An Open Letter to Roger Waters

Dear Mr. Waters,
As a fan of Pink Floyd and of your music in general I have to tell you that I was severely disappointed in the letter you wrote to try to convince Alicia Keys NOT to perform in Israel.  I would be very remiss if I did not tell you that your letter is full of contradictions and outright falsehoods.
You write:

“We are all part of the same old story, nothing has changed since the bad old days of apartheid South Africa and Segregated America. We must stand united with all our brothers and sisters against racism, colonialism, segregation and apartheid.

Please, Alicia, do not lend your name to give legitimacy to the Israeli government policies of illegal, apartheid, occupation of the homelands of the indigenous people of Palestine.

Others may try to persuade you that by playing in Israel you may magically effect some change; we know that this is not true, appeasement didn't work with South Africa and it has not worked in Israel. I know I tried it ten years ago, things have only got worse.

I appeal to you to join the rising tide of resistance. Join the many millions of us in global civil society who stand together on the side of justice and peace for all humanity. "We shall overcome one day."

Well, first of all Roger… things have changed, and in this case NOT for the better. You talk about standing with “brothers and sisters” against racism, and apartheid and you talk about “global civil society” that is standing for peace and justice for all humanity… Apparently though, you seem to forget the Jewish people when you talk about “all humanity”.

For instance, you mention that Israelis are occupying the “homelands of the indigenous people of Palestine”, well are not the Jewish people indigenous to the area known as Palestine / Israel? And if so, why do you deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self-determination in their ancestral homeland? If you do deny that Jews are indigenous to the area known as the Palestine district, where do you think they originated?

But when you talk in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) you should realize that this is a movement that denies the Jewish People their legitimate rights to self determination and instead favors only the rights of the Palestinian people.

You talk of peace and justice but understand that neither the Palestinian polity nor the Jewish polity, accepts what you propose. HOWEVER, Israel (the country you demonize in your letter) is on record offering peace agreements time and time again, only to be rebuffed by the Palestinians that you claim to represent. Did you know that the Palestinian Polity overwhelmingly REJECTS a One State Democratic Solution that guarantees equal rights to Jews? Yep… they do. Don’t take my word for it though – please look at the results of the PSR Poll 47 from the Palestinian Center for Survey and Research in Ramallah.

Look in section 5 regarding The Peace Process. Here are the findings on this:

Talk has recently increased about the inevitable failure of the two state solution and the need to demand the formulation of a solution based on the establishment of one state in all Palestinian areas and Israel, one in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. Do you support or oppose this view?

Support: 29%
Oppose: 70%

(Note vote is not in original form due to formatting issues but the question is the exact wording - J.S.)

 And there we have it… 70% of the Palestinian Polity OPPOSES a state where Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. So do you support Democracy here, and if not, what kind of government do you support? Also, if not, how do you square that with your rhetoric?

So really, wouldn’t you say that the program that you support and called for by Palestinian Civil Society one is the one that reflects colonialism and apartheid? I mean, you are telling us to support Palestinian political dreams. Well, here they are in a poll of Palestinians by Palestinians. So how do you square this with your talk about justice for humanity Mr. Waters?

Then you talk about Apartheid. Roger, do you know what Apartheid is? I get that it is the hip word to use when talking about Israel, but, really how accurate is that term? I mean you do know that South Africa was a country that was ruled by a minority government that practiced the most severe forms of segregation and oppression? In South Africa Whites were only 12% of the population, but in Israel, Jews are 73% of the population.

Further… Arabs are not precluded from being part of Israeli society, unlike in South Africa, Arabs can and do vote including having ministers in Government, justices on the Israeli Supreme Court and so forth. Do you know that Omar Barghouti, the head of the movement you support got his Masters at Tel-Aviv University? In South Africa Black and White Students were not allowed to mix.

The failed analogy goes on and on.

Finally Mr. Waters, do you really want to bring Alice Walker into this? I mean, I realize that Ms. Walker is a famous and well received author but did you know that Ms. Walker also supports the insane, and frankly racist writing of David Ickes? Again, don’t take my word for it. How about you read for yourself:

http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2013/02/human-race-get-off-your-knees-i-couldnt-have-put-it-better-myself/

Here is just a little slice of Ms. Walkers feelings:

It’s an amazing book, HUMAN RACE GET OFF YOUR KNEES, and reading it was the ultimate reading adventure.  I felt it was the first time I was able to observe, and mostly imagine and comprehend, the root of the incredible evil that has engulfed our planet.   A lot of it is how shall we say: shocking, beyond belief (but not really, if you don’t get too scared), stunning, profound.  The deconstruction of language is breathtaking, the interrogation of symbols startling.  Magical, in a way.  I kept going:  Oh, so that’s why….  You will too.
The Reptilian space beings whose hybrid (part human, part reptile) descendants make our lives hell in Paradise were blue eyed devils to Malcolm X,  the devil himself to my Christian parents, who never talked about eye color, which I think was not only prudent but wise,  although they seemed clear enough about his sex, and as demons in many other religions, including the non-religion, Buddhism, where the advice is often to invite them in until they go away.  But maybe these were other kinds of demons.  Not the ones controlling not just you, but everything.

Is this the company that you want to keep – people insisting that White’s and Jews are some alien hybrid Reptillian race bent on suppression of the planet?

Roger, I would suggest that before you send out requests like the one you did, you look at the hypocrisy contained in your letter. You claim to be for “human rights and justice for all humanity”. Aren’t we Jews human? OR maybe you subscribe to David Icke’s theories as well?

Please just look at the data for the side that you support. I am not sure how any of what you support measures up to your rhetoric and words to Ms. Keys.

Regards -

On Hating Yourself....

How do people do it? What drives someone so far, that they actually hate the person that they are or the culture that they come from to the point where they would support those who want to annihilate them? What is it about today’s very small but very vocal group of Jewish Israel haters that causes them to turn on their own people? To make excuses for those that would willingly exterminate them? To go so far as to even deny the horror of the Shoah and tell us to “move on” from what happened in Germany a mere 65-70 years ago?

In reading a hateful article at Daily Kos, David Harris-Gershon (also a blogger at Tikkun Daily), writes

“However, the painful truth is this: while Germany as a country and a societal entity has largely (though not entirely) moved beyond the historical atrocities committed by the Nazis, the same unfortunately cannot be said for Israel.”

 And

“The country has been obsessed by security concerns for over 60 years. And it is my view that, because of these factors, Israel has never had a chance to recover from a national, post-Holocaust PTSD that continues to fuel a self-perceived sense of collective victimhood despite its overwhelming military

It is a collective sense of victimhood that has compelled Israel's leaders to perpetually have their fingers on the trigger, and has been partially responsible for the human rights abuses and atrocities Israel continues to commit against the Palestinians.”

