UCLA EMBROILED IN BDS CONTROVERSY

This is a reprint with the authors permission from Daily Kos where this site is called a "hate site" (will the goofiness and stupidity never cease) and where we are told that Palestinians are to be held to a different moral standing than Jews in this case..

The LA Times today reports on demands made by student activists that candidates for student government sign a pledge to not take part in sponsored trips to Israel.

Activists succeeded in pressuring 17 of 30 candidates to sign the pledge to refuse trips sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League or Hasbara Fellowships.
One student candidate said "It seemed unnecessary," Singh said, adding: "We spent a lot of time talking about what we thought about Israel." He added that he had gone on a ADL sponsored trip as a history and economics major so he could "see the region with my own eyes."

The administration at UCLA is concerned about the activists pressure to limit discussion and the lingering effects of the effort.

Chancellor Gene Block sent an email to the campus Friday, saying he was disturbed by the events in the campaign. He asked for more tolerance and said administrators would try to find ways to avoid similar instances in the future. 

"I am troubled that the pledge sought to delegitimize educational trips offered by some organizations but not others," he said. "I am troubled that the pledge can reasonably be seen as trying to eliminate selected viewpoints from the discussion."

UC President Janet Napolitano also weighed in, saying she shared Block's concerns. "The principles of civility, respect, and inclusion ... should also govern our campuses," she said. "The actions of these students at UCLA violate these principles."

ONE SIDE NOTE TO COMMENTARY HERE (from volleyboy)

This all comes on the heels of the BDS Movement getting absolutely tarred in a meeting trying to get UCLA to follow the anti-Semitic Israeli Jews only Boycott proposed by the movement and now is getting hammered by the UCLA Administration. As reported here:

Fortunately, SJP’s campaign of hatred and intimidation has sparked major backlash on campus. The Jewish student government candidate who was slandered won by a comfortable margin. Pro-Israel students published a statement condemning SJP’s hate speech and discrimination, calling for action by the UCLA student government and administration. As of press time, the statement had been signed by over 1,850 members of the UCLA community (to sign, click here). In response to public outcries, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and UC President Janet Napolitano have released public statements condemning SJP’s actions. The battle over Israel’s legitimacy on campus will likely continue for years to come, but it is now clear that UCLA’s Jewish and pro-Israel student community will no longer allow SJP’s bigotry to go unchallenged.

Thank You Chris Christe

Yep... You will probably never see those words again from me, a committed Democrat and strong supporter of President Obama. BUT when people do things that you like or respect it is really important that no matter what side of the aisle they sit on I believe they should get due praise when they do something right and due criticism when they are wrong. In this case, I believe that a note of thanks is in order for Governor Christie.
Now... this "thank you" does not come easy to me. There are many things that I simply don't like about the Governor (though I do respect him for casting aside partisanship during Hurricane Sandy). That said... I have to appreciate the following about him.
I noticed this headline on the Right Wing "news site" NewsMax (sorry, it's hard to call what they do "news").

No Mention of Israel in Christie's Jewish Gala Speech

Now ... why is this something I appreciate about Chris Christie?

Well.... one of the things that anti-Semites like to claim is that Jews are More loyal to Israel (or "their own kind" as anti-Semites like to claim) than their own country. This has been a canard since the beginning of time and it has been used by various regimes to pass measures against their own Jewish communities claiming that Jews are disloyal citizens and "enemies of the State".

Strangely enough the American Right Wing has also taken on this lie and made it their own. Not only that but even Hard Rightist Jews constantly argue that people should vote for Republicans because they feel President Obama is bad for Israel.... and then they go on to bemoan conservative politics both in the U.S. and Middle East.

Didn't the Republicans use this commercial in Florida (without PM Netanyahu's permission) to get American Jews to vote for them over President Obama? Where they feature Israeli PM Netanyahu as an argument against Iran's nuclear program. Now... why use the Israeli PM to sway Jewish Voters? What? An American voice would not be good enough? Are they implying that Jewish voters wouldn't listen to an American security expert on Iran?

