April 2010 Archives

Subhead: Noam Chomsky, the Good Jew

John Mearsheimer sure is making Stephen Walt look like a piker isn't he? I've had Mearsheimer's speech from the Palestine Center in Washington, DC yesterday a number of times with comments such as, "The mask is off," "A new low," etc...

You could call it a sort of Mearsheimer fantasy. He decides that Israel is an Apartheid state, will be an Apartheid state, and will only get to be a worse Apartheid state, and part way through...muhahahahaha!...you can almost sense the glee (it must be all he can do to keep from pulling his hands in under his chin and rubbing them together) as he follows his thought experiment through...through to its GLORIOUS CONCLUSION! "Oh yes, once they laughed at me. They scorned me! They stared at me, and whispered. They spoke behind my back in the faculty lounge! But they'll see! Oh will they see! One day, one day soon, I will be VINDICATED! Everyone will come to me and say, 'Oh we're sorry Professor Mearsheimer, you were right all along. Israel is a horrible Apartheid state! Please forgive us Professor!' And then, then, with my cadre of Good Jews at my side, I will take my rightful place of respect on the cable news shows!"

Seriously. Read it. It's remarkably bizarre, an extended fantasy exercise. But really, we need to thank him for this list:

In a way I feel like that scene at the end of Animal House where the kid is sitting on his bed looking at Playboy when a girl in a bunny costume comes flying through the window and lands on the bed. "Thank you God!" Seriously. Big word up to those who made the scene, especially J Street and Richard Goldstone. You guys must be so proud. (And I have no doubt J Street will issue such a statement, but it doesn't really matter, does it?) I look forward to the statements distancing yourselves from this nut. If you read (or watch) the speech, you'll realize what an odious idea it is to be in this company.

On the other hand, here's a list I aspire to:

For more on this, see: David Bernstein: Some "Realism" About John Mearsheimer

Noah Pollak: Mearsheimer Makes a List

Elder: Mearsheimer libels Zionists, panders to his Arab friends

Instapundit says: "The limit of acceptable anti-semitism has been climbing for a while, and it's been kicked up a few notches under the current regime." He has this email from Noah:

Update: Marty Peretz: I Confess: I Am A Member Of Opus Judaei

Indeed, nor Chomsky, nor Finkelstein at the very least could be expected to take America's interests to heart in any conflict. But it isn't really about that, is it?

Update 5/2: Good post from Meryl: John Mearsheimer's speech on Jews: Echoes of the 1930s

Demonization by politicians, the media and the campus leads inevitably to: Israel deputy ambassador 'shocked' by Manchester attack

Also see: Robin Shepherd: Attack on Israel's deputy UK ambassador illustrates growing dangers on the British campus

Shocking photo here.

Congrats to the folks at the Boston Israel Campus Roundtable for organizing what looks like it was a very successful and fun event. Happy to have something positive to post about. There are plenty of great photos here.

A short video by Mitchell Bard:

And quite reasonably...and in the New York Times no less (who let this guy in?): Why Arizona Drew a Line. In this snip, he addresses the major criticisms of the law, but read the entire thing:

Also, good post at Legal Insurrection: Just Say It - "All Immigration Laws Are Racist"

What we have, at least in part, is the "disparity of effect" phenomenon. You know, related to the "World to End Tomorrow - Women and Minorities Hardest Hit"-thing. Since everyone knows the main concern, because of their numbers, is illegal immigrants from south of the border, it therefore follows that "brown" people will be disproportionately affected, even if not explicitly stated or even intended. I believe this has come to be due to the legal system, as it provides a quantifiable metric for something that is generally unquantifiable -- racist intent. I have never found the argument particularly persuasive, and think it is a generally a dangerous and destructive standard of measure. I say "particularly persuasive," since I hold out the possibility that such a measure may be helpful or meaningful, it's just that I can't think of one at the moment.

Damn cool as far as I'm concerned.

[Via The Flea and Ace. And btw, thanks to "Hussein the Plumber" who keeps posting my links over at Ace's. Good for traffic.]

Noah Pollak calls it The Sound of Silence. That's how he characterizes the HRW response to The New Republic's lengthy investigative piece of their Middle East operations. (Note: I have updated that previous post with the full text of the article.)

I thought I was going to put up a post praising the ADL: ADL Disturbed At Increasing Use Of Nazi/Holocaust Analogies In Response To Arizona Immigration Law. It starts out alright:

Then I got to reading Foxman's actual statement which reads, in part:

So forget the praise. And the question is begged, why is the ADL against the enforcement of our immigration laws?

[The following, by bataween, is crossposted from Point of No Return.]

Jews living in Sana'a (photo: Rachel Straecher)

The 70 Jews living in in the Yemeni capital of San'a say they are perfectly happy under the protection of the President - but there is little the President could have done to stop a bigoted policeman from interfering with one Jew's sidecurls. The Yemen Observer reports, via VosizNeas: (with thanks: Daniel)

Read article in full

Israel won't honor outpost pledge

Leaving aside whether the "outposts" are good or bad (I think they are bad, since Israel is a nation of laws and housing should be built according to it, not according to the whims of foreign policy freelancers), this does show that Obama's abrogation of, and bad faith concerning previous agreements is a two-edged sword. From an Israeli negotiating perspective this is a bold and astute move. Obama re-opened the entire can of worms.

[The following, by bataween, is crossposted from Point of No Return.]

The battle to save the shrine of Ezekiel from being converted into a mosque may be won, with the revelation that three tourist hotels are to be built in the nearby town of al-Kifl in central Iraq.

Baghdad-born Professor Shmuel Moreh received the news in a letter from a friend. The letter says that the people of al-Kifl are happy that the hotels, presumably for pilgrims, will be built. The letter also affirms that the authorities will work with UNESCO to preserve the Jewish character of the shrine.

Oh man, do you ever have to watch those open microphones: Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape.

More text and multiple videos showing what Brown said, as well as the lady's reaction and Brown's apology at the link. Just goes to show that the contempt the political class shows for the people who have to pay for their rotten policies is rather universal. If you're worried about excessive immigration and taxes you must be a bigot. I'd say she was being treated like the Democrats treat the Tea Partiers, but if Gordon Brown were a Democrat he'd be less likely to be apologizing.

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

7. Conclusion

There are far more similarities than differences in the two papers coverage of the crisis. Both see Israel as entirely at fault, whether through malevolence or incompetence, and both would probably like the crisis to get worse and for the Israelis to get their comeuppance from Washington, but neither can quite bring itself to believe this might be possible. Both share a view of the Palestinians as generally passive, with Israel bearing practically the whole responsibility for the absence of a Palestinian state, almost as if it was something it possessed and perversely refused to hand over, as if the only obstacle to the creation of a state was Israel's refusal to allow it. Their view of the conflict is an Israel-obsessed one and it sees the Palestinians as having, at best, a partial political subjectivity, waiting for others, principally Israel but also the Americans, to do the right thing and vindicate their rights for them. They both see Israel, in both its existence and its actions as the sole motor of history in the conflict and have a very thin view of the history of the conflict. Despite their evident sympathy for the Palestinians neither paper treats them with the seriousness it treats the Israelis.

[The following is a guest post by Ann Green.]

Mayor Koch, in 2008 you said, "I have concluded that the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama." You ran around Florida making sure all the bubbes and zadyes voted Democrat. Just like that great political activist Sarah Silverman. You made the rounds in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, too. You didn't have to bother; how else were Jews going to vote? But now Mr. Mayor, you're disillusioned.

"President Obama's abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking," you said. "It is unimaginable that the president would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion." Hmmm. Oh, sorry Mr. Mayor, I was busy stifling an "I told you so."

[The following, by Emet m'Tsiyon, is crossposted from CiF Watch.]

Shlomo Sand has become the Great White Hope of the anti-Zionists. Sand, a Communist, claims that the Jews of today are not descended from ancient Jews but from just about anybody but the ancient Jews. He needs this to sustain the anti-Zionist effort to delegitimize Zionism, which Communists, like himself, have opposed since the days of Lenin and Stalin. After all, Zionism is a liberation movement of the Jewish people. If there was no Jewish people, then what was the reason for Zionism? Well, the Jewish religion has always viewed the Jews, often called Israel or People of Israel in the ancient writings, as an ethnic or national group as well as a religion. The Biblical books are in part a history of the people of Israel. Later, after the deportation by the Assyrians of most of the population of the Ten northern Tribes, the history of the remainder of the people, the Jews, originally the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah, later called Iudaei by the Romans. The Jewish prayers too consider the Jews -also called Israel- as a people or nation. Hence, the belief in the existence of the Jewish people has existed for three thousand years at least, wherever the traditional prayers were recited and the Bible and other ancient Jewish literature was studied.

But anti-Zionists, who pretend to believe in national self-determination in principle, need the denial of a Jewish people, at least in modern times. At the same time, Sand, as a Communist or Communazi, needed to prove that there is no Jewish people today in order to justify not only his anti-Zionism but in order to vindicate Stalin. One of the scientific obstacles to arguing against the continuity of the ancient Jews with modern Jews is a series of some dozen to two dozen genetic studies that indicate such a continuity. Of course, no genetic scientist argues that the Jews are a pure race or that Arabs are a pure race and the like. What they can do is show the similarities in modal DNA for Jews from different geographic regions ranging from Morocco to Minsk, from Berlin to Baghdad, etc. Scientific genetic studies have shown this as well as Jewish DNA resemblances to Syrian and Lebanese Arabs, even to Palestinian Arabs, to Armenians, and -to a lesser extent- to Kurds, Greeks, Italians and Turks [the modern Turks of Turkey are actually mainly descended from peoples living in Anatolia before the Turkish conquest, including Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Jews, etc., as well as from Arab and Turkish nomad invaders]. So Sand and his cohorts have to get over the obstacle of scientific genetic research.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

When I first heard the story that President Barack Obama was barring from national security documents the use of terms like "Islamism," "Islamic fundamentalist," "Islamic radicalism," or any reference of any connection between Islam and terrorist or revolutionary groups; al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hizballah; Iran's regime or al-Qaida, I said to myself, oh that's nothing new. That kind of policy started under Bush.

