Israel, Socialism, and Bernie “Corbyn” Sanders
The editorial board of the NY Sun writes, in a piece entitled “Democrats Debate: Senator Sanders Emerges in the Garb of Jeremy Corbyn”:
Where in the blazes were the rest of the Democrats on the stage when Israel was brought up in Charleston? How could they let slide Senator Sanders’ libels of its elected premier? It took none other than Israel’s foreign minister, Yisrael Katz, to put Senator Sanders’ dishonest, ad hominem remarks on Israel into proper relief — as so “horrifying” that those who support the Jewish state would be unable to support Senator Sanders for president.
But the answer to their question is rather simple: Where were they? The same place they were when Barack Obama set out to systematically and publicly humiliate and isolate Netanyahu. The same place they were when, in one of his final acts as president, Obama stabbed Israel and Netanyahu (as well as Trump) in the back:
President Barack Obama has decided to go out with a bang: In a stunning diplomatic rebuke of Israel, the United States on Friday abstained on a controversial United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, allowing it to pass easily.
By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber.
It was the first time in nearly 40 years that the Security Council has passed a resolution critical of Israeli settlements. It was also a firm rebuke of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had strongly argued against it, and President-elect Donald Trump, who had taken the highly unprecedented move of weighing in Thursday and pressing for the measure to be vetoed.
So why would the Sun editors be surprised by the crickets meeting Sanders? And I wouldn’t call Sanders the “Corbynization” of the Democratic Party; certainly not the cause of it. He’s the result of it.
The Sun editors continue:
The catastrophe in Charleston was a reminder, if one were needed, that the Democratic front-runner is cut from the same cloth as the leader of the Labor Party in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn. He is another socialist from a Jewish background who for years spent his political capital apologizing for Israel’s enemies. It’s hard not to conclude that one reason Mr. Corbyn’s party met a historic defeat was the hostility to the cause of Zion.
One phrase there is curious: “another socialist from a Jewish background.” I have never heard, nor can I find at the moment, any reference to Corbyn being Jewish or even “from a Jewish background” – which, depending on the writer, can mean anything up to some great-grandparent or other having been Jewish whereas every other ancestor is not. Googling Corbyn’s religion, all I get is this sort of thing:
He has denied being an atheist but has not publically committed himself to any particular faith. Before becoming Labour leader he did an interview with the Christian magazine Third Way in which he talked very positively about some of the values held by those with faith. He acknowledged he had many atheist friends who wanted nothing to do with faith at all, but that he himself was more relaxed.
It is worth pointing out that his father was a professing Christian and Corbyn himself went to a Christian school.
So I don’t know what the Sun is referring to and haven’t seen anything suggesting it’s the case.
The Sun editors are correct, though, that Corbyn is “another socialist.” Not only is that the case, but he’s another socialist who (like Corbyn) calls himself a “Democratic socialist,” as though that matters. There are two ways socialism can take over a country. The first is democratically, according to election law in the country involved. The second is through some sort of revolution or coup. I suppose there’s a third – administratively, when a centralized governmental bureaucracy takes over by a series of agency decisions and executive orders.
Does the mechanism matter all that much, when socialism stunts the economy and liberty of the people? I suppose it’s better if the government has been elected, because then one can say “you made your bed, now lie in it.” But how much does it really matter? Look at Venezuela. And look at how often the people are lied to (or just ignorant) when they first cast their votes for socialism.
n 2005, Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, told the World Economic Forum
“[T]here is no doubt in my mind […] that it is necessary to transcend capitalism […] through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. […]
We have to re-invent socialism. It can’t be the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union, but it will emerge as we develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition […]
“We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything.”
The Soviet Union hadn’t been ‘real socialism’. Venezuela would be.
We all know how that turned out.
“We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union.” — H. Chavez
At some point in the reign of Hugo Chavez, the state nationalized Venezuelan portions of Conoco Philips and Kimberley Clark. Law suits ensued. Some years after that, when the economy began to collapse, I heard reports that there were extreme shortages of toilet paper. Toilet paper? What does Kimberley Clark make?