I find this disturbing to say the least. SO... when I see a Right Wing Headline attacking Chris Christie over that fact that all he did was talk about American priorities and NOT Israel that actually strikes me as complimentary towards Christie.

I mean here is Christie speaking to Jews and treating them like Americans (which everyone should). And here is what NewsMax reported said:

Christie, along with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, shared a table with Adelson on Sunday night. While the New Jersey governor did not mention Israel specifically in his address, he did address another topic Adelson champions — an aggressive American foreign policy that defends American values overseas.

"No one understands any longer who America stands with or against," Christie said, according to BuzzFeed. "It's not good enough to say that we tried. We must succeed."

Christie also slammed Obama for not enforcing his self-drawn "red line," when he declared there would be retribution for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

"It is time, in every respect, whether it’s our national debt or an out-of-control entitlement system, our unreformed tax system, or our failure to set a strong clear [message] or more importantly a strong clear action on behalf of our friends around the world," Christie said. "It’s time for our leaders to stop singing a happy tune to the American people about the condition of our country. It is time for us to tell the truth about that condition."

Now while I may very much disagree with Gov. Christie about what he said, I think it is very important that what he did here was address the American community with American issues. Not Israeli issues, not particularly Jewish issues, but with American issues.

See this is the thing.... American Jews complain about anti-Semitism (and we should) coming from attacks from the Left. While we don't vote with the Right, certainly the constant drumbeat and obnoxiously loud commentary from so called Human Rights Activists has driven a number of  Jewish Americans away from the Liberal / Progressive side of the aisle.

But that said the Right is offering nothing more than the re-hashed "dual loyalty" canard, and what is even sadder is that some Jewish Americans have accepted that narrative and taken it on for themselves. Lately Rightward leaning Jewish commentators on the web have all been calling themselves "Liberals" but here at home they vote with the Republican Party, a party which stands against almost everything they believe for their country. And why do they do that.. because they don't like President Obama's stand on Israel. Period. They claim they don't agree with the Republicans on anything else.. yet.... they vote for the Republicans anyway.

And here is "the rub".... They expect that every other Jew will feel the same way, and if they don't they are somehow less Jewish. But isn't that what anti-Semites from Rome, to the Islamic Caliphates, to the Spanish Inquistion, to the Czarist Russians, to Hitler and Stalin have argued. That Jews only vote for their own interests and not for the interests of the nation where they live. The nation of which they are citizens.

THAT is the heart of anti-Semitism. Not some BDS Supporting lunatics who have a small (but admittedly growing) presence in both American political parties. No.... it is those in the establishment and on the Right that say: "Don't vote for your domestic values. Who cares if the Republicans want to eliminate abortion or choice in marriage or measures for gender equality. Who cares that they deny man made global climate change, or oppose Americans having healthcare. Vote for us because the Republicans are better for Israel (a concept that I reject), and that should be your priority".

SO when I see Governor Christie stand up and NOT address the issue of Israel, but actually talk about what affects Jews as Americans.. I say: "Thank You" because he, unlike the rest of his party and the Right Wing in general seems to be treating American Jews as Americans and NOT as others when in our society. I may not agree with Christie on his policies (and I don't), but I give him credit for standing above the prejudice that affects the Right in general and even affects a minority of Right Wing Jews.

I will now give my own answer to the question posed at Israel Thrives:

Is it true, or is it false, that the primary venues of BDS and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the West today primarily come from the progressive-left, including the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party?

False.

It's as simple as that.  In what follows, I will restrict the analysis to antisemitism and anti-Zionism in America, because that is how I assume the question was intended, given that it specifically mentions the Democratic Party.

First of all, the focus on BDS is misleading.  While BDS in indeed is a scheme cooked up to appeal to stupid leftists and liberals, and rears its head in left-leaning forums and organizations, we must not lose sight of the fact that BDS is only one small and very particular aspect of antisemitism and anti-Zionism. 