 Finishing up with:

“Israel will only become more popular – or, to borrow some biblical phrasing, a greater light unto the nations – once it makes peace with its past and with those Palestinians still held under its thumb.

And those who think otherwise are only contributing to Israel’s decline and the actions that is at the root of the way the world has come to view Israel: as a negative force.”

All I could think to myself is what could Harris-Gershon be thinking when he wrote this drivel?

Now, I believe some background is in order. Harris-Gershon claims that his wife was one of the injured in the 2002 Hamas Bombing at Hebrew University. After this Harris-Gershon then went on to some small bit of notoriety by actually visiting the family of one of the bombers to ask them what had happened and why had this event occurred. It should be noted further he is a full on supporter of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement who also supports the meme that Jews control the U.S. government as he writes here:

“But when the hawkish, "pro-Israel" lobby in America can influence our representatives to sound as if they – well – are representing Israel's citizens more than our own? 

We have a problem. A problem that must be discussed openly and honestly”

and in his Daily Kos signature line posts commentary from Judith Butler concerning anti-Semitism (and remember Butler was the academic who claimed that support for Hamas was a “progressive” value).

This all said, Harris-Gershon’s commentary is disturbing in a few ways.

I believe the most disturbing thing here is that Harris-Gershon demands that Israel “move beyond” the Shoah and that it is “unfortunate” that Israelis (and Jews) can’t do that. That really got to me as Jew. I read that thinking “Wait.. What??? It is unfortunate that we can’t move beyond the Shoah????” I mean it’s unfortunate that Israelis specifically and Jews in general can’t move beyond a relatively recent historical event that was a systematic attempt to destroy the world’s Jewish population that resulted in the deaths of 1/3 of the worlds Jewish population?  I had to ask myself, “What in the world is Harris-Gershon thinking?”

But then Harris-Gershon goes on to further disparage Israelis and Jews when he talks about Israel’s “self perceived victimhood”. Well, forgive me, but having every other country in the region wanting you dead, having the Palestinians continually refusing peace deal after peace deal (and having their last elected government with a charter calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people), and having the U.N. vote negatively on something or anything regarding Israel while completely ignoring far worse abusive behavior on the part of it’s many nations will certainly make some folks “wary”.

It is NOT a collective sense of “victimhood” that causes Israel to act to maintain it’s security, it is 2,500 years of continual abuse that tells Israel and the Jewish people that it (and they) must be vigilant in defending the Jewish people. In other words it is the harsh realities that Israel faces on a daily basis.

Look at Harris-Gershon’s language when it comes to “Cast Lead”. He talks in terms of “Israeli Atrocities”, never once mentioning the thousands of rockets fired into civilian areas of Israel that prompted “Cast Lead”. He never talks about the fact that Hamas launched it’s attacks from the heart of civilian areas and then left the civilians to face retaliatory strikes that it knew were coming. In Harris-Gershon’s world It’s all solely on Israel. It’s all Israel’s fault. All the time.

The next sentence then struck me… It states that it is Israel’s sole responsibility to “make peace” with its past and the Palestinians whom it still oppresses. Somehow, it is implied that we as the Jewish people have done wrong in creating and supporting the State of Israel. Somehow, everything that has gone wrong is on Israel and the Jewish people. WE have to come to peace with what? Defending ourselves from those who want to kill us? What does Israel have to “make peace” with in its history? Its fight for existence? The creation of a Jewish State, the first one in over 2,000 years?

AND where does Palestinian and Arab responsibility fit in with this?  Don’t they have a responsibility to accept Israel for what it is as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people? I don’t understand how Harris-Gershon, or any of thoe Jewish people that support him can look at this and agree with it. I don’t understand how someone can blame themselves and their people for the hatred and abuse that they suffer.

Finally in a severe twist of logic, Harris-Gershon goes on to say that those who oppose him and his vision are: “only contributing to Israel’s decline and the actions that is at the root of the way the world has come to view Israel: as a negative force”. Here, Harris-Gershon (like anti-Semites throughout history) casts blame on those who would actually stand up for the Jewish people as if to say, that when we deny the framing of anti-Zionists or anti-Semites in some way, we are hurting the Jewish people and anything that results from that is our own fault. 

Harris-Gershon though is far from unique. He is just one of a number of Jewish individuals who seemingly go out of their way to blame Israel and the Jewish people for all of the problems that they may have. These people even go so far as coddle blatant anti-Semitism, as they seem to believe that any ally against their own people is an ally worth having (witness Judith Butler and her support for Hamas). We can see an example of this behavior, by this tepid response when a comment is made in his repost of his article at Tikkun Daily by one Alice LaChappelle who said:

“Israel has “cried wolf” too often. For centuries, Jews’ isolation within countries, their rapaciousness, and obsession with financial control have made them disliked in every country in which they have lived”

To which Harris-Gershon replies:

“Alice, these words — “their rapaciousness, and obsession with financial control” — have no place in a rational, truthful discussion. I’m loathe to reflexively yell “anti-Semitism” as so many do when encountering someone with whom they disagree vis-a-vis Israeli politics, but you are either on the line or have crossed over it.”

 Well, for David and others like him… You may be “loathe” to call an anti-Semite an anti-Semite, but dear Alice’s comments are straight up anti-Semitic. They are not “on the line” or even “close to the line”. LaChappelle’s comment is the stuff of Nazi / Hamas propaganda.

So, what I wonder about is what makes someone so hateful of that Jewish part of themselves or of the Jewish people, that they are willing to seek common cause with those who would annihilate their own people. I don’t understand self-hate or the vicious anti-Semitism that exists in the world and when it comes from a fellow Jew… Well that is beyond comprehension.

Terror Groups to Terrorist Nations

A defining question for the world in the 21^st century is how nations deal with non-State or former non-State actors (al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas for example) that use or have used asymmetric warfare and terror against civilians (both internally and externally) as a means to power, have gotten that power and still continue to use terror as a tool in their overseas operations. How nations deal with this issue is one of the defining issues of modern diplomacy.

For instance, recently there has been a stepped up move by the U.K. (and the U.S.) to get Hezbollah classified as a “Terrorist organization” by the European Union. It has faced support from nations like the Netherlands and Germany, and has faced criticism from France, The Czech Republic and Cyprus. Unlike a group like al-Qaeda - Hezbollah, (like Hamas) has become a quasi-governmental organization as well. Hezbollah, for all intensive purposes runs Lebanon and when challenged, has used its military power to overrule the Lebanese Army. Hamas, as we all know, won the last Palestinian election and now rules over Gaza with an iron fist. So… the matter becomes more complicated.