Why was Sanders bellowing last night that Bibi Netanyahu is a racist? I mean I’ve no idea what Sanders presumes to be referring to. I assume it’s supposed to be something both particular (i.e. not made up out of whole cloth, but only of semi-whole cloth) and generally known to Sanders’ audience (that is, the audience he expects to have and be speaking to). Was there spontaneous lash-back in the auditorium? Any such today?
And look at how often the people are lied to (or just ignorant) when they first cast their votes for socialism.
In his 1998 campaign Chavez said he wasn’t going to nationalize anything. We all know how that turned out.
In his 1998 campaign Chavez also denounced corruption. In 2000, a general in his administration found that some Chavista cronies were corrupt. The general informed Chavez. Chavez told him to ignore the corruption.
The Soviet Union hadn’t been ‘real socialism’. Venezuela would be.We all know how that turned out.
Yup. If one bothered to look behind the curtain at the data behind the Chavista narrative, it was clear that even with $100 oil, Chavista Venezuela was not performing well.
During the Recall Referendum of 2004, I was working for a small company that employed a lot of Venezuelans, who were all oppo. When I said to them that one reason that Chavez was elected was corruption, they replied that corruption under Chavez was worse. Which it was- well before $100 oil.
I want to highlight this part of Neo’s post, because it isolates the core of the problem with Sanders’ rising popularity: it is based on ignorance on so many levels.
Ignorance about precisely what socialism entails regardless of its promises (always authoritarianism, never freedom); ignorance about how giving it an inch, by election or revolution, always results in losing much more than a mile (one man, one vote, one time); ignorance about how the Administrative State* already functions as a socialist institution (embodying in its departments legislative, executive, and judicial functions); and ignorance because the deliberate but pleasant-sounding lies of power-hungry socialists crowd out the harsher truths.
*
https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/09/12/dismantling-the-administrative-state-wallison-judicial-fortitude-review/
The far Left has been claiming for years that Israel is a settler colony, similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa. The claim has now made inroads among more mainstream Democrats. For an example of just how far this has gone, consider the fact that 10 major Christian denominations in the US have adopted resolutions against Israel. The Methodist Church, for example, has adopted a resolution supporting divestment from several Israeli banks. This is a very alarming development that is now simply accepted (or should I say mandatory?) thinking on the Left.
Corbyn apparently told reporters at some point that he had “a Jewish element” in his background:
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-my-jewish-ancestry-1.58487
Whether this is a fact, or merely an attempt to deflect charges of anti-Semitism, I know not. I assume it’s what the Sun editors were thinking of.
For an example of just how far this has gone, consider the fact that 10 major Christian denominations in the US have adopted resolutions against Israel. The Methodist Church, for example, has adopted a resolution supporting divestment from several Israeli banks. This is a very alarming development
No, it isn’t. It’s just indicator #7087 that when you’re at a general conference of a mainline denomination, you’re in the company of jerks. They don’t have any influence over the larger society anymore, and deserve none.
I agree that the general conferences of mainline denominations lack influence. They are followers, the last on an anti-Israel bandwagon. But the fact that they’re jumping on it shows how crowded that bandwagon has become, and that is indeed alarming.
Where was Klobuchar and Bloomberg?
How come no one ever says the same thing about Nazism (National Socialism) “It is a good idea but has not been implemented correctly?”
“Bernie keeps pouring fuel on the fire, expressing his disdain for Jews and Jewish causes, while cozying up to anti-Semitic figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar, John Cusack, and the rest of his vile, hateful class of surrogates and supporters.
Once again, the Siena poll shows that the dislike is reciprocated by the Jewish community.
A startling 61% of Jews have an unfavorable view of Sanders.
Only 6% of Jews would vote for Bernie on Super Tuesday.
That’s compared to 19% of Protestants and 29% of Catholics. (So let’s put the tired meme about Jews earning like Episcopalians and voting like Puerto Ricans to bed.)
And then we come to the real kicker. A majority of Jews and Catholics would pick Trump over Sanders in a general election. The only candidate who does worse with Jews and Catholics than Sanders, against Trump, is Elizabeth Warren.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/02/majority-ny-jews-would-vote-trump-over-bernie-daniel-greenfield/
They don’t have any influence over the larger society anymore, and deserve none.
Another absolute pronouncement from Art Deco.
There are still millions of mainstream Christians who attend services, listen to liberal/progressive sermons and participate in church activities, which often include liberal/progressive political action.