If the question is about the problem of antisemitism or even anti-Zionism generally, then focusing on BDS in particular is like having a bad baseball team and focusing on the third base coach.  It is not intellectually honest to ignore the pitching, hitting, fielding, managing, and everything that is more important and consequential than the third base coach.  Likewise, when it comes to evaluating the huge problem of antisemitism, it is not intellectually honest to hone in on BDS and ignore all of the other manifestations of it out there.

When antisemitism and anti-Zionism are considered in their totality, the primary venues in America are, quite simply, NOT the progressive-left and/or the netroots.

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

We were all traumatized by the insane (yet simultaneously banal) anti-Israel and antisemitic  rhetoric we saw at Daily Kos, and were rightly scandalized by the way it was tolerated by others.  As I've said before, it should eternally shame the admins of that website, and should be a blemish on the record of any politician that participated there after the rhetoric became prominent.

BUT... The stuff at Daily Kos is child's play compared to the antisemitism / anti-Zionism that can be found in right-wing forums. Spend any time browsing through right leaning forums and you will encounter antisemitism so bad it will make you want to run and hug Sandra Tamari screaming "Thank you for being so moderate!"  In our justified outrage at the insane yet banal anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric at Daily Kos, it is easy to lose sight of the orders of magnitude worse rhetoric that is out there elsewhere.

Just to point to one illuminating example, there is the "Manosphere" website Return of Kings.  The people who comment there are a mixture of paleoconservatives, libertarian sadists, corporate raiders, and basement dwelling nutjobs - the political mirror image of the Daily Kos crowd.  And the antisemitism there is off the charts!  Just go read the 1100 comments attached to an article where ironically the author is actually trying to get them to tone down the antisemitism.  True, in those comments you won't find much advocacy for BDS.  But you will find hundreds of people charging Jews/Zionists with controlling the world through communism and feminism, with carrying out the genocide of 100 million (or 100 billion or 100 trillion - pick your number) Christians, shooting Palestinian children for sport, asaassinating all enemies, and Jews actually deserving every antisemitic act in history.  You will also find near universal Holocaust denial.  Some of the people there appear to literally believe that their lives are in danger because they dare to criticize the Zionist power structure supposedly running the world.  And the amount of aid that they claim that the US sends to Israel every year?  Well, let's just say that they can't settle on a number but it is somewhere between eleventy googleplex trijillion and infinity.

I must emphaize that Return of Kings is not even supposed to be antisemitic.  It is supposed to be a website to help men with their "game" with women, and to deal with issues supposedly arising from too much feminism in society.  It is simply a website that attracts a lot of people on the political right, and lo-and-behold, the Jew-hate that results makes Daily Kos look like the ADL.

That is just one example, but just read through any right-leaning forum not controlled by the Republican party or a media organization and you will see the same or similar.  Am I saying here that the right in general is full of insane antisemites?  No, I am definitely not.  But I am saying that if one is going to use what is posted at Daily Kos and similar fora to evaluate the antisemitism/anti-Zionism present in the progressive left, then one must also use what is posted at right-leaning fora to evaluate the presence of antisemitism/anti-Zionism on the right.  If one does so, the clear conclusion is that antisemitism is worse on the right.

Let's also not forget that most violent antisemitic incidents are still carried out by the right-wing, such as the recent Kansas City shootings.  Plus there is the undeniable phenomenon that the Mondoweiss crowd primarily supports the Ron/Rand Paul wing of American politics.

If you still feel that antisemitism is worse among the progressive netroots than among the equivalent demographic on the right, I humbly suggest the following simple thought experiment.  If you had to appear as a conspisuous Jew at one of the two following places, which would you choose:  A) at the next Daily Kos Netroots Nation convention, or B) at Cliven Bundy's militia encampment?  I believe that any honest person will choose option A, and that says something about the relative amount and virulence of antisemitism among segments of the left versus segments of the right.

In summary,  in American politics antisemitism/anti-Zionism is simply not primarily the province of progressives.  The right wing, in its paleoconservative and libertarian wings, has a significant problem with antisemitism, and if one is to judge by the amount and virulence of antisemitic fora, a worse problem.

