Goofy Republicans and the Jewish Vote

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

This year the Republicans have been making a huge push for the Jewish vote AND with that Jewish Campaign Donations. Because of that, we see a myriad of strange attacks none of which are fact based, and all of which ignore the traditional liberal nature of the American Jewish Polity.

Many of these attacks center on the U.S. relationship with Israel and/or how President Obama has slighted Israel in some way by either originally supporting forces of change  in the Arab World, working with the changes that have been wrought by the mass revolts of the "Arab Spring", or has stuck to the position of every American Government since 1967 with regards to secure borders and the land captured from Jordan in the Six Day War. And of course, one of these slights has been not responding to every single incident that the Israeli Right (and their supporters here) have determined to be anti-Semitic (and these incidents may be and are anti-Semitic but the President of the U.S. has other things to worry about than issuing condemnations regarding every single thing broadcast on Palestinian Authority or Hamas T.V.).

Hopefully, the American Jewish community which has traditionally been quite liberal is not going to buy this crap.

Lately we see the ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) sufferers on the Right,  just getting silly and spewing (and I mean spewing) nonsense like, continuing to call President Obama a secret Muslim, saying that he loves and enables "radical genocidal jihad", blaming him for the breakdown in talks in the Middle East, straight out calling Democrats anti-Semites and generally urging the American Jewish Community to turn to the Right and actually vote for Republicans this year.... all the while claiming they are still "liberal".

Of course what makes this nonsensical (aside from the fact that it is not true) is that nothing says "liberal" like ending affordable Healthcare, pushing for an end to Medicare, taxing the Middle Class and Poor while relieving the Ultra Wealthy of all tax burdens, undoing Roe v. Wade, Gutting the environment and on and on and on. (/snark)

AND THAT'S WHAT THESE NITWITS ARE VOTING FOR WHEN THEY VOTE REPUBLICAN! and yet amazingly they call themselves "Liberals"

They simply seem to forget that President Obama:

1. Is the First President ever to hold a Seder in the White House.

2. Is the First President to declare a month of the year "Jewish History Month" (May 2011).

3. Has increased aid and cooperation with/to Israel beyond a measure of any other President and has been termed by the Israeli President (Shimon Peres) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as an "EXCEPTIONAL FRIEND" to Israeli Security

and on and on and on.

Yet, "The Derangers" (as we call them) yell... But, but, but.... "He is an anti-Semite".

It simply boggles the mind just what these fools come up with.

Of course, many of them seem to love Newt Gingrich because of his rabid denials of Palestinian peoplehood and his ties to the Israeli Hard Right YET... I haven't seen anyone of them commenting on any blog regarding the fact that he has not denounced this incident that happened at a church service that he was attending:

Inside, the topic of the evening discussion, led by Joel Rosenberg, a novelist who writes about Islamic terrorism, focused partially on how to convert Jews to the faith.

 "As a Jewish person," Rosenberg, who was raised by a Jewish father and a Gentile mother, "our people really didn't get it the first time Jesus came."

He urged the audience not to be bashful, and to act quickly in case the End Times were nigh. "I know you know Jewish people," he told them. "You have an accountant, you have a lawyer..."

HEY Derangers... where are your calls for Newt condemn this anti-Semitic bullshit? Eh, anyone... anyone.....

The President of the United States has the people of the United States and U.S. Alliances to worry about. Gestures like not moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or denying Palestinian history really don't amount to much considering his responsibilities and quite honestly his actions which prove beyond a doubt that he is supportive of our friendship with Israel.

But for these wanna-be Republicans I guess they will not like the following news from Nate Silver

7:29 P.M. |Jewish Turnout Low in Florida There has been some speculation that Democrats could struggle to hold the Jewish vote in 2012. They had struggled, for instance, in the special election in New York's 9th Congressional District in 2011, which has a heavy Orthodox Jewish population.

But there is no sign tonight of Jewish voters switching their registration over to the Republican side in Florida. According to early exit polls, just 1 percent of voters in tonight's Republican primary identified as Jewish. That's down from 3 percent in the Florida Republican primary in 2008, which also might mean that Jewish Republican voters in the state are not terribly enthusiastic about this group of candidates. Jewish turnout in general elections in Florida is normally about 4 percent

and then there is this:

I guess that President Obama is having such trouble with Jewish support that one of his top bundlers is the chairman of the American Jewish Congress

Among the newly named bundlers who have raised at least $500,000 or more for the Obama re-election are Marc Benioff, a Silicon Valley computer tycoon who founded Salesforce.com and hosted a fundraiser for the president at his home last spring; Jack Rosen, a prominent New York real estate developer who is chairman of the American Jewish Congress; and Kawana Brown, the chief operating officer of Magic Johnson Enterprises.

OH YEAH and according to the American Jewish Committee Poll 2011 (widely considered to be an accurate read on Jewish Political trends), while Jews do not identify as Democrats as much as they did in 2008 (54% to 46%), Republicans have not picked up anything and in fact, are down 1% in their support. Much of that support is now identified as "Independent", but if trends continue President Obama should still end up with close to 73% of the Jewish vote.

However it is important to continue to fight the misinformation, poor framing, and outright lies spread by the Republicans and their supporters/enablers in order to try to win enough of the Jewish vote away from the President particularly in States like Florida and Pennsylvania, where the President will need every vote that he can get.

As Mets102 so correctly wrote: Jewish values are Democratic Values and they are.These faux "liberals" (hey they claim David Horowitz is a "liberal" that is how far outside of rationality they are) don't represent anything but a wish list of Hard Rightists who are more worried about voting against a guy whose middle name is Hussein then they are with supporting Israel in fact or recognizing that President Obama is a true friend to Jewish Americans.

For me, and hopefully many of my Jewish brothers and sisters it will be OBAMA 2012!

UK Academic Union Rejected EU Definition of Antisemitism

This story is slightly old but it is the first I have been made aware of it:

Mirroring the less credentialed antisemites and Israel derangers who blog from basements, Britain's largest trade union of academics, the University College Union (UCU), has voted to disassociate itself from the European Union working definition of anti-Semitism.

The reasoning given by this union of PhDs is the same that one encounters from the barely literate Israel-derangers in the blogging world, namely that accusations of antisemitism prevents "legitimate criticism" of Israel. The objection must relate to this portion of the EU definition of antisemitism:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

It is obvious why antisemites and Israel-derangers don't like this definition - it implies that singling the Jewish people out as not deserving self-determination is antisemitic, which it of course is.

Because Israel is the subject of incessant criticism from certain supposedly progressive and academic quarters repeatedly day after day, far out of proportion to its tiny size and without any recognition of the complexity of issues involved with the Israeli-Arab conflict, I find it the height of dishonesty and banality for anyone to claim that criticism of Israel is being in any way prevented or stifled. Criticism of Israel is indeed a full time job and obsession for too much of the world, whether the halls of the academic humanities, or in the basements of suburban houses where keyboard warriors ply their trade.

Whether one is a substitute kindergarten teacher in Pittsburgh or a PhD at one of Britain's top institutions, Israel obsession and excessive demonization is antisemitic. And of course, Israel derangers don't stop there - they routinely accuse their Jewish countrymen of being more loyal to Israel, and of controlling the media and government. These things are virulently antisemitic, and this prejudice is uniquely allowed to flourish in certain quarters of the academy.

I hope that Britain's silent majority of reasonable academics reject what the UCU has done. As someone who spent an extended research visit in the UK - albeit in a science and not the humanities - my experience was that the academic environment there was not at all compromised by Israel derangement and that the faculty, postdocs, and others were politically moderate, reasonable, and inclusive. I believe that the UCU does not speak for British academia as a whole, and I hope that they are marginalized by this step.

