October 2010 Archives

Many think the money is being spent by the Republicans, but the truth is that the Democrats are the big money party, who love to spend people's money without their consent...take union money for instance, which Jeff Jacoby does here: The 'big dog' of campaign spending

Indeed it should. Go ahead and read the rest. Of course whenever AFSCME comes up, I can't help but hearken back to this AFSCME PSA from the 70's, done with audio by a bored voice-over guy (profanity warning):

I watched most of the John Stewart rally yesterday and found it mostly innocuous. It all had that air of superiority feel to it, in other words, nothing unexpected. "Sanity" certainly seems to be defined as something exactly equivalent to liberal orthodoxy. People who wear their patriotism on their sleeves, people who think there are important differences between the parties, these are the people to be scorned. Putting it another way, the whole thing was very low calorie, basically silly stuff. Harmless. In fact I thought Stewart's closing speech was also...basically unobjectionable, as he tried to balance criticism of both left and right. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the people who came to his rally felt a little embarrassed about the signs or t-shirts they had showed up with.

One of the themes of the day's activities was the theme of "don't be mean to Muslims." Fair enough, as though Americans actually need the constant stream of reminders we get in this regard, but OK, whatever.

However, may I humbly point out that if you are trying to make the point that Muslims are just regular folks like us, your poster boy ought not to be Hamas and Salman Rushdie fatwa supporter Yusuf Islam (nee Cat Stevens)? I mean really. Talk about a dissonant note.

He has his own story, denying he supported the fatwa and claiming the Hamas support was a mistake, but you can thankfully see the video and read the transcript of the Rushdie business for yourself. His protests read much more like dancing around the technicalities than anything of substance. It's possible his feelings have "evolved", but it's something he needs to come very clean on with complete candor and honesty.

It takes more than just a wave of the hand from Jon Stewart -- whose judgment I wouldn't trust in these matters anyway -- to fix it.

See also, Roger L. Simon: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: Are They Pro-Islamofascist or Just Stupid?

[The following, by Daniel Greenfield, is crossposted from Sultan Knish.]

As the day of decision draws near, euphoria is sweeping across the ranks of those who have fought so hard to get to this day. There was a time when in the shadow of Obama's victory such a day seemed impossible. When it felt like the left had irreversibly placed its brand on America and that we had been force marched on a road leading down into Socialism. Now it seems as if there might be a way out, but that way out may also be deceptive.

The story of the breakdown of America is not that of one party of evil malefactors smirking and rubbing their hands, while their saintly opposite numbers stand in their path and cry, "Please, have you no shame". That is the narrative that both parties are comfortable with, but it is not the one that tells the story. The Democrats do have the worst of it, because their enthusiastic embrace of machine politics, of character assassination and even treason has made them by far the worst of the two parties. Their fusion of greed and ideology has helped lead to everything from a giant welfare state, to social instability, street riots and socialism. But they could not have done it alone.

And in the next two years, that is an ugly fact that we will begin to rediscover all over again, around the same time Republicans rediscover the joys of bipartisanship, particularly when there's fine pork to be had on the table. An administration without a strong congressional majority tends to be spend more, not less, that is because pork is the price of bipartisanship. When the Democrats took Congress in 2006, the Bush Administration's spending plans rose up. Because the price of bipartisanship is everyone getting a slice of the pie. And a party on the way up, is a party whose politicians are more enthusiastic about getting their share of the pie.

[The following, by Vic Rosenthal, is crossposted from FresnoZionism.]

What's next?

News Item:

A loss of community funds would be a terrible thing. (Previous: Boston Workmen's Circle to Host Another Boycott Israel Event!, and CJP! Stop Giving Money to Boycott Supporting Workmen's Circle!)

They could start by getting Alice Rothchild out of any official position she may hold. From The Jewish Advocate: Workmen's Circle rethinking rental policy after boycott forum

The world's oldest Holocaust Survivor, still playing after all these years:

[h/t: Mal]

A U.S. Marine fires a mortar round during combat operations at Forward Operating Base Nolay, Afghanistan, Oct. 19, 2010. The Marine is from 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 2, which is deployed in support of International Security Assistance Force. (DoD photo by Lance Cpl. James B. Novle, U.S. Marine Corps/Released)

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

The Israeli NGO Gisha - whose stated objective is to "protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents" and uses "legal assistance and public advocacy to protect the rights of Palestinian residents" - recently released a video game called Safe Passage.

Gisha - whose donors include New Israel Fund, the EU, Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Oxfam GB, and (George Soros's) Open Society Institute - is among the NGOs who characterize Israel using apartheid rhetoric. Gisha also, per NGO Monitor:

Boooo!

[The following is crossposted from This Ongoing War, via CiF Watch.]

The Islamic Jihad terror organization announced earlier this afternoon (in a report quoted by Haaretz, as well as by Reuters) that one of its terrorists was killed on what it termed a "Jihadist mission" today - in other words, an attack aimed at Israelis. Islamic Jihad has been behind many of the rocket attacks that have targeted civilians in southern Israel from launching points in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Ynet, quoting Gaza Palestinian sources, says the dead man was 20, and a member of Islamic Jihad's so-called military wing al-Quds Brigades (as if a terrorist organization has wings that are not inherently terrorist).

Just saying.

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

What do most teachers and pupils in Israeli schools know about attacks and massacres against Jews in Muslim states in the 20th century? Nothing. But Israelis seeking a reliable depiction of the past cannot accept the portrayal of Jews as prosperous and happily in Islamic states until colonialism and 'Zionist aggression' ruined the idyll. Zvi Zameret explains in Haaretz why a particularly distorting history textbook giving the 'Palestinian narrative' has been banned in Israeli schools:

Great interview with the British politician and author of The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America:

More on Hannan's background at (and video via) PowerLine.

Hearing these sensible Euros almost restores one's faith in the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Thanks to the publisher for sending along these two very interesting-looking books:

Who Knew?! Unusual Stories in Jewish History

Where's My Miracle? Exploring Jewish Traditions For Dealing with Tragedy

[The following, by Vic Rosenthal, is crossposted from FresnoZionism.]

I thought it was impossible to find anything else to criticize about the self-described 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' J Street, after it was exposed for taking money from anti-Israel sources and lying about it (some of my previous posts on J Street are here), but apparently its perfidy is  bottomless.

J Street has a youth organization, J Street U, "The Campus Address for Middle East Peace and Security." What does it teach American college students about Israel and the conflict?

J Street U has a new National Board President, a Middlebury College senior named Moriel Rothman. Here's how he explains the controversy surrounding the East Jerusalem neighborhoods of Silwan and Sheik Jarrah:

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

("It's the economy, Stupid." - A phrase, made popular by President Clinton's campaign strategist James Carville, referring to the notion that Clinton was a better choice because President Bush had not adequately addressed the economy.)

