by chillul Who? · Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
A little late, but we’re still pre-inauguration…
Remember the persistent media meme during the U.S. elections, how Israelis supported McCain by a three-to-one margin, how if Israel were the 51st State it would glow a deep and bloody red?
Lisa Goldman at On The Face provides some… um… actual numbers about Israeli opinion. Apparently the networks were oversampling the Nationalist-Religious sector – which despite making up a good portion of the American expat-oleh community, is still not representative of Israeli political leanings on the whole.
by Kung Fu Jew · Sunday, June 29th, 2008
Profiled in all his ugliness in The New Yorker this week: Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is the third richest man in America, a huge funder of birthright israel, Bush’s election campaigns, the ZOA, the Republican Jewish Caucus (check out the new RJC Watch blog, by the way), One Jerusalem, AIPAC…the list goes on. You’re looking at the sugardaddy-Godfather of American (Jewish) right-wingery here.
More »
by Kol Ra'ash Gadol · Sunday, February 17th, 2008
Well, no, not really,but he does claim that waterboarding isn’t so bad, because “the person is in no real danger.” He voted Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would limit the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual which does not include waterboarding, as a permitted interrogation technique. I guess he knows better than the army.
The Conn Post reports:
“We are at war,” Lieberman said. “I know enough from public statements made by Osama bin Laden and others as well as classified information I see to know the terrorists are actively planning, plotting to attack us again. I want our government to be able to gather information again within both the law and Geneva Convention.”
In the worst case scenario — when there is an imminent threat of a nuclear attack on American soil — Lieberman said that the president should be able to certify the use of waterboarding on a detainee suspected of knowing vital details of the plot.
RRRRRRright. Except of course for the problem is that the best evidence is that torture does not actually give good information. To the contrary, all the best evidence is that torture does not provide good evidence. But let’s ignore that fact, shall we? Torture is not part of the Geneva convention, and furthermore, even if it were that wouldn’t be an acceptable reason for using it. Um, also, we’re not at war. But if we were, that is precisely, davka, the time when our worst impulses need to be reigned in by the rule of law. It’s not biggie to refrain from doing what one ought not at a time when there’s no pressure.
Here’s the best line of the article though, “Lieberman said that his position on waterboarding differs from that of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who he has endorsed as a presidential candidate. As a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, McCain was tortured. McCain, he said, believes waterboarding is torture.”
So, let me get this straight, McCain, who has experienced this torture, calls it torture, but you, who have not, are okay with contradicting him? Well, okay. As long as we’re clear on it.
Also see here.
Could you please stop telling people you’re religious? It embarrasses me.
by chillul Who? · Friday, February 8th, 2008
Reports of religious impropriety in today’s U.S. military appear with the regularity of abuse reports from Rubashkins meat plants. Unlike the Agriprocessors scandal, however, the problem of Evangelical Christian influence in places like the U.S. Air Force Academy has attracted little Jewish attention and less organized response, except from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, retired J.A.G. Michael Weinstein.
The latest issue exposed by the MRFF is the invitation of three Arab converts to Christianity to speak at a weeklong conference on terrorism organized by cadets at the Air Force Academy. The three speakers, Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani, claim to be reformed Islamist terrorists and “have appeared numerous times on Fox News Channel, The 700 Club, the Pastor John Hagee program and other venues in which they engaged in embellished stories of their conversion from Islam to Christianity, extolling its virtues and the wholesale denigration of Islam and its followers,” according to the MRFF’s Richard Baker.
The Academy’s official story, on the other hand, as related by spokesman Brett Ashworth to a NY Times reporter, is that “the three were invited because ‘they offered a unique perspective from inside terrorism,’… [and that] the conference is to result in a report on methods to combat terrorism that will be sent to the Pentagon, members of Congress and other influential officials.”
There must be individuals out there with more reliability than Shoebat, Saleem, and Anani who can provide that kind of perspective, however, considering that experts who have heard them speak have serious doubts about the stories they present: More »
by Danya · Thursday, October 11th, 2007
Not like we ever expected much from this woman, but come on. This is really off the hook, even for her.
Editor and Publisher reports,
Appearing on Donny Deutsch’s CNBC show, “The Big Idea,” on Monday night, columnist/author Ann Coulter suggested that the U.S. would be a better place if there weren’t any Jewish people and that they needed to “perfect” themselves into — Christians.