Why I Vote for Democrats: Jewish Values are Democratic Values

From Reuven - Cross posted at Daily Kos

Every human being is a unique individual.  We are all special.  We are all deserving of respect and dignity.  We all have the right to autonomy.  We all have a responsibility to the community, but the community also has a responsibility to all of us.  Do these Jewish values sound familiar?  They should.  These are, after all, universal values.  Regardless of our cultural heritage or our religious beliefs, we share these values.  These are common values we hold as Democrats.  That is why I am a Democrat and why I believe it so important that we vote for Democrats.

know that I have written on this before, but it does bear repeating — and I will continue to shout it at the top of my lungs so long as some continue repeating the meme that Jews are leaving the Democratic Party.  The reason we are so staunchly Democratic is because our core values are the same as those of the Democratic Party.  A few lines written or spoken by some pundits, and given excessive play in the mainstream media, does not change this fact.  It also does not change the fact that Jewish-Americans remain overwhelmingly Democratic.

Our responsibility to our fellow community members does not end the moment they leave the womb.  In fact, it only intensifies.  We have a responsibility to provide education.  We believe that every person should have a roof over their head and food on their table.  We believe that every person should be able to visit the doctor when they are ill and not worry that it will bankrupt them.  We believe that everyone is deserving of a quality education.  We believe that there is a lifelong commitment from the moment a person is born to the moment a person dies.

This commitment goes both ways.  It is not just what the community should do for the individual.  It is also the responsibility the individual has to the community.  Just as the community has a responsibility to those neediest amongst us, so too does the individual.  To answer the famous question Cain asked of G-d after he killed Abel:  Yes, we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.  And being our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers includes making sure that our government remembers this fact.  There is one party that understands this and there is one party that does not.

Look back through history.  Look to when workers were fighting for the right to unionize in the early twentieth century.  Look to the Civil Rights movement.  Look to many of the members of Congress who have been among the most vocal in fighting for the rights of the poor and the working class and the oppressed.  Jewish-Americans were proudly at the forefront, joining with others because we are taught our responsibility to our fellow human beings from the moment we are born.

In Jewish tradition this is part of the concept known as Tikkun Olam — Repairing the World.  That is what I describe above.  It is recognizing, and acting upon, our commitment to the community.  It is the belief that everyone has basic needs and that for those who have difficulty meeting them we have a responsibility to help.  It is recognizing that we all breathe the same air and drink the same water.  It is recognizing that when we die, we will not be able to take our money with us — and, for those of us that are religious, it is recognizing that G-d will not reward us for any wealth we accumulate, but will instead ask us, “What good have you done with the money I gave you?”

As I wrote above, these core Jewish values are also core Democratic values.  It is why my mom taught me from an early age to be a Democrat and it is why I will teach my own children, when G-d willing I have, that same lesson.  It is because when my mom taught me core Jewish values, she was also teaching me core Democratic values; and it is because when I will teach any children I may have core Jewish values, I will be teaching them core Democratic values.

If you have read my previous work, and you have made your way through all of this, now you should understand why I vote for Democrats.

Twice Again.... The Obama Administration proves it's friendship to Israel

Once again the Obama Administration shows that when it comes to Israel, it's actions of friendship speak for themselves. Even at a time where the Republicans call for a "One State Solution" which would result in the end of Israel as a Jewish Democracy and/or Jewish State, the Obama administration shows its friendship. This time let me quote the words of Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Betainu):

"The U.S. is a true friend and ally of Israel," Ayalon said. "The partnership between the two countries is a natural one. Extending the loan guarantees strengthens the international position of the Israeli economy and will allow the government to continue to raise funds at lower costs."

Why is Ayalon saying this? Haaretz is reporting that the U.S. Government (that would be the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION) is granting a Three Year Extension of Loan Guarantees to Israel.

The U.S. government has informed Israel that it will recommend that Congress approve a three-year extension of loan guarantees to Israel, worth $3.8 billion. The announcement came after several months of worry in Israel that the loan guarantees would not be extended, despite Israel's request.

Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Nides and Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Neil Wolin announced the American decision at a meeting with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Monday. According to a senior U.S. official, the two emphasized to Ayalon that the recommendation to extend the guarantees through September 2015 would receive wide support from both parties in Congress and would be approved without any problems in the near future.

Also, according to Maan News U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the American Jewish Committee that the "new" Security Council was no more favorably inclined towards a Palestinian State than the old Security Council but that really didn't matter because the U.S. was going to veto a Palestinian request in any case.

Rice reaffirmed the US line that a Palestinian state would come only through direct negotiations with Israel, not "through a short-cut at the United Nations."

In her remarks to the AJC, Rice stressed US backing at the United Nations for Israel. Some US Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of being insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state.

With the US election campaign heating up, one of Rice's deputies spoke publicly last week on the need for reforming UN practices, addressing another concern of Republicans who charge the Obama administration is too close to the world body.

Of course, the critics that Rice sites overlook that this Administration (the Obama Administration) has:

1. Increased funding for Israel UP AND ABOVE the levels that were set by the Bush (R) Administration

2. Funded the Iron Dome Missile Defense System in addition to already increased funding

3. Continued funding of Arrow, David's Sling, and Magic Wand Defense Systems

4. Backed Israel with the United Nations and UNESCO 100% against the Palestinians unilateral attempts at Statehood - despite world pressure to the contrary

5. Drawn praise from all spectrum's of the Israeli Polity from President, Shimon Peres to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon for their overriding support for Israeli Security

6. Interceded with the Egyptian Military to rescue the Israeli Ambassador and staff when a mob tried to harm them

7. Supported Israel against time lines in Peace negotiations and Publicly stressed direct negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis (the Israeli negotiating position).

8. Working to Pressure the new Egyptian Government to maintain the Israeli/Egyptian Peace Treaty

All while the Republicans are calling for a One State solution that would destroy Israel as either a Democracy or as a State.

It's pretty easy to see just whose actions are friendly to Israel and just that easy to see which party deserves the vote of American Jews who are concerned with Israel's long term security needs (that would be the Democrats in 2012).

BRILLIANT!!!

Here is a great piece of information from the Obama Administration about it's relationship with Israel.

Despite what those with ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) screech, the President has been a true friend to both the Israeli and Jewish people.

Please take a look at this video and pass it along

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/izUkZpTft2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It is hard to argue with the facts in this case.

One thing I noticed in the film was the speech from Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Betainu). I admit that I had a hard time believing that he would be in praise of the President. SO I searched for that speech and found it. Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post.

"Obama remains committed to Israel as a Jewish state and even demanded answers from the Palestinians regarding the reconciliation deal with Hamas," Ayalon said at a cultural event in Holon.

"The president stood up for Israel's right to self-defense," Ayalon added, as well as "the need for defensible borders and the end to [all] claims."

The deputy foreign minister continued, "It is clear from Obama's speech that no agreement will be forced upon Israel and that unilateral measures will fail."
With yesterday's victory of the hardline Islamists in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood got 38% and Salafist al-Nour got 29% of the popular vote), Israel's security needs become that much more paramount. Ensuring that the new rulers of Egypt adhere to the Peace Treaty (which no one is sure yet what they will do) is of Prime Importance. Particularly with Hamas/Egyptian ties growing and Hamas/Iran-Syria ties diminishing. Hamas is most likely going to try to provoke something unless the Egyptians rein them in.

The President and his administration have done everything possible to affect this - though American leadership has not met with the Salafists (who have been compared to the Taliban). According to the administration, their course of action (and this makes perfect sense) is to judge what the Egyptian Government actually does and base policy decisions on that. But unless they are "in the game" they have no way to affect change. As the article cited below mentions... the U.S. is heavily involved for precisely this reason as well as has been involved in getting assurances from the Egyptians.

Referring to a recent on the Muslim Brotherhood member interview with Al Hayat, where he said that the treaty with Israel is not binding, Nuland said: "We’ve seen this press report. I would say that it is one member of the Muslim Brotherhood. We have‬ had other assurances from the party with regard to their commitment not only to universal human rights, but to the international obligations that the Government of Egypt has undertaken."
         
