Thumbs up for Dershowitz calling the hypocrisy of America's war on Syria

I think the old Arab-baiting war-monger is on to something here.

True enough, America's violations of international law in the current attack on Syria are every bit as vile and repugnant as Israel's last war on Gaza.

So what is Allan's point?

That the US and Israel are equally guilty of outrageous war crimes and crimes against humanity?

No, I think he wants to foreground the distinction between mentor and mentored, enabled and enabler.

America has been enabling Israel's war crimes for over fifty years.

On the other hand, America does not need Israel to enable American war crimes.

There's a difference.

Gaza Night on CNN

Hillary is off to visit the "good" Palestinian tomorrow, the pathetic President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas has totally squandered whatever credibility he inherited from Arafat with his fruitless concessions to Israel over the last eight years. He is completely irrelevant to what is going on in Gaza today.

So why the Hillary visit? Because US policy is bound to an "anybody-but-Hamas" course by AIPAC. That policy as much as anything else has served to enhance the credibility of the very Hamas they are trying to undermine.

It's telling to see who CNN brings in as objective observers who can shed light on the current situation. Fouad Ajami. Dianne Feinstein. Allan Dershowitz.

Oddly enough, each of them were able to recite the current talking points about Hamas' "double war crime" of targeting civilians while also hiding behind them.

Frankly, it's too little and too late. The rest of the world would dismiss out of hand the choice of Ajami, Feinstein, and Dershowitz as objective commentators about anything to do with Israel and Palestine.

In fact, the rest of the world immediately recognizes the trio as long-time pro-Israel propagandists.

And whether we like it or not, the era of America not having to consider the rest of the world is rapidly winding down

Public debate has gone into the toilet

There goes Rush Limbaugh, pontificating about the mores of a woman who has the audacity to use birth control. She's obviously a "slut".

Rush figures that since the taxpayer is paying for some of that birth control, he the taxpayer should get something in return.

Rush will settle for sex videos. That's right, if the public is paying for your contraceptives, the public, or at least the Rush Limbaugh branch of the public, should be able to see you in action.

Well, that only covers a miniscule part of the Medicare budget. What does Rush want to watch on Youtube so that the senior citizen with a publicly funded laxative prescription can get their medication?

I know Limaugh needs to generate a bit of controversy once in awhile to keep the public tuning in, but this is just stupid.

Then there's Allan Dershowitz.

Professor Dershowitz has come to the conclusion that using the expression "Israel firster" in reference to a politician who puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of America is a manifestation of anti-semitism. It's not hard to find those politicians, or at least politicians who talk that talk, and you'll find a constant stream of them at the upcoming AIPAC conference.

It's not hard to figure out why so many American politicians are pro-Israel. Just check out a list of AIPAC political contributions. Of course the politicos taking the money are going to be saying nice things about Israel, and when they talk about nonsense like an attack on Iran that has absolutely nothing to do with American security it's fair to say they're putting the interests of Israel ahead of America's interests.

In what possible way is this "anti-semitic?"

Charges of anti-semitism are a favorite refuge of people who don't have any logical underpinnings to their arguments. When reason and logic fail, drag in the holocaust, invoke Hitler, accuse your opponent of anti-semitism.

Works like a charm.