As reported in the Times of Israel

The Czech Republic seemed even more skeptical of an impending move to blacklist the organization. “Hezbollah on one side is a military organization, which does quite a lot of mischief,” Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg told The Times of Israel last month, adding that, “On the other hand, it is in a theoretically sovereign state recognized as a political party.”

The fact that Hezbollah officials are members of the Lebanese government further complicates matters, he explained. “What should my ambassador do when he is in Beirut and he comes to a reception? Say ‘No minister, you’re a terrorist, I don’t speak to you’? This labeling makes not a lot of sense. It belongs to the propaganda war.”

 To a degree Minister Schwarzenberg has a point. Relations between nations do happen and sometimes you have to talk with those that are less than savory actors on the world stage. 

The European Jewish Congress though disagrees.

For the European Jewish Congress, the EU’s expected move was too little.

“Proscribing just part of the Hezbollah infrastructure will not prove effective enough and will allow this terrorist organization to carry on targeting innocent civilians in Europe and elsewhere,” EJC President Moshe Kantor said Wednesday.

“Unfortunately, some believe that Hezbollah is an organization that has different and separate parts and that it is merely a political organization which has an armed wing and this move will squelch its ambitions. On the contrary, Hezbollah was formed as a violent terrorist organization and merely entered politics to further its maximalist aims.”

I believe that while Kantor makes a solid point, particularly about Hezbollah being formed as a terrorist organization I think there is strong evidence that points to the fact that its goals have changed and evolved beyond just terror. Hezbollah, at this point (like Hamas) are quasi State actors and as such need to be treated in that matter. It is not JUST a terror organization, it is much more. So, the question becomes, can a State actor or it’s military wing (armed forces) also be classified as a “Terror Organization?”

In the case of Hezbollah the answer is a resounding yes. Hezbollah while acting in a State role still maintains a military wing that is separate from the country in which it effectively runs and holds positions in the government. There is the Lebanese Army, and then there is Hezbollah. SO, to answer the Czech Foreign Ministers question, the answer is “Yes, you tell that diplomat that you cannot deal with them because in fact, Hezbollah is a terror organization”. This is not just propaganda, this is a choice by that nation and it’s people (as Hezbollah was elected) to have this group represent them. Had Hezbollah folded its operations into the Lebanese Armed Forces then you have a much less clear answer BUT, as things stand now, one can call it Terrorist Organization which has other aspects as well.

This brings up an effort regarding Iran by The Zionist Federation of the U.K. (ZF). The Federation has started an online petition to get the Iranian Revolutionary Guard classified as a Terrorist Organization by the E.U. and Government of the U.K.
 

In their press release the ZF states the following: 

We are calling on the EU and the UK to proscribe the IRG as a terrorist organization due to it being a leader in state sponsored terrorism. The IRG has also been active in sponsoring and supporting terrorism including in Europe, as well as targeting the UK, through attacks on UK soldiers. It is also a major funder and trainer of international terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas, making it a major protagonist in global terrorism.

Paul Charney, Chairman of the ZF said, “The EU and the UK must take practical steps to deal with international terrorism. By proscribing the IRG, it would be showing its commitment to fighting terrorism and protecting the security of EU citizens”.

But, unlike Hizbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is officially part of the Iranian Armed Forces. While they are separate units within the Armed Forces of Iran, they are not outside of the power of the Government of Iran. This brings into the process a thorny issue. How does one deal with this? Are all of the Armed Forces of Iran to be considered Terrorist?

These are important questions to answer because if it is determined that the Revolutionary Guard is a “Terror Organization” then it is possible to then say that the Iranian Armed Forces are a “Terror Organization” and as official organs of State policy, the Iranian Government itself is a “Terror Organization”.

Of course when dealing with that, couldn’t one make the claim that any nation that causes civilian casualties is in effect a “Terrorist Organization”. For instance, one might claim that when the U.S. Armed Forces mistakenly bombs a wedding party in a drone attack, that they are acting as a Terror Organization, and if that is the case, couldn’t one call the U.S. a “Terrorist State”.

The answer here is I believe has to be a resounding “No”. I believe that what this comes down to is “intent”. IF that wedding party and the civilians attending that party are attacked with the intention of terrorizing the populace and forcing them to submit then absolutely, that is terrorism. IF, however, that attack is a mistake (and it was) or if it is a surgical strike gone awry, after a single military target during war time, then I don’t believe it can be called a “Terror strike”.

So this brings us to the argument of intent regarding the Revolutionary Guard. I think that it is clear that the Government of Iran has engaged in State Sponsored Terror. The actions of the Quds wing of the Guard shows this. They specifically have been involved with Hezbollah and Hamas in targeting civilians for terror attacks and their operatives have been stopped in the past from attacking Israeli citizens as well as Jews around the world.

To deal with this the ZF recommends that the E.U. in general and the U.K. in particular at the minimum follow the example set by Canada in 2012. At that time, the Harper government officially designated Iran a “State Sponsor of Terror” AND specifically designated the Quds Unit of the Revolutionary Guard a “Terrorist Organization”. Of course, though, this opens the door towards declaring ALL of the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization which is what the Zionist Federation would like to see.

There is a strong case for this as well. After all, the Quds unit is an official unit in the Revolutionary Guard, and does represent the Guard in its international efforts. Given that, the Quds unit does engage in terror both on its own and with surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas, I think the case is strong for declaring the I.R.G. a “Terrorist organization”.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that Governments would be better able to effectively handle the presence of Iranian military personnel in their nations. By limiting access of the Guard to their nations, they would help reduce the risk of terror to their citizens in general and their Jewish citizens in particular. Also, it would impose restrictions on funding for the Guard and to Iran in general. Funding that in the past has gone to terrorizing the populations of these nations.

Take a look at the links provided. This is an effort from across the political spectrum, left, right, and center. I urge people to get informed here and support the Zionist Federation of the U.K. in their efforts to get the Revolutionary Guard properly classified as a “Terrorist Organization”.  

 

Yet Another Anti-Israel Person Outs Self As Crazy

You can just set your watch by it.  The sequence of events is always like this:

1) A semi-notable person comes out with some anti-Israel speech or act

2) Anti-Israel idiots jizz all over themselves and the rest of the internet with praise for the person

3) The person then demonstrates that they are insane and racist

4) Anti-Israel idiots are silent

The most recent example of this cycle completing is Alice Walker.

Alice Walker is the semi-notable author of The Color Purple (which, ironically, was turned into a major motion picture by none other than Steven Speilberg).  Last year she announced that she would not let that book be translated into Hebrew, boycotting not just a country but an entire language.  She has also stated that she believes that Israel is "worse" than the Jim Crow South, which of course was trumpeted loudly by the usual Useful Idiots in the usual forums.   