The U.S. official added by saying that, "as we’ve said again and again, not only with regard to Egypt but with regard to other states in that region in transition, we expect that legitimate parties will not only support universal human rights, but will also continue to support international obligations made by their governments they have made commitments to us along those regards, and as I said, we will judge these parties by what they do."

Nuland's comments came after last month top Egyptian opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei told Iran's Fars news agency that the United States is engaged in secret talks with Egypt's ruling military council geared at ensuring that the country's democratically elected regime will maintain its peace treaty with Israel.

"The negotiations were completely secret and confidential," ElBaradei told Fars, adding that what the ruling military indicated "said was that the talks were about bilateral and mutual relations, but I believe that Americans wanted to ensure that the deals signed between Egypt and Israel will remain intact if Islamists ascend to power."
Anyhow, Please take a look at the video - or the link that is posted. It is campaign material and so should be viewed in that light - but it is very effective and it is all true.

WELL DONE BY TEAM OBAMA!

Republicans Betray Israel and Jewish People, Seek One State Solution to Conflict in the Middle East

The RNC has continued to show how the Republican Party is no friend to either the Jewish People or the State of Israel. In their latest move the RNC has done the unthinkable and endorsed the One State Solution as a plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Here is the text, plain as day:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

AND when questioned by blogger Mitchell Plitkin about it had this to say:

Me: Dear Ms. Costa,[...] I just wanted to check with you that this was in fact an officially adopted RNC resolution. Can you please let me know? Thanks.
Costa: Yes it was adopted unanimously by the RNC last Friday at our winter meeting in New Orleans. Cindy

The text of the resolution is as follows:

AN RNC RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE NATION OF ISRAEL FOR ITS RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WHEREAS, Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest recorded deed as reported in the Old Testament, a tome of scripture held sacred and reverenced by Jew and Christian, alike, as the acts and words of God; and

WHEREAS, as the Grantor of said lands, God stated to the Jewish people in the Old Testament; in Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 24:  “Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey”; and

WHEREAS, God has never rescinded his grant of said lands; and

WHEREAS, along with the grant of said lands to the Jewish people, God provided for the non-Jewish residents of the land in commanding that governance must be in one law for all without drawing distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, as contained in Leviticus 24:22, and

WHEREAS, the Nation of Israel declared its independent control and governance of said lands on May 14, 1948, with the goal of re-establishing their God-given lands as a homeland for the Jewish people; and

WHEREAS, the United States of America, having been the first country to recognize Israel as an independent nation and as Israel’s principal Mideast ally, has enjoyed a close and mutually beneficial relationship with Israel and her people; and

WHEREAS, indeed, Israel is the United States of America’s greatest friend in the Mideast; and

WHEREAS, the roots of Israel and the roots of the United States of America are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other under the word and protection of almighty God; and

WHEREAS, there are those in the Middle East who have sought to destroy Israel from its inception as anation; and

WHEREAS, those same enemies of Israel also seek to destroy the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the United States of America and the nation of Israel have enjoyed cordial and mutually beneficial relations since 1948, a friendship that should continues to strengthen with each passing year.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Republican Nation Committee that the committee by this resolution commends the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate Leadership and each of the legislatures of the states within the United States of America with the request and recommendation of this body that a similar resolution to that stated herein be proposed within their respective bodies.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen... the One State Solution. Now, one can safely assume that the Republican version of the One State Solution and the Palestinian version of the One State Solution are very different takes on the same thing.

The Republican version calls for something similar to what Israeli Rightists, in the YESHA and National Union envisage for a One State Solution. I assumes that Israel will annex all of the territory that is the West Bank of Jordan and incorporate the Palestinian population there into it's own. Strangely enough this is also something called for by the hard left of the Palestinian polity though for very different reasons. BUT, the idea behind the Republican Resolution is to say in short: "G-d gave all the land to Israel, we like Israel, so all the land is theirs to do as they see fit".

So how is this a "betrayal" of Israel? Only in that it would destroy Israel in almost every way. Let's look at some scenario's:

Scenario One: Israel annexes all of the West Bank and Gaza Formally.

Assuming that Israel then absorbs the Palestinian population the demographics of Israel change radically. Currently Israel as a nation is 75.2% Jewish and 20.5% Arab. Israel's Jewish Population stands at  about 5,865,300 individuals and Israel's Arab Population stands at about 1,597,300 individuals. If one includes the West Bank, and Gaza, the demographic mixture changes to: 5,749,000 Arabs/Palestinians and 5,865,300 Jews. Now current birthrates favor a quick transition from Israel being a Jewish State to becoming a Palestinian State with a large Jewish minority. Given that Israel was created to be the State and National Homeland of the Jewish People this makes the future of Israel problematic.

Remember the RNC Resolution calls one law for all people without distinction. So Israel, as a democracy would then become a Palestinian Majority State. Just how long does anyone think that a Palestinian Majority State would be run as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People? Five minutes... Ten minutes...

ALSO, Hoq' ha shvut - IF, the Jewish Law of Return (a cornerstone law regarding Israel) would still be in effect then Palestinian Right of Return would also have to be in effect. That would reduce the Jewish % of the population even further.

FURTHERMORE... No has asked the Palestinians if they even want this situation though secular, leftist Palestinians and their supporters have this as their agenda for the obvious end result.

Scenario Two: Israel annexes only the West Bank and leaves Gaza on it's own.

This would mean that he total population shifts to about 5,865,000 Jews and 4,149,000 Palestinians then living in Israel with 1.6 million Palestinians STILL living in Gaza.

First, off while this would maintain a Jewish majority, that figure would go from a 75% - 21% split to 58% - 42% split. Given Birthrates and immigration, that demographic would be shifting rapidly.

All of this of course does not even take into account that the Palestinians are not being asked if they agree with this. In all honesty, I can't really see that in the case of this scenario. Though Palestinians are not (as a polity) currently favorable to Hamas, they do favor unification for their polity and do consider Gazans as Palestinians. A population split like this almost guarantees civil war. And the fact that majorities in either polities reject this notion, this is a recipe for disaster.

Scenario Three: Meir Kahane's Dream Come True

NOW... let's say the Republicans don't really mean this and they mean to say... This land is all Jewish, then what happens to the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Does Israel simply move them? Ethnically cleanse them from their homes? Where do the Palestinians go? Do they go to the already established State of Jordan (as Arye Eldad of National Union proposes)?

What would doing that do the character of the State of Israel as a "light unto nations" or as a Modern Western Democracy as was envisioned by it's founders? Does that "light unto nations" mean driving millions of people out of their homes? OF COURSE NOT!

Not too mention that it would set off a regional war that would threaten to widen into World War III. The second Israel started to forcibly transfer population, the surrounding nations (and I believe Russia) would immediately take action. At BEST the E.U. would put full economic sanctions on Israel, and I cannot see how the U.S. population would tolerate this.

Should the population NOT be transferred but just decide to annex the territory and keep the population as less than citizens then the Republicans would be obligated to take action against Israel as this would run counter to their insistence that "One Law" would apply to all.

Oh and for those out there who really want to channel Rabbi Kahane and Kach... Jordan is not Palestine. It was recognized as a separate nation and NOT part of the mandate early on. And Jordan currently is really Israel's last friend in the region. Israeli and American Rightist calls to get Jordan recognized as the homeland of the Palestinians (which it is not) is the fastest way to completely destroy that peace treaty. A peace treaty that has greatly benefited both sides.

Here is a key passage from Israel's Declaration of Establishment:

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.

ON THE OTHER SIDE.... President Barak Obama and the Democratic Party fully supports the traditional American position of Two States for Two Peoples (and rightly so). Both sides need to have their legitimate rights to self determination recognized. The Jewish People in Israel and the Palestinian people in Palestine. The Two State solution is the only possibly peaceful way forward (and that is not guaranteed with the level of militancy that exists on both sides at this time) and while it may not be ideal for either side it is the best option for both peoples.

