Wednesday, October 20, 2010
[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.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
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,
"Now it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel."
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.
Continue reading "The Liberal Lynch Mob Comes for the Jews Again"Monday, October 18, 2010
These Won't Help
Nor Will This
What do Alan Dershowitz and Marty Peretz have in common these days? Choose from the following list:
(a) They're both part of the Harvard community
(b) They're both "public intellectuals" (whatever that means)
(c) They're both outspoken
(d) They're both Islamophobes and bigots
(e) They're both obviously Jewish
(f) They're both proudly Liberal
According to the MSM and the university establishment, a through e are correct, but f is now seriously in question by the intellectual powers that be. In almost parallel instances, Peretz and Dershowitz have been cast in the roles of the "Jew among the intellectuals." The common thread that unites the two right now is their staunch defense of the Jewish State, Israel. And for that reason, alone, they have been sent out into the wilderness burdened with their people's guilt.
For decades both have been stalwart standard bearers of Liberalism and the Democratic Party. Peretz, as owner and editor of the venerable magazine, The New Republic and Dershowitz as Harvard's Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, "attorney for the damned" (and occasionally, the well-heeled), have supported Democrat candidates since time immemorial. Both supported and campaigned vigorously for Barack Hussein Obama for President. Their big "L" liberal credentials are long established.
Dershowitz, whose books and speeches in defense of Israel are legion, spends a good part of every presentation on the Middle East conflict establishing his Liberal bona fides ranging from the Civil Rights struggle to women's rights, not to mention the rights of Palestinians to their own state. Peretz has lent his name and money to the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. If this is the case, then what was their unpardonable offense that led to their rapid and precipitous fall from grace?
Both men have fallen prey to the current hysteria and witch hunting of those who would root out any dissenters from the prevailing tyranny of "Islamophobia." and moral relativity. "Jews" (used advisedly) like Glenn Greenwald of Salon and MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters have placed themselves in the vanguard of the Jewish Left which will brook no defense of Israel or dissent from their alliance with Islam.
Peretz has since apologized for his comments of last month:
"But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims,'' He went on to say:". . . I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.''
Sadly, an investigative door was opened by his comments, but quickly shut. Considering the pervasive death cult practiced by many radical Muslims, both of their own lives and the lives of innocents - both Muslim and non-Muslim - the "cheapness" of life among them might have been worth exploring. If it were not for 9/11 and the 16,000 additional terrorist attacks that have occurred since that date, none of us would be having a discussion on the nature of the politico-theology called Islam. And considering recent polls in the Muslim world that show an overwhelming number of adherents favoring strict Shariah Law, his other point about the First Amendment seems particularly valid for discussion. As to whether Muslims should be granted the benefits of our Constitution, he has made this apology:
"I wrote that, but I do not believe that. I do not think that any group or class of persons in the United States should be denied the protections of the First Amendment, not now, not ever. When I insist upon a sober recognition of the threats to our security, domestic threats included, I do not mean to suggest that the Constitution and its order of rights should in any way be abrogated. I would abhor such a prospect. I do not wish upon Muslim Americans the sorts of calumnies that were endured by Italian Americans in connection with Sacco and Vanzetti and Jewish Americans in connection with communism. My recent comments on the twisted Koran-hating reverend in Gainesville will give evidence of that. So I apologize for my sentence, not least because it misrepresents me."
All to no avail. Peretz and Dershowitz now occupy the Ninth Circle of the Left. No matter what apologies are forthcoming, they bear the stain of incorrect politics. And that was evident at a recent book event at Boston's venerable Old South Church at which Dershowitz discussed his novel, The Trials of Zion" along with Palestinian Arab-American, Susan Abulhawa and her novel, "Mornings in Jenin" (whose original title was "The Scar of David" - no kidding). Ms. Abulhawa's presentation quickly descended into a screed against Israel and Jews complete with David Ben Gurion's genocidal comments which have long been exposed as forgeries. No amount of left-wing merit badges could spare Dersh the ire of the crowd. Even when he cited the incontrovertible evidence that the Palestinians' national hero for decades, Haj Amin al Husseini, was an active participant in the Holocaust, urging Hitler and Himmler to murder the Jews even faster than they were doing - the graying, pony-tailed, faux-Jewish crowd were screaming for Dershowitz's blood. In true Stalinist fashion, they tried to silence him, but he gave as good as he got.