So now that steps 1 and 2 have happened, like clockwork it is time for Alice Walker to say something insane and racist.  And on cue...

If you don't immediately understand this rant don't waste too much energy, I'll explain it after.  Here's what she said:

I have been dragging along David Icke’s monumental book: Human Race Get Off Your Knees for the last month.  It has been on my lap as I sat; been propped against pillows as I laid down; followed me to bathroom and poolside; and been, in fact, a formidable companion over these past several weeks.  It is a massive book, and requires complete attention.  Even so, some of it is hard to grasp.  I have felt sorely regretful that my science foundation is so…nil.  I remember that in high school the broken microscope we inherited from the white high school (they got a science lab) did permit each of us in our large class a single glimpse of, I think it was, an enlarged cell of something.  It was pretty amazing,but there it was: my introduction to something David is telling us that is really worlds away from this.

What I was remembering was how [Malcolm X] called our oppressors “blue eyed devils.” Now who could that have been?  Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet the moment they could get a glimpse of it through the mist that used to cover it (before there was a moon).  No kidding.  Deep breath!  Yes, before there was a moon! (Oh, I love the moon; can I keep it? Please?).  Anyway, there they came, these space beings (we’re space beings too, of course, not to forget that).  But they looked…. different than us.  And they were.
They wanted gold and they wanted slaves to mine it for them.  Now gosh, who does this remind us of?  I only am asking.  You do the work.  Apparently their own planet needed this metal to continue its, apparently, long life.  Credo Mutwa, Zulu shaman – and I am on my knees here in gratitude that he held on long enough to tell us about this – calls them the Chitauri, which has become my favorite word of all time (well, of this time that I’m learning all this): my partner and I go around saying Oh, Chitauri, whenever we get a glimpse of one or two of the Chitauri offspring, aka Illuminati bloodline families and their puppets, on the telly.  It’s quite the stress reliever, just knowing what we’re looking at.  And I like saying “telly” too, because it sounds so English and David Icke-esque.  Truthfully our “telly” is our laptops.

What she is referring to in this barely coherent belch?  The most obvious part is the "Illuminati" conspiracy theory, and general praise for David Icke, who is probably the most insane conspiracy peddler around and literally believes that the world is ruled by alien lizards.  Just on the basis of the endorsement of Icke alone, Walker has revealed herself to be an insane person with no credibility,

But the other nonsense I detect, especially with the Malcolm X and "blue eyed devils" reference in the context of spaceships, is the old Nation Of Islam tale that the white man was genetically engineered 6000 years ago by an evil scientist named "Yakub" who lived on the island of Patmos.  While Yakub's creation will rule on Earth for 6000 years, true black master race will come back from space in the motherships.

(Side note:  I remember first reading about this tall tale of Yakub when we had to read The Autobiography of Malcolm X in high school.  I thought there is no way that anyone actually believes that, but alas, they do.  It was my first in a lifetime of encounters with far left anti-science lunacy.)

It is difficult to say whether Walker is explicitly endorsing the Yakub fable or simply giving it an approving nostalgic nod.  Either way, and when combined with the other nonsense like the praise for David Icke and his lizard people, it certainly outs her as a deranged idiot.  Which of course is what one has to be to say things like Israel is worse than the Jim Crow South.

Will she remain a hero to the anti-Israel set who couldn't praise her enough yesterday, or be dropped like a ton of bricks like they tried to do with Gilad Atzmon.  Time will tell, but at this point all we have from David Harris Gershon and his fellow travelers is the customary silence. 

The REAL Benghazi Scandal

Seems like there indeed a Benghazi Scandal, just that it is not quite the one the Republicans and their goofball supporters were claiming.

See, the Republicans and those that suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (and can’t help themselves), were jumping up and down screeching from the rafters that what happened in Benghazi was one of the all time great failures by an administration to protect it’s foreign service workers and diplomats. Then they compounded this lie by trying (in a classic case of projection) that the administration politicized the response to the attack in order to enhance it’s chances for re-election in the 2012 Presidential election.

Well it does seem there was some politicization of the attack, yet this politicization of the attack came not from Democrats but from Republicans and that it was Republicans who shamefully used the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other diplomatic personnel as ways to not only try to win the November election but also have cynically used these deaths to increase their own fund raising, disrupt President Obama’s second term agenda, and take the public’s eyes off of the fact that these people simply refuse to govern responsibly.

In all seriousness, how can Republicans and their supporters claim be so up in arms when many of the same critics of the Obama administration simply sat on their hands, during the Bush Administration when there were thirteen (yep, that’s thirteen) attacks on consular and diplomatic services which were more deadly than Benghazi. I mean, how can one see that (and the incidents which occurred) and not say that this entire clown show (and I use this term because really… that is what it is), is NOT a partisan political effort. Had these folks been outraged to these levels during these previous incidents I would not complain about this obviously partisan attack, but, they weren’t. When Republicans were in charge apparently these failures didn’t warrant this kind of poutrage.

Then, as if this is not enough, Republicans and their goofy supporters started screaming that this was a cover-up on a scale larger than Watergate. Ok, now this should give everyone pause to consider the pure partisan hatred expressed by this charge. Watergate was a scandal because the President of the United States actually ordered a Criminal Break-in of Democratic Party Headquarters. In Watergate you had the President of the U.S. actually ordering an illegal activity.

In Benghazi, you had failures by the State Department to adequately provide security for a consular mission in the middle of a war-torn and chaotic area. The President did not order Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi, the Ambassador decided to go on his own. The White House did not orchestrate a terror attack on the consulate. In no way did the White House or the Administration do anything even bordering on illegal as did the Nixon White House during Watergate.

BUT further than that, the Republicans and their charges were so worked up into a frothy state that they then went on to produce “leaked” emails saying that the White House actually orchestrated a change in talking points to eliminate all references to involvement by al-Qaeda and that they did this to knowingly deceive the public. They maintain that the President had stated that they had “defeated” al-Qaeda and felt that if word of an al-Qaeda attack had gotten out before the election it would have meant trouble for the President’s re-election efforts.

As one sufferer of Obama Derangement Syndrome stated:

“The Obama administration then lied about lying through White House spokesmen, Jay Carney, who insisted that the White House did not force any substantive changes to the CIA talking points which originally sourced the attack to Islamists.”

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it turns out that these comments aren’t quite true and by the term “aren’t quite true” I mean that they are outright lies.