I will qualify this by saying that in Europe the situation is indeed different, because social conservatism is largely taboo there and the leftist parties have become thoroughly infested with Islamists and their sympathizers.  On that continent it is indeed more accuate to say that the primary venue of antisemitism/anti-Zionism is the left.  However, there are still the examples of Jobbik, the National Front, and other explicitly antisemitic/anti-Zionist right wing parties. 

Still, when we are talking about American politics it is inaccurate to say that the primary venue is the liberal netroots and/or the Democratic Party.

To Answer a Question....

Over at the Rightist Blog Israel Thrives Mike Lumish asks the question:

Is it true, or is it false, that the primary venues of BDS and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the West today primarily come from the progressive-left, including the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party?

What is the answer?

{Anyone?}

Who will give a clear and simple answer to an obvious question?

Seemingly Mike doesn't feel that he can get a straight answer.

Well I tried to answer his question but he promptly deleted my answer which was:

 Mike.... All I will say on this is that I have to disagree with your premise  

To say that BDS and support for it has a good deal of traction on the "Progressive" (self styled because they are not progressive) Left is true. I would even go so far as to say that BDS in particular (which has it's roots in Right Wing / Arab boycotts of Jews) comes out of the very hard left which manifests itself at times in the netroots of generally left leaning sites. 

I would disagree that this is particularly a problem with the Democratic Party which as we have seen over and over again is solidly Pro-Israel. Indeed there are some in the netroots of the party who are anti-Semitic, and who take on the mantle of anti-Zionism to hide their anti-Semitism. Is anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism a problem with the Left? Absolutely, and yes now more than ever it is. 

That said... I think the answer to the question "Does anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism come primarily from the Left the and Netroots of the Democratic Party?" I would have to say "NO". I think anti-Semitism is very much alive on the Right and in the Republican Party (particularly the Teahaddist faction) AND in the Ron/Rand Paul insane Libertarian wing of the party (who while a minority of the Party do have a large public presence). 

Mike, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are NOT a matter of Republican / Democrat or Right / Left. there is plenty of it on either side of the spectrum. Anti-Semitism / anti-Zionism are cancers that affect the body politic of both sides. So rather than blame one side or the other, why not just go after the anti-Semites / anti-Zionists / enablers of both (JVP - The Useful Idiot) whether they be Rick Santorum sending out Hanukkah cards that tell Jews to worship Jesus, OR whether they be the SJP at Vasser who published real life Nazi Propaganda posters? To simply call this a problem of the Left and the Democratic Party smacks of partisan nonsense more geared towards getting people to vote Republican more than actually fighting the issue of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

Now, I understand why Mike would want to delete my answer since it expressly rejects the "fact" that he presents in his question. But that said there are other questions raised regarding this article that Mike doesn't respond to so I would be interested to hear his thoughts on these questions asked by JayinPhiladelphia:

But beyond that, the question to you then becomes, what do we do about it then? Are we all supposed to become Republicans? Take up with the right on social issues? I'm never going to do that. And I'm also never going to stop fighting for Israel.

First of all, while I disagree with Jay in his agreement with Mike on his question, I applaud his efforts to find a solution to the problem of anti-Semitism AND to for his stout defense in other forums (Daily Kos) against the anti-Semitism that rages there almost unchecked.

Jay's question of what do we do about it (anti-Semitism / anti-Zionism on the Left) is a very valid one. How do we fight it? Do we fight it by becoming Rightists / Republicans, taking up their cause and in doing so simply become a mirror image of the Leftists that disregard facts and arguments in the pursuit of partisan justifications for their cause as is what Mike does? OR do we work to recognize that the problem of anti-Semitism / anti-Zionism is one that is NOT the property of one side of the fence but a problem taken up by extremes on both sides of the Political aisle as fizziks does?

Personally, I will go with the "fizziks approach" where he takes issue with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on both sides of the fence and attacks through information and reason without either misrepresenting or falsifying opposing points of view. Honestly, that seems the way to do this. Accurate and factual information is the key.

So to continue the answer to the question which Mike poses not as a question but as a statement of fact.