But like Van Helsing's garlic or wolfsbane, the magic amulet of correct, left wing beliefs will prove ineffective in warding off antisemitism. It's time Alan Dershowitz realized that he has been expelled from academia's garden of eden. He's fighting the good fight, however as is Marty Peretz.
[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:
"Last August, "CiF Watch" was launched. Its primary aim is to monitor anti-Jewish content appearing on CiF. In November, I accepted an invitation to write for CiF Watch a piece on Peter Oborne's Channel 4 documentary Inside Britain's Israel Lobby and on Tony Lerman's defence of it on CiF."
I can now reveal that, within days of the publication of my critique, I received an email from the Guardian telling me that, if I dared to continue writing for CiF Watch, I would no longer be able to contribute to CiF. It was, I was summarily warned, "an either/or choice".
As Cif Watch noted at the time:
"How childish - but how typical. Remember when they denied Robin Shepherd the right to correct a complete misrepresentation of his book by Tony Lerman?
"Such spiteful, nasty behaviour is typical of the unreconstructed left which is in the ascendancy in the UK at present.
"It is a sign of the Guardian's lack of confidence in their editorial stance - of weakness, not strength. It means that all our other guest posters are also persona non grata with the Guardian."
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.
Continue reading "Professor Geoffrey Alderman disinvited from panel convened to discuss "Conflict in the Middle East""[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:
Continue reading "The Hypocrisies of "Post-Modernism": On Silencing the Israeli Voice"[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."
Continue reading "MSNM to Israel: We're a force of nature, deal with it"[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.
Continue reading "A Worse Life is Waiting for You"Sunday, October 17, 2010
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:
...Later in the day, the president attended a fund-raiser in Newton hosted by Dr. Ralph de la Torre, the chief executive of the Caritas Christi Health Care network, which operates St. Elizabeth's Medical Center and other Catholic hospitals. The event raised $900,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, officials said...
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!)
...A few minutes after we showed up, as we walked toward a group anti-Obama protesters, we were waylaid by some of hist supporters, shouting profanities at us and making fun of my hat. I'm pretty profane myself, so I returned in kind. We argued for a while, with the Deval supporters issuing vague threats and demanding to know where we lived. I grew weary of it and decided to disengage and continue walking toward our compatriots. There's not a lot of point in arguing with people in these sorts of venues. At that point, though, somebody smacked me in the head, presumably trying to knock my hat off. He then ran off. There was a cop right next to me, so I complained that I had just been smacked. The cop asked me if I could describe the guy, so I said "It's the bald guy in the pink shirt holding a Deval sign that just hit me in front of you, and ran off." He grudgingly sauntered off in his direction.
I decided not to make a big deal of it and continued toward my group. It seemed like every single Deval supporter was a bused-in union member holding identical mass produced signs that had been left on the street for them in bulk. My sister overheard some of them talking about how they were being paid $40 apiece to show up and hold signs (apparently they've had a pay cut since the $50 they were paid during the Scott Brown campaign).
I stood next to a friend of mine who was waving the Taunton "Liberty and Union" flag. On my right was another union guy, who kept putting his sign in front of mine. That's fine, as I'm used to that at political rallies like that. What wasn't fine, however, was how he and the people around him kept "accidentally" elbowing me and hitting me with their signs. I told them to cut it out, but they shrugged it off, saying "I can't control the wind." Any time I talked to my friends (usually joking about the impending end of the days of public sector unions suckling at the public teat) or asked the thugs to leave us alone (or regrettably argued with them), they responded by issuing more vague threats like "You'd better stop flapping your gums... or else."...