But then I realized--and this isn't obvious in the coverage but is the most important aspect of all!--that this policy applies to internal government documents not just public statements. That's both scary and shocking. Because the implication won't be lost on career officials that along with not using these words it isn't going to help their future prospects to use these concepts.

I don't want to overstate the situation. In internal government discussions, people do refer to "Islamic radicals," for example. It is the written work that is more likely to suffer. And are things going to tighten up under this administration in the years to come?

Suppose I'm an intelligence analyst in the State Department, Defense Department, armed forces, or CIA, and I'm writing about one of these groups or this ideology. How can one possibly analyze the power and appeal of this ideology, the way that ideas set its strategy and tactics, why it is such a huge menace if any reference to the Islamic religion and its texts or doctrines isn't permitted?

From Serpahic Secret:

The Jewish Vote Does Not Exist, And What to do About it

Read Fenenbock and Avrech's comments, here.

What did I tell you? You cannot make this stuff up. Yes, some of the bratterati at Brandeis are complaining that controversial speaker Michael Oren is going to be commencement speaker without their prior consent. Via Jeffry Goldberg, there's even a Facebook page set up to moan about it, and presumably protest it.

It's nothing unusual for students to complain about a commencement speaker chosen without their OK. (Do they ever get an OK? They complain anyway.) The irony is, of course, for those who missed it, that Brandeis is a Jewish school and hotbed of Zionism, and Oren is one of Israel's most impressive Ambassadors ever...and he's being rejected for being an Israeli.

Columbia wanted him, and now they've got him...permanently. Judging from the syllabus for Joseph Massad's class, this sounds like something one might find in any indigenous Middle Eastern institution of higher learner outside of Israel... Here's the blog post from prospective student Daniel Hertz: CMW Class Watch: Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies. It's apparently the blog post referred to in this article: Intimidation 101 -

She's probably wrong about the 5% thing -- most people don't know enough to know how much of siren song J Street's message is, and dividing things sounds perfectly reasonable as a first move -- but the more you know, and the more realistic your views, the less sense J Street's position makes: Jennifer Rubin: J Street Comes Clean: It Wants to Divide the Old City

Noah Pollak makes a point I've been making for a long time, here, calling J Street in effect political import/export business run by Israeli political failures.

Ouch. Flop sweat...

Already a bit suspect for being less than sympathetic to the Jewish State, telling a joke like this was probably not the best idea.

Yid With Lid has background (and came up with the video): National Security Adviser Jones: Jews Are Greedy Merchants

Lenny Ben David calls it Jim Jones' Scary Joke.

Legal Insurrection says this is another one of those "can you imagine" moments.

Power Line says it's just downright bizarre.

Jennifer Rubin notes that Jones has apologized:

Congratulations to those stalwarts who braved the rain in New York City yesterday (including a bus load from Boston) to support Israel at the rally Ed Koch spoke about on video here. Who would think we'd go from having New York rallies against Ahmadinejad to standing in the rain holding signs because of our own President? Here are some links:

Phyllis Chesler: I'm Gonna Love You, Come Rain or Come Shine: A NYC Pro-Israel Rally

Michael Ledeen posts his remarks here: "We Are All Israelis"

Nice photo gallery here.

Update: Nice photo gallery from James and Gayle O'Hare here.

Update2: Many more videos here.

[The following, by Medusa, is crossposted from CiF Watch.]

It began, as it so often does in the Western media, with opinions, unverified and sometimes deliberately misleading information presented "authoritatively" as fact, about atrocities and human rights infringements allegedly perpetrated by the IDF against Palestinians in Gaza.

This tendency on the part of the western and world media is nothing new. It is often enough for their stringers simply to feed the anti-Israel beast what it needs without thinking too much about the context or the truth of what they are reporting, and that beast has a distinctly unhealthy and ravenous appetite for distortions and untruths about Israel which it digests and then excretes as "fact."

Therefore when, in March, 2009 several major Israeli and international media outlets published testimony from IDF soldiers claiming that the army had committed war crimes in Gaza, the world media had a feeding frenzy and of course the Guardian was in the vanguard in the shape of Rory McCarthy.

Excellent lengthy report on the internals of the meltdown within Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division at TNR: Minority Report - Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel. Unfortunately, it requires paid registration to read in full. Fortunately, NGO Monitor has a synopsis and call for action: For HRW, Israel is "low-hanging fruit": The New Republic Adds Evidence of Bias

Ironically, it's Marc Garlasco that emerges as one of the heroes of the piece, along with founder Robert Bernstein, of course, and new name Steve Apkon. The bad guys? Ken Roth and Sarah Leah Whitson, plus the general NGO and big organization culture itself. There's a long way to go, but the days when HRW had a magical Halo of Unaccountability +3 are fast fading.

Update: Since I've been forwarded the article a number of times, I'm pasting it in full below. If anyone from TNR doesn't like it they can email me and I'll remove it.

Adam 12. We used to rush home to watch this show. Strange how watching some of these old shows is so relaxing...

[The following, by Charles Jacobs, appears in this week's Jewish Advocate.]

I was in Israel for Pesach, near Ashkelon - not all that far from where the rockets fall. At our Seder I was reminded, as I am each year at this time, of the Passover I spent in South Sudan 10 years ago, witnessing the emancipation of slaves.

At the point where the Haggadah commands us to remember that we Jews were slaves in Egypt, I privately re-lived a stunning moment in Sudan: John Eibner of Christian Solidarity International stood in front of hundreds of black African women and children and explained that money had been paid to their masters and now they were free. I had never experienced - and don't expect to ever again - such cries and dances of joy.

During that Pesach week, accompanied by a reporter from New England Cable News, I witnessed the redemption of more than 2,000 black slaves, some with money that my organization, the American Anti-Slavery Group, had raised to free them. A few months before, in what would years turn out to be an incredible irony (see below), Mayor Thomas Menino and MLK's widow Coretta Scott granted Boston's first Freedom Award to AASG at a ceremony at the Old South Church.

The Creator, it appears to me, works with patterns and seeming coincidences. When I returned to Boston last week, I got an email from Eibner, who had just returned from Sudan, again having helped free hundreds of slaves. In 2005, the Arab war on the Africans in South Sudan was put on hold by an American-brokered truce - a result of years of efforts by a gaggle of Sudan campaigners. Arab Muslim militias no longer storm African Christian and animist villages as they did for decades, shooting the men and capturing women and children as slaves. Yet the truce agreement failed to include the liberation of those slaves then held in the North; today many blacks still serve their Arab masters.

Eibner's organization raises funds for cow medication, which he then trades to Arab herdsmen for their help in buying up slaves and bringing them south to freedom. The American Anti-Slavery Group, in semi-hibernation for these past few years, is now being rekindled to, among other things, help with these redemptions. (You heard it here first.)

Eibner's most recent trip was chronicled by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson and NPR's Ellen Ratner, who reports that 35,000 black Sudanese remain enslaved in the North. One redemption story chronicled by Gerson in particular caught my eye. Abuk Garang Theip, aged 12, was captured six years ago. She told Gerson that her master's wife cut her leg with a knife when she refused to convert to Islam. Eventually, her genitals were mutilated in order to make her a "clean Muslim wife." (The Sudanese Muslim Arabs declared their war on the South to be a jihad intended to spread Islamic rule over the oil-rich Christian/animist South.)

Patterns? Coincidences? Mayor Menino - having honored me for freeing jihad slaves from Islamist jihadis - years later turned over a multimillion dollar piece of land in Roxbury to the Islamic Society of Boston, whose leaders deny slavery exists in Sudan. Last summer, as Menino was cutting the ribbon at the ISB's Roxbury center, I was leading a protest against the ISB's extremist leadership across the street. As I was being filmed (again by NECN), a group of Imams carrying white roses came up to me with a (camera-inspired, I'm convinced) "message of peace." As the cameras rolled, I became involved in a debate with Abdullah Faarooq, an ISB-affiliated imam and head of the historically African-American Mosque for the Praising of Allah. I asked him how he feels about the black slaves kept in bondage by his coreligionists in Sudan. He became incensed: "No, no, no, no - there are no blacks enslaved in Sudan."

Patterns? Though we had about 40 protesters, black and white, Christian and Jew, some "progressives" in the Jewish community were angry at us for not accepting the radical Islamists of the ISB as the tolerant neighbors they claim to be. We were publicly taken to task in the pages of The Boston Globe by Michael Felsen, the leader of the Boston Workmen's Circle Center for Jewish Culture and Social Justice, a group whose name and stated mission implies that it would place the liberation of Abuk's oppressed people over just about anything.

So, in the spirit of Passover, and in the spirit - I'll even add - of "Jewish progressivism," I want publicly to ask Michael for his help. Could the Workmen's Circle, could you, Michael, try to persuade Imam Faarooq to speak out against the enslavement of blacks by his coreligionists in Sudan? Or are Jewish progressives willing to sacrifice black slaves on the altar of today's idol - political correctness? Michael? Remember, we were slaves in Egypt.

Charles Jacobs is president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

An update to Goldstone Barred from Grandson's Bar Mitzvah... From lefty Rabbi Michael Lerner's email list:

So don't worry (I know you were), Goldstone's family (for one), is doing fine.

J Street is upset with Mr. Dershowitz. Apparently, unbeknownst to us, J Street is quite heroic:

Pimping for MJ Rosenberg? The odious Max Blumenthal's employer Media Matters? Not exactly the kind of people the average "pro-Israel" group would want making their arguments for them.