First of all the President when discussing al-Qaeda worldwide never claimed (to my knowledge) that they were utterly defeated. He has made the claim (and rightly so) that in Af-Pak that al-Qaeda has been weakened and that their command structure has been severely compromised but he did not say they were defeated (as has been claimed):

Here is President Obama in 2011 about al-Qaeda - 

In announcing Osama bin Laden"s death Sunday night, President Barack Obama said U.S. military and counterterrorism professionals have "made great strides” in the effort to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaida.

But terrorism experts, U.S. officials and Obama himself say that despite progress in capturing or killing key al-Qaida leaders, the group is still a force in international terrorism.

"There's no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will— remain vigilant at home and abroad,” Obama said. "...The cause of securing our country is not complete."

AND now it turns out that claims that the White House orchestrated a CIA cover-up… OHOH it turns out that those “leaks” quoted by Republicans were actually FABRICATIONS of emails created by… the Republicans themselves. CBS News is Reporting:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday.”

Apparently the wording of emails from Victoria Nuland and Ben Rhodes were altered to say different things than what the Republicans claimed and that CBS found:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday….”

…the Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

This story pretty much wipes out the claims the Republicans and their supporters have made regarding any sort of a cover-up.

The bottom line is that no matter what the truth is, Republicans and their long suffering supporters just can’t accept the truth. They continue even in the face of evidence to the contrary to simply ignore reality and rather, just blindly spout talking points. Is that a scandal in itself? Certainly not, that is just plain and simple stupidity.

The real scandal here is two-fold.

The First is that the Republicans actually altered emails and then convened a House investigation based on these altered emails. Simply put, they lied about the content of the emails, fraudulently changed that content and then have wasted taxpayer funds in a blatantly partisan attack on the President of the United States and why, just so they could increase Fund Raising for their members AND so that they could disrupt on going Administration efforts to govern this nation. I do believe that deceiving the American public like this should be investigated and those responsible for this should be held accountable.

Second, once again this shows why no one can take criticism by Republicans or their ODS suffering drones seriously. I mean despite the fact that they are constantly re-buffed by reality, they continue to soldier on in a fantasy world driven only by hatred of President Barack Obama and the fact that in the last election they were soundly defeated. And more over, this hatred has led to the Republicans completely abrogating their duties to the American people as the controlling party of the House of Representatives. They simply refuse to deal with the problems facing our nation and instead are focusing on useless legislation like pointless vote after vote after vote on repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, or refusing to even institute background checks on certifiable lunatics and criminals so that these people can buy weapons.

This is the real scandal about Benghazi – a blatant political attempt to undermine the President and the Government of the United States through lies and forgery by Republicans and their operatives. Now that this scandal is coming to light it will be interesting to watching these folks scurry around now that a light is being shined on them.

More Benghazi Bull&#*

We have been getting a lot of garbage coming from what I like to call Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) “dog and pony show” about Benghazi and the nonsense that the Republican’s and their goofy surrogates are spewing out regarding this. It would be one thing if they actually cared about this incident AND were going to use hearings to better reform the processes in the way the State Department operates and handles security. But what Issa is actually doing is nothing but a complete clown show of a hack job all in an effort to both derail a potential Hillary Clinton Presidential run in 2016, raise funds for the G.O.P. ,  and disrupt any agenda that President Barak Obama might have.

Pretty strong words? Sure. But honestly, I am sick and tired of this nonsense and what it is doing to the United States and our polity. So let’s just see what the Republicans and their goofy surrogates are whining about.

First of all, interestingly enough, while Republicans are calling this “the worst thing evah” (Spelling mistake intentional), they were and are remarkably silent about their own record in the area of attacks on U.S. diplomatic and consular officials.

Bob Cesca writing at HuffPo, points out Republican hypocrisy, when America suffered thirteen (that’s 13) diplomatic and consular attacks during the Bush years and none of the modern day inquisitors involved had very little to say regarding them. Given that, how can we take them or their charges seriously? Did they all of a sudden gain concern for our diplomats? Of course not, it is pretty obvious to anyone that this thing is political theatre and that it is simply a partisan hack job for the reasons stated above.

So let’s break down some of this partisan hackery (new word) even further. First of all, I think it is important for everyone to read the 39 page findings of the Independent review board convened by the State Dept. and run by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. This will put an end to the caterwauling and nonsensical lies spread by Republicans and their goofball supporters.

For instance, Republicans and their goofy supporters claim that if only the U.S. had “sent in the marines” Ambassador Stevens and the four American operatives would still be alive. And further, not only do they claim that the nothing happened, but they actually claim that someone (probably the evil secret Muslim President Barak Hussein Obama </snark>) told U.S. forces to “stand down”.

Well the review board debunks this lie with their action report (tough reading but important) of the night of Sept. 11^th, 2012 on pages 18 – 28 of the report. First of all, one must remember that the consular post in Benghazi was a small one with seven U.S. diplomatic personnel. There were other American assets in the area and these assets DID arrive to help it’s just that they were too late to stop the area from being overrun and the Ambassador and Information Management Officer Smith from dying of smoke inhalation.

Again, read these heartbreaking pages. There was absolutely no interference from Washington concerning response to the pleas for help coming from the Consulate. It is simply amazing to me that the Republicans and their drones would actually make this charge. Everyone did what they had to do once the attack was under way.

Now let’s take on some more of the partisan lies spread by those who would politicize the death of four Americans for their own fundraising and political agendas. Another lie these folks like to spread is concerning whether the President called it terrorism or not, and was that politically motivated. To answer the second part first, I have no doubt that there was some political gamesmanship by the White House here. It is true that certainly having a diplomatic outpost overrun by an al-Qaeda affiliate would look bad for the President, it is an extreme stretch to think it would have ruined the President’s re-election efforts. I can understand his reticence to call this a coordinated operation by al-Qaeda. That said, I don’t see any evidence of any kind of cover-up.

The President and his administration did not say that al-Qaeda worldwide had been defeated as the liars maintain. What they had said was that al-Qaeda in Af-Pak had suffered some very serious losses particularly to it’s leadership cadres and that it was severely weakened in those areas. No one denied that al-Qaeda affiliates were still at large and causing massive amounts of trouble wherever they went, so there goes that piece of nonsense.

On to the charge that the President never said it was “terrorism”. The Washington Post fact checkers say admit that while he did refer to “acts of terror” in a speech on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden, he was being vague and then calls him out for denying he was talking about this days later in an interview. Now, I watched this interview, and no where do I see how the Washington Post came to their conclusions. What I see is a President that is taking a measured approach to a tough situation and waiting for more information to come in before racing to judgment.

On a personal note, this has to be one of the biggest steaming piles of horse manure used in what has become this political circus. Frankly, I don’t give a flying f*&% whether he called this a terror attack or he called it a freakin’ hamburger. It’s just not that important. It really isn’t. What is important is that someone get the facts, and then acts to either A) Bring the killers to justice and B) fixes this to make sure that it never happens again.