The significance of my recent post "Almost half of all Palestinians support murdering Jews inside 1949 armistice lines" was, I thought, clear enough.  49% of Palestinians surveyed supported killing Israeli civilians (men, women, and children) within pre-1967 borders. However, I have reason to believe that the significance of this poll eludes many readers.  Let me be clearer, then, on its meaning:

The most tired trope advanced by the mainstream media, and the Guardian in particular, is that "settlements" - referring, of course, to Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria in the aftermath of the Six Day War (Israel's war of defense waged to prevent its destruction) - are the main impediments to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This argument rests on the premise (equation) that "occupation" = conflict and "withdrawal" = peace. However, this equation somehow ignores that results of Israels' unilateral withdrawals from Southern Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005) - disengagements which only led to the strengthening of terrorist movements dedicated to Israel's destruction (Hezbollah and Hamas respectively.)

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

1. In response to my post about Ireland's law of return, a reader who signs himself "lapsedmethodist" asks,

I think that this question reflects a view of history that plagues much commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Those who hold it see the Zionist enterprise as unjust from the outset because it sought and seeks to persuade a great number of people to move somewhere else, to a place where people who are not part of that enterprise already live.

[The following, by Joshua Siegel, is crossposted from Z Word.]

Turkish-Israeli relations have fallen to their lowest point in the months following the flotilla dispatched to Gaza by the pro-Hamas Islamist charity IHH. Joint military exercises have been canceled, Israeli tourism to Turkey has dropped by 90 per cent and Turkish officials have threatened "irreparable consequences" to relations between the two countries. Into this breach has stepped Greece.

Turkey's historic enemy is in many ways a natural replacement for Israel's largest regional ally. Like Turkey, Greece is a NATO member in the eastern Mediterranean. It has influence in the Arab world and ample space for Israel to rehearse essential long range air force drills. And unlike Turkey, Greece is a member of the European Union, Israel's largest trade partner, which last year imported $12 billion of Israeli goods.

Despite the warming of relations at the governmental level, there is a darker underlying reality. In terms of public opinion, Greece is a strongly anti-Israel country, where both antisemitism and pro-Palestinian sentiments are widespread. This is a fact that even Greek Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas noted, albeit reluctantly, on his recent visit to Israel.

Does this man, photographed entering Gaza with George Galloway's Viva Palestina convoy, and described by the press as a "peace activist," look familiar?

He should. He was last seen brandishing a rather impressive-looking knife on board the Mavi Marmara. Great catch by Dave. Read it (and see it), here.

Anyone involved in this Mavi Marmara business should be investigated, and investigated now.

Great event last night in Brookline sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition. An SRO crowd filled the admittedly fairly small hall in the basement (no symbolism intended, I'm sure -- actually better for events than the sanctuary upstairs that I've usually been to) of Kehillath Israel Synagogue to see six Republican Congressional hopefuls discuss the issues.

In attendance were: Jeff Perry, Gerry Dembrowski, Sean Bielat, Bill Hudak, Jon Golnik. Marty Lamb was debating his opponent and sent a proxy who read a prepared statement. Jeff Katz of Rush Radio was the host.

Below are the videos as each candidate took about five minutes to address the crowd, then did a quick answer to a single question. They were all impressive, and each took it in turns to express great affinity for the State of Israel.

FIrst of all, if you thought J Street had learned its lesson about taking funds from people who were clearly no friends of Israel, be assured...they have learned nothing: More J Street Donors Revealed. For instance:

Lenny Ben-David's excellent new expose (with even more) is here: J Street has no shame

Also, there's a nice profile of the Emergency Committee for Israel in the Washington Jewish Week: Group's new PAC targets candidates as 'anti-Israel'

There is much moaning from J Street people featured. This jumped out at me:

Emphasis mine.

If I use the term "Judea and Samaria" as opposed to "West Bank," it tells you something about who I am, where I'm coming from...my politics.

If I describe someone as either "Pro Life" or "Anti-Choice," it likewise tells you something about who I am, where I'm coming from...my politics.

Well, the term Israel-right-or-wrong crowd as used by this J Street official, also carries meaning. It is a term I have only ever heard...ever...by either Israel's harshest critics or outright anti-Semites. I have never heard that term used by a person who could be described as even a fair critic of Israel. (Similar, though not quite identical to the way patriotic Americans are often contemptuously referred to as "America right-or-wrong-types" by many on the far left for whom it seems America can do no right.)

How revealing to hear such terminology used by an official of an ostensibly "pro-Israel" organization. Once again, through their funders, their choice of rhetoric, and the way they deal with people who are, after all, supposed to be on the same side as they, J Street reveals itself as the rapidly irrelevant fraud they have been from the start.

[The following, by Richard Landes, is crossposted from Augean Stables.]

Tom Friedman's latest effort to analyze the "peace negotiations" between Israel and the Palestinian Authority offers some in-depth insight into how superficial much of current Western thinking is on the matter. In it, he expresses some exasperation with Israel's behavior - like a spoiled child - in refusing Obama's request for an extension of the settlement freeze. In the process of laying out his case, Friedman reveals a curious tunnel vision which, I think, is symptomatic of many Westerners.

It's not that Friedman's approach, what I call the PCP1 (Politically Correct Paradigm) is necessarily wrong (which I think it is, at least right now). It's that Friedman clearly doesn't even consider that the other approach, the JHSP (Jihad Honor-Shame Paradigm) might be more accurate for analyzing the situation and devising successful strategies to deal with it (which I think it is, at least right now). And it's not that these paradigms are "scientific" in the sense that one's right and the other's wrong. They're about people and cultures, and therefore much less pre-determined.

My beef with Friedman et al. is not that they hold to the PCP, but that there's no room in their minds for the alternative. And since, if the JHSP is the appropriate one for this case, and you apply strategies based on the PCP, the consequences are far more than simple failure. When post-modern masochism (it's our fault) comes together with pre-modern sadism (it's your fault), the marriage is not a very pretty sight.

As a prelude to fisking Friedman, let's just for a moment, pause to review how differently PCP and JHSP analyze the key issue he treats in this op-ed piece - Israeli settlements on the West Bank. For the Politically-Correct Paradigm (PCP) - which Friedman and the overwhelming majority of the Mainstream News Media (MSNM) channel, as illustrated by Jim Clancy of CNN - they are the obstacle to peace. Settlements beyond the the "Green Line" ('67 border) compromise the "land for peace" formula; they eat away at the land that Palestinians want to create their state side by side with Israel.

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

As noted by a colleague, this story from Ynet, unsurprisingly, hasn't gotten much press in the international media yet. However, the Islamic Jihad website displays photos of recent flotilla's Turkish passengers visiting Gaza and trying on the organization's uniform.

The Viva Palestina 5 ship carrying "peace activists," which docked at the al-Arish port recently, brought along not only humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but also enthusiastic Turks who took advantage of the opportunity to visit local Islamic Jihad members.

In pictures obtained by Ynet, the Turks are seen holding weapons and rocket launchers. While their prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to blast Israel and demand an apology for "state terrorism," two of the guests put on the uniform of the al-Quds Brigades, the Islamic Jihad's military wing.

The pictures from the Turkish delegation's visit were put on the al-Quds Brigades website as part of the coverage of their visit. The guests' face was blurred, but shortly afterwards the photos were removed from the site, most likely for fear that the Turks would be hurt.