Given this declaration by the Republicans anyone who thinks that voting for them is better for than voting for proven friend of the Jewish people and Israel, our President Barak Obama, needs to have their heads closely examined. This Republican declaration is a straight up call for the destruction of Israel and a blow to the soul of the Jewish people.

Hamas continues it's quest to shut down Freedom

Yesterday it was Hamas beating up on Shiite worshippers and then denying their existence. Today, it is them wiping out the Palestinian version of "American Idol" or "The X Factor". Maan News is reporting: Hamas Bans 'New Star' singing contest:

GAZA CITY (Ma'an) -- The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip has banned residents of the coastal enclave from participating in the national reality singing show "New Star."....

....Hasan Abu Hashish, who heads the media office in the Hamas-run government, told Ma'an's public relations director Ala al-Abed that the program was "indecent."

The contest contradicts the customs and traditions of the Gaza community, Abu Hashish said, adding that singing was the passion of a few and not in the interests of the majority of the community.

Interestingly the talkbacks in the Maan piece seem to be providing an interesting arguments between some Palestinians and other Islamic partisans from other parts of the world. Usually I don't deal or care about talkbacks but these have a slightly different tone. What I notice is that the secular Palestinians are calling for a State for Palestinians and are seeing this purely on a national level. At the same time those from outside of Palestine AND religious supporters of Hamas are seeing this in global terms. Read through the talkbacks, they are interesting for the most part.

However, with all of this, Hamas represents a far greater % of the Palestinian Polity than does the PFLP activist posting in the talkbalks in favor of a more Western Style of Government.

Correspondingly, though Hamas is getting a lot of press a Norwegian think tank study over six years finds that Ismail Haniyeh's overall standing with Palestinian Polity is far lower than that of P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas. Interestingly, according to the survey only 25% of Palestinians feel that either Governmental organization (The Palestinian Authority or Hamas) satisfactory in advancing democracy and only 30% feel either is satisfactorally promoting Human Rights. YET... these are the bodies that are advancing the cause of Statehood and a One State solution (though the PA in theory supports a "Two State Solution).

In the meanwhile, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been conducting talks to "unify the Palestinian Resistance". It is important to remember that both Hamas and P.I.J. have agreed to join the PLO and as a result this deal will have direct implications on any potential Peace Talks or negotiations with Israel towards ending the Occupation (which honestly Israel does not seem to be in a hurry to do) AND establishing a modern, democratic Palestinian State. 

GAZA CITY (Ma'an) -- The leader of Gaza's government Ismail Haniyeh on Tuesday called for an in-depth dialogue between his Hamas party and Islamic Jihad, an official said.

Muhammad al-Hindi, an Islamic Jihad leader, said the two sides hoped to unify the Palestinian resistance forces. He said this was an Islamic and national duty.

He said bringing the two sides into closer cooperation was important due to the uprisings across the Arab world, which the factions hope to give a more "Islamic dimension."

Al-Hindi praised Haniyeh's call and said talks were already underway at home and abroad.

For proponents of a peaceful solution whether it be a One State solution or a "faux" Two State solution (Israel exists but all the Palestinian refugees and their descendents from the 1948 War of Independence get to move back to Israel - thus causing a demographic shift in favor of Palestinians and in effect creating Palestine and Palestine), this combination CANNOT be heartening. Islamic Jihad has rejected non-violence as a part of "resistance" as has Hamas.

How the PLO will reconcile this with their plans for unity is unknown and an Israeli reaction to unity with Hamas and P.I.J. joining the process (a process they both oppose) is sure to be both strong and in the opposite direction of those who think that this unification will serve the purpose of creating either Two States or Peace.

Please discuss.

Hamas Shows Gives a Glimpse of the Future

Maan News is reporting today that Hamas attacked a group of Shiites and called them a "criminal gang".

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- A group of Shiite worshipers say masked police violently raided a religious service in the northern Gaza Strip on Saturday, prompting furious denials by the Hamas-dominated government in the territory.

Around 20 followers of the Shia branch of Islam were performing a ceremony for Ashura, the commemoration of the death of Prophet Muhammad's grandson Hussein, when masked police stormed the private home in Beit Lahiya, they told Palestinian human rights groups.

Security officers beat the worshipers with clubs, and took them for interrogation at a police station where they were further assaulted, they told the Gaza-headquartered Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

Several sustained fractures and bruises from the beating and were taken to Balsam and Kamal Odwan hospitals, PCHR said.

SO... Hamas - the winner in the last Palestinian elections and rulers of the Gaza strip - WHO also recently joined the PLO (along with the radical Palestinian Islamic Jihad) is showing what it considers to be religious freedom. According to the Palestinian Authority all religions are to be tolerated and respected however, Palestinian Shiites have claimed that they actually get worse treatment at the hands of the P.A. than they do by Hamas (whose largest benefactor is the Shiite Government of Iran).

However, Hamas has said in the past that Palestine is a Sunni country where Shi'ism does not exist. They also said that they respect those "non-existant" Shiites in Gaza. Of course, here is Hamas talking about religious freedom:

"We respect all the doctrines around the world, especially the Shiite school, and we don’t intervene in what they believe and we don’t want them to intervene in our beliefs as well," the statement said.

While vowing to study allegations of human rights abuse, the interior ministry warned human rights groups to consult official sources and not believe just any account of events.

So Hamas "warned" Human Rights groups to consult the government eh? Basically saying - "Don't listen to those groups, just take our governments word for it. Interesting. How can anyone who claims they support human rights stand up for either this government OR for a government that includes these people as principle actors?

This is a frightening view of a future where Hamas is an integral part of the Palestinian Polity and a leading member of the PLO (the national representatives of the Palestinian people).

Speaking of the PLO, Haaretz is reporting that according to a "Palestinian militant" the PLO is considering a military option against Israel - PLEASE NOTE - THIS IS UNCONFIRMED as of now. Is that going to work as well as "Cast Lead" or Intifada II for them. I am not sure what that even means. HOWEVER, I did see these stories in Haaretz:

IDF ARRESTS TWO PALESTINIANS CARRYING PIPE BOMBS, AMMUNITION NEAR JENIN

The two Palestinians, aged 20, were arrested at the Salem checkpoint near the Palestinian city of Jenin, where four Palestinians were also arrested last week for carrying makeshift bombs

According to Israeli security forces' investigation into the previous incident, the weapons that were apprehended were supposed to be used to carry out an attack on a military court near the Salem checkpoint.

Since the second incident happened at the same place and within a short timeframe from the first, security forces believe the two Palestinians arrested on Monday had the same intention.

Thoughtful Jewish Teenager Writes Heartfelt Essay Critical of Israel. Or Maybe Not...

As reported on Elder of Ziyon, a 17 year old Jewish teenager from suburban Pittsburgh, Jesse Lieberfeld, has won an essay contest for MLK Day sponsored by Carnegie Mellon University.

The young man pens a piece in which he supposedly shares his internal angst about going to his Rabbi and unnamed community elders with questions about Israel. He claims to start out as a Israel supporter:

I always kept the doubts I had about Israel’s spotless reputation to the back of my mind. “Our people” were fighting a war, one I did not fully comprehend, but I naturally assumed that it must be justified. We would never be so amoral as to fight an unjust war. Yet as I came to learn more about our so-called “conflict” with the Palestinians, I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases, and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. “Genocide” almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms. Whenever I brought up the subject, I was always given the answer that there were faults on both sides, that no one was really to blame, or simply that it was a “difficult situation.”

But then has an epiphany:

It was not until eighth grade that I fully understood what I was on the side of. One afternoon, after a fresh round of killings was announced on our bus ride home, I asked two of my friends who actively supported Israel what they thought. “We need to defend our race,” they told me. “It’s our right.”

....

