The Freedom of Non-Partisanship

Michael

Those of us who participate on these political blogs are engaging a process. It is a process of political change within ourselves that gets articulated over time. We are looking at the world and our government and ourselves and thinking aloud. That's really all it is, at least for me.

I started blogging in the summer of 2005 on Daily Kos. (UID 55,790) This was at the height of my disgust and hatred toward the Bush administration. Daily Kos was important at the time, as were some other online progressive-left venues, such as Common Dreams and Crooks and Liars and MoveOn.org, because millions of us were finding one another after the trauma not only of 9/11 but the jingoistic and violent Bush administration reaction to 9/11 in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That was almost seven years ago, now, and naturally my political views have evolved and changed since then. At the time, I was fully in-line with the progressive-liberal agenda. I despised Bush and his cronies because I did not believe that they had the well-being of the American people at heart, nor did I trust them to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

I considered the Republicans the enemy.

But I do not any longer.

Freeing oneself from ideological or party partisanship is a funny and difficult process. I cannot say how these things go for everyone, but for me it took the form of a mere crack in the ideological glass windshield, so to speak. That's the way that I think of it. A crack formed in the glass and then the crack became a web of cracks that spread throughout the whole until almost the entire edifice came crashing down. And the thing of it is... the Catch 22 of it... is that most people do not know that they are in thrall of ideological group-think until they break away from it and they often can't break away from it until they recognize that they are in thrall to it.

This is part of the reason why so many people maintain their ideological inclinations and tendencies throughout their entire lives.

The first real cracks in the edifice for me, you will not be surprised to learn, came when I saw the most extreme hatred and vile distortions aimed at the Jewish state, horrendously enough in the name of "human rights" and "social justice."  At first I did not really know what to make of it.  At the time, I certainly favored Israel, but I did not follow that country very closely, nor was I concerned about American or world attitudes toward that country.

This is because I was ignorant. I simply did not realize the effect or level of hatred spit at Israel from a movement that I thought composed of my ideological brothers and sisters. At first I tried very hard to maintain a certain fair balance between anti-Zionists and pro-Israel people.  I tried very hard to be open-minded even to the extent of having Jon the Anti-Zionist Jew (of Daily Kos fame) almost convince me that the single state solution was really in everyone's best interest.

But as time went by, and as I more and more followed progressive-left I-P discourse, and as I read more and more about the history of the conflict and the history of the Jewish people under Islam, I realized the full extent of the vicious propaganda campaign taking place internationally for the purpose of dissolving Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land.  I became aware of the progressive campaigns against Israel on the campuses, in the political journals and blogs, within the so-called "human rights" organizations, and, needless to say, within the United Nations.

As I considered this over time, I also began considering the extreme hatred coming out of progressive-left venues not only toward Israel, but toward their political rivals on the right.  A wake-up call came for me when so many progressives vehemently blamed Sarah Palin for the Tuscon shooting last year.  I just couldn't believe that "liberals" were making such horrendous claims and it forced me to realize that the progressive movement is no better than the conservative movement, and perhaps considerably worse, when it comes to slandering the other side.

Thus I am now free of political partisanship.

And that means that whole areas of consideration are open because I am not limited by the ever growing list of Politically Correct Multicultural Taboos.

And that is something that I highly recommend.

Oh, and by the way, the left is considerably more racist than is the right.

FYI.

{I will be happy to explain that going forward.}



Listen to the tune above for a quick trip down memory lane.

No Comment

Michael

How many are now dead because of this Koran burning thing in Afghanistan?

39?

Something like that.

This is the Progressive-Left

Michael

Then it's time to cut bait (6+ / 0-)

The US will be blamed in any case.

I still have no idea why in the post Cold War world (other then for convenient domestic political posturing) Israel is an American ally.

Plastic People, Oh Baby Now, Yer sucha Draaaag

by jds1978 on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 10:28:16 AM PST

This is your political movement, not mine.

And, yes, it is time to "cut bait." That is, it is long past time for Jews to throw the progressive movement, if not the Democratic Party, directly into the toilet which is precisely where it belongs.

Jews have to be the only people on the planet who believe that they have a moral obligation to support a political movement that works directly against their own well-being. It's disgusting. The progressive-left is the home to anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, so how can it possibly be our home, as well?

It can't.

I say that we cut bait immediately.

It is long past time to move on.

Middlesex University Event

Michael

Ken O'Keefe, of Mavi Marmara fame, calls Jews Nazis and demands the destruction of Israel.