Mainstream churches aren’t as influential as they once were, but they still have influence and function as another set of leftward nudges in American society.
Nor are the higher-ups in those conferences “jerks” unless that word means people who disagree with Art Deco. They are mostly sincere, even too sincere, people who live in a progressive bubble and act upon their convictions, however problematic that is to most of us participating in this blog.
Lots of Muslim money from the various groups has been spent on publicists and lobbyist to influence views. It is my understanding that the Saudi’s propped up the entire financial sector of Great Britain and the Empire collapsed because that was a great place to put their wealth.
A friend of mine for many years was Jewish born, in 1940, in a nice little town in Iraq where his ancestors had lived for a couple of thousand years and when he was a child his whole town was forcibly moved in the young state of Israel after 1947 along with about a million other Jews who lived in Middle Eastern countries. My friend was a plane pilot during the 1967 6 day war and after that he moved to the U.S. another friend of mine who was born in Israel was with an M.P. unit and he told me about trying to keep the roads clear as they killed the invaders who had planned to do away with all of the Jews.
What happened, I was in Germany as a U.S. soldier during the six day war when we were on full alert, bags packed and restricted to barracks, ready to go to keep Israel from falling and we breathed a sigh of relief when they did a masterful job of stopping the invasion.
With the billions of dollars going to the Palestinians that get siphoned off and the inability of the neighboring countries to help with their relief and relocation after they shoved them down there and sealed them off it there not any one who actually reads the history of that area? Not to mention all of the Christians who have been persecuted, killed and run off from the Muslim nations in the last 40 years.
That’s all I have to say about that.
Bernie is a typical Jewishly ignorant leftist Jew who renounces Judaism and Jewish nationality but will use the happenstance of his Jewish birth as a shield against accusations of trucking with Jew haters. Like the rabbi in Moscow said a century ago, the Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins pay the price.
If siding against America on the Soleimani drone strike was not the ultimate fork in the road for American Jews, calling Bibi Netanyahu a reactionary racist should be. The result for some progressive Jews if Sanders leads the Democratic ticket will likely be a either a quiet abstention from voting, or quietly voting for Trump, along with not discussing the dilemma with progressive family members for fear of alienation and ostracism.
If pressed by family, I will cite the two above issues and declare that a vote for Sanders would be morally equivalent to a vote for Jeremy Corbyn. I would further state that outright antisemitism and the tolerance of it in the Democratic Party is becoming similar to the Labour Party, which I would encourage them to research.
Oh, and what’s that signpost up ahead?
https://twitter.com/mikandynothem/status/1232811806604718080
I think you might have misinterpreted. I think the passage is referring to the fact that historically Marxists who claim Jewish heritage have been antisemites or antisemitism’s useful idiots (Eg, Marx, Trotsky, Sanders, etc), not that Corbyn does.
There are still millions of mainstream Christians who attend services, listen to liberal/progressive sermons and participate in church activities, which often include liberal/progressive political action.
Actually, they show up for singalongs once a week, and a 19 minute lecture they’ll forget in half and hour.
Mainstream churches aren’t as influential as they once were, but they still have influence and function as another set of leftward nudges in American society.
Ask a pewsitter the name of the chief officers of his denomination. Some will know the answer and some will not. See remarks by David Mills, once an employee of an Episcopal seminary, on the Episcopal House of Bishops as he knew it.
Nor are the higher-ups in those conferences “jerks” unless that word means people who disagree with Art Deco. They are mostly sincere, even too sincere, people who live in a progressive bubble and act upon their convictions, however problematic that is to most of us participating in this blog.
Nope, they’re jerks, with an odd exception here or there. If they were non-jerks, they’d have been rejected in the screening process to enter seminary. Very few of them are discernably Christian in their world view. They speak in a Christian idiom, but any principles they have are derived from a bastar@ized therapeutic ideology. They enter the clergy because they want to be den mothers on salary or they want to study a particular sort of literature. The faithful among them who trudge through seminary and are ordained are not found in positions of denominational leadership. The denominational leadership is largely engaged in make-work.
A startling 61% of Jews have an unfavorable view of Sanders.