Turkish activist holds weapon alongside Jihad gunmen

During their visit to Gaza, the Turkish delegation members visited several Islamic Jihad posts. One of the guests was quoted as telling the group's gunmen that they are "a source of pride for all decent people in the Arab and Muslim world." He defined them as "the forefront of the struggle against the Zionists."

Turkish guests visit Jihad post in Strip

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

Per the South African Zionist Federation:

Apart from noting the extreme and glaring hypocrisy of S. Africans participating in boycotts of Israel as their own country continues to coddle and protect the genocidal leader of Sudan, as Froma Sacks said, in the face of such intolerance, it is incumbent that we continue to "name and shame" those who seek the isolation and delegitimization of the Jewish state.

[The following, by Vic Rosenthal, is crossposted from FresnoZionism]

Today I took part in an event to raise funds to feed hungry people. The sponsoring agency was Church World Service (CWS), founded after WWII by various Christian denominations to help feed the population of devastated Europe.

Participants included members of our local Reform Jewish congregation, many Protestant churches and a mosque. I was assured that the event was entirely non-political, intended only to fight hunger.

Sounds great, and there are certainly plenty of hungry people today in Africa, Pakistan, etc. But when I looked at the CWS website, I discovered that CWS not only fights hunger, but also advocates and lobbies for 'peace and justice'.

Uh-oh. It's a sad state of affairs that these words must set off alarm bells, but they do. And sure enough, here's what I found:

And more: CWS presents with approval a vicious 2009 statement from some Christian Arabs, the "Kairos Document," which begins as follows:

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

1. In a discussion over at Engage in which he offers arguments in support of a boycott of Israel and only Israel, Ran Greenstein says,

I think that's a clear statement of the Gurvitz-Goldman doctrine. This view explains hostility to Jews in general as being explained by the misdeeds of some Jews and it sees correcting the behavior of those Jews as the best solution for antisemitism. Note especially the care taken by Greenstein to say that he thinks this is unfair. He's not in favor of antisemitism, in fact he's against it, but rather than combating beliefs that hold Jews jointly and severally responsible for each others' behavior he embraces the logic of antisemitism by seeking (as he sees it) to correct the behavior of the bad Jews in order to protect the good ones.

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

H/T Israel Matzav

This survey was conducted by Independent Media Review Analysis, and was made possible with the support of the Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung in Ramallah:

No comment necessary:

Another effective election-year ad:

Via The Flea:

More.

Update: Video from the same outfit: Porker of the Month: Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Lies, Damn lies, Statistics and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

...to say. Good grief:

From Seraphic Secret:

It's a simple thing. Those words are about "humility," not church worship.

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

After fifteen years of following the Palestinian Authority (PA) media on a daily basis, I've never seen anything that sums up the problem of why there's no peace better than this cartoon in al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official PA newspaper. If only the Western mass media ran this cartoon the situation would be crystal-clear and nobody would have any doubt who is blocking a peaceful, two-state resolution of the conflict.

In the cartoon, a young boy is being instructed in the Arabic alphabet by the teacher. But even before the letters, the very basis of his world view and knowledge is presented (in his thought balloon) as this: All of Israel must be replaced by Palestine. See the map on the right side of the balloon, remembering Arabic is read from right to left. This goal is presented as the foundation stone, the guiding light, the very basis of Palestinian thought and identity.

Nor is that all. On the desk, his pen has become a slingshot (symbolizing that violent struggle trumps education) with stones.

Not exactly: Hey kids! Stay in school, get a good education, help build a peaceful, prosperous Palestine living as a neighbor to Israel!

Remember, too, this is a PA newspaper. If "President" Mahmoud Abbas wanted to do so, which he doesn't, he could pick up the phone and tell the editor to stop it.

[The following, by Ben Cohen, is crossposted from Z Word.]

Here's a new short film which I wrote and produced, pinpointing a very simple reason why the Middle East peace process has failed to yield results.

I like the part about the current government wanting us to be like the rest of the world instead of the other way around:

Great news. The Emergency Committee for Israel has stepped into the Tierney/Hudak race with another of their hard-hitting ads taking John Tierney to task for his signature on J Street's letter during Operation Cast Lead, criticizing Israel's actions. Here's the ad:

It's hard hitting and it's fair. John Tierney deserves the criticism. He is no great friend, in stark contrast to Bill Hudak.

From ECI:

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

Israel's Law of Return is sometimes held to be racist because it confers the right to citizenship on Jews born outside Israel who may have had no previous connection with it. In posts on this blog I've often made the counterargument that many countries offer privileges to members of their diaspora when it comes to obtaining citizenship and in this regard I've pointed to the example of Ireland, of which I myself am a citizen, and stated that having just one Irish grandparent entitles any good-for-nothing from Buenos Aires or Brooklyn to an Irish passport.

Well, I've now found that while that's perfectly true, the right to citizenship conferred by Irish law on those of Irish blood in other countries is actually much more extensive than I had thought. Have a look at this website - it's an official Irish government website so I think we can take what it says seriously - and in particular note this,

Unless there's something here I don't understand, this would appear to mean that the right to claim Irish citizenship and the condition of citizenship itself don't stop at the one grandparent level. They can be maintained indefinitely by people living overseas who were neither born in Ireland nor have any connection with it other than a single Irish grandparent or great grandparent or great great grandparent or great great great grandparent and so on across the generations.

All they have to do to confer this right on their children is to claim it for themselves before those children are born.

Here's video of her "reversion" announcement (Via IsraellyCool):

Booth is Tony Blair's sister in law, the lying Israel hater who has crossed our pages many, many times before. Speaking of that video, I know I've made fun of her eating habits and size before, even associating her to the StayPuft Marshmallow Man...but holy crap, has she ballooned.

Apparently she had a spiritual experience in Iran, and after all, why should Yvonne Ridley have all the fun? Now she's wicked into Islam, and Islam? Well Islam is just wicked into her: Tony Blair's sister-in-law Lauren Booth converts to Islam after a 'holy experience' in Iran

Formidable scholarship, that.

Dave has more, and Jonathan Hoffman points out that Booth has a history of using her kids as props. Let's hope she doesn't use them in the same manner as the terrorists she so admires.

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

Anyone who has been following the tortured ways of Middle East politics will have detected an important shift: have you noticed that Mahmoud Abbas won't make a decision regarding peace talks with Israel without running to consult the Arab League?

The Arab League told Abbas to suspend the peace talks until Israel had renewed the West Bank 'settlement freeze'. It is plain as day that nowadays the Arab League tail wags the Palestinian dog.

Since the Palestine Liberation Organisation was set up in 1964, the Palestinian cause has always been the ultimate pan-Arab cause, the Palestinians themselves the shock troops of the jihad against the Jewish state. In their charter the Palestinians define themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation; their flag is based on the flag of the Arab Revolt.

With Yasser Arafat in the driving seat, however, the conflict became known as the 'Israel-Palestinian conflict' sometime after 1967 and was reframed, using the language of 'national liberation', as the 'struggle of the Palestinians for their own state'.