The Brothers of Judea commented on Rosenberg's attack on Elie Wiesel here and here.

Good job Ed. Love the conclusion:

There is a bus taking people to the rally from Boston (tomorrow). See the event page for details. [h/t: Greg K.]

If you're looking for something to do next vacation, Volunteers for Israel has just launched their new site. Just helping get the word out.

I meant to post this the other day...Alfonzo "Zo" Rachel responding to New York Times columnist Charles Blow's anti-Tea Party hit-piece, A Mighty Pale Tea. For those who somehow missed it, Blow went to the Dallas Tea Party and did what leftists do best -- eugenics. OK, not eugenics per se, though clearly Bow would like to breed a better Tea Partyer, just the every day racial head counting that's become so common on the left today they've stopped asking if there's anything wrong with it.

Finding an insufficient number of dark faces in the audience, but a disproportionate number on stage leading the show, Blow smears the Tea Party as, you guessed it, racist, while dismissing the performers, including Zo, as nothing more than a minstrel show. Disgraceful? Yes. Desperate? Definitely. It's difficult to make the case for a racist Tea Party when no one is saying anything actually racist and the minorities are disproportionately represented amongst those garnering the applause from the crowd. Instead you have to descend to the absolute lowest level...checking skin color.

Why doesn't the Times just issue their staff one of these to cart around to events?

Then they could just say, "The Tea Party was not beyond #FFFFFF (pure white) to #ECECEC. An acceptable standard is no less than #959595. We hereby declare this event scientifically racist." Just be done with it already.

[Via IMAO and Hot Air.]

Remember that? It suuuure would be interesting to see that tape now: Why Is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?

[The following, by Zvi Koenigsberg, is a response to Charles Radin's piece in The Jewish Advocate below (Greetings From the Teapot). Zvi's original piece that started it all is here: Guest Post: Politics From the Pulpit - Say Hello to the New (Israel Fund) Rabbi.]

Upon reading Charlie Radin's article in the Advocate, it struck me that, on each and every point, he and I were looking at the same phenomenon and coming to diametrically opposed conclusions.  In short, we live in different realities. It would be tiresome to list all these points, so I will limit myself to commenting on a few points.

Charlie writes that my charges about the content of Emma's sermon at KI are at "wild variance" with what Emma actually said. Thus, according to Charlie, there was no reason to strongly disagree, certainly not to comment in print.

Actually, Charlie's claim is in "wild variance" with what Rabbi Hamilton told me on the subject, that many people told the Rabbi that they were very upset by the sermon...and that one person even walked out in protest.  KI rarely, if ever, experiences a reaction like this.

Zvi Koenigsberg's guest post concerning the new lefty Rabbi at Kehillath Israel in Brookline, Guest Post: Politics From the Pulpit - Say Hello to the New (Israel Fund) Rabbi, has created quite a stir. Charles Radin writes about the issue in this week's Jewish Advocate: Trouncing the truth

Alhayat aljadedh, April 12, 2010 (Palestinian Authority)

Speaking of the subtle subversion being retailed by the Obama Administration, here's a must-read by Dershowitz at Hudson: J Street Can No Longer Claim to be Pro-Israel

More.

And Administration mouthpiece Martin Indyk is rather vocal in stating so. The Administration has developed a clear pattern of sticking to bad ideas come what may. In this case, yet another person steps forward to tell us that Israel has to surrender in order to further American interests, and not only is it not a good policy for Israel, it's not good for us either: Indyk warns of diplomatic 'crisis'

Likud strikes back: Danon slams Indyk for 'intervening'

Of the UAE by Iran: Iran blocking aid to Emiratis 
on occupied islands: Abdullah

Also: UAE slams Iran over control of islands

In a way, this is something of a surprise: Michael Oren to serve as commencement keynote speaker. I half expect an effort on campus to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "balance." [h/t: Louise]

In other Brandeis news, it seems that some folks over there are mighty puzzled by them Tea Partiers, even including them in a study on "New Right Wing Radicalism": I Wonder If Brandeis Has Invited Nancy Pelosi To Speak At This Event?

More here.

Update 4/23: Brandeis apologizes.

[The following, by bataween, is crossposted from Point of No Return.]

Morocco lost one of its historic landmarks when the oldest hospital in the land, the Jewish Benchimol hospital in Tangiers, was rased overnight on 2 April. And the Jewish cemetery might be next. (With thanks: Daniel)

Why did the demolition squads choose the dead of night and the middle of the festival of Passover to do the deed? And who ordered them in? The Moroccan newspaper Liberation, lamenting the destruction of Morocco's historic heritage, blames not just the local municipality for this act of historic vandalism, but the local Jewish community, which ostensibly 'sold' the pre-colonial, 110-year-old hospital in order to raise money for its poor - in spite of objections from the Fondation du Patrimoine Culturel Judeo-Marocain, whose aim is to safeguard's Moroccan Jewish heritage. (Another report, however, says that the community did not own the site, which was the property of the Benchimol family, French nationals. Only the French consulate would have been able to give approval for the hospital to be torn down.)

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

6. El País (ii)

Juan Miguel Muñoz is the Jerusalem correspondent for El País and nobody who has followed his coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in recent years can have been left in any doubt as to his views on it. There's a brio and a frank partisanship in his writing that's absent from that of his British colleague, Rory McCarthy of The Guardian. Between the 9th and 22nd of March El País ran a story almost every day from Muñoz, devoted either wholly or in part to the developing crisis.

In his article published on March 9th, shortly before Biden's arrival in Israel, he pronounced the proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians to be a waste of time,

Jesse Singal's youth beat at the The Boston Globe continues, showing us once again how shallow and vacuous much of today's youth is: To young voters, socialism isn't a bad word. Of course, this is little different from yesterday's youth, or the day before yesterday's youth, etc... The difference is that in the past this might be viewed as something to lament and correct -- a concern and a responsibility for society's elders. Unfortunately, in today's youth-obsessed culture, it seems something to be exalted and pandered to:

This is reminiscent of a previous Singal effort -- youth don't remember the Holocaust, so it doesn't guide them, they don't live near Iran, so it doesn't bother them. This is the J Street constituency, and the grown-ups at J Street (such as they are) aren't interested in educating, they're just interested in selling product -- their own. Back to today:

You just can't put anything past these kids these days.

Our schools have failed.

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

5. El País (i)

The March 14th editorial in El Páis dealing with fallout from Biden's visit is titled "Dark Horizon", and starts like this,

There's a small mistake in this. The announcement about the 112 housing units in West Bank came before Biden arrived in Israel. The editorial goes on,

Vintage B-25 Mitchell bombers fly over the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, April 18, 2010, during a memorial flight in honor of the 68th reunion of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders. The event commemorates the anniversary of the Doolittle Tokyo Raid, which took place April 18, 1942, when U.S. Army Air Forces Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle's squad of 16 B-25 Mitchell aircraft bombed targets in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (DoD photo by Tech. Sgt. Jacob N. Bailey, U.S. Air Force/Released)

From RedPlanetCartoons.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report. Particularly interesting in light of Al-Jazeera's increasing English language reach.]

(name of sender removed)
[To Barry Rubin]
Subject: AL JAZEERA ENGLISH RIZ KHAN INTERVIEW REQUEST

Good morning, Professor Levin [sic].

Would you be interested in appearing on The Riz Khan Show this coming Tuesday to debate the topic "Is the Is there [sic] a partner for peace in Israel?" and more generally, the topics of the upcoming Israeli elections [there are no upcoming elections. BR], the Obama Nuclear Summit and US-Israeli relations. Uri Davis, Israeli professor who is a on the Fatah Revolutionary Council, will be the other guest.

The Riz Khan show is an interactive half-hour interview program that airs live at 12:30pm NY time / 17:30 London time from studios in Washington, DC. It is the flagship show for evening prime time in South Asia and the Middle East....

Response: Dear Ms...

First of all my name is Rubin, not Levin.

Second, if you were going to do a serious program to discuss an important issue, I would be happy to appear. But since you are having on Uri Davis, an ultra-extremist who is not a serious scholar or analyst but a propagandist--by the way, he is not a professor but a lecturer, and not at all an academic.

It is something like asking an American professor to appear on a show with Adam Gadahn of al-Qaida to discuss the topic of whether America is a terrorist state. By having such a person on you are signaling to me that the show is going to be a circus rather than a sophisticated discussion of important issues. In such an atmosphere it would be impossible to do anything but refute the outrageous statements that he would make.

In addition by having Davis, defined as an "Israeli," you no doubt wish to imply that he might actually represent some perspective from within the country or someone who is well-informed on Israel. This is also not true.

Finally, by setting the topic as whether Israel is a partner for peace, you obviously wish to foreclose discussion of whether the Palestinian Authority is a partner for peace. You are clearly taking that as a given when, in fact, I would argue that is precisely the key issue.

Thus, the program is rigged to facilitate the bashing of Israel both in topic and in composition. If in future you wish to invite me for a proper program on these issues I would be delighted to participate.

Incidentally, by doing things like this you are not enhancing the credibility of your program nor increasing the respect that it might otherwise merit.

Sincerely, Barry Rubin (not Levin)

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

3. The Facts

The controversy arose from the fact that during a visit in early March from Vice President Biden, Israel announced its intention to build 1600 new housing units in a part of the city of Jerusalem captured from the Kingdom of Jordan during the Six Day War. Given that Biden was in the country to make encouraging noises to both sides in the then approaching proximity peace talks, the timing of the announcement was unfortunate to say the very least. Biden himself immediately condemned the move while Secretary of State Hilary Clinton described it as "deeply negative" and David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Obama, described it both as an "affront" and an "insult". Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the United Sates, is alleged to have said that the row amounted to the worst crisis in US-Israeli relations in 35 years, though he later claimed to have been misquoted. Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed that he was unaware that the announcement was to be made during Biden's visit, expressed regret about its timing and set up a committee to ensure that such a decision would not be made public without his approval in the future. The Palestinian side reacted by threatening not to participate in the proximity talks.