Because he’s the cousin who makes a pest of himself at family gatherings. Also a schlemiel – someone who had a solid upbringing but failed at everything he did between the ages of 23 and 40, knocked up a woman but didn’t have the wherewithal to marry her, and then 15 years later married a shiksa with an ex and three kids.
Sanders lost his mother and father in his late adolescent years. It’s a reasonable wager he was on his brother’s books for a number of years, and his brother was much more indulgent than a proper Jewish mother would have been.
After all the failures of Communism/Socialism there are repeated attempts to re-brand it. Chavez called his version “21st Century Socialism. Same s**t. Different century.
The one constant is that it is always about more power for the guys in charge and more opportunities for them to steal.
huxley vs Art Deco – another match of the century.
My observations of the Christians I know personally more closely matches huxley’s view, but I’m sure AD’s more jaundiced take can match other people’s experiences — Christopher Hitchens would certainly agree with him.
Every group is a mix of good and bad, sincere and cynical.
When presenting arguments for and against some viewpoint, we all tend to follow the recommendations in the Bee.
https://babylonbee.com/news/remember-your-own-political-movement-is-most-accurately-represented-by-its-best-members-while-the-opposing-political-movement-is-most-accurately-represented-by-its-deranged-monsters
Satire, by definition, always contains elements of truth.
I find it most interesting to read people arguing against the bad in their own group, and for the good in others. Camille Paglia’s appreciation of some of Jordan Peterson’s views comes to mind.
AD’s more jaundiced take can match other people’s experiences — Christopher Hitchens would certainly agree with him.
My viewpoint bears no resemblance to Hitchens’. I’m a churchgoer fed up with clergymen.
Ya gotta admit that even Mitch has some good points.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-mcconnell-lays-down-the-law-on-stopping-socialism-thats-why-i-call-myself-the-grim-reaper
I believe Bernie’s specific outrage at Israel now, on top of his normal anti-Semitic, anti-Israel views (and J Street and other “Jewish” lefties), is that a bill was introduced into the Knesset naming Israel; as a Jewish state. Not taking away civil rights for Arab and other minorities, not removing Arabic as an official language, or anything else, just calling the country a Jewish state. Of course, every Muslim state identifies itself as a Muslim state, and denies civil rights to all minorities, to say nothing of denying rights to their own Muslims, but nobody says anything about that.
I don’t know where Vanderleun got his statistics, but I will apply a large sprinkling of salt to them. Those numbers may be accurate in the primaries, but if Bernie gets the Democratic nomination, I’m sure that while the Jewish turnout may be a bit lower than usual, non-Orthodox Jews will still vote in the majority for Bernie. (It’s very hard to convince Jews that FDR is no longer the Democratic nominee.) However, in the interests of science, when I go to my observant Conservative, but very Democrat, shul this Shabbat, I shall take the pulse of the congregation and report back.
Richard Saunders, absolutely right. My Jewish family and friends consider being a liberal progressive much more important than supporting Judaism or worse Israel. They hate Netenyahu and blame him for continuing battle with ” Palestinians”. What I don’t understand is why Jews consider FDR a hero. He would not allow Jews in the US when it would have saved thousands of lives.
Hahaha . You’ve got the lingo [1970’s movie style] down pretty good for a Mormon from Utah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QeOXuuFo4g
No, not at all, in practical and moral terms: Robbed by one or robbed by many.
I suppose it matters to the extent that you enjoy seeing big numbers of people suffering from the institutionalization of their vices of resentment, envy, and malice, rather than smaller numbers suffering the effects personally. Or to the extent that being robbed by the mob allows you to avoid some very serious moral decisions, by “deferring” to “democracy” as a matter of high minded principle.
@ Aesop …
Great article at the link.
for a Mormon from Utah.
Upstate New York. Actually lived about 12 miles from Hill Cumorah and there’s now a Mormon congregation about a mile from where we once lived. Never a member, however.
Somebody – or three – around here is Mormon. Thought it was you, for some reason.
Well, at least I’m sure about Huxley being a Buddhist. (Ducks away from thrown pencil)
DNW on February 28, 2020 at 9:18 pm said:
Somebody – or three – around here is Mormon.
* * *
That would be me, for one.
Convert in Texas during graduate school, so not a Utah Pioneer type.
However, after 40-plus years, I’ve got the lingo down pretty good.