The Arab League's renewed involvement in 'peace talks' implies that the Israel-Palestine conflict reverts to being the Arab-Israeli conflict of yore. This development, in turn, should put the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, their recognition and compensation, squarely back on the negotiating table. The Arab side can no longer use the Palestinians as cover, claiming the latter had nothing to do with the expulsion and dispossession of almost a million Jews.

The Arab refusal to accede to Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's core demand that they recognise Israel as a Jewish state has forced the focus back on the Palestinian 'right of return'. Mahmoud Abbas will not acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state because he reserves the right to turn Israel into an Arab state by flooding it with refugees in the future. This too thrusts the Jewish refugees, as the counterpoint to the Palestinian refugees, to the fore in any peace negotiations. The Jewish refugees, most of whom are today Israeli citizens are living proof that the Arab refugee issue can be solved through resettlement and integration.

Here too the Arab League have a key role to play, for it is they who in the 1950s decreed that no member state (except Jordan) must grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees or their descendants. Even if a Palestinian state, with its own Law of return, is set up, the bulk of the responsibility for absorbing Palestinian refugees must rest with the Arab states where they currently live. For the Arab League to abrogate the unjust law depriving Palestinians of local citizenship, and violating Palestinian civil and human rights, would be a good start.

[The following, by Daniel Greenfield, is crossposted from Sultan Knish.]

We talk a lot about Dhimmis and Dhimmification but aside from the generic yielding to Islam, what exactly does a Dhimmi look like?

There's not much point in talking about the average man on the street, bullied into dhimmification by a political and cultural elite. We've talked before about the dhimmi impulse on the left and its cultural impact and we will again. But it's our leaders, the top rank of our nations and civilizations, who have willingly adopted the role of Dhimmi despite being in the power center of mighty nations.

A closer look at the Dhimmi leadership will yield some surprises. These leaders of the Dhimmi class and of our own nations and cultural centers are occasionally left wing, sometimes liberal leaning but generally moderate. While their views may seem liberal to us, that's only because they lack any real views of their own. As the left's culture war has continued to push the center further and further to the left, views that were once liberal, become mainstream. And Johnny Dhimmi is a creature of the center, a true moderate in the sense that he moves with the herd of public opinion while pretending to be its shepherd. As a faithful worshiper of the status quo, Johnny Dhimmi is quick to adapt to whatever the dominant view appears to be.

Johnny Dhimmi may be President of a nation or a college, he may be Prime Minister or an Archbishop, he may be a corporate CEO or an army General. He does however have certain common denominators. He is not particularly smart or particularly honest, but he has mastered two core elements, people and organizations. Johnny Dhimmi is the Peter Principle come to life, promoted well and above his level of incompetence.

In person Johnny Dhimmi is generally congenial but with a sharp sense of humor that usually expresses itself at someone else's expense. He is not successful at any actual job or task, but what he is successful at is networking and making connections and then using them to climb the next step of the ladder.

Your tax dollars at work... Animation produced in 1975 for America's upcoming bicentennial, on behalf of the US Information Agency. Gentlemen, spark your bongs...

Please refer to me as "Mr. Blogger." I've worked so hard to get that title...

[Via Libertarian Leanings.]

Look, he's no friend of Israel, OK? But dayum...Juan Williams' star is shining bright right now. Not everyone gets a chance to be canned by one boss and then immediately go to an even bigger stage and then enjoy instant revenge against same. Is this guy riding high or waht? Here's his Talking Points:

[Via Gateway Pundit.]

Fast-growing sunspot 1112 is crackling with solar flares. So far, none of the blasts has hurled a substantial CME, or coronal mass ejection, toward Earth. In addition, a vast filament of magnetism is cutting across the sun's southern hemisphere. This filament is so large it spans a distance greater than the separation of Earth and the moon. A bright 'hot spot' just north of the filament's midpoint is UV radiation from sunspot 1112. The proximity is no coincidence; the filament appears to be rooted in the sunspot below. If the sunspot flares, it could cause the entire structure to erupt. Thus far, none of the flares has destabilized the filament.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report. His point, that NPR has now stepped over a line in enforcing political correctness even among its ostensible allies on the Left, is well taken. There are two related posts at Power Line. Read the whole things, but here are a couple of snips: A word from Jeff Jacoby - "...Before NPR's disgraceful treatment of Juan Williams, there was NPR's disgraceful treatment of Steven Emerson, one of the world's foremost experts on the threat from Islamist terrorism. In 1998 I learned that NPR -- in response to pressure from Islamist extremists -- had blackballed Emerson from appearing on its airwaves..." and A word from Katherine Kersten - "...At one point, I wrote a commentary about affirmative action; it focused in part onAmerica in Black and White -- Stephan and Abby Thernstrom's then-new book on the subject. Abby told me that the piece would be the kiss of death for me, and I dismissed her warning. But it was accurate..."]

The firing of Juan Williams by NPR is important for a dozen reasons--violation of free speech; a demonstration of NPR's leftist bias; Political (In)Correctness run wild; an insanely ridiculous example of the inability to deal with Islamism, and so on.

But there's one aspect that has not been addressed. The attack on Williams is the first big leftist attack designed to demonize, destroy, and silence a certified liberal. Well, perhaps not the first ever but the first really understood and publicized one.

Up until now, of course, conservatives have been often demonized and, given liberal suspicion of that side of the political spectrum, many liberals have believed it, failing to insist on fair play. Ridicule Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or others, and moderate, traditional liberals will accept it without checking the quotes, listening to the responses, and demanding accuracy. If someone is being wrong, silly, or racist, say so. But first check it out to make sure that's true.

Such caution and care is rare nowadays. A very sober, moderate liberal friend, for example, told me he'd heard that Glenn Beck called for armed insurrection. Anyone who actually listens to Beck (as I have in my research project on the American conservative movement) knows the reverse is true, as he frequently speaks against violence. Whether or not you agree with someone, the same values of research, documentation, and fairness should prevail.

Up until now, however, a lot of people have been happy to see those they didn't like being bashed--fairly or otherwise--without asking too many questions. The same standards of accuracy and fairness should be applied to everyone. Then if you hear that someone said or did something outrageous you know that it's true and not just a smear.

Yet these are precisely the qualities that have declined as all too much of academia and journalism have turned into partisan propaganda rather than a struggle for objectivity and accuracy in the search for truth. Western society depends on this kind of open discussion and reliable watchdog institutions to preserve democracy, come up with the best possible ideas, and maintain civility.

But now due to ideology and arrogance, the left-pretending-to-be-liberals has gone too far. People who have swallowed all of the often-false claims about conservatives--their ideological and political rivals--start to ask questions. Up until now, the majority of moderate liberals have said, in effect, that it didn't matter if "bad" people were treated unfairly.

[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report. I missed posting this a couple of weeks ago, but considering the fact that the Brotherhood has branches right here in the United States, the importance of the matters Rubin discusses here cannot be overemphasized.]

This is one of those obscure Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don't fit their policies; and by experts, because they don't mesh with their preconceptions.