The only reason that vicious nutbags like this guy get a platform is because progressives give people like him platforms from which to spew their hatred.

Is O'Keefe "fringe"?

Perhaps.

But is Middlesex University "fringe"?

I do not think so.

{A Tip 'O the Kippa to CiF Watch.}

By the way, it should also be noted that anyone who calls out Jews as Nazis... is a Nazi.

Ken O'Keefe is entirely despicable.

Brief Notes: Barack Obama Kicked Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Head

Michael

Upon the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East last year, during what is commonly known as the "Arab Spring," Barack Obama said the following:

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.

Whatever Obama's intention, his effect was to compare radical Islam to the Revolution of '76, as well as to the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

This is not hyperbole. This is not exaggeration. This is just a fact.

Barack Obama suggested that the rise of a theologically inspired dictatorship throughout the Arab and Muslim world that oppresses women, kills Gay people, and seeks the genocide of the Jews is a good thing.

I remain utterly flabbergasted that the progressive-left sanctions this disgrace towards its entire movement.

Martin Luther King, Jr. must be spinning.

The progressive-left is just dead.

I am watching it decompose before my very eyes.

Who Are the Muslim Brothers?

Michael

One of the things that I attempt to do with this blog is encourage people to read up on the history of radical Islam and, particularly, the history of the Muslim Brotherhood. At this political moment the Obama administration is mainstreaming that organization and encouraging normalization of relations with it. It is for this reason that we read that this fascistic and genocidal Brotherhood, with historical and ideological roots to Nazi Germany, is actually a "moderate" political group and therefore it is no big deal, really, that American politicians, including Barack Obama, himself, have occasionally met with them. Shortly after the fall of Tunisia to radical Islam, Obama actually compared the Islamist turmoil throughout the Middle East to the Revolution of '76 and the American Civil Rights Movement of 1950s and 1960s.

Among the historians and scholars who have written extensively on the Brotherhood, Matthias Küntzel, who received his PhD in political science from the University of Hamburg, is among the most respected. His 2007 work, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, is essential reading for anyone interested in the rise of the Jihad and its history going back to birth of the Brotherhood in 1920s Cairo.

In a 2008 paper presented at Stanford University, Küntzel tells us the following:

It was the Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, that established Islamism as a mass movement. The significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to that of the Bolshevik Party to communism: It was and remains to this day the ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas.

So the Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy of terrorist organizations like Qaeda and Hamas. Hamas, in fact, is the Muslim Brotherood in Gaza. That's what Hamas is. It's not just that Hamas is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it is the Muslim Brotherhood's affiliate organization in the Gaza Strip.

The Brotherhood advocated the replacement of Parliamentarianism by an “organic” state order based on the Caliphate. It demanded the abolition of interest and profit in favor of a forcibly imposed community of interests between capital and labor. And it set itself up as the rallying point for the restoration of patriarchal domination.

At the forefront of the Brotherhood’s efforts lay the struggle against all the sensual and “materialistic” temptations of the capitalist and communist world. At the tender age of 13, the pubescent al-Banna had founded a “Society for the Prevention of the Forbidden” and this is in essence what the Brothers were and are – a community of male zealots, whose primary concern is to prevent all the sensual and sexual sins forbidden according to their interpretation of the Koran. Their signature was most clearly apparent when they periodically reduced their local nightclubs, brothels and cinemas – constantly identified with Jewish influence – to ashes.

So, the Brotherhood promotes the Caliphate and has often used violence in order to promote that goal.

The Islamists’ answer to everything was the call for jihad to establish a new order based on sharia law. But the Brotherhood’s jihad was not directed primarily against the British. Rather, it focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews. Membership in the Brotherhood shot up from 800 to 200,000 between 1936 and 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted only one major campaign in Egypt, a campaign directed against Zionism and the Jews.

Brotherhood membership rose dramatically at the exact time that Nazism arose in Germany. This is not a coincidence.

Their Jew-hatred drew on early Islamic sources: First, they found encouragement in the Koranic dictum that Jews are to be considered the worst enemy of the believers. Second, they justified their aspiration to eliminate the Jews of Palestine by invoking the example of Muhammad, who in the 7th century not only expelled two Jewish tribes from Medina, but also beheaded the entire male population of a third Jewish tribe. Third, Islamists considered, and still consider, Palestine an Islamic territory, Dar al-Islam, where Jews must not run a single village, let alone a state.