When I was finally given the chance to ask a question, I asked, “I want to support Israel. But how can I when it lets its army commit so many killings?” I was met with a few angry glares from some of the older men, but the rabbi answered me. “It is a terrible thing, isn’t it?” he said. “But there’s nothing we can do. It’s just a fact of life.”

And then the G word:

"Genocide" almost seemed the more
appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of
portraying the war in that manner

It's a story we've heard over and over. "I'm Jewish and I used to support Israel but now I'm just so bothered by what Israel is doing." But is this young man's tale of having his supposedly naive mind changed by the hard facts true?

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

It turns out that Jesse's father is none other than Professor Daniel Lieberfeld, of Duqesne University. Professor Lieberfeld teaches a class called PLSC 412: The Israeli-Arab Conflict and has published articles such as "Media Coverage and Israel's 'Four Mothers' Antiwar Protest: Agendas, Tactics, and Political Context in Movement Success. Media, War & Conflict."

The blurb for professor Lieberfeld's course states:

The clash between Jewish Zionists and the Arab peoples of Palestine and surrounding countries has been a focal point of world politics for roughly the last 100 years.

(emphasis mine)

So, I find it quite hard to believe that little Jesse ever had any naivite to be lost when it comes to the I/P conflict. I find it hard to believe that Israel ever had a "spotless reputation" in his mind. Rather, he seems to have been steeped in Israel criticism, or at least Israel awareness, for his entire life.

Additionally, in spite of his father's supposed expertise on the subject, Jesse pushes some of the typical ignorant and borderline antisemitic rhetoric we've come to expect from Israel derangers. One example is:

I did not intend to go on being one of the Self-Chosen People

This deliberate misinterpreting of the concept of the "Chosen People" is a staple of antisemitism.

If you ask me, Carnegie Mellon and all of us seem to be the victims of a ruse here. Jesse Lieberfeld has had no epiphanies taking him from ignorant loyal Jew to enlightened ashamed Jew. He never envisioned Israel having a "spotless reputation" to which he found an overdue correction. He is a child of academia both of whose parents are professors and Fulbright scholars, who has been steeped in I/P conflict content for years.

Way to be suckered, Carnegie Mellon.

Lastly, I say shame on Carnegie Mellon for using MLK day to promote an anti-Zionist essay. MLK was a committed Zionist.

Progressive Zionist FOOTBALL Open Thread.

Hey all....

As some of you know, I am a HUGE 49'er fan. I could not be more thrilled this weekend as not only do the 'Niners get a home game BUT, they took out the very good, very talented N.O. Saints.

Now, many here who also participate at the PZ are New York/New Jersey Giants fans. And that is a fine thing. Having gone to Rutgers in Grad School many of my friends there were Giants fans as well.

SO.... I will be watching the game and getting fired up all week...

I leave you this:

http://youtu.be/TzG05gBW2ks

Let's have some fun

Yet Again President Obama Sides with Israel

Yet again, President Obama shows that his actions in support of Israel speak louder than critics suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS).

In addition to his "exceptional support for Israeli Security" (as stated by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak) and additional funding for Israel's Missle Defense systems, AND in addition to his support at the U.N. against Palestinian unlitateralism (which seems like it will be continuing in light of what looks to be a failure in the Amman Talks) AND in addition to his support in the rescue of Israeli Diplomats from an angry mob of Egyptians, AND in addition to his administrations support and committment of viewing an attack on Israel as tantamount to an attack on the U.S., the President YET AGAIN shows that he is a true friend to the nation of Israel and to it's people.

According to the White House:

"The two leaders also discussed recent Iran-related developments, including the international community’s efforts to hold Iran accountable for its failures to meet its international obligations," the White House said in a statement. 

"The president reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel’s security, and the president and the prime minister promised to stay in touch in the coming weeks on these and other issues of mutual concern." 

Iran's "nuclear development problem can't be ignored by the world, so from that perspective we understand the US actions," Finance Minister Jun Azumi told reporters after meeting with US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was visiting Tokyo after two days in Beijing.

Japan imports about 10% of its oil from Iran, Azumi said.

"We plan to start reducing this 10% share as soon as possible in a planned manner," he said.

Apparently the President's efforts at getting support for sanctions against the Iranian regime are bearing fruit. To get Japan on board with this... Pretty good.

Additionally, in referring to the Amman Peace Talks that seem to have stalled over the issue of borders (to be fair the Palestinains have produced a map based on the 1967 borders with 1.9% land swaps, Israel refuses to present a map) and continued Israeli Settlement construction, White House had this to say:

"Although this January 26th date has been out there, we do not want to see it be a rigid sort of straitjacket which chills the atmosphere", she said, adding that the date “was a proposal made by the Quartet. It was illustrative of what we wanted to see happen.”

“So it's really incumbent on the parties now to do the hard work to fill out the rest of the game plan through 2012. We don't want them or anybody else to get so fixated on the date that it chills the mood. We want them to keep going on the hard work that they're doing together,” she said.

Currently the two sides are arguing over whether the Quartet set Jan. 26th date is the actual date for talks to expire. The Quartet said that the two sides had Three months to get their act together and start talking. The Palestinians take this to mean that the "clock started running" at the time of that pronouncement. The Israelis have said that the "clock started running" with the opening of negotiations last week. Here is the U.S. taking an active stand and siding with the Israelis in saying "let's get this to work and nevermind the clock". An Israeli positive position.

Kudos to President Obama for taking these stands and standing with Israel as a friend to the Israeli and Jewish people.

Mitt Romney Takes Immigration Stance Against Himself

Here is Mitt's campaign in South Carolina:

Around the beginning of the year, voters in South Carolina received mailings that noted the former Massachusetts governor’s position on illegal immigration.

 “The mailer talks about putting an end to magnets or benefits that illegal immigrants have,” a local South Carolina publication quoted a Romney campaign spokesman, Ryan Williams, as saying, “ensuring a tamper-proof system that allows employers to check the status of their employees and creating a strong border fence.”

“The Obama administration is opposed to common sense immigration laws,” SummervillePatch.com quoted Williams as saying. “With Romney’s plan there would be no magnets, no jobs, no holes in the borders.”

Well it turns out that Mr. Romney himself has roots in Mexico and that his Grandparents were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO MEXICO and then Mittens' dad was born in Mexico and "came back" to the U.S. It turns out that Mitt Romney can be the first Hispanic President of the United States.

Here is Rubin Naverette (a Right Wing guy himself) at cnn.com

Or should I say, "primo!" As much as it embarrasses me to admit it, given some of his views and how he expresses them, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and I could be distant cousins. Romney's father, George, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and so was my grandfather, Roman.

Que? You didn't know that Mitt Romney was half-Mexican? It's true. In fact, if he makes it to the White House, in addition to becoming the first Mormon in the Oval Office, he could also be the nation's first Hispanic president....

.....Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled the United States and crossed into Mexico in 1885 to escape religious persecution. He helped build the Mormon enclave of Colonia Juarez in Chihuahua.

Miles Park Romney never became a Mexican citizen, and neither did his son, Gaskell, or grandson, George. They were all denied Mexican citizenship because statutes on the books in Mexico denied that right to American settlers and their offspring.

Apparently Mitt Romney's family first illegally entered Mexico in 1885, tried to become citizens of Mexico and were denied citizenship. It seems that they then came back seeking... what is it Mitt says... "economic magnets". Man, if we had, had the laws that Mitt and xenophobic friends propose for the border now, I bet Mitt wouldn't have been allowed back. After all, his grandfather LEFT the U.S. (so much for American exceptionalism)... 

What is even more interesting is that "Mittens" just picked up the endorsement of those who wrote Arizona's hateful Immigration Law. According to the HuffPo's Elise Foley:

WASHINGTON -- GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney announced on Wednesday an endorsement from Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state who helped write laws meant to drive immigrants out of states like Arizona and Alabama....