While on one level, the controversy is adequately explained by the fact that either through arrogance or incompetence, Israel chose to spit in the eye of its most powerful friend while it was hosting Vice President Biden, there is perhaps an extra factor at work. In recent years the notion that United States foreign policy in the Middle East is inordinately influenced by the supposed machinations of organizations like AIPAC has gained traction among many sectors of opinion in the United States and elsewhere. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have led the way in seeking to give that view academic respectability. At least some of those who voted for Barack Obama, and perhaps some who did not, were probably hoping that he would be the man to finally put the so-called "Lobby" in its place. Disappointed that he accepted a ten month freeze on settlement activity outside Jerusalem, rather than the full freeze he originally sought, this sector of opinion has been energized by the controversy and contributed to its effervescence. John Mearsheimer has himself interpreted the current row as the beginning of the end of the close relationship between Israel and the United States.

A couple of examples of Israeli NGO staffers not helping their already embattled bosses...

From NGO Monitor: Lizi Sagie (B'Tselem/Mossawa/CWP) Compares Israel to Nazis

According to the article at ShalomLife, B'Tselem Director Shocked at Senior Member's Extreme Blog, Sagi posted this type of material before becoming a B'Tselem employee, but that's sort of beside the point. It's illustrative of a general problem that someone like Sagi finds themselves in an influential position within the NGO establishment. Her background statements were only a flaw when exposed to the public, before that they were a feature.

Goes will with JIDF's New Israel Fund expose: NIF Staffer Accuses Israel Of State Terrorism

More here, from Reason TV.

I wish the media had had this level of interest and cynicism during all those anti-Bush protests with signage and leadership provided by International ANSWER.

Update: And an update to the video link in this post: Video: Tea Party hero knew question was coming

Tomorrow, to all our Israeli friends.

Video message from Danny Ayalon:

Transcript.

Bruce Kesler, who almost shares a birthday with the state, shares some thoughts here: At 62: I and Israel

This is a very strong statement from CCAR against the "Kairos document," the item being pushed by J Street partner Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) among others: CCAR Resolution on the 2009 Kairos Document

There's much more here. Sadly, while many are worried about our "right-wing" Christian friends, most of the supersessionism I have been reading about has been coming from the left.

[h/t: Dexter]

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

Once again, the Obama Administration has developed a new concept as an excuse for not taking action against a radical and aggressive action. Israel has charged on the basis of intelligence information--and the data in this kind of situation is excellent--that Syria has been shipping long-range missiles to Hizballah in Lebanon which can target U.S. cities. This has led to a raising of tensions and possibly might bring an Israeli air strike against the missiles.

Such an action is a clear violation of the U.S.-sponsored agreement ending the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war which dragged in Lebanon, of course, and resulted in much destruction there. This new development is thus a problem on the following grounds: it strengthens Hizballah, makes a future Hizballah attack on Israel more likely, makes an Israeli preemptive attack more likely, and emboldens Syria to violated agreements knowing the United States won't do anything.

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

1. Introduction

The purpose of this piece is to compare some aspects of the coverage of the recent diplomatic tension between the United States and Israel arising from Israel's announcement of its intention to build new homes in a disputed part of Jerusalem during the recent visit to Israel of United States Vice President Joe Biden. The Guardian, of London and El País, of Madrid were the newspapers chosen for examination because they are usually regarded as leaders in the advocacy of liberal and progressive politics in their respective countries and progressive and liberal opinion in some democratic nations has in recent years taken a sharp turn against Israel. Putting it very roughly, when Israel was frequently involved in large-scale conventional warfare and expanding the territory under its control it was generally seen in sympathetic terms. Now that it has withdrawn from huge extensions of territory conquered in war, made comprehensive peace deals with two of countries that border it and abandoned fantasies of remaking the map of the Middle East to suit its proposes, it is increasingly seen as a uniquely evil state, illegitimate from birth, perverse in its policies, cruel in its behavior and ruled by a nefarious ideology, Zionism.

Looks like the "Pride" movement needs make a study of what went on the past couple of days with the Tea Parties dealing with "infiltrators" and pick up a few pointers:

More on this at The Flea's: Delegitimize, Double Standard, Demonize

John Durajczyk -- Violent Tea Party Infiltrator and Secretary of the St. Charles County Democratic Committee.

Mainstream Democrats behaving badly.

You remember Salah Soltan (also spelled Salah Sultan). We've heard from him many times. We first met him in Salah Soltan - A moderate's guest? in his first appearance as a guest of the Islamic Society of Boston, the group now in possession of Boston's mega-mosque. More recently, we recall that the Boston Mosque was teaching classes under the auspices of the Islamic American University (IAU), founded by Soltan: MAS Watch: Boston Mosque Teaches Classes from Qaradhawi's School.

Now, from MEMRI, we get another reminder of just why that's a bad thing: Blood Libel on Hamas TV - President of the American Center for Islamic Research Dr. Sallah Sultan: Jews Murder Non-Jews and Use Their Blood to Knead Passover Matzos (link to video)

He talks about Zionists, though, so I guess he's not really an anti-Semite.

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

The Celtic Tiger is dead and buried and Ireland is going through an economic crisis unprecedented in seriousness in the history of the state. The banks are all bankrupt, unemployment and the budget deficit are soaring and emigration is starting to rise again. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions held a special one-day conference to address these issues today.

No, it didn't actually. It did hold a special one-day conference to support a boycott of Israel. You can read all about it here, in the Irish Times, and here on Hezbollah's news site. You should also read what Ian O'Doherty has written about this matter. As he says, its [union] dues against the Jews.

Via Jennifer Rubin at Contentions, Elie Wiesel has taken out a full page ad in The International Herald Tribune, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and this coming Sunday's New York Times. Powerful:

It's official, Shamai Leibowitz has lost his license to practice law in New York: Lawyer Who Disclosed Classified FBI Information Is Suspended

More background at the link, also see the first link for a search here on the name. Just another leftist who can't be trusted. Amazing how that works. Seems to me it's mostly those on the left, whose principles are SO high above us average folk (and their oaths, and their countries...) that are the people who can least be trusted when it comes to keeping secrets.

He doesn't sound like an Israel hater:

Man is this sad to read: How to lose friends and alienate people. A lesson from Islamist-cowed Jewish students

The rest.

Nice photo essay from El Marco: TAX DAY REVOLT- Washington DC 2010

Related: White NBC Reporter Confronts Black Man at Tea Party Rally: 'Have You Ever Felt Uncomfortable?'

Also: Infiltrator or simply unwanted? DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN?

A reader sends in the following pack of photos from yesterday's event with Sarah Palin (sorry, no photos of Sarah) down at the Boston Common. The photographer is a gay woman who seemed not at all hostile to the event but managed to stay only long enough to get a sense of the crowd. 'It was peaceful and upbeat. There were no racist signs or people yelling racist things.'" It looks like the most offensive signs were those being held by the counter-demonstrators, trying to be clever (the last two in the series).

Bipartisan letter to Obama administration signed by 3/4 of Senate.

The full text of the letter is here [PDF].

The full list of signatories is here [PDF].

Scott Brown is ON the list, John Kerry is NOT. The breakdown is as follows:

Republicans: 37 / 41 (90%)
Democrats: 38 / 57 (67%)
Independents: 1 / 2 (50%)

Good to hear this from a major organization. That's the only way there's a chance for some American Jews -- most of whom are no where near as well informed as they like to think they are -- to start getting it through their heads what's going on: Full Text of Letter from Ronald S. Lauder to President Obama

Consequences: Goldstone barred from family bar mitzva

Sound a bit unfortunate? Sympathy for the Bar Mitzvah boy, OK, but sympathy for the man? None, nor does he deserve any. As someone said on an email list I subscribe to:

No, no need.

Where Jews and their friends will gather, their enemies will follow. This past Sunday there was a commemoration for Holocaust Memorial Day in downtown Boston. The Boston Globe story is here: Holocaust lessons stated anew - Services emphasize preserving memory. A reader who was there writes:

Who indeed? And that's what we're here to expose. There's quite a back story, and it's a tale of familiar names and the usual suspects. Hang on to your Prozac. This is gonna get ugly.

[The following is a guest post by Zvi Koenigsberg.]

Until 6 months ago, I was a regular attendee at Congregation Kehillath Israel (KI) on Harvard St in Brookline, MA at the services on weekday evenings and Saturday afternoons. I was doing the least I felt I could do to help make a minyan for those saying Kaddish. I had been doing this for more than five years.

Then I was informed that the rabbinic intern, Emma Kippley-Ogman, gave an "innovative" Sabbath morning speech when the Torah portion Hayei Sarah ("The life of Sarah") was read. As you may remember, Sarah was the first of the Israelite matriarchs to be buried at the Machpela Cave in Hebron, which was purchased for that specific purpose by her husband Abraham.

Emma used the geographic background of the Torah portion as a springboard for an attack on the current Jewish residents of Hebron, and how they "oppress" their poor Moslem neighbors. It turns out that Emma was sent to Hebron by the New Israel Fund for a year, to work with "Breaking the Silence," a group dedicated to highlighting Israel's "oppression" of Arabs.

As it happens, I experienced the situation in Hebron first hand. During the first Intifada, as a reservist, I served as commander of the Machpela Cave three times, each for a month. It is interesting that I saw not a whit of what Emma's group claimed, but rather, I was called an ape and a pig by the resident Khadi (religious leader) of the cave, and witnessed many barrages of attacks by Arabs against civilians and soldiers alike.

[The following is a guest post by Harvey Cohen.]