This explicit formulation of a revolutionary program makes it a game-changer. It should be read by every Western decisionmaker and have a direct effect on policy because this development may affect people's lives in every Western country.

OK, enough of a build-up? Well, it isn't exaggerated. So don't think the next sentence is an anticlimax. Here we go: The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has endorsed (Arabic) (English translation by MEMRI) anti-American Jihad and pretty much every element in the al-Qaida ideology book. Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition force in Egypt and Jordan as well as the most powerful group, both politically and religiously, in the Muslim communities of Europe and North America this is pretty serious stuff.

By the way, no one can argue that he merely represents old, tired policies of the distant past because the supreme guide who said these things was elected just a few months ago. His position reflects current thinking.

Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.

But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.

[Boston Jewish Community Relations Council Executive Director Nancy Kaufman has been a controversial figure for some time. Back in June, I took a turn from my usual policy and openly called for her removal when I felt she had gone to a level that was openly damaging to the interests of the Jewish Community whose interests she is supposed to represent (see: When Rabbis Attack: The Fallout -- JCRC Needs New Leadership). Recently it was announced that Kaufman would be moving on from the JCRC (a coincidence I am sure). Charles Jacobs, in his Jewish Advocate column this week, has a look back at that particular corner of the establishment that's well worth reading in full below. I expect the Advocate's editors will be hearing it in more than full from Kaufman's supporters.]

Shift course at JCRC by Charles Jacobs

After 20 years of heading Boston's Jewish Community Relations Council, Nancy Kaufman is resigning her position. Will this mark the beginning of a new vision for the JCRC?

Kaufman was for these two decades a dedicated and passionate activist for her causes. She made significant contributions to enhancing the welfare of the needy in the Jewish community as well as those in the larger Boston community. But politically, as is well known, she stubbornly clung to left side of the house, even as much of the left turned cold - or worse - on Israel, and even though Boston's Jews have become politically more diverse.

Over these last 20 years, while the situation for Jews here and around the world deteriorated in significant ways, the JCRC, like most of the mainstream Jewish organizations guided by outdated paradigms, failed to adapt.

Times have changed. Anti-Semitism has morphed. In the West, Jews are hated today not because of our religion or our race, but because of the Jewish state. Religion-based Muslim anti-Semitism, which chased almost all Jews from the Islamic world, is increasingly metastasizing into the West. Among the opinion elites of academia and media, Israel is opposed, defamed, despised and organized against.

On the other hand, conservatives rally in droves to Israel and support efforts against Islamic terrorism, which - from the Jewish Federation in Seattle to the Chabad House in Mumbai - frequently targets the world's Jews. Consistent poll data shows that Republicans are reliably more pro-Israel than Democrats; and through their rejection of replacement theology, many Christian Evangelicals now truly and fervently consider the Jewish people their brothers and feel dutybound to protect Israel. In this environment, American Jews are more and more responding to the conservative movement and abandoning the left. In Boston, the Jewish political shift has been even more pronounced because of the large Russian Jewish immigrant community, which is decidedly suspicious of the leftist ideology they fled from.

And this is why there is no real peace process. The problem is not structural (elections, security forces, police...), it's cultural. The culture is simply not there to support a serious peace.

Here's the latest evidence from Palestinian Media Watch: PA TV airs clip honoring terrorists seven times in three days

No need for me to rehearse it, it's all over the place. Hypocritical leftist political correctness caught up with Juan at last. I just had to link to, and post the conclusion of Williams' statement, posted at Fox News: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth

Williams has done lonely yoeman's work as one of a select number of people bringing a left of center perspective to Fox News with a smile, and this is the thanks he gets from his overlords on the totalitarian left.

Can we please de-fund NPR now? Pretty please? Can we also ditch the special deal they get for FM broadcast licenses? There is absolutely no excuse, no need for any continued public funding or special privileges for public broadcasting. There never really has been. Ditch it. Like it? YOU pay for it. Enjoy the fund-drives.

[The following, by Richard Landes, is crossposted from Augean Stables.]

For those who bother to hold the Arabs and Muslims to basic standards of consistent reasoning, it's something of a standing joke how they at once deny the Holocaust and then accuse Israel of acting like Hitler did (not). What lies behind such rhetoric is the demopath's logic: you want to commit another genocide against the Jews, but the (Western) people you want to gull into letting you, into siding with you, could not possibly support you openly.

So you first deny that the Holocaust happened (take away from the Jews the protection that guilt over the Holocaust has gotten them), and then you demonize the Jews for engaging in Nazi-like behavior, in order to make them worthy of being wiped out.

But these days, it's so easy to gull the dupes, that demopaths no longer even bother to hide their agendas. They can count on Westerners to ignore the evidence. It's been like that ever since William Orme dropped the genocidal incitement from his article on incitement as an element in the intifada back in 2000.

Now view this talk given by Yigal Carmon of MEMRI, delivered at the UN. (Was anyone listening?)

Sit back and enjoy, courtesy of Power Line:

Last night I attended a public forum on the subject of America's policy toward Israel given by Congressional candidate Bill Hudak. The event was held at the Christian Renewal Church in Beverly, MA. Let me tell you, the just under fifty people who attended were in for a real treat as Hudak held forth without reference to his notes for just over twenty minutes, then proceeded to patiently take questions and then hang around afterward spending time with anyone who wanted to continue the discussion.

Let me sum it up for you: This guy is good. He is a real friend of Israel who believes America's interests and Israel's interests are directly in sync (in direct contrast to J Street's man, the corrupt and arrogant incumbent, John Tierney). Their enemies are our enemies, feels Hudak. Below you will find the video of the talk itself. I may also follow on with video of the question and answer in a later post. Do yourself a favor, especially if you're in the district, and watch this. He gets it on terrorism, he gets it on the peace process, he gets it on Iran. He gets it.

Let me note, and note in bold face, that though I understand that invitations were extended to every Rabbi on the North Shore, not a single one bothered to attend.

Bill Hudak needs your help. Money is life. Money is real change. Bill Hudak Moneybomb. Hit it if you have the means. This man needs our help. This man deserves our help.

Also, from a different angle, David Moldau was there and has posted his video, here.

Simple questions. Should Americans, like Code Pink, who were involved with the Gaza Flotilla be investigated? Also, what is the Democratic Socialists of America?

Far-left Democrat Jan Schakowsky refused to answer, while her Republican challenger, Joel Pollak, was eager to answer:

Video from Founding Bloggers, via Gateway Pundit.

These should be easy questions for an incumbent pol at a Jewish sponsored event. They were for Joel.

Related video from Marathon Pundit: Schakowsky refuses to answer questions about Soros, constitutionality of ObamaCare

[The following, by Daniel Greenberg, is crossposted from Sultan Knish.]

The ADL just honored Rupert Murdoch who delivered a speech mentioning Jabotinsky. At the Huffington Post, David A Love demands to know "Why would a prominent civil rights organization -- one which is supposedly dedicated to fighting bigotry and discrimination -- present an award to a man whose cable network profits from race-baiting and hatred?"

