Speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Thursday, Donald Trump once again demonstrated how he is not your typical presidential candidate.
“You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” Trump told members of the Sheldon Adelson-funded hardline pro-Israel lobbying organization.
He went on to mock rival Jeb Bush for taking money from interest groups and then toeing their line. “That’s why you don’t want to give me money, OK, but that’s OK, you want to control your own politician. That’s fine, good,” he concluded.
And then, unlike the candidates who do want the coalition’s money, Trump broke with GOP orthodoxy, questioning Israel’s commitment to peace, calling for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusing to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital — provoking a wave of boos from the audience.
Trump was asked about earlier comments he had made to an Associated Press reporter that he believes peace hinges on “whether or not Israel wants to make the deal — whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”
Trump was quickly assailed after that comment by rival candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who argued that land rights and a peace deal were not the issue and that Trump shouldn’t “question Israel’s commitment to peace.”
Trump continued to take a considerably more even-handed approach to the issue than his rivals at the event on Thursday. “I said that you have to have a commitment to make [peace]. I don’t know that Israel has the commitment to make it. I don’t know that the other side has the commitment to make it,” he said.
“I’d like to go in with a clean slate, and just say, ‘Let’s go, everybody’s even, we love everybody and let’s see if we can do something.’”
The moderator tried to pin Trump down on the litmus-test issue of whether Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.
“You know what I want to do, I want to wait until I meet with Bi —” started Trump before he was interrupted by booing.
“Who’s the wise guy?” Trump asked. “Do me a favor, just relax, OK. You’ll like me very much, believe me, and you wonder why you get yourself in trouble.”
Trump continued to heckle his heckler: “You can’t go in with that attitude. If you’re going to make a deal, you could make a great deal, you can’t go in with the attitude we’re going to shove it down your — you gotta go in and get it and do it nicely so everyone is happy.”
In other words, to Trump, who prides himself on deal-making, it’s simply obvious that you can’t make a deal between two people if you start off by saying one of them always gets their way no matter what.
Trump’s comments on refusing to take RJC money start around the 17-minute mark, and the testy question-and-answer period begins about 20 minutes in.
Trump praised Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu and criticized the nuclear deal with Iran, and he got a laugh out of the crowd when he said, “Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks; we’re negotiators.”
But his call for parity in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict made his rhetoric rare among recent presidential contenders.
Refusing to call for an undivided Jerusalem is almost unheard of— even among Democrats.
Then-senator Barack Obama made that call during his 2008 campaign, and then-senator Hillary Clinton did it in 2007.
This year, Trump’s rivals Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., both want the U.S. Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem to cement its status as undivided.
Although presidential candidates typically adopt that position during their campaigns, they abandon it when in government. Every administration, Republican and Democrat, has used a waiver to avoid compliance with the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, arguing that it would harm the peace process and thus U.S. national security.
The article is good, the headline is technically correct, but is misleading, which is dissapointing for The Intercept
I am disappointed that you as an ‘intercept’ contributor would twist the fact and lead with a false headline. But then again, why else would someone read your article and then post to call you out. Whatever, works for you to get those clicks.. You sound more like a racist and a storyteller.
who’s funding Israel with a tax break?
the congress passed a law to give only Israeli supporters a tax break for sending money out of the country …
but then it is anti-semitic talk to speak of such things …
This article reminded me of an article I read a while ago entitled, “Cynthia McKinney Drops Bombshell: Candidates to sign pledges of support for “Israel.” Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was interviewed on Press TV (YouTube: Cynthia McKinney, Former US Congresswoman-Face to Face-05-20-2011-(Part2))
McKinney served in Congress from 1993-2003 and again 2005-2007. In the interview she shared her experience with AIPAC as a congresswoman which offered a rear insight into AIPAC’s operation and its strange influence over our congress. I believe most will fine her experience quiet disturbing and informative since congressmen and women wouldn’t dare expose such details to the public for obvious reason. So, you be the judge. The article stated:
“Cynthia McKinney revealed what amounts to some pretty startling news regarding the extent of the Israeli lobby’s influence over Congress. During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were requested to sign pledges of support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to the Zionist state. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate’s campaign.
“You make a commitment that you will vote to support the military superiority of Israel—the economic assistance that Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that,”
According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
“Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge, they were given a pledge to sign…” she said.
“If you don’t sign the pledge, you don’t get money. For example, it was almost like water torture for me. My parents observed this. I would get a call and the person on the other end of the phone would say ‘I want to do a fundraiser for you.’ And then we would get into the planning. I would get really excited, because of course you have to have money in order to run a campaign. And then two weeks, three weeks into the planning, they would say, ‘Did you sign the pledge?’ And then I would say, ‘No, I didn’t sign the pledge.’ And then my fundraiser would go kaput.”
During her years in Congress, McKinney opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars, questioned the official version of the events of 911, and introduced articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush. Her final term in Congress came to an end after AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, funneled money into the campaign of her opponent, Hank Johnson…
McKinney was a candidate for president on the Green Party ticket in 2008. Also in 2008 she sailed aboard the Free Gaza ship Dignity as it attempted to deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza, making a second effort to reach the blockaded territory the following year on the Spirit of Humanity. Both ships were blocked from reaching their destination by the Israeli Navy.
Her comments about the pledges required of candidates for Congress are made in the second part of the program. In the first part she discusses how her congressional district in Georgia was dismantled through a legal suit brought about with the assistance of the Anti-Defamation League. [See YouTube Cynthia McKinney, Former US Congresswoman-Face to Face-05-20-2011-(Part2 ]
Excerpts from McKinney Interview (YouTube) McKinney said, I was politically assaulted by AIPAC so much so that her father asked publicly, “What does Stone Mountain, Ga. have to do with Israel?”
She went on to say:
McKinney: “Every candidate for Congress had a pledge, was giving a pledge to sign. I was new on the scene. So, the pledge had Jerusalem as the capital city, the American superiority of Israel.”
Interviewer: ‘American Congress people have to sign this pledge?’
McKinney: “Yes. If you don’t sign the pledge you don’t get money. It was like water torture for me. My parents observed this. I will get a call and the person in the other end will say, ‘I want to do a fundraiser for you.’ Then, we will get excited as of course you need to have money to run a campaign. And then 2-3 weeks into the planning they would say, ‘Did you sing the pledge?” I will say, “No, I did not sign the pledge.” And then my fundraiser will go caput.”
Interviewer: “So, I want to get into this pledge a little bit more. So, this is basically something that is mandatory that every Congress person has to sign that says, so you say, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? What else?”
McKinney: “That you would make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel. The economic assistance that Israel wants, that you will vote to provide that.”
Interviewer: “This isn’t a question for the Congress people serving that they are representing, or they are supposed to be representing the people of the US, not a foreign country and yet they have to pledge allegiance to a foreign state. No one questions this.”
McKinney: “That is what I was asked to do. I made it public. Probably no body had said anything about it. But I made it public and then the excuse was, well those were just over-zealous advocates for Israel. Then the tactics changed. But this is what is done for 535 members of the US Congress. One hundred Senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives have to now write a paragraph which basically says the same thing. So, is not a pledge but a paragraph and you post it and there are these forums that you have to go at the synagogues or whatever. And then if you do not perform appropriately then you don’t get $ to run your campaign. The problem is that it requires a lot of $ to run a campaign. And whether it is a women’s organization or an environmental organization, people can read about this on the Internet if they are interested. If you go to Thomas.loc.gov, that is the official US Congress website and if you put in the name Gus Savage, because Gus Savage was a member of Congress who was targeted by the pro-Israel lobby. And he had the foresight to use his position as an incumbent in House of Representatives to put his experience in the congressional record for the entire existence of the US Congress now people will be able to access his experience. And what he wrote was that it was the Garden Club of New Jersey that gave his opponent $5,000. But it was not the Garden Club of New Jersey, it was the activists who were associated with AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee…”
I found Gus Savage comment via google: Gus savage and 101st Congress (1989-1990)
[PDF]Congressional Record 101st Congress (1989-1990)
The jews laugh at the stupid goys doing their dirty work for them. We need to get jews out of our politics.