During a visit to the Temple Mount, in the Old City of Jerusalem, on Monday, February 22, 2010, I took the attached three photographs (click to expand), the significance of which is as follows:

In 1999, at the southeast corner of the Temple Mount itself, in order to cut a new large stairway entrance leading downstairs into Solomon's Stable (where Crusaders were said to have stabled their horses), for easier access to one of the largest indoor mosques in the world, the Waqf (the Islamic Trust that supervises the Temple Mount) ordered the illegal removal and dumping of 9000 cubic meters of earth and rubble from the Temple Mount, without any supervision of the work, let alone examination of the earth and rubble by an archeologist from the Israeli Antiquities Authority, as is required by Israeli law.

Worse still, most of the big column parts and easily identifiable architectural artifacts (identifiable as Jewish or Christian archeologically) were either removed or smashed/destroyed before being mixed with modern construction debris (including asbestos) and garbage and then dumped into the Kidron Valley in East Jerusalem., in order to obscure any past Jewish and/or Christian connection to the Temple Mount. The earth/rubble (grey colored from two burnt Temples) was dumped in a number of clearly identified locations in the Kidron Valley, east of the Temple Mount, and west of the Mount of Olives.

[The following is a guest post by Ann Green.]

Justice John Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court has announced his retirement. With his appointments to date, President Obama has boldly pushed an aggressive program of affirmative action, taking into account race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. The ethnic background and gender of Justice Sotomayor were clearly part of the package of qualifications she brought to the bench. The appointment of transsexual Amanda Simpson as senior technical advisor in the Department of Commerce was a first. I think. An oft-mentioned candidate for the next justice is Elena Kagan, the first female solicitor general, who is gay.

I am sure all of these people are qualified for their jobs. Yet while crafting an administration that "looks like America," the president has consistently overlooked a group that is championed by a key member of his administration. I must ask, where are our animal companions? Is it just me who has taken notice that all appointees are humans? Has there even been a furry friend in the cabinet? an administrative post? the TSA? Come to think of it, there are none on the state or local level either. Not even in the most obvious niche, dog catcher, or, as my city describes the position (with more dignity) animal control officer.

[The following, by Ed Koch, is circulating in an email from Myths and Facts. Here in full. Also available online at Jewish World Review.]

Beware Jewish leadership. Beware Obama Administration. Ed Koch is angry.

I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.

For me, the situation today recalls what occurred in 70 AD when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans.

In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem.

Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out.

[By Red Planet Cartoons, posted at The American Spectator.]

[The following, by Zach, is crossposted from The Brothers of Judea. Where do Ma'an News editors go when they get deported? Why, to the Huffington Post, of course.]

Jared Malsin is an American and former editor of the English edition of Ma'an News, a Palestinian media service. However, that ended when he was deported from Israel in January. Why? Well, according to Ynet Israel's Interior Ministry decided to expel him when he was uncooperative with security officials after returning from his trip to Prague. Other sources claim that he made a deal with Israel and chose to leave the country to avoid a prison sentence.

Anyway, he has now found a new place to write his anti-Israel screeds, the Huffington Post. And I'm sure they are glad to have him. Apparently between MJ Rosenberg, Sharmine Narwani, Daoud Kutabb, Mya Guarnieri, Ali Abunimah, Richard Greener and Jerome Slater, there just isn't enough anti-Israel views on the Huffington Post. They really needed one more. For balance.

Malsin's debut article is "Does Israel's Crackdown on Journalists Suggest a 'Crisis of Legitimacy?'" At this point it is mostly what we have some to expect from the Huffington Posts' blogger stable. Click the link below to continue.

Malsin starts his article by telling his story of deportation and interrogation, choosing to leave out any possibilities about why Israel might want to deport him. The Israelis are portrayed as faceless villains who deprive Malsin of his "rights," and of course we are expected to take him at his word. Considering Malsin's blatantly partisan views, and considering that he is basically a Palestinian PR man, I hope no one will hold it against me if I take his story with a grain of salt. Though of course, the Huffington Post talkbackers believed it unquestionably.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]
With their unerring skill at erring, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders are throwing away still another opportunity President Barack Obama is giving them. If Obama is the most pro-Palestinian president in history, his counterparts don't seem to appreciate it very much. It is the Palestinian leadership, not Israel, that will ultimately make Obama look like and be a failure in all of his peace process efforts.

Brief history:

--Last spring, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas in his first visit to Washington made it clear he wasn't interested in a negotiated solution but just planned to wait for the West to force Israel to give him everything he wanted.

--In September, Abbas stood nearby as Obama said he wanted serious final negotiations within two months, then refused while Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was ready to talk right away.

--Shortly thereafter, Obama asked Abbas not to push the Goldstone report as a sponsor in the UN. Abbas agreed, then broke his word within 48 hours under internal pressure.

--At the end of last October, Obama's Administration made a deal in which Israel would stop all construction on West Bank settlements though it could continue in east Jerusalem. While Obama hoped this would get talks going, Abbas demanded an end to construction in Jerusalem, too, which he knew Israel would not accept. Indeed, he demanded it precisely because he knew Israel wouldn't accept it.

--Finally, Abbas agreed to indirect talks but was "saved" when suddenly the U.S. government accepted the PA's position on Jerusalem construction. Yet even that has not been enough to make the PA support Obama's policy despite the fact that it was so slanted in their favor.

By now you've heard about the controversy swirling between Amnesty employee Gita Sahgal and her bosses over AI's association with unrepentant Islamist Moazzam Begg and his organization/web site Cageprisoners. Here is Sahgal's statement:

[Via Harry's.] Oliver Kamm comments here:

Harry's also has a look at another distinguished personage AI has association with through Cageprisoners, Yvonne Ridley: A "Leading Human Rights Organisation" on Zionist Tentacles

Well, it's not such a big story this time. No marches, no petitions...after all, there are no Jews to blame (in fact, the oil goes over the border whenever there is oil to go over the border): Gaza in darkness: PA, Hamas trade barbs over fuel shortage

Of course, that doesn't mean some people don't try to cast blame:

Roger L. Simon has updated his post on the problem Israeli nuke scientists have been having getting visas (see: Obama Denies Visas to Israeli Nuke Scientists and White House Denies Israeli Nuke Scientist Story). This has been a problem since 9/11 and did not begin with the Obama Administration: CORRECTION: Visa Policy For Israeli Nuclear Scientists Did Not Begin With Obama Admin

Netanyahu demurred from personally attending the upcoming Washington nuclear summit, expecting Israel to be made the issue in a hijacked event rather than rogue states like Iran. As if on cue, up steps Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: 'World turns blind eye to Israeli nukes'

[The following, by Maimon, is crossposted from CiF Watch.]

Reza Aslan is a highly successful author, whose first book on the "Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam" won international acclaim and was short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award. According to his website, the Iranian-born Aslan studied "Religions" at several US universities, though he is now an Associate Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Aslan's work, but that is likely true for many other people who followed CiF's "Best of the Web" recommendation that featured at the top of the list Aslan's blog at the "Daily Beast" where he had posted an excerpt from his second book that has just been published in paperback.

As can be seen from the screenshot above, CiF's one-sentence summary provided the title of Aslan's post: "Jihadists' Palestinian rallying cry" and promised "[an] excerpt from Reza Aslan's book, in which he writes about the 7/7 bombers' radicalization after a visit to Israel-Palestine."

Indeed, the passage Aslan chose to entice readers to buy his new book opens with the (creatively written) claim:

Aslan's assertion that "there can be little doubt" that it was the trip to Israel that turned a "well-adjusted, well-integrated, well-educated youth worker" into a "radical jihadist bent on mass murder" is truly remarkable given that he notes - albeit in passing - that Khan came to Israel on "a last-minute detour on his way back to Britain, after he had completed the hajj pilgrimage with his wife and a couple of close friends."

Well, here's an important update to the story below concerning supposed threats received by Israeli-Arab singer Mira Awad, Israeli Arab Singer Receives Threats, Cancels London Show. Unfortunately, the Jerusalem Post has completely changed the linked story (note to JPost: please stop doing that). The new headline is: 'It was my choice to cancel concert'.

Yes, apparently Awad didn't need to be threatened in order to cancel a concert to celebrate her ostensible country's founding. The basic disinterest of Israel's Arabs to fully participate in the society of which they are a part, while accepting all the benefits, is certainly one of Israel's most serious long term problems.

Leave it to the Boycott people, in this case, Marcy "Captain Underpants" Newman, to disingenuously take "credit" for the change:

So did she bow to pressure after all? Her Facebook statement says that when she found out the date of the event, she canceled due to "complexities": some clarifications regarding the London concert.

You Nazty Spy! came out in 1940, before Chaplin's The Great Dictator.
There's a nice sharp version at Crackle (non-embeddable), here. Here's the YouTube edition:

Part 1:

Part 2 (below the fold):

Yaacov Lozowick has a good run-down of the issues involved in the Anat Kam (Kamm) spy scandal. As usual, many of the usual suspects (generally people on the left who either oppose Israel's existence or are so confused as to consider hyper-criticism regardless of the results the highest form of patriotism) are crying heroism. The truth is far different, however: "A Threat to Democracy"

Do read the rest.

You just can't please some people: Three Muslim extremists charged after attack on Galloway

I'm pretty sure it's a lie that Galloway actually believes in democracy, though.

Great report with pics out of San Francisco by Zombie: Q.U.I.T.'s protest against the "Out in Israel" film festival

The rest.

It obviously hasn't hit him yet. Peppery!

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Julian Taylor, a personnel clerk with Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron, receives a spray of oleoresin capsicum during level one contamination training at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C., April 6, 2010. Eleven Marines received the training as a part of the security augment force to support the air station's Provost Marshall Office. (DoD photo by Lance Cpl. Robert J. Maurer, U.S. Marine Corps/Released)

[The following, by Zach, is crossposted from The Brothers of Judea, 'Standing Up Against Hate on the Huffington Post.']