As I stated above there certainly is a problem with anti-Semitism on the Left. No one will deny it. To say it is the current source of anti-Semitism is the "Progressive Left" is to put it bluntly... Nonsense.
As Reuven points out (where Mike mistakenly thinks that Reuven agrees with his principle):

How is it not anti-Semitic when they are busy telling us we should give truth to the dual loyalty meme by placing Israel first and above all else, including priorities here at home.

This is something that Mike and the RJC actively engage in (and to call those groups Leftists would be a joke). They regularly make appeals to Jewish voters to vote Republican because of the Israel issue. They don't even try to argue that Jews may agree with their economic policies or not, their argument is "Forget domestic concerns vote Republican because really your loyalty is to Israel not your own country". This is a constant from Republicans using Benjamin Netanyahu in a commercial (when PM Netanyahu did not endorse the use of his image or words for said commercial) to a post on Mikes blog here and here. Isn't this the very epitome of the dual loyalty canard?

But aside from that - the Right is rife with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in full with more examples than one can count.

SO to say that it is  the left and the netroots of the Democratic Party that is the primary source of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, well that is simply false. To say that there is a problem on the left with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, that would be true. HOWEVER, it is also true to say that this is a problem on the Right as well.

Shalom.

Anti-Semitism Is Rampant in the Middle East and North Africa

This is a reprint with permission of the author from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/14/1299372/-Anti-Semitism-Is-Rampant-in-the-Middle-East-and-North-Africa. I was going to write something about this but got "beat to the punch"... So... Here it is:

The New York Times certainly got my attention with this headline: “26 Percent of World’s Adults Are Anti-Semitic, Survey Finds.”

http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://global100.adl.org

The survey in question was a global survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, and designed to probe the level and intensity of anti-semitism. The survey also found that half the respondents had never heard of the Holocaust. Now, that finding doesn’t necessarily mean the people are anti-semitic. It could to some extent just indicate ignorance. I’d consider it more anti-semitic if someone had indeed heard of the Holocaust, but denied that it actually happened or tried to argue that it was overblown.

Interestingly, the highest levels of anti-semitism are in the Middle East and North Africa. But before jumping to the list of the most anti-semitic countries, let’s take a look at the least anti-semitic countries, as measured by the percentages of adults holding anti-semitic views:

Thailand                    13%
Tanzania                    12%
Denmark                      9%
United States               9%
United Kingdom         8%
Vietnam                      6%
Netherlands                5%
Sweden                      4%
Philippines                 3%
Laos                        0.2%

http://www.timesofisrael.com/...

A couple of interesting observations. Some of these countries have almost no Jewish population, and few Jewish visitors, so one might suggest that lack of direct exposure correlates with the absence of anti-semitism. That isn’t really the case, however, as we will see when we reach the list of the worst offenders. Many of those virulently anti-semitic countries have no Jewish population or visitors, either. The other observation is that even in the good countries, there are significant percentages of respondents who believe that Jews put loyalty to Israel ahead of loyalty to their own country:

Sweden        27%
UK               27%
US                31%
Denmark      39%

The dual-loyalty claim is anti-semitic, but is also a form of prejudice directed against other minorities. For example, dual loyalty claims were common smears during John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

Now let’s look at the worst offenders. Greece is apparently the most anti-semitic country in Europe, at 69%, but the Greeks are amateurs when compared to the Arab/Moslem world:

Morocco/Qatar/UAE     tied for 10th most anti-semitic, at 80%
Jordan      81%
Bahrain    81%
Kuwait     82%
Tunisia     86%
Libya       87%
Algeria    87%
Yemen     88%
Iraq          92%

And the most anti-semitic (cue drum roll, please)....

West Bank/Gaza 93%

Now I know that West Bank/Gaza isn’t actually a country, but if a Palestinian state is ever formed, that’s what it consist of.