? Such commitment and passion. You wanna be a real mole, don’t you?
Mr. Trump’s lack of a murderous attitude, absent compulsory platitudes, proclamations of inherent superiority and lack of promises of blood and death, are foreign to the ears of the natural born subversives of all things human and good. The “usual suspect” MO, one which mimics perfectly their ‘snake in the grass’ legacy, is replete with historical precedents and testimonies of infamy for, well, it sure does seem like forever..
Wow, you just contradicted yourself in one single sentence. You called people “natural born subversives of all things human and good” and simultaneously said you didn’t like “proclamations of inherent superiority”.
Listen carefully. He never says anything and never answers a single question. He’ll change the subject or try to feel out an answer.
Mr Donald Trump is my new hero. I am going to make a deal with him to build lots of walls both in the south as well as the north. Mexico is paying up for the south wall, and Canada has to pay for the north wall. Canadians have imported lots of Syrian refugees, and in a few years they will all come down here to enjoy the warm weather and freak out at the ease of procuring guns here. So we need to build the north wall now itself while Mr Trump can get Mr Trudeau to pay for it. I have some interests in a precast company, and we are going to supply the walls and make a decent amount of money.
if you want a wall pay for it yourself…. sheesh and just because there are syrians here doesnt mean they are terrorists. If you want to stop terrorism.. tell ur govt to stop arming them. Plus stop watching cnn and fox and every other main steam media outlet.. they only report lies and half truths..so start digging in ur pocket for that wall cuz u aint getting one red cent from us..
No one said they are terrorists – I never even used that T-word. I just said they are Syrians.
Don’t worry, we can bully Mr Trudeau to pay up for the wall. You guys have already signed the TTP, so it’s all in there how you will pay up.
There is NO booing on the video. None. Only a Muslim covering a Jewish Republican meeting seemed to hear it.
False – the booing happens at 24:10 in the video.
The booing was about Jerusalem, not in response to Trump’s comment about not wanting their money, to which the audience reacted with laughter. So the headline is deceitful.
If Trump would have said that he wanted to see Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Palestine they would have circumcised him on the spot.
You want cool? A majority Republican House. A majority Republican Senate that, 2 days ago, and for the first time, repealed most of ACA.
And if Trump becomes president, he won’t hesitate to sign it.
Best quote of the day goes to CraigSummers:
Randall is doing the hasbarat dance poorly and even CraigSummers knows it.
By prophesies fulfilled – easily confirmed by any reading of the “Book of Isaiah” – only America is “Israel Restored,” the true “Zion” foretold by the Hebrew prophet Isaiah; also as prophesied Our Nation, God’s actual “Promised Land,” is now under attack by Gog and Babylon – the false-Jew Talmud Khazar Zionist cult impaling Christ-killers and their “real Anti-Christ” “engine for enslaving mankind” partners of Rome and the “cult of male prostitutes” Jehoshaphat ejected from Jerusalem in the “Book of Kings,” the pedophile homosexual Babylonian priesthood which relocated to Vatican Hill…who support only those with blackmailable deviance and secret criminal activities in their past, like LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama.
Mr Jones,
Please vote for Mr Trump. Also, consult Dr Ben Carson – maybe he can help you with his knife and remove some defective lobes that is bothering you.
-H
That’s some nutty shit your into there Will. Is that from the Harry Potter lady?
Just so there is no accusation of bias, I am not a Trump supporter and he will not receive my vote. I have listened to his speech to the RJC repeatedly. Where is the incessant booing you refer to in your article? Either it’s another case of the piss-stream media manipulating the facts for fun and propaganda, or you must be suffering from auditory hallucinations.
stating an objective fact can never be hate speech as it is representative of 50% +1 of a given population.
If 50% + 1 of the jewish population can be regarded as good negotiators or if being a good negotiator is viewed as a positive character trait of 50% + 1 by a given population… it cannot be seen as a negative comment but rather as a compliment and an acknowledgment of good character.
From polling done a week after cripplegate, the results are in–CNN shows Trump ahead by 2.5x his closest competitor:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
The Intercept’s Zaid Jilani slid in this article into speaking positively about bigotry — he may not have intended to do that but it’s still wrong. The reporter doesn’t see how Trump’s stereotypes of Jews in this speech are connected to Trump’s worse stereotypes of Muslims. I don’t think Zaid Jilani means to support prejudice. But, because this reporter gives naive credence to a crude picture of Jewish influence, he ends up portraying in a positive light some of Trump’s stereotype-driven remarks. Trump has proudly shown a discriminatory attitude towards many groups, not least against Muslims, and it ought to be obvious that you don’t try to fight Trump-style discrimination against Muslims by sounding sympathetic when Trump is voicing a stereotype-driven attitude about Jews.
The article distorts what was actually said, especially in the headline, but also in the article’s body. The text of the article says “…unlike the candidates who do want the coalition’s money, Trump broke with GOP orthodoxy, questioning Israel’s commitment to peace, calling for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusing to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital — provoking a wave of boos from the audience.” That’s not a fair summary of what happened, because a reader who relied on this might think that Trump was booed for things including “questioning Israel’s commitment to peace, calling for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making”. In fact, although you don’t make it clear, Trump was booed for only one thing: refusing to commit to Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. The headline distorts this even more: “Donald Trump tells pro-Israel crowd he can’t be bought, gets booed”, which strongly suggests that Trump was booed for saying he can’t be bought. Again, not what happened. There was only one booing incident and it had nothing to do with Trump saying he can’t be bought. In fact, as far as the audience’s audible response went, people seemed to enjoy everything Trump said about not being bought. Your URL for this article says “Donald Trump booed by pro-Israel group after telling them he can’t be bought”, but that gets the audience’s attitude backwards, since people in the audience seemed to actually like that. The boos came only on the subject of dividing Jerusalem, and although those boos were loud they didn’t represent much of the audience, maybe only a couple people. But I’m more troubled by how you handled Trump’s stereotypes of Jews in this speech.
Trump kept describing his audience, the Republican Jewish Coalition, in terms of Jewish stereotypes. The problem isn’t so much that he called them negotiators, it’s more that he assumed they were the kind of people who want to take existing deals they’re in and renegotiate them “perhaps more than any room I’ve ever spoken to.” Although his tone wasn’t critical, his quick assumption that they have an extreme tendency to squeeze more out of deals was clearly based on the audience’s being Jewish, and employs some of society’s negative stereotypes about Jews. And he didn’t just stop there with this stereotype-driven assumption. As he repeated the point, he intertwined it with the idea that Jewish donors “want to control their own politician” by giving politicians money. A lot of Americans intertwine these two ideas about Jews — the idea that Jews have an extreme tendency to try to squeeze more out of deals and the idea that American Jews get political influence through money — and it’s ugly when Trump or other people do that. Zaid Jilani, in this Intercept article, happens to agree with part of what Trump is saying: Jilani’s article implies that Trump’s taking a less pro-Israel position than other candidates has something to do with the fact that the other candidates “do want the coalition’s money”.
Although Jilani and Trump agree on that, I think they’re pretty much factually wrong on the role of Jewish money in driving support for Israel. It’s true that there’s something unusual about a more powerful country choosing to take its cues from a less powerful country’s government, as the US often does with Israel, but that has happened before in world affairs. The Vatican has had outsize influence in Italy, and the Cuban government in the cold war had outsize influence on the Soviet Union. In all three cases, important parts of the larger country’s elite developed a belief in the moral leadership of the smaller country, and the smaller country also occupied a geopolitically crucial point for the larger country’s interests. I think US support for Israel is basically due to the same cause as in the other two cases: treating Israel well for its geopolitical value became intertwined with some widely believed ideas about Israel’s moral importance (e.g. as a “never again” haven for Holocaust victims). Although political donations do have some effect in Washington, they don’t count for as much in the national-security realm as some people claim: one way to see this is that no country has ever gone from US enemy to ally just by making political donations. If you want to understand how a small country gets influence over a big country, look at how it’s worked in other cases.
But even apart from whether Trump and Jilani are right about the role of Jewish money in supporting Israel, the big problem with this Intercept article is its attitude towards the stereotypes in Trump’s speech: the article avoids negative comment on Trump’s stereotypes of Jews and even frames in a positive light some of the points that Trump tied into his stereotypes. I realize that Trump’s stereotypes weren’t stated in an overtly disparaging tone of voice, and the reception these stereotyped comments got from the audience seemed to be positive when it could be heard on the recording (though perhaps many may have been silently offended). But you know, in the end, it isn’t even about whether the audience liked it. Trump has shown over and over again that he actually believes stereotypes about all sorts of people and enjoys voicing them. In this speech he was trying to win over the Jewish vote, and he spoke affectionately, saying he’s “like you”, but his thinking was still driven by stereotypes. He spoke the way he did because he genuinely believed that Jews want to vote for someone they can control with money. And he wanted to overcome this perceived obstacle by charming Jews into believing that “he’s the best thing that can ever happen to Israel” even though he’s too financially successful for them to succeed at (as he imagines) trying to put him under their control. His picture of how Jews control politicians and of how Jews choose to vote is too crude to be realistic and is typical of how bigots think, but he believes it. And someone who succumbs to popular stereotypes of Jews to that extent is likely to also succumb equally to some of the worst American stereotypes of Muslims, and to act accordingly — which means treating Muslims much worse than Jews were treated in this speech. Instead of the Intercept lauding some of Trump’s stereotype-facilitated comments, it’s much more constructive to call his bigotry what it is no matter who the target of the day happens to be.
Pure hasbara; people might think he was questioning “Israeli’s commitment to peace” … while Israel is still building settlements illegally. Check.
The real headline is that it was fucking Trump to publicly tell Israel they are screwing Palestine. (Building a “Jewish” capitol in Jerusalem would cement Israel’s stolen land)
Trump of all people.
You didn’t listen to the speech: Trump was a long way away from telling Israel they are screwing Palestine.
Your “hasbara” comment shows how badly you misunderstood. The Intercept chose to describe Trump as “questioning Israel’s commitment to peace”, which is an accurate portrayal of Trump’s remarks since Trump said he isn’t sure whether Israel is committed to peace. What Trump didn’t say, though it’s obvious, is that the current Israeli government definitely does not consider peace a priority, and that no Israeli government cares about a fair outcome for the Palestinians. Since you clearly have no idea where the people you’re talking with are coming from, there’s no point in me discussing this with you further.
And the hasbarat resorts to a dismissal when he realizes his viewpoint is not embraced. Check+.
“something unusual about a more powerful country choosing to take its cues ” Nice one, hasbarat. No other country has come close to the level of influence through election funding in the US government than Israel has.
Trump is the first candidate for President to say anything remotely critical of Israel and he said he could not support Jerusalem as the Jewish capitol. That means he is not for Israel being solely a Jewish state. That is ground-breaking for US Presidential politics and as a hasbarat you are dismissing or explaining away, reflexively, anything critical of Israel. That’s your mission.
“……That means he is not for Israel being solely a Jewish state…..”
That false conclusion shows a level of pipe dreaming that is as close to reality as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi becoming a Catholic. You continually prove yourself to be an ignorant bigot. However, that does seem to be your mission (which you have accomplished 10 fold).
“…….And someone who succumbs to popular stereotypes of Jews to that extent is likely to also succumb equally to some of the worst American stereotypes of Muslims, and to act accordingly — which means treating Muslims much worse than Jews were treated in this speech…..”
That was an extremely perceptive post. Not so subtle stereotypes of Jews are commonly promoted at this site even by some of the journalists; and contrary to what I quoted from you above, people at this site do not stereotype Muslims. This is not a far right wing site at all although some frequent the site. It is a far left wing site which means Muslims are victims to Jews – or more specifically Jewish aggression in Israel/Palestine and Jewish aggression in the US and Britain by the Israel lobby – AIPAC i.e., Jewish money and influence.
Many at this site fully believe that Jewish money directs US foreign policy (tail wags the dog) and elections. You haven’t even scratched the surface of this site if this is your first trip. If you oppose all bigotry, you will be severely disappointed by the Intercept.
Keep looking for invisible slivers, plank-meister, and oh yeah – try a mirror.
Bigotry and lying for political expediency is as acceptable to the far left as racism is to the far right.
Lying is copywrited by Zion.We couldn’t lie if we wanted to,they’d sue us.
Craig Summers: you’re too hasty in criticizing the Intercept’s journalists. They wouldn’t use a phrase like “Jewish aggression” — that kind of phrase is as bad as saying “Muslim aggression” or “Christian aggression”. Since there has never been an occasion in modern times when Jews as a whole or Muslims as a whole have committed an aggressive act, a phrase like “Jewish aggression” or “Muslim aggression” can’t be excused as just “naming the enemy” — it insidiously suggests that a religious group as a whole is the party responsible for aggression, which is false. Those phrases are most popular among those who are attempting to encourage their own aggression towards the targeted group, and people who don’t want to encourage religious persecution usually avoid those specific phrases.
But apart from that phrasing issue, your denial of “Jewish aggression in Israel/Palestine” goes too far. Isn’t it obvious that the Israeli state has carried out aggression against Muslims? The Intercept is right to report on that. I consider them an informative source on Israel and I’m glad they care about opposing that aggression.
As for anti-Jewish prejudice, that’s not black-and-white. In fact, it’s true that the Israel lobby, including AIPAC, has influence in Washington, and although I think the role of pro-Israel lobbying money is overstated it’s clear that this lobbying money plays at least some role. Some people disagree with me and think that cash from the pro-Israel lobby plays the primary role in directing America’s policy on Israel and maybe the entire Middle East. I disagree with these people but I wouldn’t say they’re all prejudiced for thinking so. If that simplistic analysis of American politics (which even some Jews believe in) is mistaken as I think, then let’s debate it, not just dismiss it as prejudiced.
Trump was, in fact, bigoted in his words about Jews, not because he thought that pro-Israel money controls politicians but because he intertwined that idea with the bigoted idea that Jews in general use their money very aggressively. The Intercept’s Zaid Jilani erred as a journalist when he failed to notice the undercurrent of prejudice in Trump’s remarks and instead spoke positively about some of Trump’s words which were clearly, in Trump’s mind, linked to the stereotypes he believes in. But that doesn’t make Jilani personally prejudiced against Jews. Since money is an important factor in American politics, it’s understandable and not necessarily prejudiced for people to believe the oversimplified idea that money plays the dominant role in America’s Israel policy. It’s also understandable and not necessarily prejudiced when some people vigorously support Palestinian rights and therefore see those Jews who advocate heavy support of Israel as adversaries. So people who believe that the lobbying money of pro-Israel Jews has a dominant and negative influence aren’t necessarily prejudiced, though I think they’re failing to see the whole picture. What I consider more interesting here is that Trump is actually and openly designing his appeal to Jewish potential supporters of his campaign in a way that’s based on his stereotypes of Jews.
“……Craig Summers: you’re too hasty in criticizing the Intercept’s journalists…..”
On what basis do you draw that conclusion? What you are saying is that I am jumping to conclusions. I am just curious what you base that on. It seems to me that you are the one drawing conclusions without any basis?! Indeed, Randall, it is you that is criticizing a journalist at the Intercept.
“…….But apart from that phrasing issue, your denial of “Jewish aggression in Israel/Palestine” goes too far…..”
I think you are a little fucked up Randall. You contradict yourself to begin with by chastising me for saying “Jewish aggression” while you use the same phrase, and of course, can you point to any place in my response where I denied that Israel was aggressive? Or is making up a statement by me just par for the course?
“……Some people disagree with me and think that cash from the pro-Israel lobby plays the primary role in directing America’s policy on Israel and maybe the entire Middle East. I disagree with these people but I wouldn’t say they’re all prejudiced for thinking so……”
If you believe that Jewish money plays the primary role in the entire Middle East, you are not only a flaming bigot, but mentally ill as well. For someone who just gave a 10000 word essay about stereotyping Jews, this statement by you is mind boggling. In fact, you might see the same statement at Stormfront.
“…….But that doesn’t make Jilani personally prejudiced against Jews…..”
Never said it did, but you are the one that implied he was by promoting stereotypes of Jews:
“…..Jilani’s article implies that Trump’s taking a less pro-Israel position than other candidates has something to do with the fact that the other candidates “do want the coalition’s money”…… A lot of Americans intertwine these two ideas about Jews — the idea that Jews have an extreme tendency to try to squeeze more out of deals and the idea that American Jews get political influence through money”….”
You should qualify that statement because a lot of people in the “world” intertwine those two ideas – or have you forgotten where the Holocaust took place?
Finally, you say in your response:
“…….So people who believe that the lobbying money of pro-Israel Jews has a dominant and negative influence aren’t necessarily prejudiced…..”
When you say “dominant” that implies Jews run US foreign policy which is not only demonstrably false, but is one of the worse and most dangerous stereotypes of Jews.
You should have quit after your initial response.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Even though it’s often good to tell someone “You should qualify that statement”, which is what you’re telling me to do, maybe you should be careful first before saying that — because you keep directing your criticisms at your own confused version of what I’m saying rather than at what I specifically said. You say that it’s crazy and prejudiced to think that Jewish money has the primary role in the entire Middle East. Yeah, obviously, but you didn’t notice that I said something different. I was talking about those who believe that pro-Israel lobbying money has the biggest role in directing _America’s policy_ in the Middle East, or more specifically in directing America’s Israel policy. And be aware, I wasn’t talking about the idea that Jews run US foreign policy in general (another mistake you made). If there was anything you were uncertain about in what I said, the context should have helped to make clear what my meaning was. I said over and over that I was talking about the idea that Jews’ pro-Israel lobbying money has the primary role in driving America’s policy on Israel. So when I talked about what was “directing America’s policy on Israel and maybe the entire Middle East”, it should have been clear that I was talking about directing America’s policy on the Middle East, not directing the Middle East itself. Sorry if you didn’t get that.
And when some people think that pro-Israel money has the primary role in directing America’s policy in the Middle East (or just in directing America’s Israel policy), I think they’re wrong, but I don’t jump to the conclusion that they’re prejudiced. They do have some evidence for what they say, and it’s true that money often does have a substantial role in America’s politics, so it’s not a crazy analysis. I think, though, that they’re neglecting other important factors driving US support for Israel, for example: the sense that Israel is culturally similar to the US with ongoing cultural links, the idea that Israeli rule brings progress, the idea that Israel is a winner that’s worth backing, the sense that US is not threatened by Israeli nationalism but is threatened by the nationalism of Israel’s enemies, the fact that the Bible is more open to seeing Israel/Palestine as Jewish than as Muslim, and the fact that strong pro-Jewish feelings have always been more common in the US electorate than strong pro-Muslim ones. On its own, lobbying money has never been enough to turn a country seen as a US enemy into a US ally; you can’t use money to push the US national-security establishment into taking an important position unless it’s already a position that they’re kind of interested in going to.
Still, even though I see that the view of policy on Israel as dominated by money is undermined by some facts, there’s also some partial evidence to support the view; so I don’t dismiss the view as prejudiced.
You say “You are the one that implied [that the Intercept’s Zaid Jilani is prejudiced] by promoting stereotypes of Jews”. Actually, your own post stated directly that some journalists at the Intercept commonly promote stereotypes of Jews; I don’t quite think they’re guilty of that, though I think Jilani was too willing to speak positively about remarks that are tainted by stereotypes. You say “You contradict yourself to begin with by chastising me for saying ‘Jewish aggression’ while you use the same phrase”. Actually, my criticisms of the concept of “Jewish aggression” weren’t directed at you, and I think I was clear enough about that. I disagree with the idea that there is a specifically “Jewish aggression”; you and I were both talking about _other_ people’s belief in the idea of “Jewish aggression” even though we weren’t endorsing the idea ourselves.
I’ve read your comments carefully but I think you’re being inconsistent or else very unclear. You say that a number of people at the Intercept promote stereotypes of Jews; you mention in particular that many of them believe falsely that Jewish money directs US foreign policy and elections; and in relation to that, you say that some people at the Intercept believe “Muslims are victims to … Jewish aggression in Israel/Palestine and Jewish aggression in the US and Britain by the Israel lobby – AIPAC i.e., Jewish money and influence”. So that naturally gives the impression that you’re rejecting the idea of “Jewish aggression in Israel/Palestine”. You didn’t like it when I wrote that you were denying this kind of aggression in Israel/Palestine (though as I said, I don’t agree with calling it “Jewish aggression”). But I’m sorry, that’s the impression your writing gives, and nothing in your context suggests otherwise. If you want to rephrase what you said, fine. I just tried to read your statement the way someone naturally would after paying attention to context.
Is it pre-judice or post- judice?I go with the latter,we have the facts.
Sorry, every prejudiced person claims “we have the facts”. It doesn’t make sense to say that “having the facts” is enough to make your viewpoint “post-judice” or non-prejudiced, because staying free from prejudice takes more than that. Specifically, a person who stays free from prejudice is someone who’s careful to learn from both sides of an issue, who avoids overgeneralizations, who works to understand where others are coming from, who’s willing to revise his or her belief that “those people are wrong” or “we’re better” as new information comes in, and who isn’t too eager to accept some claims and dismiss others just because of whether they fit in with his or her existing views.
Even if you’re okay with the prejudiced comments by Trump here, I’m not. Trump’s speech assumed that Jews are more eager than anyone else to squeeze the most out of a deal. He said his audience wants to renegotiate deals “perhaps more than any room I’ve ever spoken to”, and he assumed that because they’re Jewish. That’s prejudice. On the other hand, Trump has also shown prejudice in favor of Israel (not as much as some other candidates) and against Muslims, and I’d say his prejudice against Muslims is more harmful than his prejudice against Jews. My point is that Trump is prejudiced against all sorts of groups he doesn’t belong to, and these prejudices work together in his mind and in the view of many of his supporters. We don’t like where his anti-Muslim prejudices are going, but by the same token we shouldn’t be silent about his anti-Jewish prejudice either. The way to fight prejudice is to oppose it across the board and expose how it’s a shoddy way of thinking and acting regardless of who the victim is. The most powerful response you can give to prejudice is to show firmly that it’s wrong no matter who is being disparaged. That’s why the Intercept’s Zaid Jilani was mistaken when he refrained from criticizing, and instead spoke positively about, comments by Trump which were clearly linked in Trump’s mind to his anti-Jewish prejudices.
I agree that the headline is just plain wrong. However, with regard to this:
I interpreted the statement in the article as tying the booing to the last item only, even with the confusing headline. So I think the article is fine, but the editor gets a demerit for the title.
On the other hand, if Trump was using stereotypes of Jews, as you say in the first paragraph of your comment, while speaking to a Jewish audience, then maybe the booing was for much more. Perhaps this polite audience waited quietly for a while before expressing its feelings for the whole content of speech, even though that is not so obvious from the recording.
You see, the complexity of your long comment has caused me to doubt my first interpretation.
Well, I tried to be careful, and I’ll stand by what I said. The problem is that Zaid Jilani’s article is ambiguous on the key point you’re disputing, and you and I both see the ambiguity. Jilani wrote that something Trump said was “provoking a wave of boos from the audience”, but what exactly is Jilani saying provoked the boos? The grammar of Jilani’s sentence is awkward, so he could be interpreted as saying either (1) Trump was booed for questioning Israel’s commitment to peace, calling for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusing to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital, or (2) Trump was booed just for refusing to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital. If Jilani had clearly said (2), that would be accurate, but his ambiguous writing makes it easy for readers to hear the reporter as actually announcing (1). I was saying that this is a problem because (1) is actually false. Besides, the tone of the article (even apart from the headline) seems to me as if it would push many readers emotionally more in the direction of hearing (1). Journalism should be better than that.
Go back to hasbara school,you have to improve your propaganda.
Zaid: This post flames anti-semitic stereotypes
The title says: Donald Trump Tells Pro-Israel Crowd He Can’t Be Bought, Gets Booed
The post says: refusing to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital — provoking a wave of boos from the audience.
Which one is it?
He gave examples of policy positions which reflect how he couldn’t be bought by pro-Israel donors. He gets booed for doing that. How the heck are you getting a single antisemitic stereotype? Flames?
Umm, he said that “I am a negotiator like you people.” But he is not at a business conference. He is at a Republican Jewish conference. So that is definitely an antisemitic stereotype.
As far as not being bought, that makes him unique on a whole lot of special interests, not just Israeli-Palestinian foreign policy. He should wise up and realize that he needs to be more pro-Israel for the votes of the American public and not just for political donations. This isn’t like he is refusing to take money from the Coal industry to do something that most people don’t support (like shutting down the EPA). This is something a lot of Americans (Jewish and Christian and others) support (being pro-Israel).
Now maybe he does have a point that you can’t take these extreme positions and expect to work out a peace deal. But he was definitely kind of offensive in the way that he said it.
How is “you’re negotiators” an antisemitic stereotype?
A stereotype, yes.
But is being a negotiator a bad thing?
Certainly not. Would I be antisemitic if I told an audience of Jews “you’re smart”?
Trump is a bit of a simpleton who tends to think in labels, but antisemitic is not one we can pin on him so far.
That’s because all of these fake Jew, Khazar, Polish goy converts like using that, even though they are not even Semitic. DNA tests prove it, but I’m sure they’ll say DNA tests are now anti-Semitic too. These fake Jews are no more related to the Hebrews than they are to Shinzo Abe. They’re all ashamed of their real goy family names, that’s why they changed their names to these fake Hebrew names. Netanyahu’s real name’s Milikovsky.
No one should be fooled by Trump’s comment about the Zionist colonial outpost of the Western corporate regimes, the so-called Israel and the Palestinians.
in one hand he is trying to give the impression as if he is going to approach them evenhandedly, while In other hand he shows his real intention in every minutes of his comments on this matter, which he points out to his Zionist supporters audience that he is one of them and ensure them he will do it in the way that wold please the them.
He is just another Zionist in soul as Barack Obama is and as all others before him and most members of the corporate establishment of the 1% regime of U.S.A. were and are.
Just because he is not taking money from them, which surely if not now but in the future he will as he love money as he is saying it himself.
What is important to pay attention to is that all of these guys are part of the corporate establishment who will as always say to the Americans what they like to hear.
No matter what they say and how they say it now to the people, after they manage to fool enugh number of voters to vote for them to get them into the office of power, their first and only priority would be to serve the corporate establishment of the one percent who are holding the strings of power in their hands.
The same 1% that keeps the 99% in debt, fear about anything that it moves, fear of losing their jobs, house or medical insurance, with the Cherey on the top of and endless wars that all of the presidency candidates promise before every election speech that they will kill the innocent people much better than the others and somehow they end up to linking their massage of slathering of others to their gods that has told them to do so in a very private communication with them only that even the mighty spaying agency of fear NSA, hasn’t been able to detect it since their gods are much bigger than NSA!
More evidence that a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
Glad to see Trump get some credit for this. It might not seem like much to the layman, but in the context of GOP politics, he told them to go f themselves. And he really didn’t even go out on a limb, he still supports Israel, it just shows how obsessive the worship is among everybody else.
An Aug 23, 2015 Washington Post article reported:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/23/trump-open-to-taking-big-and-small-campaign-contributions/
The speech was intended to be a clear signal to the Jewish community that Trump’s promise of not allowing himself to be beholden to contributors should not concern them because he was already harboring a pro-Israel bias.
The global warming, infant serial killers must hate that speach! That was genius!
It’s really funny a couple people boo’d Trump and then the press took it and twisted it like it was a Black lives matter demonstration! The press really makes me sick these days. He was genius how it turned it on the guy who boo’d. Trump never gave an indication how he stood, pro or con, on a seperated Jerusalem. He’s definately coming for the radical muslims. After this weekend…..Americans have about had it with the democrat position of the president.
The fascist Trump is an Israel supporter as much as any other Republican candidate (including Hillary Clinton…yes, I consider her a Republican) – willing to ignore and aid (with billions of tax dollars a year) Israel’s heinous crimes and illegal bullshit. This article is stupid.
We can see you’re embarrassed and chastened by the fact that the American public always discovers the dark underbelly of progressive leftists like HRC.
But are you telling us that those who vote for Hillary–in NY state, in Hollywood, in the commentariat of Salon.com, MSNBC.com, nytimes.com, Kos–…do you consider them Republicans too?
No they would be misguided democrats but by no means considered left leaning in the democratic party. There is a Hasbarat study group coming up titled, “How to Understand American Political Parties” that you should really try to attend to improve your trolling skills. I’m not saying you suck but you need to work on your game.
Off all the candidates to run America for the next 4 year term, Trump seems to be the lesser evil.
One more comment…this piece borders on anti-Semitic. Out of a 30 minute benign clip of Trump doing his usual thing, Zaid Jilani comes up with a headline of “Trump Tells Pro-Israel Crowd He Can’t Be Bought, Gets Booed”? Accusations that Jews control politicians with their money, control the media etc. are the oldest anti-Semtic canards. What’s your next article going to be about Jilani, Blood Libel?
While anti-Semitism certainly still exists, people like you screaming “anti-Semite” every time someone even moderately speaks the truth about Israel and its supporters will make people less sympathetic to actual anti-Semitism in the future. It’s already happening, actually. So please put a lid on your hyper-inflated nonsense.
Alana, you mean YOUR version of the truth about Israel, don’t you? And if I see a writer lift one moment from a 30 minute speech and highlight something I consider racist, I suppose that is MY version of the truth, isn’t it , not hyperinflated nonsense. Anyhow, I don’t need a lecture from you about actual anti-Semitism nor do I need people to be sympathetic to what you term actual anti-Semitism. The world was not sympathetic to my parents and grandparents when they were massacred because they were Jews. Most of the world is not sympathetic to the anti-Semitism going on in Europe today. We can take care of ourselves, but thank you very much for your concern.
Yes, the exceptional ones are taking care of themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. This is how Israel earned the BDS campaign.
The Nazis spent years trying to obliterate my parents and grandparents. The Nazis killed 20 million Russians so stop using the Holocaust as an excuse for anything Israel does today.
Anti-Semitism is growing because of decades of Israeli actions, starting when Jews hanged British soldiers from lampposts in Tel Aviv, in 1946. My uncle was there just one year after his fellow soldiers liberated camps. Jewish terrorists formed the Israeli government are they are still running it.
Calm the fuck down, Leslie, my mother is Jewish. There is no “version” of the truth. There are facts and evidence, then there’s hasbara/propaganda. Israel has used the latter to brainwash its citizens and carefully compose its image in the US. I’m sure you’ve read the verbatim words of Herzel, Ben Gurion, Begem, etc. They didn’t mince words about what Zionism was/is and what they needed to do to the Palestinian people to conquer Palestine. So spare me your self-victimization bullshit and start looking at things for what they are. Delusion and denial will only get you so far.
You can be against the current actions of the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic. Most people with lots of money or power are bad people. Some of those bad people are also Jewish. If you care about Jewish people, you should hate Netanyahu, as he is a warmongerer that endangers Israel and increases global anti-Semitism.
Seth – please read my comment. I did not say that being anti-Israel = anti-Semitism. I agree with you, they are not the same. There are some times however, when one crosses the line into the other. This is not one of them. And by the way, I don’t hate anyone. Not Germans Nazis, not white supremacists, not terrorists and certainly not Netanyahu, and neither should you. Hate is a useless emotion.
Wow. I’m not a Trump supporter by anymeans, but this is one of the most distorted pieces of journalism I have ever read by a writer who clearly has an agenda. Textbook case of how NOT to write an impartial news report. I read the headline, and then the text and came away with the feeling that the meeting between Trump and the was acrimonious. Then I listened to the entire video clip. The Intercept will never be considered a serious media source of news if it continues on this line.
Well, this is the last time I am coming to this website. I am a Sanders supporter, and can’t get behind almost anything Trump says. However, during this conference he is being pretty reasonable (for Trump). For some reason you all need to distort the truth, and I don’t know why that is. He was booed for not answering the question on if Jerusalem should be Israel’s capital, not for saying he can’t be bought. Don’t think your lies are any better than anyone else’s. Everyone who lies justifies it in one way or another.
This is truly an excellent example of how the media can shift the order of events to project a different image of what actually occurred. Trump was initially asked about his comments regarding Israel’s unwillingness to give up more in the peace negotiation process. He held firm on his stance that he was unsure if Israel was ready to make a deal. He was then asked if he felt Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, and when he wavered on the question, he received boos from the audience. It was at this point that trump said, “You’re not
going to support me because I don’t want your money”. Really impressive work by Zaid Jilani. I suppose that’s why the top of this page reads, “The Intercept: Unoffical Sources”.
Finally I started liking this guy, standing against getting bought by those Israeli terrorists is something virtually no one does to date
As usual, the headline is misleading. “Trump…Gets Booed”. Not so. Why do you twist reality in your headline? Is it because you think people will not listen to what TRUMP actually said and what the audience actually did? I listened to bits here and there. I heard an occasional boo from someone, but applause when TRUMP politely shut the heckler up. It seems to me most of this crowd agreed with most of what Mr. TRUMP had to say. How about “TRUMP GETS APPLAUSE FROM the RJC?” Not sensational or misleading enough?
Reasonable people can disagree. Jennifer Rubin, as usual, agrees with The Intercept:
Trump Booed at RJC.
Marco Rubio hits it out of the park at RJC forum.
NO HE DIDN’T!!
Did Mr. Trump out Hillary Clinton’s affair with Sidney Blumenthal??
see at approx 9:45 into the speech above
Or Huda?
NO HE DIDN’T!!
Could it be? Did Mr. Trump out Hillary’s affair with Sidney Blumenthal?
See approx 9:45 into the speech.
Israel should not exist, period. America supporting that terrorist state is the root of all problems in the world today. Remove Israel from existence please.
The bad thing with trump is that his minority bashing policy appeals to the fair sense of the majority. The jewish americans should be happy that his only daughter converted to their religion. Otherwise they would have been thrown by Trump into the same pot as the hispanics etc and treated likewise….
Zaid, what kind of journalistic integrity is that? I watched that whole video and you’re a disgrace. “Donald Trump Tells Pro-Israel Crowd He Can’t Be Bought, Gets Booed” REALLY? Is that how they taught you to form a headline in school? He got booed by no more than 4 people (at most) and he didn’t get booed for saying he can’t be bought as your headline suggests.
You need another profession…wait you’re already in the perfect profession for a liberals who distort the truth.
Perchance your real issue is with the startling fact we have a man in public life who showed up to the campaign without his “Will suck off Shelly Adelson for $$” sign?
Another Muslim liar speading bs…The intercept should get an editor. Headline is false but it works in Arab circles where slander and lies are promoted from kindergarten to death. You suck Zaid! And so does your article. Got anymore bias from the most backwards and dishonest and violent culture on earth!
Sorry folks, but I thought it was a funny show and the audience also appreciated it. A boo or two for good measure. In all fairness, I was not bored.
COMPLETE MIS-REPRESENTATION OF THE VIDEO/SPEECH, TRUMP IS EXTREMELY REALISTIC. I suggest anyone reading this watch the video and come up with their own conclusions, the author of this article (Zaid) has impressed his own VERY obvious one sided views here.
The Intercept with its foot in the door of the election process. Still selling the idea that voting means something.
America is one fucked up baby and no matter who you vote in, you will only get more of the same.
Rather than pull apart the fools that run for Office why doesn’t the Intercept look at the flawed broken system that is called Democracy?
Might be they believe they can have their welfare state without the warfare part; and that the state will take good care of us from cradle to grave without our losing our civil rights, our privacy, our independence, in short, the freedom to run our own lives.
A peaceful settlement has already been agreed. Google: ‘Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine’. It’s been accepted by the whole world, and rejected by just Israel and the U.S – the U.S annualy vetoing it with the power of automatic veto it weilds at the Security Council (The vote invariably falling at 167-5 – U.S, Israel, Micronesia, Palau, Vanatau). This settlement is based on U.N 242 and calls for a complete withdrawal of all Israelis from the lands it seized during and after the 1967 war, when it attacked Egyptian and Syrian forces in a surprise attack.
There is no peace process. The so-called ‘Peace Process’ was never anything but a complete sham – a stalling tactic and smokescreen, behind which the ethnic supremacists could steal more land that doesn’t belong to them, as part of their ideological masterplan.
one guy booed for all of 2 seconds and that’s what you go with..seriously? No doubt what side of the political spectrum your on.
Yuck. I watched ten minutes of that video. He is so naive. He thinks he can negotiate a settlement in 6 months? Good God. If he ever got elected (he won’t) he’d have his ass handed to him…so fast…
HRC must be rubbing her hands together.
i have to agree with the majority of comments here Zaid … thin argument, sensationalised headline, unrepresentative of the essence of the interview.
as Karma said
… “I was pretty excited reading this but leveled out once I watched the video”
which leads on to what Matt said
… “What did you watch? I think that was one of Trumps most supportive crowds to date. You write about the Boo. That is ridiculous. Just as he says its a biased media attack. Please get your article as much exposure as possible as it will only add to Trumps support.”
then pls read Nate’s analysis in the comments below – pretty much tells an opposite story.
disappointing from the Intercept to say the least
… to paraphrase Squidward
… that’s not journalism, that’s just annoying.
Agree with a lot of the comments below.
Seems to be like very dishonest reporting – after watching the video, Trump simply refuses to state his position on Israel (while saying ‘he’s going to take care of them”), which is NOT the same as a hard stance on Israel at all.
Seems to me like Zaid didn’t have any news and had to ‘manufacture’ a sensationalist and misleading headline and article. Disappointed in the Intercept’s reporting here.
I’m fairly sure no one cares that you are disappointed. Personally I love the article because it caused so many hasbarat to waist their time pecking away like frustrated chickens.
Too bad!
Sounds/reads like Sunday morning talk show journalism.