This was a topic that I have wanted to write about for a couple of weeks, but only today was there a perfect example of it posted here on the Huffington Post:

We often see anti-Zionists saying things like this. Comments that range along the line of, "What's the big deal about the Holocaust? Who cares? It was a long time ago, and a lot of other people are suffering too! So why are we making such a big fuss over it?"

Comments like these are not anti-Semitic, nor are they Holocaust denial either. The person is not claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, but instead is simply being a jerk about it. I call this Holocaust cynicism. It is quite prevalent among anti-Semites and anti-Zionists alike, at least on the Huffington Post. The only time that they mention the Holocaust is to complain that Jews make "too big of a deal" about it and that it happened "a long time ago."

In fact any time the Holocaust is brought up they usually respond in this manner. The implication behind these comments is not that they think the Holocaust wasn't a bad thing, just that we should make such a big fuss about it anymore. One of the prominent examples of this is Norman Finkelstein's "The Holocaust Industry" in which he claims that Jews now just exploit the memory of the Shoah for cash. Maybe he and the other Holocaust cynics are right. Maybe it would make for a good discussion among Jews. Perhaps the Jews should think about whether they make too much of the Holocaust. But as it usually stands, Holocaust cynicism coming from people who aren't interested in an honest, intellectual discussion of that matter. Most Holocaust cynics also demonstrate clear anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish attitudes, and that should tell you something. They use this cynicism as a discussion-ender against people who would want to discuss how the Holocaust impacted Jewish history and the modern Jewish mindset.

It would be one thing if Bushdepression here was complaining on a Rwandan genocide thread that it should be getting more attention. I don't think he would find many people who would disagree. But the fact is that he came onto a Yom Ha'shoah thread and said basically, "This remembrance shouldn't exist." As if the lessons learned from those dark days no longer matter and should be forgotten. As I explained in my post this morning, there are many things about the Holocaust that is unique: There is more to it than just a lot of people killed a lot of other people. Bushdepression is heavily implying that the Jews are trying to make it all about them when they dare to remember their losses. And if that isn't Holocaust cynicism in it's highest form, I don't know where else one would find it.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

The two Arab journalists I most respect have written of the fear in Arabic-speaking countries about Iran's having nuclear weapons. They explain persuasively why a U.S. containment policy of reassuring Arab states and Israel against direct nuclear attack is totally inadequate.

Listen to what they're saying as it is much more accurate in warning about the coming strategic shift in the region than what's being written in the West.

Both Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid and Ahmad al-Jarallah are close to elements in the Saudi regime yet also maintain personal independence and support liberal reform. Rashid (often transliterated, Rashed) is a Saudi who is former editor of al-Sharq al-Awsat, probably the best Arabic newspaper, and is now director-general of the al-Arabiya network, possibly the best satellite television network. Writing in al-Sharq al-Awsat on February 21 (translated by MEMRI) he explained:

"An Iranian bomb...will not be put to military use; it will be used as a way to change the rules of the game. What we are afraid of is Iran's policy, that uses all means to force its existence [as a regional power], and nuclear weapons is only [one of these] means." For example, if pro-Iranian militias "take over southern Iraq, no superpower will dare to use military means to stop it."

"We fear the logic of the current regime in Tehran, which spent the country's funds on Hizbullah, Hamas, the extremist movements in Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and supported every extremist in the region. The Ahmadinejad regime aspires to expansion, hegemony, and a clear takeover on the ground, and to do this he needs a nuclear umbrella to protect him from deterrence by [any] superpower.

I wanted to post this in order to point out an aspect of the conflict often overlooked. We hear time and again about the ways in which the Arab Israeli sector is alienated or lags behind the Jewish sector in one statistic or another. Somehow, these facts are often twisted to show that Israel is somehow a purveyor of particular evil, even an "apartheid" state, in spite of the fact that there is affirmative action in the public sector and anti-discrimination law in force there.

No government can force people to participate if they choose not to, however. We've discussed previously the ways in which Arab culture itself causes some of this lagging (consanguinity's affect on health statistics, for instance), and now here's another. Even when Arab Israelis choose to participate fully, and take advantage of what the greater society offers, their own fellow Arabs are there to drag them down: Arab Israeli singer receives threats

Also, at The JC: Death threats silence Independence Day singer

Ironically, the bullies and haters achieve a double purpose. They can prevent participation, make circumstances worse, contribute to negative statistics and increased societal problems, and then turn right around and blame Israeli Jews for the very societal disparities they themselves contribute to. This goes the same for the boycott activists constantly carping on and campaigning against "normalization" -- they hurt the very people they purport to help.

And they get away with it because the media and NGO's allow them to, rather than condemning them. Assigning any degree of personal responsibility for one's problems are so unfashionable.

Update: JPost has changed the story. It gets more complex: OK, So Maybe That Israeli-Arab Singer Wasn't Threatened After All

I get so many people by here trying to excuse Galloway and his Viva Palestina cronies and attempting to deny that he has been a direct supporter of Hamas that it's nice to have postings like this to refer people to: "Racist and Inflammatory"

More here.

Update to the story below, Obama Denies Visas to Israeli Nuke Scientists, Ben Smith reports that the Administration is denying the story: White House denies Israeli visa story

So there may be nothing to the story that Maariv presented, or this could be double-talk by the White House (no changes de jure, while de facto the visa handling has changed in practice).

[The following, by Charles Jacobs, appeared in the March 19 edition of The Jewish Advocate.]

A couple of weeks ago, in an act of realpolitik opportunism, President Obama parlayed a diplomatic blunder in Israel into a full-fledged crisis in U.S.-Israel relations. Obama has declared that changing the way the Arab world sees America is key to his foreign policy. Israel, it seems, may have to pay the price for this change in direction.

The fight emerged when Bibi failed to forestall an announcement of new housing construction in East Jerusalem until after Joe Biden completed his visit to Israel. Biden was "offended." In fact, the apartments for Jewish residents are in a part of Jerusalem that nobody - the U.S. and Yitzhak Rabin included -- ever expected would be ceded to the Arabs in any imagined peace deal. Bibi apologized for the announcement's timing but went on to explain that, "No government of Israel for the last 40 years has agreed to place restrictions on building in Jerusalem." But now "offended," Hillary says Israel must "prove" that it wants peace by making (more) concessions. Nothing is demanded of the Arabs, who just named a public square for a killer of Jewish civilians. No offense was taken. Ambassador Oren sensed a tectonic shift in US-Israel relations. What has happened?

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd enthusiastically explained Obama's slap at Israel: Jews, she wrote, no longer speak with one voice -- the rise of J Street and post-Zionism in general give cover for the President to publicly fight with the Jewish state. She's partly right: the growing power of the Jewish far-left enabled Obama to express his ire. But it was more than the far-left: 80% of Jews voted for Obama. What explains that?

Nuts: BREAKING: Obama Administration Denies Visas to Israeli Nuclear Scientists

Seraphic Secret: Barack Hussein Obama's Nuclear War Against Israel

Related: Uh oh: Netanyahu pulls out of Obama's nuclear summit

Update 4/9: Ben Smith at Politico says the Obama Administration is denying the report.

Washington Street. Lincoln Avenue. Freedom Drive. Liberty Lane.

You can tell a lot about a nation by the people and the values they lionize. Tell me about Palestine. Have they produced anything for the world other than the worship of terrorist murder?

The Prime Minister's office has issued this statement:

The AJC has issued a statement here: AJC Appalled by Palestinian Authority Glorification of Hamas Terrorist Leader

Palestinian Media Watch has a report on several similar matters: The duplicity of Fayyad and Abbas: Preaching non-violence while honoring terrorists

And, see Barry Rubin below: Why Does the Palestinian Authority Celebrate Those Who Turned Christianity's Holiest Shrine into a Military Bunker?

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

The Obama Administration doesn't understand this but it is signalling the Palestinian Authority (PA) that it can get away with anything, thus further dooming any hope for serious negotiations and perhaps leading to a restart of large-scale violence.

Decades ago, when Middle East experts held views closer to the region's realities rather than to its propaganda, it was well-known that one of the best ways to mobilize a big demonstration or riot in Arabic-speaking countries was to tell people: The government is with you.

Say, for example, you wanted to smash up of the British embassy in Damascus or Cairo. The trick would be to persuade the masses that their rulers wanted them to do it and thus they would be rewarded, not punished. In effect, this is the consequence of what the Obama Administration is doing inadvertently. The PA has concluded that the U.S. government will never criticize or punish it.

Indeed, the Palestinian leaders know, the more intransigent they are, the more conflict there will be in U.S.-Israel relations.

Here's the chain of reasoning:

--The Obama Administration wants progress toward peace for which it can take credit and which supposedly will help it in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in dealing with Iran.

--If Israel doesn't make concessions, U.S.-Israel friction will result. But if the PA is intransigent, there will be no problem in bilateral relations.

--Instead, the U.S. government will say: Since the PA won't yield or accept our offers, we must put pressure on Israel to give more in order to get the PA on board.

--Indeed, in this framework, the more radical things that the PA does which encourage Israeli anger and reluctance to take risks, the more Israel gets blamed.

--Conclusion: Being intransigent, creating conflict, and even inspiring violence is in the PA's interest.

Can we still say Muslim Student Union? This is excellent work by the whistle-blower confirming what, after all, was the obvious: The MSU Plot to Silence Israel's Ambassador

The rest. Discipline, please.

Presented without comment: Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

Read the rest.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

Is the U.S. government going to present its own comprehensive peace plan on the Israel-Palestinian issue? There is growing evidence it is thinking of doing such a thing, though that is by no means certain. If the Obama Administration does move in this direction, however, I predict that it will be a major failure and humiliation for that government.

