief strategist Stephen Bannon.

Trump won the election, he isn’t going anywhere and people, especially liberal Democrats who have been lulled by eight years of validation, are angry. Also greatly peeved are the traditional establishment conservatives who refused to back the aggressively non-intellectual Donald Trump. It was not only shocking but personally insulting to many of the elites that the “loser” actually won. Much better to throw word-bombs at a liberal for four years than to have to eat crow – picking feathers out of one’s teeth is never fun.

So when the president-elect filled his first two positions and one of the two was an establishment stalwart, Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus as chief of staff, heads swiveled and the keyboards pointed towards the second, the easier target, Bannon.

Bannon has been decisively labeled “an anti-Semite,”  and “alt-right,” and therefore “racist.” The anti-Semite charge has been traced back to claims made by an ex-wife during divorce proceedings. The most inflammatory thing she claimed he said is he didn’t want to send their girls to a school with “too many Jews.” But they did send their girls there. Bannon denies the charge. That’s it for evidence of anti-Semitism.  Really? Words uttered in a custody battle?

Anyone remember the claim that Hillary Clinton referred to one of her husband’s Jewish staffers as a “[expletive verb deleted] Jew [expletive noun deleted]”? Of course it was never proven that she said that – same with Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitic remarks – but it was repeated and rumors about it persisted, yet none ever rose to the level of a disqualifier for public office, let alone for an advisory role.

Since we can’t know the truth about whether Bannon uttered what was attributed to him by his ex-wife in a custody battle, what do people who know or worked with Bannon have to say about whether the man is an anti-Semite?

David Goldman, the economist and author who used to write under the pen name Spengler, wrote from personal experience that he was confident Bannon is not anti-Semitic. Writing on his Facebook wall, Goldman responded to a post on a conservative news site which blasted Bannon for promoting  “anti-Semitism,” “racism” and “white nationalism.”

Goldman did a Google search of the site.

I looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish articles that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom. There is not a shred of evidence–not a single article–that supports [John] Podhoretz’ allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views.

Earlier in the day Goldman took the Financial Times to task for the same kind of evidence-free accusation.

“I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. I first met him when he approached me at a conference to tell me that he liked my writing, which is unabashedly Zionist,” Goldman posted.

Goldman responded to an email query with:”I discussed Israel with him on a couple of occasions and he is a gung-ho pro-Zionist conservative.”

Joel B. Pollak is senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew. He has worked with Bannon for years and in response to the brouhaha wrote a column on Monday, “Stephen K, Bannon, Friend of the Jewish People, Defender of Israel.”

Pollak elaborated on his full-throated defense of Bannon in a telephone call late Monday evening. “Steve Bannon is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” Pollak said. “Under Bannon, Breitbart has expanded to open a Jerusalem bureau, and it consistently posts positive stories about Israel.”

So what about the charges of anti-Semitism? Pollak laughed. “I won’t tell you which ones, but during the [Republican] primary I had to repeatedly talk Steve off a ledge when he became irate that one or more of the contenders made comments Steve interpreted as anti-Semitic.” If anything, Pollak explained, “Steve is overly-sensitive to statements by others he thinks are anti-Semitic.”

No one claims Bannon is a pussycat. Several people who spoke out against the anti-Semitism claim willingly described Bannon as “tough” or “difficult” or “as hard-[expletive deleted]as they come,” but no one has come forward with any basis for calling Bannon anti-Semitic.

What about the claims of Bannon promoting Breitbart as a refuge for alt-right views?

Pollak explained that saying Breitbart promotes “alt-right” because Breitbart contains reporting on the alt-right is “like saying CNN promotes Black Lives Matter because CNN reports on the BLM movement.”

Indeed, there are articles about the alt-right on Breitbart. The most expansive one is co-written by the alleged icon of the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulis, “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.”

In a 5200-plus word article Yiannopoulis and his co-author Allum Bokhari debunk myths while creating a taxonomy of the alt-right movement.

Much of the alt-right, the two explain, focuses on community-building and values lifestyles. The “prankstering” or outrageous “memes” appear to be the source of much misunderstanding about the movement, which the two explain is even more hilarious to the alt-righters who practically choke on how those they aggravate “get played.”

But then there are the “1488ers,” who are just a small segment of the movement. Yiannopoulis and Bokhari explain:

1488ers are the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter supporters who call for the deaths of policemen, or feminists who unironically want to #KillAllMen. Of course, the difference is that while the media pretend the latter are either non-existent, or a tiny extremist minority, they consider 1488ers to constitute the whole of the alt-right.

Those looking for Nazis under the bed can rest assured that they do exist. On the other hand, there’s just not very many of them, no-one really likes them, and they’re unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right.

Yiannopoulis also said that “he is too pro-Israel” even for non-1488er alt-rightists to include him in their movement. The same is surely true for Breitbart itself, and for Bannon.

So the scary bogey-men of the alt-right is a fringe element of a fringe element, about which Breitbart runs articles, just – to quote Pollak – as CNN runs articles about the recent attention-grabbing movement on the left, Black Lives Matter.

Similarly, of the recent anti-Trump protests many involved were just dispirited Hillary fans, while a few called for violent revolution and there was even a sign held by one protester advocating “rape Melania.”  Should all Clinton-voters be condemned? Should Hillary Clinton?

The blogger Jeff Dunetz wrote for Breitbart for several years. Although he never met Bannon, Dunetz wrote a column on his own blog on Monday, with a commonsense title: “If Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite, Why Can’t I Find Any Anti-Semitism?” Dunetz remarked on a column written by David Horowitz which ran at Breitbart. In that column Horowitz referred to longtime neocon leader Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew” for refusing to support the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump. But Horowitz – a Jew – wrote the column, not Bannon.

It is true that the Horowitz column ran at Breitbart, but that does not make Breitbart or Steve Bannon any more anti-Semitic than the New York Times running a column written by Mahmoud Abbas makes that paper a Holocaust-denier. And just because the Democratic Party endorsed the Black Lives Matter platform does not necessarily make it or its standard bearers anti-Israel or anti-police, although the BLM certainly is the latter and has officially charged Israel with being an Apartheid State and committing genocide.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/impotent-rage-about-trump-directed-at-steve-bannon/2016/11/15/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: