My grandparents didn't want to be converted

I wrote this for that other site (posted here), where a ridiculous number of people are attacking us for complaining about this issue. Because there's nothing wrong with wiping away any semblance of Jewish identity from the earth, even from dead people, right? Fucking idiots. Anyway, wherever it refers to "this site," it's that site, not The Progressive Zionist.

My friend Mets102 has posted a couple of diaries recently about Mormons converting dead Jews to their faith, including Daniel Pearl, who was murdered for no reason other than that he was a Jew, and survivors and victims of the Holocaust, including such notables as Anne Frank and the families of Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal.

All four of my grandparents were posthumously converted too. They were all Holocaust survivors, each of whom had a very large extended family before the Holocaust. Between them, they had but a single living relative after the Holocaust.

And repeatedly, Mets102 and I and several other Jews who have a problem with this have been told we're whining, or "feigning anger," or crying over something that doesn't matter, or complaining for the sake of complaining, or otherwise making a big deal about nothing.

So first, a brief message to many (if not all) of those people who have said some version of this:

Go. Fuck. Yourself. Preferably with a rusty metal implement.

Yes, I know saying that will turn some of you off. I couldn't care less if that bothers you, though, not if you're going to side with the folks saying this doesn't matter.

My grandparents, as I said, were all Holocaust survivors whose entire families were wiped out. My grandparents lived as Jews, they were proud to be Jews, and they went to their graves as Jews. Their relatives who died in the Holocaust were murdered for no reason other than that they were Jews. And indeed, we Jews have a long history of being sent to our deaths for no reason other than that we are Jews and someone else gets it into their head that their religion makes it ok to wipe us off the face of the earth.

We Jews also have a long history of being forced by members of other faiths to abandon our Jewish identity and convert to their faith. They think they're doing us a favor, that they're saving our souls. Because, of course, all Jews are condemned to burn in hell for all eternity. (I can't tell you how many times I've heard that from people who can only be described as "Christian-of-a-certain-variety." Never mind that Jesus was a Jew, and if you insist that all Jews are condemned to burn in hell for all eternity, well, I can't imagine condemning your savior to eternal hellfire would score you any points in the afterlife. But I digress.)

There's something these oppressors of Jews have in common, whether they prefer to murder us all for no reason other than that we are Jews or whether they prefer to harass us or even force us to convert to their faiths when we would not choose to do so on our own. Both groups have decided that there is something so superior about their ideology that makes it not only acceptable but even a moral imperative to wipe any semblance of Jewish identity off the face of the earth.

It really doesn't take a genius to see this for the antisemitism that it is.

And now we have this specific group of assholes who have decided that it's not only acceptable but even a moral imperative to wipe any semblance of Jewish identity even among dead Jews off the face of the earth via this forced conversion of the dead. (Do you want to dispute my characterization of this naarishkeit as "forced conversion"? Hate to break it to you, but when you convert someone who didn't give their consent, that's forced.)

And yet we Jews who voice our displeasure at this are told we're whining. We're feigning anger. We're crying over something that doesn't matter. We're complaining for the sake of complaining. We're making a big deal about nothing.

Which is why I suggest to those of you who say such things that you go fuck yourself with a rusty metal implement.

All too frequently, Jews on this site who complain about antisemitism are told that we're making a big deal about something that doesn't matter, or that the antisemitism we're complaining about isn't antisemitism at all, so we should just sit down and shut the fuck up about it already.

Who the fuck decided that converting Jews to another faith without their permission isn't antisemitic? Who the fuck decided that imposing your faith on another group of people just because you believe your faith is superior isn't a big deal? (Or is it only not a big deal when we're just talking about Jewish victims, living or dead?)

And on a personal level, who the fuck gave you the right to decide that the forcible conversion of my grandparents -- something that they never would have acceded to under any circumstances -- is no big deal, or that complaining about it is just so much faux outrage?

What gives you the right to decide what we as Jews find offensive to us? What gives you the right to tell me that my grandparents' names and legacies aren't threatened when someone substitutes their parochial religious ideology for what my grandparents wanted and lived?

I don't know, maybe you simply don't get it. Maybe you don't understand that, like any other group, there are certain things that are just sacred to Jews, and that attacking those things the way the Mormons who are posthumously and forcibly converting our people to their faith are doing isn't acceptable under any circumstances -- and so much more so when they've admitted wrongdoing for this exact same behavior in the past, they're repeatedly apologized for it, and yet they keep doing the exact same behavior for which they so falsely apologized in the first place.

Maybe this doesn't hurt you, but there are plenty of us who are hurt by it. Just because you aren't hurt doesn't make it ok. And when you so dickishly claim that we are whining, feigning anger, crying over something that doesn't matter, complaining for the sake of complaining, or otherwise making a big deal about nothing, at best you're being an ignorant twit. But you're also defending antisemitism, and there is simply no excuse for that.

So if it's just a matter of ignorance, try learning something instead of insulting us for having the audacity to complain about antisemitism to which you were blind. Ask us why it bothers us rather than imposing your uninformed and obnoxious judgment upon us.

But if it's not just ignorance? Find yourself a rusty implement, putz, and get to work.

BREAKING: UNVERIFIED - Wikileaks - reporting Israel Destroyed Iranina Nuke Facility

This morning I woke up, opened up my Facebook and saw this staring at me from an Israeli Friend of mine. So... I had to check it out.
Yep, you read that headline right. No snark here. Wikileaks released a report claiming that Israeli and Kurdish Fighters destroyed the Iranian Nuclear Facility where weapons were being developed
According to Haaretz:

The mega-leaks website, WikiLeaks, has partnered with the hackers cooperative Anonymous, to publish internal emails of the American strategic intelligence company Stratfor. In one of the hacked emails, Stratfor officials discuss information obtained from one of their sources who reports that Israeli commandos, in cooperation with Kurdish fighters, have destroyed Iranian nuclear installations.....

....In one of the emails from November 2011, Startfor officials discuss the explosion at an Iranian missile base near Tehran and quote a source who "was asked what he thought of reports that the Israelis were preparing a military offensive against Iran. Response: I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago."

One company analyst responded dismissively to the possibility of an Israeli attack having already taken place, asking: "How and when did the Israelis destroy the infra on the ground?"

According to Wikileaks there is much more too this story, involving Oil prices, military alliances and so forth with regards to Russia, the E.U. and India.

In the email, an Israeli intelligence source was asked about Defense Minister Ehud Barak's comment "the more the merrier" following the mysterious explosion that killed at least 17 people at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps base near Tehran in November 2011. At the time, Iran claimed the blast was an accident, but US blogger Richard Silverstein said that Israel was the mastermind.

"I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago," said the Israeli source. "The current 'let's bomb Iran' campaign was ordered by the EU leaders to divert the public attention from their at home financial problems."....

Stratfor - the company who's email has been hacked said the following:

Some of the emails being published "may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic," the company statement said.

According to the leaked emails, Europe and China would suffer from an Israeli attack on Iran (according to wikileaks) but that the Saudis and the Russians would benefit greatly. One can see the Saudi's but the Russians?
Again, this is an unverified report. HOWEVER, in any case it boxes Iran in a serious way. If they act on or accept this report, it means they acknowledge that they were indeed developing a nuclear weapon in a direct contradiction to their claims of the opposite. IF however, they deny this happened and that there was simply an attack on a Revolutionary Guard base then they are admitting to the world that Israeli and Kurdish forces were able to penetrate their most secure compound and wreck havoc. So much for their bellicose threats of retaliation, not too mention what message this sends to the Iranian People.

It will be interesting what Julian Assange says this afternoon when the documents are fully released.

"Progressive Except for Palestine"

One of the more annoying habits common to members of the anti-Israel movement is their moral posturing; an example of which is the term "PEP", which translates into English as 'Progressive Except for Palestine'. It's applied to anyone who does not share their views at the pitch and volume they favor, eleven on a scale of ten.

The underlying assumption, of course, is that there is only one acceptable Progressive position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and they conveniently happen to hold it. The rather unsubtle implication is that the rest of the Progressive movement is a churning heap of reactionary neanderthals in sore need of enlightenment, to bring us more in line with their views on the subject. Which, coincidentally, is The Most Important Political Issue™ of recorded history, characterized by barbarism on a scale humanity has never seen. The Sack of Rome? Peanuts, and probably a Zionist conspiracy avant la lettre to boot.

Well, how about No?

I would imagine that Progressive values include honesty. That, unfortunately, is not something commonly in evidence in said movement. If you want to argue the destruction of the state of Israel, fine. That is, obviously, a morally abhorrent goal, but it's a free country, and people can hold whatever vacuous or cruel views they please. The problem is, of course, that they never admit - except by accident - that this, the end of the Jewish state, is indeed the goal. Call them what they are, anti-Israel, and watch the hackles rise and the outraged sputtering begin. It is, after all, only about the poor Palestinians, groaning under the uniquely heavy Israeli yoke, and their inalienable rights.

Except that it's not. Leaving aside the fact that there could have been a Palestinian state since 1947, had it not been for that awkward lost war, I'd warrant that the people who really sincerely care about their rights in the Western movement concerned with them are in a minority, vastly outnumbered by, to give the baby a name, people who happen to hate Jews. If it were otherwise, they'd expend some time on, say, the intolerable conditions in refugee camps in Lebanon, or even on the continued existence of these camps. But they don't, because there is no injustice worth debating unless it can be blamed on the Jews.

This is the real problem the overwhelming majority of Americans have with those people who think the Evils of Zionism™ are something you can chat about at a cocktail party. As a people, we are not actually all ignorant mouth-breathers. Some, yes, but overall, we have functioning bullshit detectors.

But the real point is this: there will always be hateful or dishonest people in any political movement. Human nature, I suppose. That's no excuse, however, for the anti-Israel movement, which is riddled with both, and seems completely unconcerned with what to the rest of us, Progressive or otherwise, is glaringly obvious.

This is the reason - not hasbara, of which there is far less than some claim, or anti-Arab racism, or a nefarious conspiracy of the Zionist media, or anything else - why people who throw around the term PEP are shunned by the mainstream Progressive movement and the American People at large. Because there is too much hate, a very old one that many of us recognize. No massaging of polls or any number of flash mobs in Grand Central will change that.

The losers in this game, of course, are as always and ever the Palestinians themselves. They have rights and deserve their own state. They are, however, ill-served by condescending whackadoodles who see a conspiracy under every rock, think anti-Semitism isn't that much of a problem, alienate the mainstream of American society, and are kept at significantly more than arm's length by the only force that might be of use to them, the Progressive Movement itself.

Monday Open Thread

Because we need more of these!

BDS Wins(tm) again!

Or not...

Oh, >Feijoada.

Eat it!

The first judicial ruling on the tangled mess regarding Olympia Co-op's boycott is due today.

Meanwhile, here in Portland at 4:10 AM Pacific this morning (I'll be back on East Coast time in 17 days!) it's 1986 again. Fuck yeah!

What's Cooking?

If you ask me, we need some open threads here. And I'm all about good food. And it's the weekend. So let's have some fun and see if this flies!

I am leaving Portland in just under 19 days now, moving cross-country again. Back east to Philadelphia this time. Although I've never had too much of a pantry*, my last couple of weeks here I'm going to be focused on using up everything I have, so I can move as lightly (and as easily) as possible.

Found a jar of tomato sauce which was gifted to me last Fall by a friend from her garden bounty, and I just so happened to also have two eggs left over from the last farmers' market I hit two weeks ago. My first thought? Shakshouka! So I did a simple version of that for my (very) late lunch an hour or so ago. Just poached the eggs in the sauce with roughly a quarter of an onion (diced), a couple pinches of ground cumin (I never measure when sprinkling - baking is chemistry, but cooking is art!), along with the end of a medium-ish baguette I had lying around from the Vietnamese bakery down the street on the side.

Ideally, I would have included something spicy (peppers!) in the sauce, but again I'm pretty much running low on everything right now (by design) and just winging stuff. And it's not exactly the season for that here, either. But it was still a great lunch, regardless. Anyway.

So what'cha cookin?

....................

....................

*Shame on me! I will build quite an impressive one in Philadelphia though, since for the first time in my life I will have an actual backyard (not too much space - it's pretty much just a 72-square foot concrete pad tucked behind a North Philly rowhouse; but it's all mine and I plan to grow vertically, and have room for a grill and a smoker back there this summer, too!)

Hey Republicans... YOU OWN THIS!

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

Last nights Republican Arizona debate was truly a Wacktastic event. The candidates covered a gamut of subjects in what might be the Wackiest event I think I have ever heard.

First - if you want some real laughs... Here is the transcript of the debate. Read it and laugh or weep (I am still trying to figure out what to do). Either way - here are some of the gems....

First we have Former Governor Mitt Romney suggesting we use the Saudi Arabians and Turks to arm the Syrian Rebels to help overthrow the Government of Bashir Assad.

We need to work with — with Saudi Arabia and with Turkey to say, you guys provide the kind of weaponry that’s needed to help the rebels inside Syria. This is a critical time for us.

So let's see... we want to give the Wahabite Government of Saudi Arabia money or weapons to influence the overthrow of the Damascus Regime. The same Wahabite Sect that spawned Al-Qaeda, the same Wahabite Sect that runs one of the most backward regimes in the world - we want to have them surrounding our friends in Israel and Jordan? Yeah.... that makes sense. How in G-d's name does that make the situation any better than it is now.

OR... we want Turkey, a country that openly trades with Iran and has become increasingly hostile to both Israel and the U.S. to be sponsoring this change. Okie dokie, that too makes sense (well not really unless you live in the bizarro world that the Republicans seem to be inhabiting).

Of course the biggest FAIL line of the night.... goes to Newt Gingrich who said this:

And I agree with — with Senator Santorum’s point. This is an administration which, as long as you’re America’s enemy, you’re safe.

Perhaps we should ask Osama Bin Laden and a large former portion of the Al-Qaeda leadership about that... Oh wait, we can't - they're dead. Whoops.

But lets not forget "the Mad Elf" and noted racist Ron Paul with this pearl of wisdom:

The Iranians can’t possibly attack anybody. And we’re worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon.

Okay, why worry about just one bomb, I mean what can just one little nuke do... And hey Iran can't attack anyone anyway because we have them surrounded. I guess Mr. Paul has never heard of using proxies in war or using these modern things called Missiles. Someone might want to let him in on this. Perhaps our friends on the right who call Mr. Paul a "staunch ally of Israel" or "simply misunderstood:" can clear up just how this total unconcern can translate into "staunch ally".

But there was much, much more and on different subjects. Here, we once again have Mr. Paul on immigration:

Why is it if an illegal comes across the border and they go on private property, why isn’t that trespassing? And why don’t you have the right to stop it?

Gee, I wonder what Congressman Paul is really saying.... No, actually I don't wonder at all. We all see the "No Trespassing signs" that are posted (usually with pictures of a Gun) - so what does he mean "why don't you have a right to stop it"? Individuals do have a right to stop trespassing particularly if they see someone sneaking over the border. They can call the Border Patrol, or Police - THAT is what they can do.

Ok, so outside of advocating "stopping trespassing" another pearl of wisdom from the Congressman:

But once again, the question is, if you voted for Planned Parenthood like the senator has, you voted for birth control pills. And you literally, because funds are fungible, you literally vote for abortions because Planned Parenthood gets the money — “Oh, I’ll buy birth control pills,” but then they have the money left over to do the abortion.

Thus, in Congressman Paul's world if you support Planned Parenthood and you buy birth control pills then really you are funding and supporting abortion. Of course, for Congressman Paul and his associates, this exercise in illogic escapes them. Here is Rick Santorum on the same issue:

"Over 40 percent of children born in America are born out of wedlock. How can a country survive if children are being raised in homes where it’s so much harder to succeed economically? "

And Mitt Romney:

"Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they’re in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven’t been willing to talk about this."

And this lack of sensibility in a nutshell is where the Republicans and their candidates COMPLETELY FAIL.... They oppose Birth Control and education about Birth Control as well as groups that promote Birth Control and yet they whine about how there are so many unwanted pregnancies and abortions - THE VERY THING THAT BIRTH CONTROL PREVENTS!!!!

Do they think by teaching morality in schools they are really going to cut down on sex? Apparently they do.

So for those who support Republicans or those who suffer ODS and refuse to support President Obama in 2012.... You own this. This is your future. This is what you are voting for or advocating for when you argue against the President's re-election. Now, dissenters will say "Oh no.. I am just sending the President a message" or "Oh no, I don't support any of this". Well.. newsflash... These are the guys that WILL get elected if you vote against the President OR simply don't vote.

One may disagree with President Obama on issues - I certainly have complaints on a number of things (mostly related to the economy and the lack of focus on economic justice), but, I have no illusions regarding what would be happening if the President had not been elected and I have no illusions about what will happen if he is not re-elected. So, is he the perfect candidate... no but, he is a darn good candidate AND he is a whole lot better than those running against him.

Good News: Derangers Out of Touch On Israel, Iran

A quick bit of good news to end the week. A poll has come out from Gallup exploring Americans' views of various other countries.

The poll has confirmed that the loud voices we know from places such as Daily Kos, where people feel an intense love for the Iranian regime, and an obsessive, deranged hatred for Israel, are very much in the minority in this country.

Iran is the least popular country of the 23 included in the survey, with only a 10% favorability rating in Americans' minds, even below such luminaries as North Korea and Iraq. On the other hand, Israel has a 71% favorability rating, which is pretty darn good, although coming in behind major American allies Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Japan, France, and, curiously, India.

It is interesting to see socialist-ish Canada with a 96% favorability rating, and even the cliche right wing villain and tourist-abusing France coming in at 75%. In general, it seems that in spite of both right wing and far left deranger propaganda, Americans have pretty good taste when it comes to other countries.

Tzipi Livni Speaks Out

Today's Haaretz has a fascinating interview with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni. The questions are direct, the answers seem very straightforward. I recommend reading it here:

Will there be a next time

Some of the highlights include an in depth discussion regarding the The Peace Process, the relationship with the P.A. and an entire view of the Settlement Issue.

Here are a few quick comments:

Haaretz Commentary: ....He’s a partner,” (Abbas) she says, releasing a cloud of smoke in the living room. They met a few months ago in Jordan, and Livni took Haim Ramon, Tzachi Hanegbi and Roni Bar-On with her. They talked for three hours. “Tzachi and Roni emerged with the realization that we’re missing a historic opportunity here,” she says.

That was Livni’s first meeting with Abbas since becoming leader of the opposition. “I thought it was undemocratic to meet with him. A government was elected and I won’t conduct parallel negotiations,” she says.

Q: So why now?

L: “There have been no negotiations for a long time, and he’s accused of not wanting them. I wanted to see for myself what the real situation was, because it’s possible that a few months from now it will already be impossible to solve the conflict. Before the meeting I informed Netanyahu and I contacted him afterward too. I told him that if he would release the people imprisoned before the Oslo Accords, Abu Mazen [Abbas] would return to the negotiating table. Netanyahu refused.”

Q: Does Abbas want to reach an agreement?

L: “I think so.”

Q: Had you been elected prime minister in March 2009, what would you have done about the diplomatic issue? What have we lost in these three years?

L: “An agreement.”

Q: A final status agreement?

L: “A final status agreement. I believe it would have been possible.”

WOW... Powerful stuff. Certainly there is a difference between what Livni and Netanyahu are seeing.

Some other items.....

Q: You meet with Benjamin Netanyahu regularly for personal updates. Is his comparison between [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler, between the Holocaust and Iran, a manipulation for public relations purposes?

L:“No.”

Q: Does he really believe that Hitler is sitting there in Tehran and planning another Holocaust? Is it profound and authentic for him?

L: “I think so. Absurdly, Netanyahu and another group that’s with him are turning the State of Israel into a collective, larger ghetto, out of a Jewish fear of a Holocaust. Netanyahu’s perception of the threats is that of a small country surrounded by enemies, and that’s become an ideology that may be politically advantageous. One day as he stood on the dais he made a statement that really made me angry: “What is happening to us, the isolation of the State of Israel, is not because of what we say or do, but because of what we are.”

Q: Classic victimhood.

L: “Exactly. It makes no difference what I do, the only thing left to us is to gather together, preferably in a shelter, and wait until the danger subsides. What I consider dangerous is that it leads to fear of the ‘other’ among us, draft bills that undermine equality and minority rights, that silence people. He recently said that the newspaper you write for is an existential threat to the State of Israel. Haaretz and The New York Times. Haaretz and its six readers. The problem is that those six readers are English-speaking readers, and that’s why it bothers Netanyahu. Israel is now ruled by the most right-wing and weakest government in its history, because we have no legitimacy to act. The Churchillian thing to do would be to try to reach an agreement related to the Israeli concept of security. Netanyahu sees that as something Chamberlain would do, an act of surrender. He sees an agreement as surrender.”

Q: What do you think of the Netanyahus’ attempt to control the media?

L: “He believed that his downfall during his first round as prime minister was related not to his actions or his character, but to media criticism. That’s why he came to power with the intention of controlling the media. And that was done in several ways: One is Israel Hayom. The same person [Sheldon Adelson] who now distributes the freebie newspaper that reflects the prime minister’s agenda and exalts his name, is also trying to ensure that the person Netanyahu thinks he can get along with [Newt Gingrich] will be elected president of the United States.”

As I said very interesting stuff. Please read the whole article at Haaretz (link at the top) it is very, very interesting.

Elie Wiesel to Mitt Romney - Stand up for what is right! Who are really our friends?

This year the Republicans and fellow their fellow ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) sufferers are trying to make a huge push for Jewish voters to turn from their traditional role as strong supporters of the Democratic Party to becoming Republican voters (particularly in "swing" states like Florida and Pennsylvania) and donors. In addition to continually ignoring or worse yet, lying about the Presidents record regarding Israel and Jewish people, these hapless Republicans continue to make tactical mistake after tactical mistake regarding our constituency.

The latest is in GOP Front Runner (and party establishment favorite) Mitt Romney. For all of his "lip service" to the Israeli Right, Mr. Romney is proving himself to be far from a friend to the Jewish people. How is this? Well, Mr. Romney is a member of the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - LDS) Church. Part of the practices of this church are to conduct posthumous conversions of people to Mormonism in an effort to gain them access to heaven.

So, what is the issue here? Well it seems that the family of the late (and great Nazi Hunter) Simon Wiesenthal is upset that a Mormon official performed a baptism on the parents of Mr. Wiesenthal after they died. To be fair to the Mormon Church in this instance they immediately apologized - HOWEVER, they did not say that they would cease this practice.

In today's Haaretz the great Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney for not addressing this issue:

Republican presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney should have spoken up against Mormon posthumous baptism of Jews, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Eli Wiesel said in an interview on Wednesday....

.......Speaking to MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell's on Wednesday, Wiesel mentioned the name of Republican presidential hopeful and Mormon Mitt Romney in relation to the affair, saying the former governor should have communicated his position on the matter.

"Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and I respect all religions, including the Mormon religion," Wiesel said, asking: "How come he hasn't spoken up after all?"

"It's not, I'm sure he's not involved in that. But nevertheless, the moment he heard about this, he should have spoken up, because he is running for the presidency of the United States, which means it's too serious of an issue for him not to speak up," he added.

The Wiesenthal Center also expressed it's condemnation:

Following news of the posthumous baptism of Wiesenthal's parents, the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the baptismal rites.

"We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean at the center.

Indeed, how would we feel if our parents were posthumously converted to another religion. Would we consider the church that carried out these practices to be friends of the Jewish people? While I appreciate that the LDS church did apologize - rather than apologizing they should simply cease this odious practice. moreover, Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate and self described devout Mormon needs to address this issue.

But this is not the only case of Republican insensitivity towards the Jewish people and religion. We all know about Ron Paul (who polls between 15-20% of Republican base) and his Neo-Nazi connections. How Republicans and the ODS sufferers think we can ignore that is simply beyond me. But, they do. They keep saying "Don't vote for the Democrats, we will support you" but they simply refuse to address the problem that one in five or six Republican voters supports this bigot. It is like they want us to simply look the other way while a sizable part of their voting base flirts with people that want to actually end the State of Israel and hangs out with people found at hate sites like StormFront or Mondoweiss.

Or how about Rick Santorum (the new, not Mitt). Mr Santorum is a true religious Christian who makes all kinds of noise about supporting the Israeli Right and their quest to annex the West Bank. Nevermind that this act would end the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish AND Democratic State (something Republicans and ODS'ers care very little about particularly the Democracy part), in a typical act of arrogance Mr. Santorum sent a Chanukah card to his Jewish friends with the following quote on it:

"I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

Ummmm, someone needs to tell Mr. Santorum that having quotes from the NEW TESTAMENT on a holiday card does not express respect for those of us who are Jewish. YET, we are are told to ignore all of this and vote against a man who has gone out of his way to provide friendship for the Jewish people (and Israel) and:

1. Held the first ever Seder in the White House

2. Named a month of the Year - Jewish History Month (May 2011)

3. Has had, not one but TWO Jewish Chiefs of Staff

4. Has been termed an "exceptional" friend of Israel by Israeli leaders across the Political Spectrum from President Shimon Peres (Kadima), to Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Atz'maout) to Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Betainu).

I would ask individual Jewish voters given this... Which party is it or which candidate is it that seems to have our best interests in mind? I think the choice is pretty obvious.

Norman Finkelstein Pulls a Finkler

In the recent book The Finkler Question, author Howard Jacobson explores the current politics of antisemitism in the UK. The character Professor Finkler is a Jewish philosophy professor who is obsessed with being publicly "ashamed" about Israel in order to stay trendy. However, due to a culmination of events, this national figure has a shocking pro-Israel outburst during a conference. The outburst is in response to a woman who segues from anti-Zionism to antisemitism one too many times, as such anti-Zionists tend to do. It is a very interesting scene.

In a case of life imitating art, I was reminded of the whole thing in the protracted outburst of Norman Finkelstein against the BDS movement that has just come to light. A video which BDS didn't want to get out is making the rounds, in which Finkelstein is being interviewed by some BDS person and absolutely rips into their entire movement for 30 long, awkward minutes.

For a bit of background, Norman Finkelstein is a notorious Israel-bating figure, who for some time was faculty at a number of schools. He has expressed solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas, criticized what he calls the 'Holocaust industry', and called Israel a "lunatic state". So he's like an extreme - and much less successful - version of the fictional professor Finkler. Even the names are eerily similar.

In short, Finkelstein is almost a prototypical Jewish antisemitic deranger, in the mold of Gilad Atzmon. And yet in the recently obtained video, he savagely calls BDS to task for many of the exact same things that pro-Israel commenters, neutral observers, and many others have over the years! Specifically, Finkelstein:

1) repeats over and over that BDS is trying to play it cute but fooling nobody about their ultimate plans for Israel itself - not the occupied territories - and the Jewish people living there.

2) repeats that BDS is alienating mainstream people and has achieved no success

3) repeats that BDS is "a cult" so many times that I lost count

4) takes BDS to task for its selective use of 'international law'

It is absolutely fascinating to watch the whole video, and also to wonder what caused this seeming abrupt direction shift for Finkelstein. Watching the video, as it focuses relentlessly on his face, he also seems generally disturbed, ready to be hauled off to a mental institution at any minute. He readily admits several times that he was in his own "Maoist cult" in his youth, and alternates between righteous indignation and whiny self-pity.

I would hesitate to say that Finkelstein has had a change of heart in regard to Zionism, the Jewish state, and antisemitism, but it seems that something has pushed him over the edge in the same way that something pushed Professor Finkler over the edge, at least temporarily.

I will say this to BDS and like-minded folks. If you are too deranged for even Norman Finkelstein, it is time to pack it in!

Now of course the accusations have started to fly about Finkelstein being a Zionist plant the whole time, about how he betrayed people, and is a Jew anyway so why is he allowed to say anything. For once, it is time to sit back and enjoy.

Update: All Youtube versions of the video appear to have been removed for "copyright violation". However the video at the link above is still available.

I'm Movin' Out... (Philadelphia!)

I tried. I failed. I can live with that.

Three weeks ago I was going nowhere, stuck in a dead end with no apparent way out. Then...

A light! Everything aligned! My landlord inexplicably put me on a month-to-month lease, after 4 years of 12-month leases, and I said, I said...

"Oh shit, I'd better call them and get myself on another one-year lease so I don't get kicked out. After all, the hipsters have discovered my SE Portland neighborhood so I'd better lock myself in while I can!"

But then after a second, I says to myself, I says...

...hey now, wait a minute.



Some people love New York, some people love heaven, some people love Disneyland, some people love Singapore, some people love Paris.

Me?

I love Philadelphia.

More than I can ever put into words. And always have, since I was a little boy over three decades ago and from the first minute I learned to even pronounce the word.

Philadelphia.

What a beautiful word. Call me whatever you want, but there's really no other place in the world I'd ever rather be. And the City takes my heart away every time I see it.

So wait, wait... could I could I could I???

Could I maybe end this failed experiment out here in Portland, where, okay it's a cool city, but ummm... I've only had like four good months out of the 60-something I've been here?

Yeah, okay. I tried. I failed. I can live with that. Time to move on.

There's an apartment available in Kensington, Philadelphia, and oh wait oh wait oh wait...

I want it! I got it!

Holy shit, I'm moving to Philadelphia in four weeks!!!

:-D

Something finally went right in my life for once, I'm gonna be a Philadelphian soon!!!!!!!!!!

:-D

I'm gonna hit the Reading Terminal Market in a few weeks, and when I leave I'm not gonna say, "I'll be back in a month or a year or two years."

No.

Because this time, I'm gonna say - "The Market - Frankford El is gonna take me home in 15 minutes, and I can be back tomorrow or any other fucking day of my life because I live in Philadelphia! Whoo!!!!!!"

WHOO!

Music, please!

I'll never live in Jersey again, but ah shit I feel I'm coming home...

I still dig The Spinners!

Even though I'm from North Jersey, Philly's what I think about when I think of home. But hey, whatever. I understand...

;)

I'll be home soon!

Welcome to Kensington, indeed. 34 days!!! :-D

"Israel Apartheid Week" is coming

It seems that the 8th annual "Israel Apartheid Week" is coming. Actually, antisemitic Israel derangement gets an entire month from February 20 to March 11 worldwide dedicated to pushing the false meme that Israel is a racist state and is practicing Apartheid in the manner of the former South Africa.

Never mind that such a notion has been debunked by a prominent South African anti-Apartheid activist and former favorite of the anti-Israel set, or that common sense dictates that given the history and nature of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and the nature of Israeli society, there is simply no valid comparison. The derangers who for some reason think that only Jewish people should be denied self-determination, and that radical Islamists and genocidal maniacs should be embraced, are going to have their week

There will apparently be events across the USA including in my current home region, the Bay Area. At the moment, the IAW website seems to be horribly out of date, listing events from 2010 and 2011 as upcomming, but I assume the derangers will be out in force around here.

This time, rather than just being an armchair warrior, I'm actually going to fight back, by having a counter-protest when these terrorist-loving derangers and/or useful idiots show up in the Bay Area*. Here is the poster I'm going to make, and anyone should feel free to use it or riff on it:

Good times! Who's with me? I think we should start more actively fighting this slanderous and ridiculous deranger shit.

*Unless of course the local events are during my upcomming trip to Hawaii.

Santorum claims President Obama helping Iran get Nukes... HUH???

Just when one would think the GOP Presidential field could not get whackier than it already is.... (Ok, ok I realize that is sort of silly - given this group they have a lot further they can go) they up the ante just that much more.

At the CPAC conference these folks are simply trying to one up each other with flights from reality. So what craziness comes out today? Well here we have Rick Santorum ripping out a doozy:

Rick Santorum: Obama helping Iran obtain nuclear weapons

Now this one gets a full Scooby Doo HUH?

But:

"We're throwing Israel under the bus because we know we're going to be dependent upon OPEC," Santorum said during a speech in Oklahoma City. "We're going to say, 'Oh, Iran, we don't want you to get a nuclear weapon — wink, wink, nod, nod — go ahead, just give us your oil.' Folks, the president of the United States is selling the economic security of the United States down the river right now." ....

......Santorum told CNN: "The president fought tooth and nail against putting sanctions on Iran and only capitulated at the end. This is a president who is not standing by our allies, is trying to appease, trying to find a way to allow — clearly to allow Iran to get this nuclear weapon. He's doing absolutely nothing in a consequential way to make sure that they do not get this weapon."

....The Obama administration has rejected Republican charges that it has been weak in its response to Iran and points to sanctions and diplomacy as a cautious but effective way of dealing with a situation that could upend oil markets and the world economy.

The Obama campaign responded to Santorum's remarks by reiterating its position that more pressure than ever has been placed on Iran and that the president has led the international effort to sanction Iran.

Of course as Rick whined:Obama signs executive order freezing Iran assets in US

Obama signed an executive order implementing parts of a new sanctions passed by Congress late last year. The measures block all property and interests of the Iranian government, the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and all Iranian financial institutions that come within US jurisdiction

Previously, US institutions were required to reject, rather than block, such Iranian transactions. The measures, passed with wide majorities in Congress last year, also included a requirement for Obama to impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions that do business with the CBI or other Iranian finance firms....

....Senior White House officials are currently studying the measures passed by Congress to find a way to implement them that maximizes pain for Iran, but does not cause a huge spike in oil prices, for instance, that could harm the fragile US economic recovery.

One can make any claim they like regarding whether or not the President has been effective in trying to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, BUT, one cannot say and believe that he is "encouraging" this project without one taking a serious departure from reality.

So, Mr. Santorum seems mad that the President is trying to find a way to penalize Iran for its research into a nuclear weapon but doesn't want to subject either the world or the U.S. economy to a crash that could be caused if something like the Straits of Hormuz were closed or other rash actions.

But candidate Santorum must not care that a major strike on Iran without the International community would most likely kick off a regional war which would in turn threaten a Global conflict, which would most likely at a minimum (aside from the horrors that it would produce for the people of the region) completely crash the U.S. economic recovery.

But then again maybe it is not that he doesn't care - maybe that is what he wants..... remember, he is a candidate for the Party whose one goal is to see President Obama as a one term President.

More Unbelievable Republican Lies. Can these guys ever tell the truth?

In 2012 Republicans continue to ratchet up the false attacks and false meme's regarding Jews leaving the Democratic Party. Yes, there has been some fall off but lately the Republicans have been simply telling some "whoppers" regarding the amount of fall-off of Jewish voters.

Recently on a Right Wing site, I came across some of this silliness in the form of Geraldo shilling the Republican message on FOX news. It took all of two seconds to find out just how easy it is to dispel this ridiculousness. Where does this come from? Well on May 3, 2010 the McLauglin group (A Right Wing affiliate, according to Media Matters,  had this gem:

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10.

And according to the Rightists this poll just shows that Jewish American voters are "Running for the Hills".

BUT... Not so fast.

Of course, however Media Matters (thank goodness for them) destroys this immediately:

Oh brother. "Would consider"? Could the McLaughlin poll have made it any easier for respondents to not pick option a), "vote to re-elect Obama." The wording practically begs people to pick b).

The problem, of course, is that on the one hand the poll asks people to pick a hard, definitive response. (i.e. would vote for Obama). And then offers up a mushy alternative (i.e. would "consider" voting for somebody.) Yeah, but don't most voters consider voting for somebody else?  Isn't that what elections are for, to consider the possibilities? 

Sure enough, one right-wing blogger claimed the McLaughlin poll proved that, "In little over one year in office Barack Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews."  Conservatives assumed that every American Jew who said they would consider voting for somebody else meant they no longer supported Obama. And yes, it seems the poll was structured to create exactly that kind of confusion.

Whoops... So basically the question: "Would you consider voting for someone else" means you would not vote for President Obama? Really. Personally, I would consider voting for Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, or Bernie Sanders over President Obama. Does that mean I would not vote for President Obama? OF COURSE NOT. What a ridiculous question to base anything on.

Of course, I was able to find this information easily enough. So that, of course leads us to our first question.
Why wasn't the question as it was presented discussed? Of course, because that would have messed with the meme that is being pushed and presented - the one that promotes: "Jewish Americans are fleeing the Democratic Party".

Secondly, why is this being parroted when it is obviously a gross distortion of fact? What does this say about the people that are pushing this meme? Does it speak to a certain desperation that the G.O.P. feels when it comes to Jewish voters? Perhaps. Jewish voters and African American voters truly support the President in far higher numbers than the National Average. However, by constantly trying to continue this meme the Republicans and their supporters hope to create an illusion that President Obama is somehow against Jewish People.

For me, as someone who deeply cares about America and about Jewish issues, I find this strategy both insulting as well as quite pathetic. Is this really what Republicans have to resort to, to sell their brand? (Rhetorical question as we all know that this is sadly typical of Republican tactics and that if for once one of them, or their supporters actually told the truth their heads might explode).

Now real support for the President in the Jewish Community is hard to gauge but between the Pew Polls and the AJC Polls one can get a picture of what is really happening:

Lets take a look at some real polls from 2006 - 2011 (and 2012 is coming most likely before the election).

AJC 2006 (Considered party affiliation)    
Democrat 54%
Republican 15%
Independent 29%
Not Sure 3%

AJC 2007

Democrat 58%
Republican 15%
Independent 26%
Not Sure 2%

AJC 2008

Democrat 56%
Republican 17%
Independent 25%
Not Sure 2%

AJC 2009   

Democrat 53%
Republican 16%
Independent 30%
Not Sure 1%

AJC 2010

Democrat 50%
Republican 15%
Independent 32%
Not Sure 2%

AJC 2011

Democrat 45%
Republican 16%
Independent 38%
Not Sure 2%

Now this data indeed shows that Jewish voters are slightly turning away from the President. In 2008, Jews voted for the President at 78%. This means that over 80% of the Independents broke for the President. IF we are generous and say that only 70% of the independents break for the President that means that 71% of Jewish American voters will vote for President Obama. So we would have a net loss of 7% of Jews voting Republican or Not voting for the President. HARDLY the doom and gloom predictions that the Republicans gleefully distort.

FURTHER, the Pew Polls of 2010 and 2011 show an interesting trend. In 2010 the Pew Poll showed that Jewish voters went 60% for the Democrats and 33% leaned Republican. HOWEVER, 2011 that number IMPROVED for the Democrats to 65% with 29% for the Republicans AND 6% undecided.

Reality has also interfered with the Republican narrative as well. In Florida, Jewish voters in 2008 were 4% of the total GOP Primary vote. In 2012.... they were 1%. In Nevada, Jewish voters were 2% of the vote in 2008 in the GOP Primary. In 2012.... they were 2% of the vote in the GOP Primary. So much for the G.O.P. Surge.

Of course this doesn't even count the fact that while Jewish voters don't self identify as closely with the Democratic Party (as of now - I think we need to see who the Republican nominee will be), they sure as hell don't identify with the Republican Party whose influence seems to have "skyrocketed" a whole 1% (and is actually down 1% from 2008).

Of course who can blame Jewish voters for NOT signing up with the Republicans or with Conservatives. After all, you have a party that:

1. Has White Supremacists speaking at the CPAC conference
2. Has their front running candidate as someone who supports Post Mortem conversions to Mormonism on Jewish Holocaust victims
3. Has another Candidate (who just won three primaries) that on his Hanukkah cards - sends Christian messages from the New Testament
4. Has another Candidate who thinks Israel shouldn't exist, wants to completely cut aid to it, and hangs out with Stormfronters
4. And their last mainstream candidate wants to send weaponry to Islamist Rebels in Syria.

It is amazing that any Jews vote this way, but hey, there is no accounting for Obama Derangement Sufferers.

American Voters and term "Israel Firsters"

During my morning reading I had a chance to read what might be one of the most ridiculous exercises in political sophistry that I have ever read. Simply put, even I as a very Pro-Israel Jew read this and was struck by the simplicity and foolishness of this piece. How this got picked up and carried and by any news outlet is staggering in that this might be one of the most poorly reasoned opinion pieces I have ever read. What piece is this? Take a look for yourselves: U.S. Jews who put Israel First are merely expressing their democratic rights.

Well, from the title... Yes Joel, you are right. They are merely expressing their democratic rights. They get to do that. Is voting for Israeli interests over the U.S.' interests their right? Sure, we are a democracy. So yes that simple statement is absolutely true. You know what else is true Joel, the Sun is yellow, the sky is blue and guess what Joel... you have a keen grasp of the obvious.

So where does Joel Braunold go wrong in this piece? Well right away by having as a byline: There is nothing neither wrong or un-American with being a single issue voter. Actually Mr. Braunold, I would say in this case there is something both "wrong" (which I admit is a subjective judgement) and "un-American" (which is also a subjective judgement).

Braunold starts off his failed article by saying that voting for Israel is just as much a single issue for the American voter as is say a vote based on the environment (using Keystone XL as an example). This immediately fails on the grounds that voting based on opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is a domestic American concern. The pipeline which would run from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico represents a potential environmental hazard for the United States (our own country). The pipeline would run directly over an important aquifer that supplies much of the central U.S. states water supply. The environmental impact of a disaster involving said aquifer would be monumental to the U.S. It is thus an American issue and thus makes far more sense for a single issue voter in an American domestic election than say voting based on the fact that President Obama doesn't call Prime Minister Netanyahu each night and tell him what a great guy he is.

So Braunold sensing the following criticism presents TWO explanations the first of which is completely ridiculous that even Braunold himself does not subscribe to it (he claims it is a Right wing meme and for the most part he is right). The second one though bears looking at. The article claims that Jewish voters might consider the existence of Israel so important and so key to their very being that they would vote based on that premise. To back that up he cites Jewish American voters in the '30's and '40's. Well, in that case I understand this. I, for instance, would never vote for a candidate that talked about not being friendly or supporting the existence of Israel as I see that as both fundamentally against American interests AS WELL AS being fundamentally against Jewish interests. In his example he uses British MP Ken Livingstone.

Were Mr. Livingstone running for President of the U.S. I wouldn't disagree with Mr. Braunold in that vote since from what I know about MP Livingstone I don't think he is a reasonable choice for that position and YES, my vote would be affected by his anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish advocacy. BUT... Mr. Livingstone is not running for President of the United States (well, foreign policy wise his clone -  Ron Paul is, but, that is not someone I would consider voting for).

The person running and being cited by the ODS'ers (Obama Derangement Sufferers) is President Barak Obama and unless one is a Republican and sympathetic to Republican arguments regarding the U.S. Political system then voting for a Republican rather than President Obama purely on the grounds of Israel rather than domestic priorities (those being American priorities both foreign and domestic) is by Bruanold's definition both "wrong" AND "un-American".

This then runs us to a term that has lately come up:  "Israel Firsters". Now this is a term personally I don't like. I think that while it may be sometimes accurate, it is too broadly used by anti-Semites to make claims of dual loyalty. So where do I see this issue as "Wrong" or "Un-American" in our election. Well first of all, I think the Republican agenda of:

1. Overturning Roe v. Wade
2. Stripping the EPA of regulatory power Or dismantling it completely
3. Putting the tax burden on the Middle Class and Poor while exempting the Rich from paying their fair share
4. Underfunding Education
5. Supporting the destruction of the Social Safety Net
6. Supporting the repeal of credible Health Care Reform

and so much more stands against America. But, voting for those things (while professing to be against ALL of them) because one thinks that President Obama, a President who has:

1. Increased Aid to Israel up and above previous administrations
2. Been termed an "Exceptional Friend of Israel" by both the Defense Minister of Israel, it's Deputy Foreign Minister, and it's President
3. Supported Israel in the U.N. countless times
4. Personally intervened to save Israeli Diplomats in Egypt
5. Continually worked to find a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict
6. Constantly stated that Israel must remain the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People
7. The First President to hold a Seder in the White House
8. The First President to designate a Month of the Year, Jewish History Month
9. Has had not one BUT TWO Jewish Chefs of Staff

But even if President Obama wore an Israeli Flag while singing "Hatikva", all while hugging a Binyamin Netanyahu Plush toy it would STILL not be enough for the ODS crowd. Why? Who knows...... .

In the Meantime they would support a party which supports:

1. One State solution to the conflict in the Middle East (without thinking about the ramifications of that)
2. A front-running candidate who supported the Post Death conversions to Mormonism of Jewish Victims of the Holocaust
3. has a candidate that thinks Israel shouldn't exist and would de-fund it entirely.

Ok but I digress....

Now here is where I get controversial. I would say that if this is one's point of view, that the voter who feels this way is living in the wrong country. While one would certainly have the right to vote any way they want, why would this voter bother living here instead of in Israel? I would challenge anyone who feels this way to answer that question. If a narrow P.O.V. as determined by Im Tirtzu or the Israeli Right is what you vote for in American elections then you live in the wrong place.

Now, if one is a Republican to begin with... Dynamite vote for your party. But make your vote based on American priorities. After all, you are an American. If you want to vote for Israeli determined priorities, Kol HaKavod, move to Israel. They need more Olim.

Jewish voters and Republicans - Hype at it's Worst

Lately, those of us that follow these things have been hearing non-stop about how Republicans are posting huge gains with Jewish American voters. We keep hearing Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) Sufferers telling us how the Democratic Party is "Bleeding" Jewish voters and how the Republicans are surging in our polity. Now, personally, while I have seen some uptick in disappointment with President Obama in parts of the Jewish Polity, I have certainly NOT seen a groundswell of reversal of Jewish Political support for the President.

However, that has not stopped the Right Wing, and their ODS drones, from trying to hype their narrative of Jewish Support for the Republican Party. In fact, this hype has even been picked up by Israeli Papers and spread... BUT is this true? Let's look at the facts.

First of all the Pew voters poll in 2011 (a poll with at 6.5% margin of error) indicated a +9% rise in Republican or Leaning Republican tendency in American Jewish voters. In 2008 the Pew Poll, showed that 72% of Jewish Voters leaned Democratic while only 20% leaned Republican. In 2012 the Poll shows that 65% of Jewish Voters lean Democratic while 29% lean Republican. NOW, in the election it turned out that 78% of Jewish Americans voted Democratic. Now in the 2011 poll the representative sample size was only 330 people - about HALF of the number asked in 2008 (645 people), so there is that. In the AJC poll of 2011 (a better indicator) there was a 9% decrease in identified Democratic Jewish voters BUT also a 1% DECREASE in Republican voters with the 10% gain of voters then saying they were Independents.

But even more telling that this is pure hype is the fact that according to this years Pew Poll and last years Pew Poll the Republicans have actually LOST GROUND amongst Jewish voters. In 2010 the poll said 33% of Jewish voters leaned Republican while 60% leaned Democrat. SO in effect the Democratic party has regained 5% points of it's support and the Republicans lost 4% points of their support in just the last year.

SO, in the polls... is the Republican party really picking up a "groundswell" of Jewish support. Maybe not so much.

But now even more bad news for the ODS'ers and their Right Wing support group. In Florida, a key state with a large Jewish voting bloc - Jewish voters were only 1% of the Republican Primary vote. In 2008, they were 3%. THEN in the Nevada Caucuses, where Jewish voters were only 2% of the Republican Primary vote in 2008, guess what % they were in 2012... Wait for it.... Wait for it..... 2% - whoa, now there is a "groundswell".

Really all this is, typical Rovian re-definition of reality. Has the Democratic Party lost some of it's influence with Jewish voters? To date, yes it has, some. Will 78% of the Jewish voting population vote for President Obama again, I doubt it. But I would be willing to bet that the number of Jewish Democratic voters will still be higher than 70% (personally I see around 72-73% as a number).

Given the facts, that the President and the Democratic Party have been stalwart friends to the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel it seems to me that the only reason for this drop off is that the Party has not done a great job in outreach to Jewish voters and has not touted their strong, strong record of friendship and advocacy for both the Jewish community as well as support for Israel. This they need to do, and if they do it I have no doubt they will pick up more Jewish votes.

...and Occupy Oakland Just Lost Me

I have been following Occupy Oakland ever since their first lopsided encounter with police in late October, when the largely peaceful protest was met with serious repression, and even resulted in an Iraq War vet being shot.

Several days after that, on November 2, there was a march to the Port of Oakland with several thousand people, including a friend of mine who reported back from the front lines. If you look at the video, you can see thousands of ordinary people focusing on economic justice and against the rule of the 1%. It was quite encouraging.

---------------

However, I thought the movement may have started to turn when protesters shut down the Port on December 12, in opposition to the relevant unions. But I still fully supported their rights to protest, and was appalled by some of the police response that was detailed on programs such as KQED's Forum.

This past weekend the movement took a much worse turn, when protesters trashed the City Hall for seemingly no apparent reason other than gratuitous violence. But I kept an open mind, and there was some notion that they were forced in there by aggressive policing.

---------------

Well, now I know for sure that Occupy Oakland has gone from being my ally to being my enemy.

No longer the thousands of ordinary folks that marched to the port, but down to a much smaller number of hardcore 'activists', the Occupy Oakland general assembly has voted to endorse BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions), the movement that seeks to replace Israel with an Arab-majority state.

As reported on The Electronic Intifada, the vote was almost unanimous in the General Assembly, with 135 people voting yes, 12 abstentions, and 1 no vote. This, of course, is exclusively symbolic, since Occupy wasn't buying anything from Israel, as is even stated on the Intifada website

Activists in the Bay Area are excited about tonight’s victory at Occupy Oakland, even if it is a bit unclear as of yet how the movement will strategically implement the proposal to support BDS. Henry Norr, a longtime activist in the Palestine solidarity movement told me this evening by email that during the GA discussion, it wasn’t “entirely clear what [the proposal] was asking of the GA.”

Indeed. But it goes on

But obviously most people thought the main thing was to make a statement in support of justice for Palestine, and that’s what they did.

Given the goals of BDS, as documented many places including the excelent Divest This website, this was not a statement in support of "justice", but a statement against the existence of Israel.

---------------

And with that, Occupy Oakland has declared itself to be my enemy. I am no longer conflicted by my support for their goals on one hand but the excesses of tactics like the Port shutdown and the City Hall riot on the other. I now don't support their goals or their tactics. So I say good riddance, and have fun in jail guys.