It led Deutsch to suggest that surely she couldn’t mean that, and when she insisted she did, he said this sounded “anti-Semitic.”
Asked by Deutsch whether she wanted to be like “the head of Iran” and “wipe Israel off the Earth,” Coulter stated: “No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. … That’s what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament.”
Excerpts from the transcript of the show under the cut.
More »
by LastTrumpet · Tuesday, September 11th, 2007
From Think Progress on Sept. 6 :
White House celebrates Rosh Hashanah a week early. Last night, President Bush issued a statement wishing “greetings†to those “celebrating Rosh Hashanah.“ Unfortunately for the White House, Rosh Hashanah does not start until next week — sunset on Sept. 12. (Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. President!)
Full story.
Wishing y’all a shanah tovah umetukah from the holy land.
by Kol Ra'ash Gadol · Monday, September 10th, 2007
Ok, I grant you, I’m a little behind in posting this; 
last Tuesday, I was listening to NPR on my way to a doctor’s appointment, and since recently someone commented on one of my other posts how nice Jewschool has been since Mobius and his self-hating self was gone (although thankfully, he wasn’t and proceeded to prove it by commenting himself) and with him apparently all dissent in favor of sweetness and light and imbecility, I feel very fortunate to have caught this pair of interviews on Fresh Air (here’s the other). These two interviews are those of Stephen Walt of the infamous Walt and Mearsheimer, commenting on their book The Israel Lobby, and Abe Foxman, being interviewed on his rebuttal of their book in his book, The Deadliest Lies.
Now before I begin, I have to admit that I have read neither of the books in question, neither Walt and Mearsheimer’s, nor Foxman’s (which I should do, and will), and so I have to grant that how incredibly reasonable and even-handed Walt came off, and how frothing and foolish Foxman sounded, could simply be, for either, or both, of them, a matter of presentation or an artifact of the medium, or a coincidence of a bad (or good) confluence of the type of questions they were asked.
But I don’t think so. Walt was interviewed first, which in theory (assuming the interviews were actually in real time) ought to mean that Foxman should have heard what he said and been able to respond to it. But in truth, there wasn’t really all that much to respond to. Oh, I could certainly wish that W&M knew more about the various organizations in the Jewish community opposed to the policies of the Israel right or wrong no criticism crowd. But it was clear that he had heard of them. And, on the other hand, Walt certainly made it clear that he was aware that the organizations that support the “pro-Israel lobby” (*quotes, because I understand that those so called, are not necessarily those who are bringing about results beneficial to Israel) don’t actually represent the majority of Jews in the USA. He said so outright. He was also clear that although there are certainly Jews in the political allies of the so-called Israel lobby, Jews are not the only ones who are pushing for the policies which he is analyzing as problematic (and which many , many Jews have also called on for analysis, too) -and he names names, off the top of his head, of non-Jews and some non-Jewish organizations who fall into that category, as well. So the charge of antisemitism is hard to make stick, especially when he also noted that there is nothing wrong with lobbying-that Greeks and Poles and Irish, and Airline pilots and teachers all do it, and that it’s a part of our political system and perfectly okay, but that that is also why it is so essentially important that no one be above the possibility of analysis and critique. If whenever one questions any policy decision, for any reason, one is labeled as an anti-Semite, that can be no good for anyone in a free society.
Walt also stated, correctly, that anyone trying to make hay out of the connection between the neo-cons and the Jews was off in left field, given that Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general population, making any accusation of Jews responsibility for the war completely absurd. In fact, his main point seemed to be that, although they believe themselves to be acting for the benefit of BOTH the USA and Israel, this group of conservatives that he is calling the Israel lobby are quite likely not doing any favors for either.
More »
by EV · Thursday, August 23rd, 2007
Hey kiddies,
I’ve finally put up a site with some subtle cartoons, some previously published, others rejected from every publication in the world. Please visit, and remember to leave insulting comments. Extra points for proper spelling of “despicable self-hatred.”
EV Comics
by BZ · Thursday, May 17th, 2007
(Introduction.)