So what is the takeaway from this survey? Well, as it applies to the prospects for peace between Israel, on the one hand, and the Palestinians and other Arab countries, on the other hand, it is both relevant and bleak. It is often argued that all Israel has to do is end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and there will be peace. These extreme levels of anti-semitism, however, raise the distinct possibility that the Arab/Moslem world will never accept Israel, because it is the Jewish national homeland. Indeed, one must ask whether this conflict can ever end, as long as one side harbors such extreme prejudice and hatred towards the majority population of the other side. 

Why I Mostly Align With the Democratic Party

There has been a lot of confusion, and frankly misinformation, posted lately about my political leanings and the reasons for them.  So here I'm going to set the record straight.

I mostly align with the Democratic party.  I mostly vote for Democratic candidates (with occasional exceptions).  I do so because of only one reason, which is the following:

ON MOST OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES, I ALIGN WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL, ON BALANCE, PURSUE POLICIES THAT ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE OUTCOMES I WANT.  Those outcomes are 1) scientific and technological advancement, 2) environmental sustainability, 3) quality infrastructure, 4) the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they choose, and 5) a fair economy where people who work hard and play by the rules have a middle class standard of living.

If you feel tempted to ascribe any other motivation to my political positions and voting patterns - such as Obama worship, racial guilt, Jewish tradition, my parents, being dropped on my head, trying to impress a girl, or anything else - you must reread the above passage until you learn.  If you have proven unable to learn this, in spite of me stating it clearly for years, then the fault lies with your intelligence.

-----------

Do I agree with the bulk of the Democratic Party on every issue?  Absolutely not.  Do I disagree with some Democrats on some issues.  Absolutely.

But this is where people who try to pick apart the Democratic party and my support for it over any particular issue start to be either stupid and/or dishonest.

In America, we have a two-party political system.  Our first-past-the-post district-based election system guarantees it.  Except in a few fringe cases where a handful of cities have instituted rank choice voting for local offices, we have a two-party system.  Third parties are simply not happening, and the only other alternative is not voting and withdrawing from the process, which just means your voice disappears.

So recite it with me:  In America, your choice in any given vote is either Republican or Democrat.  Period.  Because of this, claiming to be against Democrats but not for Republicans is nonsense.  So is claiming to be against Republicans and not for Democrats.  In American politics, you are either for one or for the other.  Period.

There is simply no such thing, if one is being intellectually honest, as being against the Democratic party but not for the Republican party, unless one is proposing to withdraw from the political process.  Your choices are Democrat or Republican.  One or the other.  Period.

If we are honest and admit that stark choice, we must then choose which of the two to support.

So which should I support?

---------

Well, some people out there claim that the Democratic party has embraced anti-Zionism, and that makes it so that one can not support the Democrats.

Clearly the claim that the Democratic party as a whole has embraced anti-Zionism is nonsense, since the Democratic Party platform and every single national Democratic elected party official openly supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, even those Democrats who are more hostile to Israel than I would like.  So the claimants try to step it back by saying that the Democratic Party is just as guilty because it has "let anti-Zionism into the progressive netroots tent" or somesuch.

Now, I will be the first to say that the sad fact that anti-Zionism nonsense has gotten a toe hold among a certain portion of the liberal netroots is absolutely shameful, and should shame those who have let it in and who tolerate it until the end of time.  But it is a huge leap from there to saying that anti-Zionism has infected the Democratic party.  Clearly, most netroots anti-Zionists themselves align with either Ron/Rand Paul or fringe parties such as the Orwellian-ly named Peace and Freedom Party, and do not, in fact, support the Democratic party.  Also it is important to restate that zero national Democratic elected officials have embraced anti-Zionism.  In fact, in a recent House vote on the Israel Strategic Partnership Act, all Democrats voted in favor and the sole opposition vote was cast by a Republican Rand Paul devotee.

However, much to my dismay, it is indeed the case that some of the netroots anti-Zionists do actually support the Democratic party, notoriously including, as far as I'm aware, anti-Zionist netroots extrordinaire David Harris Gershon.  So the question stands how one should respond to this fact.

--------

At this point, for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, I'm going to actually accept the charge that the Democratic party is somehow culpable for the presence of anti-Zionism in a portion of the grassroots /netroots.  Remember, I am only accepting this claim to move the argument along.