Besides what do these dumbasses actually think he was talking about when he referred to “acts of terror” in that speech? Do they think he was talking about egg throwing in New York? For goodness sakes, just how dumb do you have to be to not understand the President was talking about this attack? As my mom liked to say, these folks have “rocks in their heads”.

And how silly has Issa’s sideshow gotten. Well, first he wouldn’t let Ambassador Pickering testify after demanding that the Ambassador do testify. Then he says “Well, we will only let the Ambassador testify – if it’s in Private NOT in Public.

Here is Darrell Issa, talking about how he “doesn’t want this hearing to be a show”:

"The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way.

So wait a minute, this whole big PUBLIC hearing really should be only conducted in PRIVATE? HUH????

Now, were there mistakes made here by the Administration that should have been reviewed. Absolutely. And Secretary Clinton conducted just such a review. Anyone reading it can see just how critical that review was. Is there a discussion to be had concerning American security in countries that are unstable and have active al-Qaeda affiliates in them? Absolutely.

Was there a White House cover-up about this? Not in the slightest. Some idiots have even gone so far as to say this is worse than Watergate. Those folks really should check themselves into some kind of mental health institution as their faculties for reason seem to have gone awry. It’s incredible. Here we have people comparing a criminal break-in ordered by the President himself, to some severe mistakes made by senior State Dept. individuals. The two are not even close to being on the same level.

And this is why Republicans and their goofy supporters should never be elected to any office higher than that of Park Bathroom attendant. Because, all they seem to do is waste people’s time with manufactured scandals and irrelevant congressional votes. Just today, the Republicans voted for the 37^th time to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act even though they know that there is no possible way it will get through the Senate and if it did that, the President would simply veto it (and they don’t have the votes to overturn). It’s just a WASTE. OF. TIME.

Meanwhile, instead the House could be working on much more pressing issues such as dealing with Climate Change, Gun Violence, Joblessness, Improving our infrastructure, real immigration reform, and so forth. But no. Not these folks. They have to work on screeching about Benghazi, or yammering about the IRS or any other daily manufactured outrage. These people and their supporters are a bunch of hacks, and honestly their actions do nothing but disrupt the governance of the United States.

I suggest writing to your local Representative and tell them to get on with actually working with the President and Democrats instead of letting the country suffer so that they can achieve their own partisan political ends. It’s nonsense and it needs to stop. NOW!

Know Thine Enemy

Whether this phrase be the word of G-d or Sun Tzu, it is solid advice.

It is even better when your enemy actually tells you that he is your enemy and tells you that you must beware. So, you may be asking… How does this relate to Israel? Well, earlier this month when speaking to Hizbollah affiliated T.V. (Al – Mayadeen) in Lebanon, Jabril Rajoub, a member of Fatah’s Central Committee had this to say: 

"We the Palestinians are the enemies of Israel….

….."At present, we are satisfied by the popular resistance," Rajoub added, but explained, "We the Palestinians are a source of concern for Israel. We are in this country, and this country is ours. They are our enemy and our battle is against them.”…

…."Until now we have not had nuclear weapons, but in the name of Allah if we had nuclear weapons, we’d be using them”.

And there we have it or do we?

Is this all there is to this commentary? Are the Palestinians really so die-hard that they are the mortal enemies of Israel and can’t live in peace with the Israelis? For a guy like Jibril who signed on to the Geneva Initiative, is this really his stance? I think it is important that we understand what is really going on here.

First of all, we need to determine what made Jibril say this, particularly now. Is it that he merely needed to tell the truth and it needed to burst out or is there more to it? I believe there is. Of course, I actually do believe that Jibril is talking about how he sincerely feels. You don’t make a comment with such far reaching implications like that if you don’t mean it.

That said, I can think of a number of reasons though why he made that comment, and here they are:

1. Domestic Political Considerations: Unity Government talk brokered by Qatar is in the air and as of today, Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a unity government within three months (for the 873^rd time </snark>). What does this mean? This means that now Fatah is competing with Hamas for who can be the voice of “the resistance” against the Israelis. Remember there are two recent polls out that show the Palestinian Polity supports “armed resistance” as either a first or second choice of tactics against the Israelis. In the latest Pew Poll (cited here)

“Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.”

This coupled with a high favorability rating for radicals like Islamic Jihad (58%) is forcing Fatah (who does enjoy a strong position in the polls) to move it’s position to one that is more radical. Hamas and Palestinian radicals are constantly hammering Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as collaborators or as “lap dogs” for the Israelis. I think this kind of rhetoric is geared to stem that in part.

2. Regional Considerations: I think another part of this is the unrest that once again is roiling throughout the region with the rise of Islamist parties. Look where Jibril gave this interview. On Hizbollah T.V.  Look at what is happening in Egypt and in Jordan within their parliaments particularly with the rise of Islamist Political movements, where these people who have Peace Treaties with Israel are demanding their governments abrogate their agreements. The P.A. (or P.L.O.) does not want to get caught outside of these movements that are threatening to either force regime change or force regime radicalization in the region.

Of course, don’t forget Syria. Either way Syria is heading for a more radical future. If Assad wins the revolution, he will have his Iranian masters and his Hizbollah allies to thank. If the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon don’t radicalize with regards to Israel they will be facing a ton of problems in how they are perceived by Beirut and Damascus. IF Assad loses well then, there will be an al-Qaeda state which will then push to radicalize Jordan. What will happen to the Palestinians then if they are seen as being allies with Israel?

Related to this, remember who is hosting Palestinian reconciliation talks: Qatar. Who just decided to bankroll Hamas and Egypt? The Qataris. Oh yes, and who is financing the Syrian Rebellion. Yep, that would be Qatar. They are using their economic power to become a broker in the region. Jibril is seeing an opportunity for the broke Palestinian Authority to “get his foot in the door”. Keep in mind that right now there is strong unrest focused on the P.A. for not paying wages to civil servants.

So, one has to look at what Jibril is saying and understand against the regional backdrop of what is happening.

Does this excuse anything he said? Absolutely not. It is quite obvious that the Palestinian Polity (or at least those who lead the Polity) have zero interest in settling the conflict permanently with the Israelis in a peaceful manner. I think there are those in the P.A. / P.L.O. that would settle for a peaceful Two State Solution, but, only as an interim step towards a Palestinian State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.

And, given that only 29.3% of the Palestinian polity supports a Democratic One State Solution where Jews and Arabs live together in peace, I think there is very little that currently speaks to a permanent peace solution from the Palestinian side.