Today: Obstruction of justice
556. “You shall do nothing to the girl [who was raped].” (Deuteronomy 22:26) = don’t punish someone who didn’t consent
557. “Do not show him any pity.” (Deuteronomy 19:13) = a murderer or attacker
558. “Do not favor the poor.” (Leviticus 19:15) = in judgment
559. “Do not show deference to the rich.” (Leviticus 19:15) = in judgment
560. “You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes.” (Exodus 23:6) = don’t be prejudiced against someone based on their criminal history
561. “Do not do unrighteousness in judgment.” (Leviticus 19:35) = finding an innocent person guilty or vice versa, etc.
562. “Do not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan.” (Deuteronomy 24:17)
563. “You shall judge your kin with justice.” (Leviticus 19:15)
564. “Do not fear any person.” (Deuteronomy 1:17) = judges shouldn’t fear powerful people in making their judgments
565. “Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right.” (Exodus 23:8)
566. “Do not carry false rumors.” (Exodus 23:1)
567. “Do not curse a judge.” (Exodus 22:27)
568. “Do not curse a chieftain among your people.” (Exodus 22:27)
569. “Do not curse the deaf.” (Leviticus 19:14) = and don’t curse any other decent people either, even if they can’t hear
570. “When one has heard a public imprecation and — although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter — s/he does not give information, s/he is subject to punishment.” (Leviticus 5:1) = if you have testimony to give, go to the court and testify
by Y-Love · Thursday, March 29th, 2007
Someone please enlighten me: just what…in the hell…is this?
As the Washington Post blog tells us:
Rove, well aware that these affairs are overly produced, became part of the headline entertainment at last night’s annual Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association dinner. He was cajoled on stage by the comedians from the ABC show “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” And he flubbed his first line.
The improv skit quickly turned from random and uncomfortably weird to riotous when Mochrie and Sherwood led Rove in a rap song in which Rove played a rapper — “M.C. Rove” — and danced and hopped around on stage. He got really into it, at one point pulling out his cell phone and blackberry, taking multi-tasking to new heights.
USA Today has their take on it, complete with the priceless call-and-response:
“What’s your name?”
“I’m M.C. Rove.”
You’ll just have to see the video.
by Mobius · Monday, February 5th, 2007
Wes Clark: “The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.â€
RJC: “Clark’s remarks were hurtful, damaging, and wrong, and Wesley Clark should apologize to the American Jewish community for saying them.”
Clark to ADL: “My position on Iran should not be misinterpreted, defined out of context or used to create conspiracy theories about one group’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is no place in these critical policy debates for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that blame the Jewish community for the war in Iraq and for action against Iran.”
Matthew Yglesias: “Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What’s more, everybody knows it’s true.”
Jonah Goldberg: “Are there American Jews who favor military strikes against Iran to prevent it from getting nukes? Of course. But there are also Christians, atheists and perhaps even Muslims who feel likewise. They are all making arguments to support their view, but Yglesias and Clark don’t think that those arguments are legitimate, so it must be a right-wing Jewish cabal at work.”
NY Sun on last week’s AIPAC dinner:
Tonight’s event is the first time any of the 2008 candidates have competed for attention in the same room since they launched their campaigns in earnest. It is also an important illustration of just how much stock all of the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, will put in the pro- Israel community, particularly for campaign dollars.
[...]
A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton ’s re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.
New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community,” he said. “If you’re running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the issue that matters most to them.”
[...]
Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has “an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro-Israel community.”
The AP reports:
Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation.
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”
And now The Forward:
While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran.
[...]
In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas. The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran.
Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran.
Remember when…?
Glenn Greenwald comments. More at Rapid Fire Silver Bullets here and here.
And the NJDC? Giant f’ing hypocrites.
by Mobius · Sunday, January 21st, 2007
The BBC reports,
Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC’s Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office rejected the plan, the official said.
[...]
One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that,” Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.
“But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil’… reasserted itself.”
Full story.
by Mobius · Sunday, November 26th, 2006
Frances Fukuyama was the first to go. A once prominent member of the Project for A New American Century, Fukuyama broke ranks with the Neocon establishment as early as 2003, denouncing the Bush administration’s Iraq War strategy and announcing his intention to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. In early 2006, Fukuyama came out in full force against the war, proclaiming the philosophy of Neoconservativism itself a disastrous failure.
Fukuyama cleared the way for fellow PNACers like William F. Buckley, a once staunch advocate of the war, to insist in the pages of The National Review that it was time for Bush to cut his losses and wrap things up in Iraq.