.... In a statement released Wednesday, Romney praised Kobach's efforts to cut down on unauthorized immigration and said he will support the South Carolina and Alabama immigration laws..
"I'm so proud to earn Kris's support," Romney said. "Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country."

Of course the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) disagrees with this as Kobach was legal counsel to FAIR:

The Southern Poverty Law Center says FAIR is a racist organization. The center’s report on Kobach describes the Republican as a political opportunist, comparing him to the character of con man Harold Hill in the musical “The Music Man.”

“Like Hill, they say, Kobach comes to town with big ideas and a can-do attitude but leaves behind a trail of tears — huge legal bills and unworkable laws coupled with social turmoil,” the report said.

and of course Kobach's support of racial profiling:

Kobach, 44, has spent much of his professional life developing the legal framework that a growing number of state and local officials have used to justify anti-immigration proposals. A rising star in the GOP establishment, Kobach—a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School—joined John Ashcroft's Justice Department days before 9/11. Over the next two years, he helped create a program that required all visiting citizens from 25 mostly Arab countries to be fingerprinted and monitored—a policy that critics said amounted to racial profiling.

I wonder what Kobach would say about Mittens and his grandfather.

My Eight year old: "That man wants to destroy our country"

Last night, my sons and I were driving to my martial arts class (they come and watch sometimes) and on the radio I was listening to live feeds of the New Hampshire Primary results on the POTUS XM Radio Channel. Now POTUS, which claims to be neutral is not exactly that, and last nights radio was listening to Republicans declare the race over and lots of Mitt love. BUT they do play live feeds from all the candidates and live speeches from all of our politicians so I figured last night I would check it out.

Now, I admit, our kids get a healthy dose of Pro-President Obama propaganda in our house. My wife and I both are strong liberals/progressives who try to get our news not from the MSM T.V. drones (except for Bob O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow) but from satallite radio and other sources (NYT and WaPo amongst others) that are a tad more reliable.

Back to the comment... we are in the car, driving down the road and listening to the Romney speech with (of course) editorializing from dad when my Eight year old (soon to be Nine) son, who is also listening and not plugged into his DSI Gaming device says: "You know Dad... you are right, that man does want to destroy our country. What is up with Republicans, why are they like that?"

Here is what prompted him to say that when he heard this (from Romney's speech):

The President has run out of ideas. Now, he's running out of excuses. And tonight, we are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.

I get that he doesn't really understand what is happening BUT, he knows that President Obama has a lot of ideas and that he is not making excuses. He knows that the Republicans are the ones who block bill after bill that the President proposes in order to get this country moving again. His comment following the one above was "Why is this man lying about President Obama". To that I could only answer: "It's the way politics in our country works and it's really to bad".

But there was a more chilling part to Romneys speech that bothered me even more:

The path I lay out is not one paved with ever increasing government checks and cradle-to-grave assurances that government will always be the solution. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, then I'm not your President. You have that President today.

Basically Romney just said here: "Hey folks, Guess what... When I am President - you get no safety net"... He is saying straight out here that benefits, (benefits that millions of Americans pay into and need) will be gone.

This is what this election is all about. Protecting America from one group of people that want to completely destroy the social safety net that was put in place to protect Americans from the ravages of the unregulated free market.

As a nation we cannot allow this safety net to be destroyed for the millions and millions of Americans who need it just to survive.

Take the advice of my Eight Year old and stop these people from trying to destroy our nation.

An Open Letter to the ACLU

In the past I have discussed my attempt to get a simple response from the ACLU over their decision to endorse and participate in the Durban III conference, this past year's heir to the virulently antisemitic sham that took place ten years ago. My most recent attempt was a letter directly to ACLU headquarters, which, like my e-mail inquiry before it, received no response, even though I am a long time member and contributor.

I have previously been an enthusiastic financial supporter of the ACLU, and all I've asked for all along is an explanation of their position and decision to participate in and endorse Durban III.

I want to know what such a meeting of the words most odious dictators to engage in an orgy of Holocaust denial and Israel bashing has to do with protecting the First Amendment, free speech, and religious freedom in America.

It's that simple, and my requests have been polite and information seeking. I have made it clear that I am ready to resume contributing to the ACLU if they would simply respond to my concerns. But no response has been forthcoming. So, below I paste the letter that I mailed two months ago, for all to see:

Dear Sirs,

In regard to my membership renewal (member #xxxxxx) I am writing now with a second inquiry about an issue that is very important to me. My first inquiry, which was via e-mail and which was acknowledged as received (ticket# xxxxxxxxx), was never met with a reply.

I have been a "card carrying" ACLU member since 2000. However, a recent posting on the ACLU's blog made me very concerned that the organization may be straying from its mission of protecting civil liberties into unrelated advocacy that I do not support.

The issue I am concerned about is the ACLU's participation at a UN meeting commemorating the Durban Conferences on racism, known as Durban I and II. As many people are aware, the Durban I Conference was largely hijacked by disgusting, brazen antisemitism from some of the world's worst regimes and non-governmental organizations. Durban II offered a platform for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deny the and minimize the Nazi Holocaust. That, along with the refusal of the conference to acknowledge the Arab slave trade which wreaked havoc on Africa for centuries, is why the US, Canada, and most other Western nations boycotted Durban III.

Why would the ACLU criticize the US government for not participating in a forum commemorating Durban? Durban I and II became a sham and a mockery, and the US, and other Western nations, are right to boycott the commemoration.

I would really appreciate a further explanation as to why the ACLU chose to take part in this forum in the first place, and criticize the US government for not taking part. I am open to feeling differently about this issue, but my previous inquiry was never answered.

Did the ACLU consider the objections to the Durban conference? And, more importantly, what does the Durban commemoration meeting have to do with the ACLU's mission of protecting civil liberties? I am not seeing how Durban is a free speech issue in any way. The United States government should be free to decline to participate in such a forum, in my opinion, and I request a clarification of the ACLU's thinking on this matter.

Sincerely,
Fizziks
My town

So what is it, ACLU? Does a 10 year member get the dignity of a response? I urge other progressives who are disgusted by Durban's antisemitism and the ACLU's lack of an explanation in this instance to join me in withholding contributions until a response is given addressing our concerns. Again, as I state in the letter:

I am open to feeling differently about this issue, but my previous inquiry was never answered.

Answer it, ACLU.

Hamas and PFLP: Peace or Unity... Take your choice.

Well, the erstwhile partner and winner of the 2006 Palestinian elections Hamas has said their piece.
Hamas who is negotiating with the Palestinian Authority run by President Mahmoud Abbas to form a unity government just upped the ante wrt to negotiations saying choose Unity or Peace with Israel.
Senior Hamas negotiator Mahmoud Zahar told Maan News as much saying:

"The changing factors around us are in our favor ... they are not in favor either of Fatah's project or those with whom it cooperates, including the Israeli enemy," he said, watched by his bodyguards.

"It all depends on Fatah's policy now," Zahhar said. "If Fatah wants the (unity) agreement to be accomplished, we will be ready. If they do not want, then we are sitting here and the future is ours."

Zahar, bouyed by the victory of Islamist parties in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Al-Nour parties) also had this to say in direct contradiction to Hamas' Damascus based leader Khaled Meshaal:

Zahhar said Hamas was not prepared to relinquish the fight against Israel under any circumstances. He denied that Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal, based in Damascus, had endorsed Abbas's concept of non-violent "popular resistance" against Israel.

"Popular resistance includes both Fatah agenda, which speaks of protests only, and the Hamas position which advocates gathering all means of military armament for the sake of self-defense," Zahhar said.

He foresaw a rising tide of Islamism in the Arab world which would strengthen the Palestinian cause.

Meanwhile Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh on a visit to the new government of Tunisia had this to say:

"We promise you that we will not cede a single part of Palestine, we will not cede Jerusalem, we will continue to fight and we will not lay down our arms," he said. He urged "the people of the revolution to fight the army of al-Quds" as Jerusalem is known in Arabic.

