1. Readers will be familiar with the frequently rehearsed notion that the close alliance between Israel and the United States combined with the emotions aroused by the existence and deeds of the former country in the Arab and Muslim worlds puts the lives of members of the American armed forces in greater danger than they would otherwise be.
Archive for the 'USA' Category
Last week the Philadelphia BDS movement claimed a small victory by apparently pressuring Strauss, the Israel-based co-owners of Sabra hummus, to remove from their English language website their statement of support for the IDF’s Golani Brigade.
I was ready to attack Strauss for this apparently shameful act, but today the support is back up.
Now if only they would bring back their spicy pickles.
This scoop is now all over the place, but nonetheless we’ll record it here. Over to Eli Lake at the Washington Times:
The Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, which bills itself as the dovish alternative to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby, has secretly received funding from billionaire George Soros despite previous denials that it accepted funds from the Hungarian-born financier and liberal political activist.
Tax forms obtained by The Washington Times reveal that Mr. Soros and his two children, Jonathan and Andrea Soros, contributed a total $245,000 to J Street from one Manhattan address in New York during the fiscal year from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009.
The contributions represent a third of the group’s revenue from U.S. sources during the period. Nearly half of J Street’s revenue during the timeframe — a total of $811,697 — however, came from a single donor in Happy Valley, Hong Kong, named Consolacion Esdicul.
Consolacion Esdicul? As Jeff Goldberg exclaimed, “Who?”
Soros has often attacked both Israel and Zionism and is an enthusiastic proponent of the fable that the “Israel Lobby” runs U.S. foreign policy. And J Street’s problem - and boy, is this a problem - is that they’ve denied receiving funds from Soros.
Read Eli’s piece for all the details.
There are rumors going around that the Israeli government is trying to link some sort of extension of the settlement freeze to an early release for the convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. If they are true they suggest a profound and worrying arrogance on the part of the present Israeli administration in its dealings with their country’s most important ally.
#SecClinton @StateDept: Sudan needs you for 60 seconds. Read this letter to President Obama. If you sign, he’ll listen.
Via Save Darfur. Please take five seconds and get the message to where it matters.
Many readers will have already come across Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece in The Atlantic about the possibility of Israel resorting to force against Iran. Though it’s received a lot of attention, I don’t think it’s that interesting; it’s long on personal anecdote (by the way, for a seriously unflattering view of the Netanyahu family you ought to read Chapter 12 of this book) and the views of unnamed sources and short on analysis. People seriously interested in this matter still need to read Tira.
Israel is so extraordinarily beyond the pale that its behavior does not even merit comparison with states like China, which brutally occupies Tibet, or India, which occupies Kashmir, or Poland, which stands on parts of what used to be eastern Germany, or Sri Lanka, which recently extirpated the secessionist Tamil Tiger movement after a brutal three-decades long civil war, or the United States of America, which annihilated the Native American peoples. Indeed, the only states that resemble Israel are Nazi Germany and South Africa’s apartheid regime, neither of which exists any longer. Get it?
A small taste of Lee Smith’s brilliant response to his critics, which you can read here.
So here’s the deal. Give Israel some U.S. support in exchange for modest steps that the administration hopes accomplishes its goals. Israel will give some things that don’t appreciably hurt its interests in order to maintain good relations with the United States.
Barry Rubin’s take on the Netanyahu-Obama talks in Washington today.
These tuneless hippies giving their support to the elimination of Israel should give pause and listen to the words of Tiran Halabi.
But they probably won’t. And one reason lies in this helpful explanation emailed by a reader on the political context around the Oakland picket: “The west coast longshoremen are part of an independent union that was expelled from its parent union and from the AFL-CIO for being completely controlled by the Communist Party. Its leader, Harry Bridges, now deceased, was in fact a high-ranking member of the CPUSA. A key reason why the California “bay area” (SF-Oakland-Berkeley) has long been a bastion of all manner of Leftist causes (e.g., Black Panther Party) is because of the steady backing that the Commie-dominated Longshoreman gave to them.”
UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments, Tiran’s original video has disappeared, but there’s a new one which I’ve posted above.
 |
|||
|
|
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who lost authority over Gaza three years ago this month in the very bloody Hamas coup, is suddenly asserting responsibility for the 1.5 million Palestinians living there. His nemesis, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, already was way ahead in feeling the world love as European governments, in the wake of the May 31 flotilla clash, joined with the ranks of traditional Hamas backers in the Arab and Islamic worlds in calling for lifting the blockade of Gaza. President Obama, meeting with Abbas, put icing on the Hamas cake by calling the situation in Gaza “unsustainable.”
This is a guest post by Winston Pickett.
For media watchers familiar with the White House Press Corps, the saga of Helen Thomas is has served up a pungent lesson on how antisemitic ideas can pollute and ultimately force a 58-year career to crash, burn and splutter to an inglorious conclusion.
Something else to furrow the brows of the “Israel Lobby” Theorists.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters believe pro-Palestinian activists on the Gaza-bound aid ships raided by Israeli forces are to blame for the deaths that resulted in the high-profile incident.
The signs sum it up nicely. More here.
Jeffrey Goldberg has a revealing interview with Marcy Winograd, who is challenging Jane Harman in California’s Democratic primary on June 8th.
Here’s a collection of Winograd’s thoughts as shared with Goldberg:
- Why the US brought 9/11 on itself: “Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and were angry at the proliferation of U.S. bases and forces in Saudi Arabia, so I think there’s a great degree of pushback over the presence of U.S. troops all over the world.”
- In answer to the question, “if we left Afghanistan, wouldn’t the Taliban shut down these women-led NGOs?” “Well, that would be the whole point in investing in women-led NGOS, to make them stronger and to help women emerge in leadership positions politically. Under the Soviet-influenced government in Afghanistan, women had far more freedom than they do today, after how many years of American occupation?”
- Why Jews are to blame for antisemitism. “Zionism categorizes Jews as a race, which makes it easier for Jews to be targeted.”
- Why a ‘one-state’ solution doesn’t apparently involve killing most of the Jews currently living in Israel in order to be workable. “I’m a believer in equality, one voice, one vote, Israelis and Palestinians, one voice, one vote, that’s my personal position.”
- And the customary “as-a-Jew” narcissism. “I’ve labeled myself as a Jewish woman of conscience who is compelled to speak out because of the suffering in the world.”
Awful. Just awful.
But here’s a question for J-Street. According to this puff piece about Winograd, one of her enthusiastic backers is Lila Garrett, a J-Street Board Member. Is supporting a candidate who, in her own words, reveals herself to be a Soviet apologist, an advocate of Israel’s elimination, a believer in the thesis that the US brought 9/11 on itself, a supporter of the equation of Zionism with racism, and an optimist on the Taliban’s attitude toward the rights of women compatible with the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” branding?
The recent draconian legislation in Arizona aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants has generated a firestorm of debate in the United States. While some criticism of the law - most obviously that of President Barack Obama - has been measured, others out there have been all too keen to reach for the nearest outrageous analogy. China and the Soviet Union have been invoked by some American activists, whose rhetoric enabled the Cuban regime to take a break from locking up dissidents in order to gleefuly denounce a “racist and xenophobic” law.
Inevitably in this atmosphere, Nazi Germany has been held up as a comparison too. Earlier this afternoon, NPR gave me the opportunity to explain why this is such a grotesque use of history. The same point was forcefully made by Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, who appeared alongside me, and who proved that principled opposition to the Arizona law is possible without sinking into the depths of the Nazi analogy. Do listen here; scroll down to the item in the right-hand menu entitled “Connection Between Arizona and Nazi Germany Fair?”