But the question could just as easily be asked of Love himself, who blogs at a left wing site that profits from race-baiting and hatred-- directed against Jews. In his speech, Murdoch stated,

Love then goes on to prove Murdoch's point by making a series of false claims about Israel, describing Netanyahu's Likud-Labor coalition as "hard-right" and accusing him of promoting gender segregation and criminalizing political opposition. Then David A. Love suggests that the ADL only honored Rupert Murdoch, because he has "deep pockets". Because you know money is the only thing Jews care about.

The lynching of Leo Frank is invoked by Love to argue that the ADL has strayed from its roots by supporting Republicans. But let's remember who the Knights of Mary Phagan, who organized the lynch of Leo Frank, really were. Joseph Mackey Brown was a Democrat. Eugene Herbert Clay was a Democrat. E.P. Dobbs was a Democrat. But not just any Democrats. They were former Mayors and Governors. Prominent Democrats.

Then there was Senator Thomas Watson, who would be blogging at Huff Po is he were still alive today. As there wasn't any such thing then, he had to resort to rags like The People's Party Paper. Watson was an anti-war and civil rights activist, and a supporter of the "working man", who proved to be too progressive even for the Democrats. He campaigned against "the moneyed class" and for high taxes. He denounced one opponent as "the Corporation Candidate for Governor", a familiar Democratic line of attack today. And Watson's screeds about Jewish power are all too typical of the hate spewed by by the radical left today. And they helped lead to Leo Frank's lynching.

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

Earlier in the year, Matt Seaton, who, at the time, was the editor of "Comment Is Free" (now editor of CiF America), threatened to outlaw Guardian contributor Professor Geoffrey Alderman if he continued to write for CiF Watch. As Alderman related, shortly after penning the piece for CW he received an email from the Commissars threatening to cast him to the wind:

As Cif Watch noted at the time:

This is the context that makes the recent decision, by the Director of the Belfast Festival, to disinvite Alderman from a discussion on the Middle East assume even greater relevance.

[The following, by Richard Landes, is crossposted from Augean Stables.]

One of the more striking lunacies of our day is the way that the Left has adopted the totalistic discourse of the Palestinians and decided that even allowing Israelis to defend themselves is a violation of their principles. As a result we get the ludicrous monopoly of "debates" about the Arab-Israeli conflict by anti-Zionist Arabs and anti-Zionists Jews.

In principle, the post-modern approach is to open oneself up to many (all?) narratives. Unfortunately, when one opens oneself to pre-modern totalistic narratives (what, again in principle, the pomos reject as "grand narratives") one ends up shutting down the very openness and tolerance that supposedly animates the whole enterprise.

Three recent examples illustrate the phenomenon:

[The following, by Richard Landes, is crossposted from Augean Stables.]

The latest developments from Silwan, and a brilliant spoof on the MSNM by Latma (below) prompt me to report a conversation I had last summer with a journalist who is the Middle East Correspondent for a major Western news outlet. I was speaking to him about my concern that the MSNM had behaved very badly over the previous decade, much to the detriment, not just of Israel but of the West and societies that try and guarantee the freedom of speech and the press. In particular I emphasized the skewed epistemology whereby they treated Palestinian claims as true until proven false, and Israeli claims as false until proven true, and when the evidence eventually favored the Israelis, they tended to fall silent.

His response was that Israeli complaints (whining) about the media being unfair is like a general who complains about rain on the field of battle. I didn't bother pursuing the point that in no case does the rain only fall on one army alone. What interested me more was the implication of this (repeated) comment, namely that he (and apparently many others) saw the media as a force of nature, an unalterable force, immune to reason or rebuke. They would just do their thing, and let the Israelis deal with it.

I think that some of this comes from an attitude of sympathy towards the underdog. Bob Simon, in treating the Al Durah story, commented that "in the Middle East, one picture can be worth a thousand weapons." Over time, a number of journalists (off the record) agreed with the formula: "The Israelis have all the weapons, so why not let the Palestinians have the PR victory? It's a way of leveling the playing field."

[The following, by Daniel Greenfield, is crossposted from Sultan Knish.]

Prince Charles recently visited a Mumbai shantytown and praised its "sustainability" in which residents recycle their waste and build their own homes out of whatever materials come to hand. There is of course a word for this form of "sustainability", it's called grinding poverty.

But Charles' attitude is typical of the dementia of the left, which confuses poverty with moral superiority. But the idealization of poverty is the liberalism of fools. The left started out by claiming that materialism provided a saner perspective on human existence, yet the left is abandoning even that in the pursuit of some New Age notion about moral superiority emerging from misery and deprivation. The left once denounced such thinking as cruel and superstitious. Now it is embracing it wholesale, and urging Westerners to use the Third World as a model for how to live.

The left has gone past the idea that their campaign is to improve the lives of the poor, by reorganizing the mechanisms of wealth distribution, to a call to keep the poor in their place, and for everyone else who isn't an entitled environmental activist with a busy schedule of promoting cardboard housing, to join them in that state. Going from materialism to anti-materialism, the left is reaching a pitch of inhuman insanity that even the most radical socialists would not have recognized.

So what else is new?

The President was in town yesterday to campaign for incumbent Democrat Governor Deval Patrick: Obama rolls in to stump for Patrick, In Massachusetts, an Obama appearance is not yet considered the kiss of death, apparently, though it didn't work out well for Martha Coakley. But really, it's about elitist fund-raising, not voter excitement. I thought this tidbit from the article was interesting:

See? Actually, big medicine likes big government.

Anyway, on with the show. Uncommon Sense was outside the big Boylston Street event, and he has quite a story to tell: Obama's appearance for Deval: An ugly scene (now with violence!)

How bad did it get? Like this (Profanity Warning):

Much more description of events here. And photos and video at the following posts: Video of Deval's Union Supporters Attacking Tea Partiers, More Complete Video of Deval Supporter Attacking Tea Partiers and Photos of Deval's Union Goons that Attacked Us.

The victims are looking in to making an ID, and seeing if the guy in the video was a union guy.

Edward Wagner has a good Facebook gallery of photos of the event, here, though you need to be a friend of his to see it.

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

1. Imagine you came across an interview with Pope Benedict XVI in which one of the questions put to him concerned claims that he was a Roman Catholic and practiced the rituals of that church. What would you make of that?

Let me try another example. You switch on your favorite sports channel on TV and you witness the following exchange,

In both cases you'd wonder if you hadn't slipped down a wormhole into some some sort of parallel universe. Everyone knows that the Pope is indeed a Catholic and that Kobe Bryant is a professional basketball player, it wouldn't occur to any sane person to ask them if this was true and it wouldn't occur to either of them to deny it.

2. Now consider Mary Robinson. She's a former President of Ireland and a former UN High Commissioner for Refugees. She is also a person of outstanding intellect and was appointed to a professorship of law while still in her twenties. These days she's a member of the The Elders. This is not a folk-rock group from the 60s. It's a group of retired international politicians and civil servants which believes that it can make a contribution to the resolution of conflicts and Robinson is currently in Gaza in its behalf.