The latest development is an apparently well-informed New York Times article about a meeting chaired by National Security Advisor James Jones, known for being hostile to Israel, and including former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft--also known for being anti-Israel--and Samuel Berger. All three (it should be mentioned that none of this trio covered himself with glory when in office and are not exactly foreign policy geniuses) reportedly favor the idea. Former national security advisor Colin Powell disagreed, but he's a Republican (though a pro-Obama one) and probably less influential. Oh, and President Obama dropped in to hear the discussion.

One might ask a lot of people who voted for Obama if they are happy having Brzezinski and Scowcroft as top advisors on Middle East policy. Again, though, it should be clear no decision has been made and such an initiative might never happen, assuming clearer heads triumph.
But, the reporter writes:

"Still, for all of that, a consensus appears to be growing, both within the administration and among outside advisers to the White House, that Mr. Obama will have to consider suggesting a solution to get the two sides moving." This might happen also if indirect talks fail.

Let us pause a moment to consider that this whole approach is the opposite of being brilliant. First, the administration has just signaled to the Palestinians that they want to make the indirect talks fail, since then the U.S. government will make an "imposed" offer that will adopt almost all of their demands. After all, if it doesn't, they can sabotage the proposal, knowing that the Obama administration will never punish or criticize them. Since the government desperately wants to succeed, it is giving the Palestinian Authority all the leverage.

Via The Flea and Kathy Shaidle, here's an interview with one of the victims, Nick Bergamini:

Shaidle has more background to this incident, here.

Jonathan Hoffman reports on the British charity, War on Want, that leads raids on British supermarkets pulling Israeli goods off the shelves, yet still finds itself the beneficiary of major charitable events like Comic Relief: Boycott "War On Want" which trashes Israeli goods in Waitrose

[The following, by Ben-Dror Yemini, is translated from the original Hebrew which appears in Ma'ariv here. This translation does not include the embedded links. I will add them if I find a version that contains them. Courtesy of Noah Pollak.]

[Update: Special thanks to Centrist for providing manyof the links from the original Hebrew text.]

Human rights are too important an issue to be left in the hands of human rights organizations. This isn't the first time that I've written that. It's just that this issue is becoming increasingly important. This time, the organization at hand is Amnesty, once again Amnesty, which has conferred legitimacy on jihad. One is hard put to believe the words one reads.

In the previous installment, which was reported by Ma'ariv three weeks ago, Amnesty's Gita Sahgal voiced her objection to the association with Moazzam Begg, who is ideologically associated with the Taliban. Sahgal's statements were published by the London Times. That same day, Sahgal was suspended after 30 years of work with Amnesty. An uproar ensued, but to no avail. Begg remained with Amnesty, Sahgal was ousted. Activists and other groups signed a petition calling for the restoration of fairness to human rights and against the association between human rights organizations and people either affiliated with or who identify with groups, such as the Taliban. The international organization of women who live under Muslim law issued a harshly worded response. After all, they are the ones who lived for many years under the Taliban regime and were subjected to every conceivable form of oppression.

The most astonishing response to Sahgal's anger came, from all places, from Secretary General of Amnesty International Claudio Cordone, who came out in defense of the connection between Amnesty and the Taliban supporter, Moazzam Begg. He said: defensive jihad does not contradict human rights.

Cordone's response was made a month ago, but it was released for publication just a number of days ago, and elicited furious responses, mainly from Muslims.

The first response was from three Muslim human rights activists from Asia, who wrote : If that is the official position of the leading human rights organization, that will severely undermine the human rights movement.

This time the criticism isn't being aired by conservatives, but by veteran members of the human rights camp.

Another must-read from Walter Russell Mead: Why AIPAC Is Good For The Jews -- and For Everyone Else

Hard to excerpt. Just read it all. Mead articulates what many of us understand implicitly and why, and why the most anti-Israel Jews are generally the most politically marginal. I was sent a link this morning to another leftist "AsaJew" running for office in New York. I knew even before checking that the guy's poll numbers render him an unserious candidate, and sure enough, when I did check, he was. Mead, in a somewhat indirect way, explains why. Anti-Israel attitudes on the part of Jews don't endear them to the political mainstream, they separate them from it (in America anyway).

No, there's no mistake in the headline. Why would an anti-Israel television show anger Palestinians? They're supposed to be into that, right? Big lies that show the Zionist apes in the worst possible light. Ahh! But the show has Arab women being raped by Israeli guards, and you know that rape is the woman's fault, right? So much at fault that a rape victim is in danger of being murdered by her own family in what's bizarrely called "honor killing": Anti-Israel TV show angers Palestinians

Robin Shepherd comments here: A tale of Israeli "rapists" that has enraged the Palestinians but won't make the BBC. He issues a challenge to the BBC:

[The following, by Israelinurse, is crossposted from CiF Watch.]

Sometimes, what is not reported in the media can be as enlightening as what is. So when the Guardian chooses to virtually or completely ignore a particular story, a certain insight is provided into the workings of the editorial decisions made by that organisation. As we are only too aware, two recent incidents produced a plethora of articles in almost comic proportions on the pages of the Guardian and CiF: the expulsion by the UK of an Israeli diplomat over the alleged forging of British passports and Joe Biden's decision to be insulted by the workings of an Israeli planning committee. To be honest, I lost count of the precise numbers of articles on these two subjects at some point, but both issues were done to death from any and every possible angle with speculation often rife.

Between the breaking of these two stories another incident occurred which merited only one fairly laconic Guardian article: Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from his country as a reaction to the decisions by the US and Sweden to describe the World War I killings of Armenians as genocide.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

George Orwell wrote prophetically in 1943:

"In the last twenty years Western civilization has given the intellectual security without responsibility....It has educated him in skepticism while anchoring him almost immovably in the privileged class. He has been in the position of a young man living on an allowance from father whom he hates. The result is a deep feeling of guilt and resentment, not combined with any genuine desire to escape. But some psychological escape, some form of self-justification there must be....These creeds have the advantage that they aim at the impossible and therefore in effect demand very little....The life of an English gentleman and the moral attitudes of a saint can be enjoyed simultaneously....

"The fact that the eastern nations have shown themselves at least as warlike and bloodthirsty as the western ones, that so far from rejecting industrialism, the East is adopting it as swiftly as it can--this is irrelevant, since what is wanted is the mythos of the peaceful, religious and patriarchal East to set against the greedy and materialistic West....We shall be hearing a lot about the superiority of eastern civilization in the next few years."

In the first paragraph, Orwell was focusing on how intellectuals transfer their allegiance to their country's enemies. At the time, he was talking about the Communist USSR and Nazi Germany. But he might just as well have been talking about their resentment of the existing system. It's interesting to approach this issue from a traditional kind of socialist or even Marxist approach:

U.S. Marines conduct special purpose insertion and extraction exercises using a CH-53 Super Stallion helicopter from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162 in Djibouti March 24, 2010. The Marines, who are from 2nd Reconnaissance Platoon, Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, performed a series of sustainment and joint exercises alongside the French and Djiboutian military during their visit. The 24th MEU is currently on a seven-month deployment with the Nassau Amphibious Ready Group as the theatre reserve force for U.S. Central Command. (DoD photo by Sgt. Alex C. Sauceda, U.S. Marine Corps/Released)

It's a rabbit that Stephen Walt just can't help chasing. Walt is blogging about his favorite obsession: On "dual loyalty". Leave it to Walt to try to give intellectualized cover to the 'neo-Lindberghian' dual-loyalty accusation against Dennis Ross. He starts out fairly enough, warning against the dangers and the baggage of such accusations, but he ends up just unable to help himself in giving the OK for it, and twisting, twisting, to get permission by simply calling things by a different name. He doesn't want to do it, but finds a way anyhow:

A conflict of interest in the policy realm, where we're not talking about financial or family ties, simply means someone whose views are known, or who once worked for a group and who may carry those views with them. So what? Walt is, as usual, just bent out of shape that the people who carry his views into the policy realm aren't in the ascendancy.

As Walter Russell Mead has pointed out, the "AIPAC view" is more widely promulgated among policy makers (at least, those who make the final decisions) because those views are popular ones with the best arguments behind them, not because the game is rigged. If Dennis Ross seems to consider Benjamin Netanyahu's "coalition concerns" seriously, it's not because he's on Netanyahu's payroll, it's because if you want to be serious about achieving something then you too should understand and value highly that dynamic. Ross has an important argument to make and it needs to be considered on the merits it deserves.

If we had former CAIR lobbyists, or Council for the National Interest employees in serious policy making positions we would be concerned, but it would be over their mindset and interpretation of events, not simply that they had some prior history they carried with them. Everyone has a history, everyone has some ties. It's the substance that counts.

The first commenter, in two comments, has Walt pegged pretty well:

And:

A blast from the past, via Yaacov Lozowick:

Forget the right of return, final borders will take into account current realities...well, Obama is more articulate in front of the cameras isn't he? Pfffft...

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

A former senior Canadian diplomat, Robert Fowler, made the main foreign policy speech to the Liberal Party convention there. He voiced the most common myth about the contemporary Middle East. In fact, it is a myth now returning to favor in the United States after many years in the shadows. (The last thing that killed it was the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait which indicated there were a few other problems in the region.)

Regarding Fowler, let me quote from the Ottawa Citizen editorial about the speech:

"Fowler singled out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as the primary source of instability in the region. Meanwhile, a country like Iran -- a totalitarian theocracy bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, which it has already threatened to use -- didn't get a mention. Is that Fowler's idea of an "even-handed" approach to the Middle East?

"By externalizing blame for Arab-Muslim dysfunction--pinning it on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on Israeli intransigence in particular-- Fowler is playing into the hands of all the Muslim dictators, autocrats and mullahs who use the "Zionist" threat to win popular legitimacy and to justify their refusal to embrace modernization, democratization and economic reform.