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,
Reporter: There are rumors going around that you are in fact prone to playing basketball. Our viewers would like to hear your response.
Kobe Bryant: I have no recollection of ever having played basketball but who knows? Maybe I might have done by accident and then forgotten about it. If you could show me some evidence that I've ever played basketball then I'd be pleased to look into it.
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:
In our meetings with the authorities we raised issues of human rights violations that were reported to us. Mr Haniyeh said that if they were provided with specific allegations, they would investigate and report the outcome to us. He also said that any mistakes would be corrected.
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.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
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
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:
Continue reading "CAMERA Conference: War By Other Means: The Global Campaign to Delegitimize Israel"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
The Middle East has long been something of a mystery to Westerners, and in particular, the sexual mores of the region continue to fascinate. Arabs are often described as being in a state of Islam-induced sexual anxiety and young Muslims' frustrations are said to be exacerbated by increasing exposure to the licentiousness of the West. Here, Middle East expert John R. Bradley sets out to uncover the truth about sex in countries like Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Yemen. Among many startling revelations, Bradley reports on how "temporary" Islamic marriages allow for illicit sex in the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia; "child brides" that are sold off to older Arab men according to ancient tribal traditions; the hypocrisy that undermines publicized crackdowns on the thriving sex industry in the Persian Gulf; and how, despite widespread denial, homosexuality is still deeply ingrained in the region's social fabric.
Richly detailed and nuanced, Behind the Veil of Vice sheds light on a taboo subject and unravels widely held myths about the region. In the process, Bradley also delivers an important message about our own society's contradictions.
I also read and enjoyed one of Bradley's previous books, Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis
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.
Friday, October 15, 2010
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:
American Jews for a Just Peace Boston invites you to an important conversation:
Bringing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions to a reality on the grassroots level
Sunday, October 24th
7-9 pm
1762 Beacon St
Brookline, MA 02445-2124
[That's the Workmen's Circle address. -MS]
The evening panel discussion features speakers from Code Pink (Ahava campaign), AJJP Philadelphia (Tribe humus campaign), Jewish Voice for Peace (TIAA CREF campaign) and Adalah NY (several campaigns) to present their initiatives and then there will be a general discussion.
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:
Many Norwegian media channels are today reporting on how one hundred more or less prominent Norwegians have signed a call for boycott of Israel. Communist football coach Egil Drillo Olsen, who works with the national football team, seems to be the designated leader of the pack this time. This will give prominent Israel-basher Dr. Mads Gilbert more time to manipulate the situation up at the hospital of Tromsø, where he is spearheading the resistance against providing the Norwegian army with doctors for the Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan.
In Aftenposten today, communist football coach Egil Drillo Olsen claims: This (boycott of Israel) is in line with what 90 percent of the world's population believes. There cannot be many other opinions then that the occupation is deeply objectionable and illegal.
"Everyone" believes that a boycott is the right strategy? And there "cannot be" many other opinions? This kind of talk sounds familiar.
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:
...There are many anti-Israel groups that did not make the above list. Many of these groups satisfy some but not all of the criteria. For example, there are groups that advance overt anti-Israel positions and organize events in their regions but do not have a national presence, such as Adalah-NY, Neturei Karta and the Middle East Children's Alliance. Similarly, while many individual chapters of the Muslim Student Association (a national organization founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood) organize anti-Israel events, some of its chapters, as well as the national organization itself, are not primarily driven by an anti-Israel agenda. Other groups, like the Council for the National Interest (CNI), the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, have important roles in creating policy and setting anti-Israel agendas but do not organize a significant number of events. Still others have anti-Israel views but also focus on many other issues, such as the American Friends Service Committee, CODEPINK, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
[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:
To thunderous applause he denounced the "Zionist regime" of Israel and said Israel would "disappear".
"The occupying Zionists today have no choice but to accept reality and go back to their countries of origin."
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.
Continue reading "Local UCC Church Hosts Hedy Epstein"[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.
Continue reading "The Vanishing Christians of the Middle East"[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.
or Monthly Archives:
, p.8