Interestingly enough there are reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the P.A. regarding the Olmert plan last year in a secret meeting. So there is that…

In the end is Jibril “grandstanding”. Maybe. Still, one would hope that someone in the Palestinian polity would stand up and say “What the…. NO!”. If there has been this reaction I haven’t seen it.

So yes, until there is a denunciation by the Palestinian leadership for this remark AND I can’t see that coming from a unified Fatah, Hamas, PIJ leadership… I think the phrase “Know thine enemy is quite appropriate.

What does it mean to be a “Liberal / Progressive Zionist”?

Friends ask me this question with the caveat, “I don’t understand exactly what that means”. I was talking to a few Krav Maga friends (some Israeli, some American) and one of my American friends said, “You really are a Zionist – huh?” I answered back with a “Yep, but, I am a Liberal Zionist”. Which followed with the question “Hmmm what does that mean?”. So I gave him my standard answer and then I thought more on what it means to be a “Liberal / Progressive Zionist”.

Here is what I came up with.

As I wrote here the other day, I think that Zionism is the progressive position to take regarding Israel and the Jewish people. It is my opinion that Zionism is a large tent, but, first and foremost it is a simple concept at the root of it. Simply put, I believe Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a legitimate right to self determination in a Nation State in part of their ancestral homeland in the Middle East.

And here the Jewish Virtual Library states:

Zionism:

The national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.  Has come to include the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel.

So in a lot of ways beyond this basic definition the term “Zionism” is a very broad term which includes people from people like Zahava Gal-On (Leader of the Leftist Israeli party – Meretz) to Michael Ben-Ari (Leader of the neo-Kahanist Otzma L’Yisrael), both of whom can legitimately be called “Zionists” (whether we like it or not). Now does this mean that people from Meretz and people from Otzma are the same? Of course it doesn’t mean that. Only a simpleton (and some goofy anti-Zionists) believe something like that.
No, because it’s a “big tent” Zionism allows for a great deal of divergence in its thought. There are Religious Zionists, Secular Zionists, Nationalist Zionists, Conservative Zionists, Centrist Zionists, and Liberal / Progressive Zionists, just to name a few varieties.

So what does it mean to be a “Liberal / Progressive” Zionist? In my mind it means a few things. Most important to me though it means that I support the concept of a National Homeland and State for the Jewish people that is also a Westernized, Democratic Nation State with separation between Synagogue and State. I believe in a State that respects true democracy. A State that respects all of its citizens no matter what race, religion, and or cultural background they may have. I support a State that embraces equality for Women and for its LGBT community. I also support a State that maintains the common cultural aspects of the Jewish community regardless of the level of religious observance. In short I support a State that is the a model of “Jewish Democracy”. I am heartened by the words of the Israeli Declaration of Establishment of Statehood when it states:

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

I think that these are noble goals. Now, is it realistic that everything will be met… Of course not, we are after human beings. No one is perfect. At the same time I think it is important that we strive to be better than what we are. Isn’t that a goal of being a person, to always improve oneself?

At the same time, I believe very strongly that becoming like our enemies will destroy who we are as well as the “spirit” of our people. I believe we can be and should be better than our enemies who I believe often times exhibit the worst parts of human behavior. In my mind, if I engage in the same tactics as my enemy what exactly makes me better than him/her, and if I am not better… then what’s the point in the long run. Does this mean I advocate defenseless behavior? In now way, shape, or form do I advocate that. I believe in stoutly defending our safety and principles, I just don’t believe we have eject our values and principles to do so.

So what does this mean for Modern Day Israel and by extension the Modern Day Jewish Community?
It means coming to terms with how and what we support in our own political polities. In the U.S., it means supporting candidates who believe in Progressive / Liberal values for the American People. What are those values? See above. It means that despite Rightwing “hackery” (I just made this word up), it means voting for and supporting those candidates that support social and economic justice for all Americans, not just those in the top 2%. It means not using another nation’s politics as an excuse to not support candidates that support (relatively) social and economic justice in one’s own nation. And by no means does it mean supporting candidates that expressly vote against social and civil rights at home.

What does it mean for Israel and the Jewish Community? It means supporting those organizations that support social justice and democracy in Israel (being consistent after all is important). It means supporting the rights of Israelis no matter what their background (Jewish, Muslim, or Christian) to enjoy equal civil rights. It means supporting democracy in its truest form. It means supporting the rights of all members of the Jewish community with regards to worship and marriage.

What does it mean in terms of Israeli foreign policy and in particular how Israel deals with the issues of the West Bank and the Occupation? It means supporting a defensible State. As a Liberal / Progressive Zionist, I heartily applaud the efforts of President Obama and his agenda of working hand in hand with the Israelis to increase their security and well being. It also means supporting a viable Two State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It means supporting a solution where both Israelis AND Palestinians can realize their legitimate rights to self determination.

What a “liberal” does not support is either side’s version of a “One State Solution”, and the disenfranchisement or ethnic cleansing of citizens and residents of the area.

For me, it is fine to call oneself a Zionist as long as that person believes in the legitimate rights of self determination of the Jewish people. What is wrong is when Rightists try to steal the term “liberal” and instead support parties and groups which are strictly opposed to Democracy, and Civil Rights in any polity, whether it be here (in the U.S.) or abroad.

So, this is how I view what Zionism is and what I believe it should be. I believe that our people after 2,500 + years of oppression by others should reach to our “higher selves” and remember to maintain the humanity and sense of justice that has kept us going as a people for all this time. It by no means, means that we should be weak or allow others to take advantage of us, but, I do believe that we can be both strong as well as hold to our higher ideals as much as is humanely possible.

To All Of The Equivocating Idiots When It Comes To Islam

I continue to be amazed at the ability of people, including those people who fancy themselves to be part of the "reality based" end of the political spectrum, to continue to deny the obvious in favor of twisted non-logic.

-----

Let's do a simple thought experiment:  If I was thinking about threats to my health, which one of these should I worry about and take steps to mitigate:  1) Smallpox or 2) Cancer?  Or are they both an equal threat?

If you said that they are both an equal threat, then you are unquestionably a moron because Smallpox has been eradicated from the Earth for over 20 years, while Cancer is a real contemporary threat.  It is true that in the past Smallpox killed millions, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a threat now.

Happily very few people would say that Smallpox and Cancer are an equal threat. Yet some people have trouble employing the same simple logic when it comes to extremist religions and the threat they pose.

-----

If I am a person who doesn't want to be the victim of religiously-inspired violence or terrorism - today, here in the contemporary real world - are all religious ideologies equal threats?

Obviously not.  There is one religious ideology that absolutely dominates the religiously inspired violence in the world today, and that religion is Islam.  Whether it's riots about cartoons, murders over movies, suicide terrorism, or just plain regular terrorism if religiously motivated, it is almost exclusively coming out of Islam.