Low bar.
“Then-senator Barack Obama made that call during his 2008 campaign, and then-senator Hillary Clinton did it in 2007.”
Then they both gave Putin nothing but grief over his appropriating the Crimea, putting it back where it belonged before PM Kruschev, a Ukrainian by birth and ethnicity, gave it to Ukraine.
The NYT wants to bioengineer its way out of this by introducing more helpful invasive species into the ecosystem.
“American Muslims are our best defense against extremism.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/dont-make-san-bernardino-a-victory-for-isis.html
muslim who works for al Jazeera writes hit piece on trump – shocker
Your username is literally a direct link to an Israeli propaganda website started by people from the Israeli military.
Not a shocker, I guess, when you hate Muslims and love fascism. Maybe try being less obvious though.
Thanks for catching that bit of hypocrisy.
Trump also got the support of 2 major white supremacy groups
Here http://www.dailystormer.com/new-yorker-says-everyone-who-supports-trump-is-a-neo-nazi-white-supremacist/
I guess they value freedom and liberty.
I was pretty excited reading this but leveled out once I watched the video. For the occasional jeer Trump seemed to be buttering them up quite nicely too. It was interesting to read though. Good job.
What did you watch? I think that was one of Trumps most supportive crowds to date. You write about the Boo. That is ridiculous. Just as he says its a biased media attack. Please get your article as much exposure as possible as it will only add to Trumps support.
Did any of you watch the video!? First, there were probably 3 voices you could hear booing. The audience ate his bullshit right up.
More importantly, this isn’t a matter of “I can’t be bought” as a politician but a braggart saying he is so rich that I don’t need monetary help. He still wants their votes though and made it clear.
11:13 — Trump says he’ll “do more for Israel” than any other candidates
17:03 — “You’re not going to [financially] support me even though you know I’m the best thing that could ever happen to Israel.”
23:00 — Israel has given a lot but it’s public relations hasn’t been great..”Israel has given a lot.” (in the process of answering this, completely evades the Q)
25:08 — The Iran deal may go down as the single worst thing that may happen to Israel, “one of the great catastrophes.”
26:34 — Trump says he doesn’t work with or know Arab leaders
Some other typical mind-numbing Trump comments:
* if I win before office, those [Iranian-held] prisoners will be back before I am in office.
* Radical Islamic terrorism..Obama refuses to use the term. There’s something about him we don’t know about applause line
* Says Petraeus got railroaded and Hillary getting away scot free.
* [Hillary] Clinton’s whole life is corruption.”
* Brags about his financial disclosure (100 pages!!) and his buildings. But it isn’t “braggadocio”
* On Bergdahl: we get a traitor and they [Taliban] get some of the “greatest killers.” Wants to renegotiate the deal and drop off Bergdahl, the “dirty rotten traitor.”
* “My life has been about winning”
* I’m a businessman who has to get along with everybody.
* We need Patton, we need a genius like MacArthur (to go against ISIS)
One guy boos for 3 seconds and that’s the headline? Shameful.
The Donald said a lot of other things, too, at that event.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/03/one_yuuuuuge_mistake_donald_trump_just_delivered_an_anti_semitic_speech_to_the_republican_jewish_coalition/
Now, maybe The Donald can self-fund his campaign, but if Sheldon Adelson decides to give another $500 mil to his primary opponents …
– – –
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
— Will Rogers
Can’t have a plain speaking, articulate populist leading the pack, can you. You want more of the establishment mush.
The public wants a Huey Long or a Willie Stark to save them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgJC4Pu_tbo
Are you kidding me? Third time I long on Intercept for good news analysis and all I get is Zaid’s half baked take on this video? There was barely any booing, tons of cheering, and Trump never seemed to question the status quo. He did say he didnt know israel’s commitmment to peace but then said he didnt know the commitment of both sides and that he’d go in with a clean slate. More claps. As for the funding, what he said is he doesnt want their money so they dont have fight to give it to him. But no, let’s make this regular, status quo sensationalist so idiots like me will fall for it and hope to see something different. Intercept, you keep falling off my radar for news analysis. You were doing so well. Let Daily Beast and Buzzfeed publish crap like Zaid’s piece.
Simple and honest: I am thinking of supporting Mr. Trump. Not because I am a Jewish, but because he speaks business.
Glenn tweeted the other day:
>>The virtually unanimous and intense contempt professional DC neocons harbor for Donald Trump is worth analyzing… <<
Well, I guess now we know why.
Alex Jones Skype-interviewed him this week:
http://www.infowars.com/donald-trump-tells-all-on-the-alex-jones-show/
What because he’s a racist scumbag on Jeffrey Epstein’s private fly list who’s in bed deep with the Mafia to this day? Okay Champ.
One person booed. 1 person. I watched this whole video waiting for the chorus of boos, and it was literally 1 guy for 2 seconds and Trump was cheered shortly after. Very dishonest headline.
Trump is no joke. People are starting to accept this. Trump has plenty of left-right crossover appeal. I gave money to Bernie Sanders but I like Trump much more. This article is once again proof that Trump thinks for himself and has the guts to say things others know but won’t say. All of my left leaning magazines and websites tell me Trump is bad but I think for myself and like him anyway.
Great blanced article. Good work. And im no trump supporter lol.
Nice article. Well thought out and unbiased. Thank you keep it up
If Trump’s using this meeting as an opportunity to shore up his voting base by pissing off ‘the Jews’ then that’s both politically savvy and racially deplorable.
Actually, I’d say it’s the opposite: politically foolish, but historically admirable. The fact that you’d say ‘racial’ goes to show how many centuries you are behind on all this.
Wow. Maybe this is the one statement that gets The Donald gonged off this show. Speaking candor is never wise for a politician.
Something is not right here, coram! The only thing I know about The Donald is … he can be bought! It’s what he does, it’s all he does. *wrote a book about it called ‘The Art of The Deal.’
Did you even bother reading the book?
Of course not. Trump bought things when others didn’t want to buy, and when he sells he takes shit from nobody. He’s a hard negotiator and plays close to the chest with money. Open the cover before you criticize the pages please.
The funny thing is, you actually believed that pap in the book. Any New Yorker worth his or her salt who is over 50 knows Donald Trump’s sordid “business” practices – about his KKK father.
Probably a smart move on Trump’s part (and trust me, I’m not a supporter).
He was never going to win this group over and his core support group – white males without a college degree – will approve of the appearance of “standing up to Israel”.
As do ‘white males’ with a college degree. In fact, I’ll bet more so…
As do ‘white females’ with a college degree:-)
Whaaaat?
“white males without a colege degree”may be among the most ardent Israel supporters.
“Standing up to Israel” is a recipe for political suicide.
Broken clocks are right twice a day. Hopefully this will at least encourage an open debate on the issue, something which the Zionists know they will lose.
Amen, brother.
Well said, John.
If by some miracle Trump gets himself elected, he will change his tune on Israel. Even if he doesnt need their money, the rest of the Republicans are dependent on that funding and he will tow the line.
LOL!
More Tribe theater, as they, who own and control the US gov. and the complicit-media, would like us to believe that false-candidate Trump is turning his back on the pillar Zion.
Tricks are for sheeple.
I hope my fellow Trump supporters will understand why this is a great position to take.
Let’s see how long it takes him to get ‘on message’ regarding Master Israel…
He’s on message now because he has no master.
Wow. I am just letting this sink in. Trump is basically in line with doctrinaire leftists on this issue. Just … wow.
For foreign policy issue leftist voters, somehow, he may be less unpalatable than Hillary, who is essentially running on George W. Bush’s foreign policy.
He may just be saying whatever pops into his head. He doesn’t need contributions and might not be paying anybody to write talking points.