"To Tunisia we say: 'It is us today who are going to build the new Middle East'." Haniya insisted "We will not recognize Israel," as the crowd chanted: "Death to Israel", "The Tunisian revolution supports Palestine", and "The army of Mohammed is back". Some wiped their feet on the Star of David.

Greeting Haniyeh's visit in Tunisia were a band of anti-Semites who chanted:

Islamist activists welcoming Haniya were heard chanting slogans like: "Kill the Jews, it is our duty", along with anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian messages....

....Videos circulated online showing members of the crowd greeting Hamas' Ismail Haniyeh at the airport on Thursday chanting "kill the Jews" and "crush the Jews." The chants came from Salafists, ultraconservative Muslims that have been making their presence felt in Tunisia recently.

This frightened the small Tunisian Jewish community, and prompted the leader of the new Islamist Government in Tunisia to State:

The head of Tunisia's moderate Islamic party condemned Monday anti-Semitic slogans chanted by a handful of ultraconservative Muslims at the arrival of a top Hamas official. "Ennahda condemns these slogans which do not represent Islam's spirit or teachings, and considers those who raised them as a marginal group," Ghannouchi said in a statement.

According to Haaretz, Zahar and Haniyeh are seeing:

He foresaw a rising tide of Islamism in the Arab world which would strengthen the Palestinian cause.

"What is coming in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya and currently in Sudan is supportive of the Palestinian cause, not as in the past a strategic supporter of the Israeli occupation," he said.

"What is coming is a thousand times better than in the past. Therefore we have to invest in these achievements by the Arab street for the sake of achieving the fundamental goals of the Palestinian people, the liberation of land and the return of (refugees)," Zahar added.

Apparently moderation and peace are not first and foremost (or even last and least) on the Hamas wishlist. The question then is what does this mean for both the Palestinian Unity talks AND for Israeli - Palestinian on-going negotiations in Amman, Jordan.

Just for information it is not only the Islamists who oppose a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The secular Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestion (PFLP) had this to say about the talks in Amman:

GAZA CITY (Ma'an) -- The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine warned on Monday that PLO meetings with Israeli envoys were set to harm reconciliation between Palestinian factions, as Hamas reiterated its opposition to the talks.

 PLO delegates are due to meet representatives of the Israeli government in the Jordanian capital later on Monday, in the second such talks since last week, called by the international Quartet.

But the leftist PFLP, long opposed to negotiations based on the two-state solution, has called the meetings a "grave political mistake," and called on Monday for President Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw from talks to focus on the fraying reconciliation deal between political rivals Fatah and Hamas.

"Such meetings poison the atmosphere for reconciliation efforts," senior PFLP leader Kayid Al-Ghoul said in a press release.

Oh well.... So much for claims that unity would be bring about a peaceful settlement OR that the Palestinian factions give a crap about Peace.

Human Rights versus Multiculturalism

Divest This has a good article about the BDSers attempts to deal with the conundrum that they are attempting to gin up support among liberals for a polity - the Palestinians - that is anything but liberal when it comes to gay rights.

This speaks to an aspect of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict that I think is indicative of a larger meta-issue within the Western Left - the choice between two of its central values when they come into conflict. These two central values are universal human rights on the one hand, and what I will put under the umbrella of 'multiculturalism' on the other.

Since the end of Western colonialism these two values have come into conflict numerous times, but perhaps no place moreso than in the I/P conflict.

When it comes to human rights, there can probably be no more dramatic contrast among neighbors in the world. Israel is one of the world's most progressive countries for gay rights - gays have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, serve openly in the military, and there is a thriving gay culture. Israel practices general gender equality at a level on a par with Western Europe, as evidenced by the participation of women in business, government, the military, and society in general. Isreal has widespread sexual liberty, featuring a hedonistic beach and club culture, for example, for those who want it. Israel has widespread religious liberty, with people generally able to practice or not practice the religion of their choice. Israel also strives to reduce the importance of social castes more than its neighbors, and practices environmentalism on a par with Western nations.

In contrast, the Palestinians and Arab societies more generally are terrible when it comes to these manifestations of human rights - pretty much the worse in the world - on gay rights, womens' equality, sexual liberty, and religious liberty. The Arab world is by far the worst for gay rights, routinely criminalizing and even executing homosexuals. They are also among the worst for gender equality, enforcing strict dress codes for women, and practicing honor rapes and killings, among other outrages. Arab societies are also among the worst for religious liberty, featuring a high degree of sectarian conflict and strict laws and social pressure against blasphemy and apostacy. Plus Palestinian society clearly maintains a strict tribal or family-based social heirarchy - so much so that it is no accident that social minorities such as the Druze and many of the Bedouins have chosen to be loyal to Israel over their ethnic brethren.

Based on traditional Left human rights considerations, the Palestinians and Arabs would be a very odd cause to particularly champion, given their conflict with Israel.

But while Israel would seem to be the choice to champion for the values of human rights, the value that I have labelled 'multiculturalism' holds that all cultures and peoples should be seen as valuable, and in a more extreme interpretation, equal. Given the dominance of Western and American culture on the World, multiculturalism generally dictates that one should defer to the less western, less 'white', and less capitalist of any two options - which in a simplified reading of the Middle East situation would be the Palestinian / Arab side.

When it comes to I/P, the values of human rights and multiculturalism are in clonflict within the collective Liberal mind, and the conflict must somehow be resolved. It can only be resolved by deciding that one value set is more important or more consistent than the other. Those that place a higher importance on universal human rights have generally chosen to side with Israel, while those who place a higher importance on milticulturalism have chosen to side with the Arabs. This is certainly borne out by the profiles of the participants in activities within the Left related to I/P.

Certainly, I/P is not the only place these value sets have been in conflict for the Left. Castro's Cuba is another instance, as the Communist regime has brought both economic and racial equality, as well as tremendous social oppression, including of gays, music, and political dissidents. However, I/P might be the most dramatic manifestation of the two values in conflict.

I choose human rights. How about you?

Marco Rubio Kisses Reality and History Good-Bye

At work, my ultra-conservative, ultra evangelical religious boss who has said: "I would vote for Satan before voting for Barak Obama", sent me an email today with the subject line: This is why we don’t have money-your people have to spend to protect their constituency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
In that email, what can only be described as a sharp departure from history/reality is a copy of an article from Human Events that can only be described as laughable. Amongst the claims made by Rubio are that the President "failed to lead" and is making America a "deadbeat nation".

Here is the letter from Sen. Rubio in it's entirety. In it he makes a number of ridiculous claims. The first of course is:

..."you have made it a routine part of your job to ask for more room to spend without any plan to reduce the debt"

That gets a huge HUH?????

Let's see the President has been talking about tons of ways to reduce the debt from simple methods such as letting the Bush tax cuts expire to far more complex programs. It is the Republicans who have tirelessly worked to block the President and the Democrats from even enacting compromise plans. YET, now Senator Rubio has the nerve to say that the President has not proposed ways to reduce the debt. Perhaps the good Senator missed this nifty little piece of information: Obama's Debt Reduction Plan: $ 3 trillion in savings, half from Tax Revenue

Combined with his call this month for $450 billion in new stimulus, the proposal represents a more populist approach to confronting the nation’s economic travails than the compromises he advocated earlier this summer.

Obama will propose new taxes on the wealthy, a special new tax for millionaires, and eliminating or scaling back a variety of loopholes and deductions, officials say. About half of the tax savings would come from the expiration next year of the George W. Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy.

But the president won’t call for any changes in Social Security, officials say, and is seeking less-aggressive changes to Medicare and Medicaid than previously considered. He will propose $320 billion in health-care savings but will not include raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, officials said.