Immediately after the 2006 midterm elections, war architect Richard Perle — also a member of the PNAC — decided it was safe to come out of the closet, telling Vanity Fair, “I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, ‘Should we go into Iraq?,’ I think now I probably would have said, ‘No, let’s consider other strategies.’”
Mind you, these concessions say nothing of the now well-established fact that these same men and their colleagues engaged in the wholesale manipulation of intelligence (on a scale that would render William Randolph Hearst a baal keri) in order to lie America into a now conclusively unwinnable war.
But old habits die hard, as they say, and for those who have not yet come around to the Realists’ side of the fence, the mistruths continue unabated, though the drumbeat of war is set to a new rhythm called Iran.
More »
by Mobius · Sunday, September 10th, 2006
In an attempt to score Democrats points on the pro-Israel register, the NJDC blog recently wrote:
SECOND, we learn that Lugar & Hagels’ Committee colleague and fellow Republican, Lincoln Chafee, opposes the Administration’s support for Israel:
Moreover, Chafee’s foreign policy concerns — expressed in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — could alienate Jewish voters and some Christian conservatives who tend to be staunchly pro-Israel. In the letter, Chafee, who chairs the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, urged the Bush administration to stop Israel’s construction of 690 new homes in two West Bank settlements.
“It is no secret that I have serious questions about this Administration’s policies in the Middle East,” Chafee wrote.”
Since when is opposing foolish policies that neither secure Israel nor its prospects for peace the same as not supporting Israel?
Really, pander to the Jewish community all you like, but don’t conflate being pro-Israel with being a neoconservative. The majority of American Jews are pro-Israel’s defense, yes, but they’re also pro-sensible Israeli policy. To be critical of Bush’s uncritical stance towards Israel is not the same as being anti-Israel. Part of being pro-Israel is dissenting when the Israeli government has lost its damned mind. One such case: Expanding settlements and further encroaching on territory Israel will inevitably have to return for the sake of viable Palestinian statehood, and which otherwise gives the impression of forcible dispossesion of Palestinians from the West Bank, legitimizing claims of ethnic cleansing.
Democrats need to take a stance on Israel that reflects the positions of progressive Jews — their actual constituency, not the positions of religious right-wingers and neoconservatives who aren’t voting for them anyway.
by Y-Love · Tuesday, August 29th, 2006
Iran’s President Ahmadenijad challenged US President Bush to a televised debate today, to discuss, live:
“Let each one of us declare in this debate his opinion on means and ways for settling international crises,” Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran Tuesday, quoted by the Iranian News Agency, IRNA.
“We have just and balanced proposals to make based on the principles of respecting human dignity and equality between peoples,” Ahmadinejad said.
This quote, reported by UPI, was actually the only release given by IRNA which makes me lament even more the status of the average Iranian, receiving their media through news so spun it’s forming its own gravitational field.
Mr. Ahmadenijad said he and Bush needed to discuss “world issues and the ways of solving the problems of the international community.” (His Iran is the current problem of the international community, but whatever…)
Ahmadenijad also said such a debate would show “the proposals of the Iranian nation on how to run the world better, different from the U.S. method of use of force.” (What proposals are these?)
I’m actually glad the White House snubbed the debate invitation. In a battle of wits, you do not send a one-armed pixie wielding a wet tissue. Ahmadinejad has a PhD in transportation engineering, is a professor of civil engineering, and placed in the top 0.1% of all Iranian students on his college entrance exams. Bush has an MBA which, along with his military service, is marred by his substance abuse at the time, and his oratory skills — especially amongst world leaders — let’s just say they leave something to be desired.
Bush is not who you send to “defend the point of view of the free world” against a polished propagandist. No matter the merit of the message or the veracity of the claim, Bush is far outmatched forensically and intellectually, and in front of a potential billion viewers, this is not a good thing.
Could you imagine? There are enough reasons one could be embarrassed to be American as it is!
by John Brown · Monday, August 14th, 2006
Amy Goodman at Democracy Now writes:
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports in this week’s issue of the New Yorker that Israeli officials visited the White House earlier this summer to get a “green light” for an attack on Lebanon. The Bush administration approved, Hersh says, in part to remove Hezbollah as a deterrent to a potential US bombing of Iran.