So, accepting that the Democratic party is culpable for anti-Zionists being allowed into the tent, what does a sober person such as myself do?

Well, as discussed above, since the only two possible alternatives are to either align with the Democratic party or align with the Republican party, let's examine who the Republicans have 'allowed into their tent':

- Creationists
- Climate Deniers
- Pseudo-Anarchist thieves such as Cliven Bundy and his supporters
- Those who seek to use government to control others' sex lives
- The extraction industries

But it is far worse than that, because the Republican party has not simply allowed these interests into their tent.  They have turned the entire tent over to them.

We've accepted for the sake of argument that anti-Zionists are in the Democratic Netroots tent, and that it is the Democrats' fault.  And yet in spite of this, as of now, zero national Democratic elected officials have declared themselves to be anti-Zionists.  In contrast, almost every national Republican elected official is a declared climate denier!  Zero Democratic presidential primary candidates have declared themselves to be anti-Zionists, while a majority of Republican presidential candidates in the last primary election declared that they do not accept evolution.

Do you see the tremendous and crucial difference in degree here, even if we do accept the charge that the presence of anti-Zionists in the Netroots is the fault of the Democratic party?  Anti-Zionists are loud, obnoxious dillbags, but they are not as of now in a position of real power in the Democratic party.  In contrast, creationists, climate deniers, sexual moralists, and the extraction industries hold the balance of power in the Republican party.

So I face a choice between the Democratic party, which we accept for the sake of argument is culpable for having allowed anti-Zionists into its tent but without giving them much actual power, and the Republican party, which has actively ceded most of its platform and actual power to creationists, climate deniers, the extraction industries, sexual moralists, and pseudo-anarchists.  Given this, which one should I support to have the greatest chance of furthering my goals of scientific and technological advancement, environmental sustainability, quality infrastructure, the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they choose, and a fair economy where people who work hard and play by the rules have a middle class standard of living?  Gee, that's a hard one.  If the answer is not obvious to you, then there is probably not much that can be done for you.

Hamas: Recognizing Israel is a Red Line

From JNEREBEL over at Daily Kos 

RE-PRINTED WITH AUTHORS PERMISSION

Note: Over at Daily Kos, the admins. have decided to attempt to create a "Fact Free Zone" around the discussion of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Only a few of the original Progressive / Liberal Zionists are left in the face of increasing administratively sanctioned anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist attacks.  One of these few JNEREBEL has been great in bringing full honesty to the endless barrage of hate that passes for writing over there.

US News reports today in an interview with Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of Hamas' political bureau that Hamas will not abide by any of the Quartets requirements.

Hamas will not recognize Israel

Hamas will not renounce violence

Hamas will not abide by previous international agreements
Marzouk says recognizing Israel is a red line that Hamas will not cross. He further declares that Hamas military forces will remain separate and not be absorbed into the future Palestinian army. Having a standing militia not under government control would obviously imperil any future non-Hamas ruled regime with a waiting militia ready to attack it as well as Israel at any time.

Al-Monitor: The weapons wielded by the al-Qassam Brigades constitute one of the hardest issues dealt with in the reconciliation effort. What are Hamas’ proposals in this regard, and what are the red lines that you think must not be crossed? Will you allow the brigades to be assimilated into the Palestinian security forces? 

Abu Marzouk: This issue was not discussed at all in reconciliation negotiations with Fatah; it was never put on the table. The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians. In contrast, the Quartet negotiations require that violence be renounced, which, in effect, means that the al-Qassam weapons must be decommissioned. But this is unacceptable, and Hamas will reject it outright.

Al-Monitor: It was not clear whether Hamas would endorse the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel, if it became part of the former. Can you clarify the movement’s position in this regard?

Abu Marzouk: Hamas will not recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. The future government is not interested in providing Israel with recognition, and the conditions set by the Quartet committee do not concern us one bit. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. Hamas underwent great political pressure and suffering during the past years, and yet it did not recognize Israel.