Any reduction in Medicare benefits would not begin until 2017, they said. Other cuts in domestic spending would bring the total spending savings to $580 billion. About $1 trillion in savings is also expected from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh well... so much for no plan. Oh wait... Rubio goes on to say that he will oppose any plan to raise the debt ceiling unless it is accomplished by a "serious plan" which in short says... "no tax raises on the rich, just whack the Poor and Middle Class". Somehow Rubio doesn't understand that the "Job Creators" who have the lowest taxes in history ARE STILL NOT creating jobs despite having those lowest taxes. It's an incredible disconnect from reality.

Then in a further departure he has this to say:

..."you failed to lead and punted the tough decisions, and in doing so, our credit rating was reduced for the first time in history".

Well one can realistically say that the President could have done a better job as a "leader" however, one cannot blame him for the Republicans holding the American people and economy hostage so that their 1% base can become richer, and richer and eventually wipe out the New Deal.

Oh and as far as the credit rating thing, first of all Senator Rubio missed that part of that downgrade by S&P was based on a $ 2 trillion mistake:

S&P initially made a $2-trillion miscalculation in its economic projections, which administration officials noticed Friday afternoon when the firm shared its analysis with them before publicly releasing it, said a person familiar with the situation who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

But S&P would not agree to change its rating or take more time to do a new analysis, the person said.

AND.... of course the downgrade cited the political hostage taking of the issue by Republicans:

“The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”

But let's just get one other point of "Marco's Flight of Fantasy"...

....“more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”

And I guess the way one dispells the notion of being a "Deadbeat" is to default on debt.

Sure....

Welcome to the 2012 Republican party where "Reality goes to take a break".

Anyway, Please join me in encouraging President Obama to show the leadership that Rubio insists on. Let's make sure while our debt ceiling is raised, and the proper revenue enhancements such as making the 1% pay their fair share, and ending corporate welfare and loopholes along with other debt reducing stragies are employed. The people of the U.S. support this Mr. President and Sen. Rubio is crying out for you to lead, well... let's do just that (and then watch the Republicans cry like little babies about "too much leadership").

Ron Paul to Reality: Go Take a Hike!

Yep, just when you think he can't get any whackier, everyone's favorite crazy uncle (not really) steps up his departure from the reality train that much more.
As if his economy destroying idea of cutting $ 1 Trillion dollars in the first year of his presidency is not insane enough. Or his wiping out the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development is not strange enough, Paul has decided to extend his flirtation with the "TEH CRAZY" just a higher notch.

What, you say that's not possible? I thought so as well until I read the this:

CNN is reporting that the Paul campaign has decided that reality is not something that he needs deal with anymore. How did he do this, well apparantly according to Ron Paul arch-Conservative asshat Rick Santorum (you know, of Google fame - heh) is VERY LIBERAL. Yep.... you heard me - Ron Paul says RICK SANTORUM IS VERY LIBERAL. Well you think I must be making this up.. right? Sorry, you can't make stuff like this up. Here is the story from CNN:

(CNN) - Ron Paul dinged rival Rick Santorum Monday for being a "very liberal" candidate, saying the former Pennsylvania senator and staunch social conservative voted for too much spending during his time in Congress.

Speaking to CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash before a campaign event with his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the White House hopeful said his rival had taken positions counter to true conservative ideas....

 Paul's son Rand, (proving that he is a "chip off the old block") added this at a campaign stop:

"He voted to double the size of the Department of Education," Rand Paul said. "He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it's come down."

The Department of Education... Expanding Medicare and adding Free Drugs for Seniors! OH NOEZ NOT THAT....

Ok so let's see the guy "Uncle Ron" calls too Liberal (Santorum got an "88" out of "100" from the American Conservative Union only behind Jim DeMint and Ron Paul) expressed himself.

Apparently leading the charge against:
-- Legalizing Gay Marriage
-- Voting to abolish the Estate Tax
-- Voting to NOT extend the ban on Assault Weapons
-- Voted to Give congress the criminalize "desicrating the Flag"
-- Voted against Stem Cell research

You know "LIBERAL" positions like these.

Who had this to say about getting rid of Medicare:

I say to my conservative friends who are expressing concern about this bill, the most important thing in this bill, from my perspective, for conservatives is this plan allows for health savings accounts” -- which are tax-free accounts people can use to set aside money for medical expenses. 

“Fundamentally, what health savings accounts will do is eventually change Medicare -- not today, not even five or 10 years from now, but over the long term, once health savings accounts become what I believe they will become, which is the method of choice that the vast majority of people in this country will do in the private sector,” he said. “This will be a very popular plan in which millions of Americans will participate, and it will fundamentally change the insurance market in this country.” 

And here is more from the VERY LIBERAL Santorum(AHAHAHAHA I just love saying that - heh)

What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not.

THIS is the guy Ron Paul says is "Very Liberal", Hence, the struggle between Ron Paul and Reality. Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen to the Republican primary of 2012!

An Era Comes to an End in Portland, Oregon

I opened my mailbox here in Southeast Portland on Saturday morning and pulled out the last ever copy of The Jewish Review, the semi-monthly newspaper which has served our community in Oregon and Southwest Washington since 1959. Twenty years before I was born, and even longer before I eventually settled here.

A half century and then some of the Jewish Review Portland 1959. Not the scene we know today. Not according to a 1957 survey taken by the Jewish Welfare Federation of Portland, now known as the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland. Out of a population of 570,000, they said, 7,892 were Jews. The majority lived in the Northeast and Southwest, almost half were self-employed, 68 percent belonged to a synagogue, and 46 percent were foreign-born. A Jewish newspaper, the JWFP decided, is what the city needed. Since the 1940s, federations around the country sponsored them. Portland’s last publication, The Scribe, stopped printing in 1953. The first issue of the Portland Jewish Review ran Jan. 1, 1959.

Jump, jump!

Not long after this first publication, the City of Portland then, in all of its infinite 'wisdom' at the time, and under the then-fashionable spell of urban renewal, so-called, declared "blighted" and bulldozed wholesale over 50 blocks of Old South Portland, the classic urban traditionally Jewish and Italian neighborhood immediately south of downtown; and replaced same with, fittingly enough, the only part of downtown Portland which can honestly be considered "blighted" today, anytime outside of 9 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday, largely made up as it is of parking structures, sprawling unnecessary landscaping, 1970's Soviet-style brutalist high-rise housing towers apparently designed solely to induce agoraphobia, and drab, snubbing-their-noses-at-our-streets-and-sidewalks, suburban-style, auto-oriented (pedestrians not welcome here!) sterile corporate complexes which compose the antithesis of the complete streets ideal which, fortunately, once again rules today's Portland. Ah, but I digress. As usual. Back to our topic...

The best newspapers are independent newspapers, unbeholden to any interest beyond the core values of journalism that make both for good newspapers and good democracies. However, institutional niche newspapers such as the Jewish Review serve a vital role within their community -- and one not served by other newspapers. With careful leadership and an understanding publisher, they can serve, fairly well, two masters: the values of good journalism and the goals of their publisher. It’s a compromise.

Having never worked in the newspaper industry, I can't speak to this in any way, but I think I get what he's saying. I absolutely get this part, though, regardless -

institutional niche newspapers such as the Jewish Review serve a vital role within their community -- and one not served by other newspapers.

A damned shame to see these go, especially one I loved... Throughout its time, the Jewish Review provided coverage of everything from general Jewish culture in and around town to capital punishment to Oregon politics to current events in Israel to the plight of Soviet Jewry to the 1988 murder of Ethiopian student Mulugeta Seraw by local white supremacists to Polina Olsen's priceless oral histories of Portland's Jewish community which pre-dates Oregon-statehood and beyond... This paper was there, and it stood for 53 years. Recording our history. Along with its Portland predecessors dating back 119 years -

1893-1901: American Hebrew News

1903-1919: Jewish Tribune

1919-1953: The Scribe

1959-2012: Jewish Review

I won't even pretend I can match such contributions, but I'd like to think that maybe I can possibly help every once in a while. I'll be trying.