3. The Elders website quotes her as follows:

All that intelligence and experience and she doesn't realize that asking Haniye about human rights violations is every bit as absurd as asking Pope if he's a Catholic or Kobe Bryant if he plays basketball. The very essence of Haniye and Hamas is the denial of human rights. They want to cleanse Israel of Jews and replace it with an Islamic state. They hold power in Gaza as a result of a bloody coup. They are morally and materially supported by Iran, a state whose president only a few days ago repeated his desire to kick the Jews out of Israel. They are open and frank about their beliefs and political ambitions.

And Mary Robinson raises questions of human rights with them and calmly swallows their answers.

Starting as a radio serial in 1929, "The Goldbergs" became an early television "sitcom" in 1949, migrating through several networks until its ultimate end in 1956. This episode, like most available on the web, is one of the later ones, after the family has moved out of New York City and into the suburbs.

It's fascinating watching this ethnic programming and considering what a large portion of network time it must have occupied in the days before 100 cable channels.

The internet archive has a number of episodes available (mostly the suburban Goldbergs), as well as a collection of earlier audio. The UCLA film archive has a DVD containing all 71 restored episodes known to exist at a very reasonable price.

(Comments should now be working, sorry about that. I thought I had reactivated them when I came back to blogging, but I had forgotten to flip one of the switches.)

Last Sunday and Monday I attended CAMERA's excellent conference held at Boston University, "War By Other Means: The Global Campaign to Delegitimize Israel". It was like a whole season of good speakers crammed into one two day event. Thanks to the CAMERA folks for the balcony seats. It was also nice seeing Neo-Neocon again, as well as all the other faces, familiar and new, I've come into contact with through this site. Neo did her own write-up of the event here. It was also nice seeing the usual anti-Israel suspects protesting out front. We had some of the old lefty-guard, with some of their Arab friends and the local chapter of 'Students for Just Us in Paleostine'. They were out literally beating on drums and blowing horns. It was quite a show and carried the benefits of annoying passers-by, giving us something to laugh about in the check in line and serving as a reminder of why we were there.

I feel guilty that after CAMERA's hospitality I didn't blog at all about the event outside of a few tweets, so below you'll find pasted CAMERA's own event wrap-up. There was a very entertaining (in a political blood-sport sort of way) confrontation between Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips that would be well worth blogging, but it's just not the same without video, unfortunately.

Dershowitz, to his credit, went after J Street hard during his remarks. Later, Melanie Phillips gave her usual terrific commentary, though, as is her style, she took a right-of-center perspective on things, criticizing, for instance, the cults (my term) of global warmingism and scientism. Too much for Dershowitz, he begged special privilege for the first question during the Q&A (questions were done on cards) and went after Phillips for her "radical right-wing views" -- useful for showing both left and right were in attendance, yet at the same time a bit rude to so confront another speaker in that manner. Phillips had her say in reply (eloquently as could be expected) and that was that. With luck, video will emerge, though I suspect the CAMERA folks will wish it down the memory hole.

By the way, as Neo reminds me, did you know the holidays are coming? Did you see the Amazon links in the sidebar and elsewhere? Did you also know that if you do some shopping through Amazon using those links that anything you buy will result in me getting a cut without it costing you a penny extra? Did you further know that Amazon.com Gift Cards make a wonderful stocking stuffer or Thanksgiving place-setting give-away?

Below is CAMERA's event wrap-up. I am not going to put the entire thing in a quote box for ease of reading's sake:

I've received a review copy of John R. Bradley's Behind the Veil of Vice: The Business and Culture of Sex in the Middle East. Looking forward to reading this one:

I also read and enjoyed one of Bradley's previous books, Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis and still highly recommend it.

Bradley had touched on sexual matters in that book as well, particularly Saudi Arabia's schizophrenia where homosexuality is concerned (a complete prohibition on intersex public affection leaves a great deal of room for public same-sex displays), so I expect his latest will be equally interesting in that regard.

Because the first one just wasn't enough (see: CJP! Stop Giving Money to Boycott Supporting Workmen's Circle!).

This time, Workmen's Circle will be playing host to a national BDS event:

Unacceptable. Unacceptable for a group that wants to maintain a seat at the community table, unacceptable for a group that receives community money.

Their dodge is that they are simply providing the space, not officially sponsoring the event, nor does the Workmen's Circle take a position on the BDS movement. This is obvious nonsense. First, because arch-anti-Israel activist Alice Rothchild is a Wormen's Circle official. Second because one can rightfully question therefore whether WC takes any responsibility whatsoever for those it lends its space to. Do they have no limits? Will they simple give or rent space to whoever asks for it? Anyone? One would hope not.

They are responsible for knowing who's in their own basement, and we should be responsible for knowing who's in ours, and it's Workmen's Circle.

[The following, by Ben Cohen, is crossposted from Z Word.]

Our friends over at NIJ report the following:

The boycotters will doubtless [trumpet] the fact [that] the coach of a national soccer team has joined their ranks, but let's also remember that Norway is hardly a soccer power. Whether it's the World Cup or the European Championship, they tend not to even qualify. It's not like Vicente del Bosque has donned a keffiyeh.

At the same time, I have to ask where UEFA, the governing body of European football, is in all this. Israel, which plays soccer at the club and national levels in Europe because of the Arab boycott, is a member of UEFA. Is Olsen saying that he would refuse to field his side in the event that they were drawn against Israel? Sounds to me that's exactly what he's saying.

UEFA needs to take disciplinary action. Readers who wish to politely encourage them to do so should contact them here.

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

1. If and when Iran acquires nuclear weapons the avoidance of nuclear war between it and Israel, the country it seeks to destroy, will depend on Israel having a second strike capability. That means that it must have the capacity to suffer a nuclear attack and still be able to inflict a terrible retaliatory blow. If it has this capacity then it has less motivation either to mount a conventional attack on Iran designed to prevent or delay its acquisition of nuclear weapons or, once these weapons have been acquired, launch a preemptive nuclear attack designed to prevent them being used and permanently end Iran's capacity to threaten its security.

2. Given Israel's small size and the inherent vulnerability of static, land-based, launch systems submarines are the key to maintaining a second strike capability and that's why Israel is currently engaged in a considerable expansion of its submarine fleet. Being able to keep at least one of these vessels close enough to Iran to launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles against it means that even if an Iranian nuclear attack were to lay waste to Israel it would still be able to inflict immense damage on Iran in retaliation. None of these are pretty thoughts but thinking them is essential for avoiding nuclear war.

3. Norway recently announced that it would no longer allows its facilities to be used by Germany and Israel for the deep water trials of the two new submarines the former is building for the latter. No doubt another location will be found to carry out the tests but that's beside the point. There can't be any human rights argument for Norway's decision as the submarines could have no impact (apart from protecting them from nuclear annihilation by deterring an Iranian attack) on the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. By denying Israel and Germany facilities for testing the submarines Norway is making it more difficult for Israel to maintain a second strike capability and thus - in objective terms and regardless of whatever explanations it might choose to offer for its decision - favoring an Israeli decision to launch a preemptive strike, either conventional or nuclear, on Iran.