Full story… including an interview with Seymour Hersh (transcript + optional MP3)
In related news Reuters newswire gives us this : ANALYSIS-US Mideast clout may be casualty of Lebanon war
JERUSALEM, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The Bush administration’s influence in the Middle East is in danger of becoming another casualty of the war in Lebanon, giving Iran a chance to build up its clout in the region. [...] The Arab world is seething at how President George W. Bush, after promoting free elections in Lebanon, made no effort to stop Israel from weakening the new government by destroying much of the country’s infrastructure in a bid to cripple Hizbollah.
But there is also unease among Israelis at a brewing debate in Washington about the Jewish state’s value as a strategic ally against Iran, given the failure of its vaunted, U.S.-equipped military to subdue a small, Iranian-backed guerrilla army after a month of fighting.
“Iran comes out of this stronger, with the reflected glory of Hizbollah’s performance,” said Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
And, finally, from the Department of “winning hearts and minds”:
IDF general: Troops lacking food can steal from Lebanese stores
by Mobius · Saturday, August 12th, 2006
I find it interesting that Israel signed onto a ceasefire agreement after it was announced that Olmert slipped in the polls.
***
When I first encountered Justin Raimondo on
Anti-War.com, I thought he was out of his gourd, and considering his hostility towards Israel, possibly an antisemite. The more time I spend reading up on the neocons’ plans for the Middle East, however, the more I think he’s on to something. I do however retain one major bone of contention: The neocons are not fighting, out of Zionist allegiance,
for Israel. They are fighting for their own fiscal self-interest.
Via the Left Coaster:
Suppose Israel developed this list of targets and a plan to destroy and destabilize Lebanon a year ago to set the table for taking control of the Eastern Mediterranean coastline as part of a new compact with Turkey, Britain, and the Bush Administration neocons? What if the real agenda is to facilitate a new oil/gas/water pipeline from Central Asia around Russia, Iran, and Syria through Turkey and past Lebanon down to Israel? Would an alternate scenario look more plausible if the pipeline offered a way for Israel to meet its needs for water, gas, and oil, and allowed Israel to turn into an oil exporter to the Far East in the process to the detriment of the Saudis, Iran, and Russia? And would it surprise you to find out that this plan wasn’t new, but simply an updating of existing plans to make Israel energy independent and to provide the United States with an oil supply separate from Saudi Arabia, once we extend the war to Syria and near-sightedly topple another regime?
Shit, do you remember when… This is a collusion of oil and defense interests masquerading as ideology. It is not Zionism. And it’s a fucking disaster.
Thank G-d, contrary to popular opinion, Israelis are finally starting to wake up.
***
Your latest reading assignments:
- Sidney Blumenthal: “The Neocons’ Next War” — “By secretly providing NSA intelligence to Israel and undermining the hapless Condi Rice, hardliners in the Bush administration are trying to widen the Middle East conflict to Iran and Syria, not stop it.”
- International Relations Center: “At War with Syria and Iran: The Neo-Cons May Get Their Wish” — “With no shame in drawing the U.S. into the Iraq quagmire three-and-a-half years ago, the same group of neo-conservatives including William Kristol, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthhammer are pushing for Israel/U.S. go to war with Syria and Iran. What is amazing is that despite the deep mess they got us into in Iraq, President Bush and his foreign policy team is actually listening to them.”
- Financial Times: “Bush ‘believes conflict is a US-Iran proxy war’” — “‘People should not underestimate just how strongly the president feels in support of Israel and in his anger towards Iran and Syria [because of their sponsorship of Hizbollah],’ said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former senior official at the Central Intelligence Agency and now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.”
- Inter Press Service: “Hard-Line Neocons Assail Israel for Timidity”
- Richard Perle: “An Appropriate Response” — “Israel must now deal a blow of such magnitude to those who would destroy it as to leave no doubt that its earlier policy of acquiescence is over. This means precise military action against Hezbollah and its infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria, for as long as it takes and without regard to mindless diplomatic blather about proportionality.”
- Justin Raimondo: “The Return of the Neocons” — “The Israeli blitz may not have succeeded in cleaning out Hezbollah from the southern precincts of Lebanon, but it will almost certainly accomplish the expulsion of the “realists” from the councils of state and put the neocons back in the saddle in Washington.”
Why did I bold-text the bit about Condi before? See Raimondo’s “Bush vs. Condi.” Look’s like Olmert’s got a Condi of his own: “Olmert bars Livni from attending UN Security Council sessions.” See also: “In Mideast, It’s Condi’s Fight Now” …Veddy interesting.