Yea, except for all the fascist stuff, his foreign policy is usually more reasonable than that of the other Republicans and, at times, Hilary Clinton.
It’s actually a paleoconservative view.
I hate to say it, but already, Trump is better on Israel/Palestine than the neoconservative, corrupt, war-mongering, and wholly bought-and-sold Hillary Clinton …
I have to agree. I’m glad it’s coming from a Republican. Their constituents have all been brainwashed concerning Israel. This makes only 2 candidates who are not on board with Neocon propaganda, Bernie and Trump.
If Trump wins the nomination on the GOP side, Hillary on the Dem side, I’ll only vote down ballot. I can’t support Hillary but won’t be too mad at a Trump presidency with some Dems to check him in the Senate and House.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/sanders-economic-pussycat
Bernie has not taken this strong of a stance, in general he tends to avoid foreign policy too specifically. It seems as if he wants to continue the Obama “reluctant warrior” illusion:
“In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press scheduled for broadcast on Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked the independent senator from Vermont if drones or special forces would play a role in his counter-terror plans.
‘All of that and more,’ Sanders said.”
Regarding Israel, Sanders’ record speaks for itself: there is nobody in the Senate who is more consistently pro-Israel than him. This, I think, is one reason why he remains so silent on foreign policy: he knows that his support for the Zionists will lose him votes among the progressives.
In response to those who might be thinking, “Of course he is bent over for Israel, he’s Jewish”, let me remind you that Jill Stein, the Green candidate, though Jewish, has consistently supported a two state solution based on the Israeli borders of 1967, which translates into Israel abandoning all West Bank settlements and Jerusalem as a divided city. Moreover, unlike Sanders, she is unafraid of informing the electorate of her positions on foreign policy issues.
We are Christians, and comply with Jesus, whom declared a curse on those that attempt to divide Israel up.
Neither you, nor the person you responded to, are Christians. This much is clear.
The right disagrees with you, this isn’t being brainwashed. Supporting Muslims that are sworn to slaughter all non-Muslims in the world; this is brainwashing.
Do you support the Muslims in Russia, China, India, France, Britain, America, Italy, Spain, Canada, Ukraine, Sweden, and Greece that demand land, saying that Muslims occupied these lands a thousand years ago, therefor we owe then their own States?
Nope. You only support the murder of Jews by Persians. Oh right. You missed the Supreme Ayatollah laugh at Westerners for believing that their citizens, whom occupied Israeli land, after Israel drove Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon out in 1967, are the natives of “ancient Palestine.”
Since ancient Palestine was occupied by Rome 70 AD, and the Ottomans 1918, which was taken from the JEWISH Canaanites 5000 years ago, by the ISRAELITE Jews.
Those Arabs in Gaza, and the West Bank are dominantly Persian, with Egyptian (Gaza), Jordanian (West Bank), and Lebanese – Syrian (Golan Heights) minorities. Hamas, and the PA are not Arab (Saudi Arabia), but Persian (Iran).
Even the Muslims in Saudi Arabia stated this fact, which is why Arabia, and Egypt, politically back Israel. Yet Iran, and Syria laugh at the “Great Satan” while stalling to build up Hezbollah, and Hamas.
The Ottomans lost Palestine in 1918 — something about two Brits named Allenby and Lawrence. And 70 AD was a reoccupation, if you’re referring to the Judean revolt; Rome had had Palestine since Pompey Magnus took it ca. 63 BC.
Don’t confuse him with facts. He is a believer, believing god gave Israel to the Jews, because it says so in a book that some Jews wrote a while back. The same book declared the Jews to be the chosen people. Some time later another guy wrote another book claiming that some others were the master race, pretty much the same thing, and he was promptly put out of business. But not before the Zionists picked up on some of his best tricks.
Exactly. I was born and raised Christian; my father and grandfather, and their fathers and grandfathers, and so on, were raised Christian. We none of us EVER heard until recently that crap about “blessing Israel”. This is zionist brainwashing. Do NOT fall for it. Christians should bless each other and look out for each other, b/c Jewish people certainly look out only for themselves.
You must be Rafael and Ted Cruz’s supporter.
I grew up in an evangelical household but graduated from that mindset. I don’t dismiss any religious text, as they’re all books, which documented our search for something more. They address the human condition but in the end it’s fiction. Some of the same stories can be found in ancient African texts. Nevertheless, all are worth reading; I’ve read most and have participated in the rituals for educational purposes.
I’m a secular humanist. I support humanity. People use religion or political ideologies like Neoconservatism as an excuse to divide and dehumanize their opponents. They convince gullible people to support their genocidal ideas. We’ve seen this consistently. Why would 70% of Americans support the Iraq war, or, other wars that were obvious lies? We’re gullible and love the lie. The lies continue in this administration.
That said, you’re entire post is an attempt to dehumanize me as someone worth killing because you assume I hate Israelis. This is the weakness of true believers, it’s hard for them to entertain other ideas. That’s why I don’t cling to religion or any particular ideology.
In the end, if Trump wins, he’ll bow to American policy, which has been set up since Kissinger. Neocons promote American hegemony and the hegemony of allies in the region, all of who fund and support terrorism, including Israel. Religion is just a tool used by these sociopaths to recruit others. It’s a great tool because belief needs no proof. They don’t have to explain their insane ideas, as it’s God’s will.
You are no Christian. What you are is a deceptive Jew lying about Jesus. Jesus NEVER said any such thing. Instead, he called Jews vipers. Your words here tonight show him to be right. That crap about Israel was from the old testament, and it was from god to the Israelites themselves. Not to anyone else at any other time.
This realchristian should be banned for their hatespeak
And you for opposing free speech.
No one has a right to not be offended. Your personal sensibilities are of no weight as a standard for the opinions of others in a free society.
If something less than a free society is what you hanker for, then you are a much larger problem than whatever opinions may be expressed by others in an open forum.
Tolerance of a contrary view is not approval of it, but is a necessity to assure a common enjoyment of liberty.
Where in the New Testament does Jesus say Israel cannot be divided up?
I am a Christian and I learned that the birth of Christ and his “New Covenant” made the Old Testament basically “obsolete”:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-8-13/
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” John 13:34
If you are a “Christian” as you proclaim, you should be “loving” Muslims, turning the other cheek, and denouncing Israel’s “mowing of the lawn” occasionally which is their slang term for murdering innocent Palestinians who have been living in Israel’s apartheid state of illegal occupation for decades.
As a “Christian”, if you are truly “complying with Jesus’ commandment to love one another” then you should be denouncing ALL terrorism whether by radical Muslims or by the IDF or by the United States (Iraq, Syria, Ukraine etc.).
Love is love. And hate is hate. Do you know what “love” is? Do you understand the last commandment of Jesus Christ?
I am witnessing to you friend.
Amen. Beautifully said.
Jason:
“which was taken from the JEWISH Canaanites 5000 years ago, by the ISRAELITE Jews.”
That made ZERO sense.
What flavor of Kool-aid are you drinking? I’m feeling thirsty for some after reading your comment…
Now that Obama has broken in that Executive Order pen so nicely, handing it off to The Donald will be easy-peasy.
Hillary may be a woman, so I would not vote for her – and liberal, too, which I would never vote for – but say what you want, at least she and President Clinton understand that Israel needs to come first.
(Clears throat…), actually Yitzhak, the United States Constitution is “supposed” to “come first”.
hmm. Sexism, Zionism, and asininity all in a one sentence post. Isn’t there some award we can nominate him for?
Just for this he’s got my vote!!!
Thanks for joining with Trump supporters.
Refreshing to have a candidate who gets it out there, not spewing inane rhetoric like GWB ‘Coalition of the willing’, or (at a political fundraiser): ‘ You’re my base. A gathering of the Haves… and the Have-mores’. If he does half of what he says he’ll do, you’re far better off.