When we are evaluating the world today, including the situation we are in and what should or should not be done about it, it doesn't matter what happened 800 years ago with the Crusades, or even 200 years ago.  It just doesn't.  It matters what is happening now.

And now, in the world today, neither Christians nor Jews nor Hindus, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians are rioting and killing people over cartoons, issuing Fatwas against authors and film makers, or strapping on suicide vests.  Nowhere are those ideologies motivating people to throw acid on girls for going to school, or to stone people for having sex, or to keep women out of sporting events.  And with very few exceptions are adherents of these groups planting religiously-inspired bombs anywhere. 

------

A leading champion for the failure to grasp the obvious and insistence on obfuscating is columnist Glenn Greenwald.  On yesterday's "Real Time with Bill Maher" TV program, Greenwald again employed the 'Oh, but what about the Crusades' canard when Maher pointed out that Islam is the more dangerous religious ideology today when it comes to real threats to life, safety, and secularism. 

This is essentially the same debate that Greenwald has been having with Sam Harris.  Greenwald's largely intentional divorce from reality has been taken down by Harris so thoroughly that it does not need to be repeated here.

I will just point out that Greenwald has still not responded to Harris' central 'put your money where your mouth is' challenge, in which Greenwald would publish a cartoon mocking Islam and Harris would publish a cartoon mocking any other religion of Greenwald's choice, and they would see what happens.  Obviously, only Greenwald's cartoon would lead to widespread violence, riots, and death threats.  The fact that Greenwald cannot respond at all to this challenge leads me to think that he really doesn't even believe his own rhetoric.

-----

The reluctance of people to accept the simple fact that today, in the world, the overwhelming source of religiously motivated threats and violence is Islam and not any other religion, is simply insane.  I attribute it to two causes, which are closely related.  The first is cultural relativism, in which some people (mostly liberals) are very uncomfortable with anything that finds fault with something that is perceived as another culture.  The other is purely ideological - admitting that there is a real, actual problem in the world with Islamist violence  means agreeing with Repuiblicans about something, which some liberals simply cannot bring themselves to do.  This gets back to the idea that if Republicans said that the Earth is round, some liberals would have to insist that is flat.  But in the end, of course, the inability of people to get past their narrow ideological blinders and simply acknowledge the obvious is a perennial problem on a variety of issues.

If you are one of those who are spinning in circles trying to deny the obvious, I encourage you to simply stop it and acknowledge that the Earth is round, even if Republicans think so too.  Acknowledge that today, in the contemporary real world, it is not Christianity, Mormonism, Judiasm, or Hinduism that is motivating people to engage in widespread religiously motivated killings, terrorism, threats, honor murders, and riots.  Those ideologies are not motivating people to throw acid on girls for going to school, or to stone people for having sex, or to keep women out of sporting events.  Anyone can make a cartoon or write a book critical of any of these religions - and in fact people do all the time, and they do not have to live in fear.  However, in today's world, Islam is simply in a class by itself.  Among religions, it is by far more of a threat when it comes to violence, terrorism.

President Obama, America, and the Middle East… Pew Numbers are in.

There is a new Pew Poll out (dated 5/09/13) regarding the Middle East, America, President Obama and attitudes regarding the Peace Process.

Here are some of the highlights…

In Israel – Despite claims by the bigots on the Right and divestment people on the Left, Israel is indeed a friend of the U.S. Our nation (the U.S.) enjoys an 83% favorability rating in the eyes of Israelis. In contrast the U.S. only has a 16% favorability rating amongst Palestinians. This is important to point out since the anti-Semites and Lunatic Fringe inhabitants tend to think that Israelis are lukewarm to America at best, particularly since President Obama has been in the White House.

Of course there are more numbers than this. Despite the deranged bleating of our own (the Zionist) Right Wing a strong majority of Israelis (82%) feel that U.S. foreign policy is either Fair (47%) or Favors Israel (35%), not too bad a rating for an administration who (according to the Lunatic Fringe) supports the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihad against Jews.

But there’s more. According to the poll, President Obama enjoys a 61% Approval rating amongst Israelis with only 36% saying they don’t approve. Here are the Pew Findings:

“Israelis and Palestinians also differ on views of Obama. About six-in-ten (61%) Israelis express confidence in the American president to do the right thing regarding world affairs, up from 49% in 2011. In the Palestinian territories, just 15% have confidence in Obama, while 82% have little or no confidence in him.

In Israel, opinions of Obama are far more positive among Jews than among Arabs. More than six-in-ten (64%) Jews express confidence in the American president, compared with about half (48%) of Arabs.

Secular Jews in Israel are especially positive in their views of Obama. About seven-in-ten (71%) secular Jews have confidence in Obama to do the right thing when it comes to world affairs, compared with 56% of Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox.”

Overall (as the numbers show) it seems that Israelis in general and Israelis Jews in particular understand that President Obama is a strong friend to Israel. But, here was an interesting number that I didn’t expect to see and was heartened by… Strong pluralities of both Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews feel that the Presidents role in peace negotiations… wait for it… SHOULD BE LARGER.

Now for some other numbers.




On the Peace process things are not quite as rosy. In answer to questions regarding favorability of Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad all three received favorable views but Islamic Jihad was favorably viewed by 56% of the Palestinian Polity. This is hardly encouraging since both Hamas and Islamic Jihad advocate for the elimination of Jews both in the Middle East and in the World.

Further, while 50% (50-38%)  of Israelis think that they can live peacefully with their Palestinian neighbors in a Two State relationship, only 14% of Palestinians think the same way. Moreover a plurality – 45% of Palestinians think that Armed Struggle is the best way to gain a state, they say this more than any other single option and given the favorability of Islamic Jihad – that is seemingly the way that they would go.

As for the settlements, a plurality of Israelis think that they harm Israeli security (42%) while a minority (27%) think that they help. Amongst the Arabs this number is (4% vs. 84% - help to hurt ratio). BUT one thing that they are doing, as can be seen from the numbers is contributing to Israel’s lack of favorable numbers with it’s E.U. trading partners.

 

Generally what we are seeing here is a strong trend of Pro-American favorability and sympathy amongst Israelis towards the U.S. while there is a growing antipathy amongst the Palestinian population. The disturbing numbers are the Palestinian numbers which reflect a turn back towards radical failed means to achieve statehood and a simple non-interest in seeing a compromise solution.

Still, it is heartening to see that BOTH Israelis and Palestinians favor a larger presence by the Obama Administration in particular and by the American government in general. As I have long maintained the current Administration is a strong friend to Israel and I believe now we can see that the Israelis are realizing this as well.