Good list. I'm glad to see the ADL lending its credibility to the naming and shaming of some of these groups. Considering the number of times the local JVP representative gets a letter in the local Jewish newspaper, and the mainstreaming of Boston Mosque operators, the Muslim American Society, it's good to have a mainstream/left organization of their stature doing so: The Top Ten Anti-Israel Groups in America.Here's the list:

• Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)
• Al-Awda
• Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
• Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA)
• If Americans Knew (IAK)
• International Solidarity Movement (ISM)
• Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)
• Muslim American Society (MAS)
• Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)
• US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO)

Each has its own report at the ADL site. Some familiar names didn't make the cut, for various reasons:

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

There's a school of thought, if I may so dignify it, that holds that there's nothing racist or fundamentally objectionable about anti-Zionism because opposing Zionism just means being opposed to a political system. The collapse of the Soviet Union is often proferred in this context as an example of one political system being replaced by another. "So what's the problem?" they say, "After Zionism is defeated all the people currently resident in what is now Israel and the Palestinian Territories will be able to live together in peace and equality".

Happily, some anti-Zionists are more honest. One of them is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. The BBC reports part of a speech he made in south Lebanon today as follows:

That seems pretty clear but no doubt the good Jews over at +972 - and those of like mind outside Israel - will find a way to parse it into meaning something completely different: that it really only refers to the settlers on the West Bank, that it won't apply to good Jews or that it's actually a complex joke based on a 12th century Persian poem and that the BBC's translators are all working for Mossad.

[Hedy Epstein is making the rounds again. Billed as a "Holocaust Survivor," Epstein is more correctly a "Holocaust Era Survivor" who left Europe before the war as a child and never spent time in the camps. This in contrast to the thousands of tattooed Israelis, real survivors, continuing to fight for their lives from war's end to the present day against people who would still round them up. These are the survivors Epstein, whose real religion is a radical political ideology, not Judaism, has dedicated her life to denouncing. Christianity has a long and sordid history of finding a renegade Jew willing and eager to curry favor by denouncing their [former] fellows and using them as a tool of anti-Semitism. These are Jews whose only virtue lies in their utility as a bludgeon against the community they have alienated themselves from. Pilgrim Church in Duxbury should be ashamed of resuscitating this atavistic practice. -MS]

[The following, by Dexter Van Zile, is crossposted from CAMERA's Snapshots.]

Pilgrim Church of Duxbury, part of the United Church of Christ, will be hosting a talk by Hedy Epstein on Oct. 24. The talk, which is open to the public and scheduled to begin at 11:15 a.m., is billed in the church's October newsletter as giving listeners "new insight to the conflict in the Middle East."

Hedy Epstein is a German-born Jew who escaped from pre-Holocaust Europe in 1939. She rode on a child transport trip to Great Britain. Her family died at Auschwitz. She was a researcher for the prosecution at the Nuremburg Trials.

Today, she is a supporter of the Free Gaza Movement, a group that has worked to demonize Israel and undermine Israel's blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Hamas is an inheritor of the Jew-hatred that forced Epstein to flee Germany in 1939.

[The following, by Daniel Greenfield, is crossposted from Sultan Knish.]

The Synod of Bishops for the Middle East is meant to address the decline of Christians in the Muslim world. The reason for the decline is obvious. It is the willingness to discuss that reason which is at issue.

Christians in the Middle East are a minority in a Muslim region. Even the more moderate Muslim countries, such as Egypt, marginalize Christians and routinely deprive them of basic civil rights. Egypt is an American ally and nearly 10 percent of the country is Christian, yet that 10 percent live as second-class citizens, discriminated against and constantly subject to violence.

Meanwhile growing Muslim migration into Europe raises questions about the future of Christianity even in the West. If Christians are denied basic civil rights even in moderate Muslim countries, what will their fate be if France and Germany go the way of Byzantium? The fact that Christians do not generally enjoy equal rights in the Muslim world, suggests that they would also not enjoy such rights in Eurabia. The root of the problem lies in Sharia, Islamic law, which treats non-Muslims and women as second-class citizens.

[The following, by Vic Rosenthal, is crossposted from Fresno Zionism.]

Daniel Levy is one of the co-founders (with Jeremy Ben-Ami) of the phony pro-Israel organization J Street. He took part in a panel discussion called "The Future of Palestine: in Search of Alternatives," which seems to have taken place this May in Doha, Qatar.

Following is a short (2 minute) video clip in which Levy says two notable things:

One is that the creation of Israel was an "act that was wrong", although it was "excused" for Levy by "the way Jewish history was in 1948," apparently a reference to the Holocaust. And he adds that "there is no reason for a Palestinian to think that there was justice in the creation of Israel." This is perhaps reminiscent of Ahmadinejad's comment that the Palestinian Arabs should not be made to suffer for the mistreatment of the Jews in Europe (although maybe it didn't happen).

The other is that murderous Arab violence is normal, if ill-advised. "It's a human reaction, when a foot is held to your throat, to respond violently," says Levy. But "it's not the most strategic thing to do always, it's not the most effective thing." Just like Mahmoud Abbas, who cannot bring himself to criticize the murder of Jewish children on any but practical grounds, Levy seems to be lacking in moral sense.

Watch the video and then decide if J Street -- which, incidentally, denied that Levy had said what he said and provided a cropped video as proof (really) -- can be called a pro-Israel organization.

And then ask yourself what Daniel Levy should be called.

Following is video of a talk I attended given by Swedish artist Lars Vilks a week or so ago. The talk was sponsored by the International Free Press Society and local Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, who perhaps will relate the tale of the security hurdles he had to jump over to bring Vilks to town.

Vilks' sketch resulted in the now to be expected round of death threats, but also arson, assault, and round the clock security not to be believed.

He began by discussing Kant, and his feeling that the role of the artist is to push and test and find the limits...to be a professional pain in the ass, in other words. Unlike the usual annoying artist however, who lashes out at easy targets -- Christians, conservatives, George Bush, Israel... Vilks actually tested the limits with global Islam, and guess what? He found a limit.

And by doing so, he exposed as cowards and hypocrites all those so-called brave souls in the art community who left him to hang by himself.

During the talk, Vilks refers to events shown in the video in this post.

Video quality is spotty. Vilks was giving a presentation in front of a projector screen, so he is dark much of the time, and his accent may be difficult to understand, especially in the echoing room, but here it is. Here are all six parts in one playlist:

In the extended entry are all six individual parts (the video embeds slightly larger).

The Boston Workmen's Circle is at it again. Last Monday they hosted a training session run by Jewish Voice for Peace on how to undermine Israel. Here's the announcement:

Alice Rothchild is a long-time public Israel hater. She also happens to be a Workmen's Circle official while also a co-chair of a group serving as a US arm of the "Jewish Boat to Gaza".

Perversely, Workmen's Circle is a member of the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) with a say in policy (as is J Street, but that's another story). They also receive Jewish communal funds through Combined Jewish Philanthropies. This ought to stop. There must be a zero tolerance policy with regard to organizations that provide aid and comfort to the Jewish boycott.