"As eminent Middle East scholar Barry Rubin has put it, attributing the Arab world's problems, including the rise of Islamic extremism, to Israel serves only to prevent "the kind of reappraisal necessary to fix the internal factors at the root of the problems and catastrophes" that have crippled virtually every single Arab country."

By the way, Fowler also blamed the expansion of Islamism into sub-Saharan Africa on Israel and dropped dark hints that Canadian foreign policy was currently so pro-Israel because Canadian Jews--who Fowler implies are somehow interlopers in any position of authority in the country--have too much power in the government. Funny how nobody would dare talk about any other religious, racial, or national-origin group that way. Indeed, if the name of any other such community were substituted in a similar speech, the speaker's career would be over.

Returning to the quote above, I admit I liked the "eminent." But the editorial makes the point well. The Arab-Israeli conflict is far less important to the region than it was in the past, it is one of many issues, and it is used as an excuse by regimes who want to change the subject and by Islamist revolutionaries who want to manipulate it to help them seize state power.

One of my favorite Westerns:

Well, not Obama, just an employee with a Jewish name...in an off the record conference call with an unnamed guest list: Obama WH reaches out to Jewish community:

Feel better?

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

Charles Freeman has just taken another step in revealing his out-of-control loathing of Israel, accusing it of being worse than South Africa. Who is he and why is this significant?

It matters because Freeman, with nothing more to lose from making public his true feelings, had been the Obama Administration nominee to be coordinator of Middle East intelligence. Freeman had to withdraw and though the real reason has never before been made public, it is this: he was involved in business with Saudi Arabia which came dangerously close to the borders of legality.

Freeman's connections with China also raised questions.

By the way, note that this gentleman who finds Israel so offensive has never had anything but praise for the Saudi political system and society. Obviously, a country is not like South Africa if it pays you a lot of money but it is like South Africa if a country that hates it is generously rewarding you. For more on this connection, go here

Freeman was also a client of the Saudis to such an extent that then Secretary of State James Baker apparently decided to get rid of him. Baker, who certainly couldn't be accused of being pro-Israel, described Freeman in scathing terms in his own autobiography for always taking the Saudi line in a way that interfered in the effort to force Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990-1991.

Since losing the nomination, Freeman has been more and more hysterical in expressing his hatred of Israel, with strong hints that his attitude extended to Jews generally. The story of how Freeman was kept out of office is an amazing tale of how a handful of bloggers--without support from any group or institution--forced the story into public attention. One day I might tell it to you.

Meanwhile, though, reflect on how things would be if Freeman was in a high administration position and ask yourself what kind of administration would have appointed such a man to a highly influential post. The issue here is not just attitude toward Israel but picking someone who had some questionable associations, a bad record as ambassador, and seems emotionally somewhat unstable as well.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

The widely read Cable, a publication of Foreign Policy magazine, responded to my article about apparent hints that the Obama Administration and its favorite think tank might be involved in pushing the idea of dealing with Hizballah, a revolutionary Islamist group in Lebanon which is terrorist, genocidally-intended toward Israel, and a client of Iran and Syria.

For my original article, see here.

Despite the fact that I was very careful and responsible, accurately quoting the letter I had received, the article's headline was entitled, The nonexistent Obama conspiracy to engage Hezbollah," as if the whole notion was ridiculous. But the only evidence that this isn't happening is a rather unpersuasive, or at least very strange, denial by the project's director.

The author, Josh Rogin, interviewed the head of the project, Thanassis Cambanis, a journalist who is also an adjunct professor (that means he teaches a course) at Columbia University on the story. But guess what? Rogin didn't interview me. Isn't that rather unfair, would you say?

The Flea has a whole bunch of links about a protest at something called "Palestine House" in Canada (much criticized MSM story here).: Palestine House "Security": You need another Holocaust. Yeah, that was one of many offensive things said there. There's a lot more, and video, too.

Palestine House was hosting Abd Al-bari Atwan, editor of the London paper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, who once said, "If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight."

The "Hope" part is that there looks to have been a pretty good turnout of protesters, including a Jewish motorcycle club. I suppose it's sort of sad that we grasp at any straws -- the straw that there are at least a few who show up to say NO to the hate that seeps in from the Old World to the New.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report.]

As I reflect on how U.S. history is being distorted into seeming like one long hate crime, I recall how interesting it is if one really presents it in three dimensions rather than as a cartoon. It can even teach us about contemporary issues.

In the summer of 1876, the U.S. army sent an expedition to fight the Sioux who had left the reservation where they had been forced to live. One of the units sent in this task force was the Seventh Cavalry, commanded by the Civil War hero George Armstrong Custer.

Instead of waiting for the other forces to join him outside the giant encampment whose warriors outnumbered his troops by at least six-to-one, Custer took about one-third of his men and charged. Custer quickly became even more famous for foolishly getting himself and five companies of his soldiers wiped out by the Sioux. This battle at the Little Big Horn river became known as Custer's Last Stand.

But that's not the point of this story.

Among his forces were a number of "Indian scouts," men like Hairy Moccasin, Yellow Robe, and Iron Hawk who knew the ways and languages of the enemy. They were smart enough to warn Custer not to attack. Not only did he ignore their good advice but--luckily for them--angered by their opposition, he sent them off with another part of his force.

Directly, I mean. No proof, just the purported remarks of a "PA official" as reported at INN. Not that far-fetched: Report: Obama Administration Backs Arab Rallies in Jerusalem

In fact, the PA, rather than coming to the negotiating table, is planning another Intifada: Fatah: We want a peaceful intifada

They could have an intifada at the negotiating table, but they've never shown much interest in that. If you're a weak leader that can't deliver anything, letting the streets take over your negotiations is one way of avoiding personal responsibility.

As far as Obama's responsibility, for which there is no proof, it is interesting to consider what advice he may be giving over there. I mean, considering his background as a community agitator, taking it to the streets is exactly the kind of thing that a man of his leftist background would be very comfortable in advocating for.

Via Cinnamon, looks like some UC Irvine students did a good job standing up to their own student council (was it really just Jewish students?). Here's the video:

The back story is here:

Members of a U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement detachment and a visit, board, search and seizure team head back to the guided missile destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) after disabling a suspected pirate skiff in the Indian Ocean on March 31, 2010. The Farragut is deployed as part of Combined Task Force 151, a multinational task force established to conduct anti-piracy operations in and around the Gulf of Aden. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Cassandra Thompson, U.S. Navy.

The Administration screwed up in Honduras. Obama treated that country like dirt in order to curry favor with the worst elements in Latin America, stuck to it long after it was clear it was the wrong path, and is, apparently, STILL, after the climb-down, sticking to it. Observers of the Jerusalem situation should take note.

[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

Now the arrest of the two conflict tourists referred to in this piece does seem to have been ill advised. They were inside Area A when they were nabbed and Israel really shouldn't be sticking its nose in there without a powerfully good reason.

However, I have a couple of points to make about what Noam Sheizaf, the blog's author, has to say about the matter. He's very upset that they are being accused of being critical of Zionism and supporting the Palestinians and concludes that there can be no justification for expelling them on the basis of their political views. And just what are those critical views? Well you can read those of Ariadna Jove Martí, one of the two arrested, here [in Spanish]. It's all you might imagine; Israel is an apartheid state, it is founded on a systematic plan of ethnic cleansing, the IDF was founded on the base of the Haganah, a terrorist organization and plenty more besides. Oh, and she refuses to use Hebrew place names.

Has she the right to hold such views and express them. Absolutely. The crunch question is this, does Israel have an obligation to let her enter its territory (I'm presuming she came to the West Bank through it) with the purpose of propounding those views either in Israel or the Palestinian territories? I would say that it is under no such obligation. I would go further and say that it be would extremely foolish to continue to allow foreigners to abuse tourist visas to carry out activities other than tourism. Pretty draconian, huh?

It might be argued that Israel has no legitimate role with regard to the activities of foreign visitors to areas that are under Palestinian control. Well, as I said, arresting them, once they were there, wasn't a brilliant idea, but Israel sure does have an interest in seeing that the West Bank doesn't fill up with foreign busybodies who are only interested in human rights abuses when they are committed, or alleged to be committed by Jews. These people shouldn't be let into Israel in the first place

So let's hope the two wannabe martyrs are sent packing and that Israel takes more care about admitting people who evidently want to see as rapid an end to its existence as possible.

[The following is a guest post by Chris Noonan Funnell. It's from last year, but holds up today. Written from a Christian perspective.]

About two years ago a magazine arrived with a startling cover picture of a youth thrown back in his chair, alive or dead, I could not tell. He was still seated, interrupted at something which was no longer there on the second floor of a building which only minutes before had the roof and sides torn off by a rocket attack.

A young emergency worker with gloved hands was bending over him and turning toward the camera for help with such a look of helplessness that the picture pulled strongly upon my maternal heartstrings. The beefy young victim, still seated in his chair, where I am guessing, his desk and computer once were, was a dead ringer for my youngest son. I am still hoping the unidentified youth is alive and well though I have no results from my inquiries, but my son, asked me why I keep a picture of "a dead guy" on the wall. I am still wondering what became of that young man who was probably doing what my son would have been doing, using his computer, tuning out sirens and annoying distractions, when a missile sent from Lebanon, tore the roof off his dorm building in Haifa.

Blood trickled down his thick, hairy legs and from his nose. Wearing shorts, socks and t-shirt just like my son often wore, he was covered in fine white dust created by the explosion. He was overweight with a big belly like my son's. He probably had bad eating habits, like my son, spurned his veggies and exercise, loved meat, fast foods and caffeinated soda. The settled concrete dust made him look ghostlike. He was limp but still in one piece, a miracle, sitting in tact, among the rubble of the building around him. Could he be alive but in shock...? Would he ever be normal after such an assault?

I stared at that picture a long time until I was certain it was not my son, after all, my kid was safe at college in Texas. I shot him an email and was not at ease until he answered back later that day.