At the same time, their Jew-hatred was inspired by Nazi influences: Leaflets called for a boycott of Jewish goods and Jewish shops, and the Brotherhood’s newspaper, al-Nadhir, carried a regular column on “The Danger of the Jews of Egypt,” which published the names and addresses of Jewish businessmen and allegedly Jewish newspaper publishers all over the world. In fact, this column attributed every evil of modernity, from communism to brothels, to the “Jewish danger.”

This is the Muslim Brotherhood and, not surprisingly, they were early advocates of a proto-BDS movement. Just as today's BDS movement owes something to previous anti-Jewish boycott efforts, such as that of the Muslim Brotherhood, so the Brotherhood's proto-BDS efforts owed a little something to the Nazis and their own form of "BDS."

If anyone is blasé about the rise of this organization throughout the Middle East, I would suggest that being blasé about the Brotherhood is something akin to being blasé about the rise of Nazi Germany. The reason for this is that the Muslim Brotherhood is, essentially, an organization whose roots go to the Koran and to European fascism and that their genocidal tendency towards Jews derive from both.  It's not that the Brotherhood will unleash World War III or a second Holocaust, merely that they are a rising star and would like to see that latter of those two.

And I am supposed to believe that when Barack Obama cleared a path for the Brotherhood by encouraging the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt that this should in no way reflect negatively on the American administration? I find it exceedingly peculiar just how anyone could consider the Obama administration and be entirely dismissive of this particular fact.

Does this mean that Obama has genocidal intentions toward the Jewish people? Of course, not. That would be entirely absurd. What it really means is that, like most progressives, Barack Obama simply doesn't understand the meaning and extent of radical Islam and therefore doesn't really take it seriously. No one who understands the nature and history of radical Islam could possibly think of this movement in terms of the American Civil Rights movement as Obama has encouraged Americans to think. Think of "the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat," is what the president of the United States said upon the rise of radical Islam in Tunisia, if you can believe it.

The problem here is not Obama administration malice toward the Jewish people.

The problem here, rather, is a gross and irresponsible ignorance on the part of the administration and its advocates. It is this gross and irresponsible ignorance which leads to an almost suicidal complacency in the face of something exceedingly dark. The political right in the United States has some understanding of the nature of this movement, while the political left, sadly, remains almost entirely blinkered by an ideological disinclination to face obvious truths in regard the rapid spread of radical Islam.

These Little Bastards Need to be in Prison

Michael

OIC: A "deplorable act of incitement"

by oldschooltwentysix

So says the Secretary-General of our new friends over at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, with regard to the burning of the Quran by the US forces in Afghanistan. Even after the profuse apologies that said it was a mistake, he called it a provocative act.

According to Fars News Agency:

In a statement on Thursday, Ihsanoglu described the incident as a "deplorable act of incitement", and said that the act runs "contrary to the common efforts of the OIC and that of the international community …to combat intolerance, and incitement to hatred based on religion and belief."

When the Human Rights Council resumes in March, we can bet this "incitement" will be used by the OIC to conflate in its drive against freedom of speech, expression, and conscience, soon arriving at your door.

Imagine what they would say if we were not friends.

"Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the wound of us"

Doodad

The Muslim world is none too happy about some Korans that got burned in Afghanistan recently. Obama has apologized but that isn't satisfying a lot of Muslims. They have killed at least 20 people including 4 Americans and many more have been injured. In Libya, British graves of war heroes have been desecrated. Extremists are calling for much more violence. In good old Iran, the rhetoric has become, as usual, very heated.

The commander of Iran's Basij force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqd said:

 "Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the wound of us, the Muslims, caused by the Burning of Quran in the US," he said adding: "Their apology can be accepted only by hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders means an apology,"

Looks like apologizing doesn't work.

On the Passing of Karmafish

Fare thee well, Karmafish.

Fare thee well.

Why the Left Cannot Face Radical Islam

Michael

One of the major criticisms of the left, here at Israel Thrives, is that progressives simply cannot bring themselves to face radical Islam. They do not want to hear about. They do not want to read its history. And they accuse those of us who are concerned about its rapid spread throughout the Middle East, via the ill-named “Arab Spring,” of racism and “Islamophobia.”

There are at least four reasons, and probably more, why progressives refuse to honestly discuss the rise of political Islam (or "radical Islam," or perhaps "the radical Jihad," depending on one’s mood). In no particular order, there is the perception that the previous Bush administration used the War on Terrorism as a pretext to move finances in various directions and to bolster their political positions. Thus “terrorism” for many on the left is a ghost.  A lie.  It is something akin to a political fantasy conjured up by Carl Rove and Dick Cheney. Despite 9/11, and the various acts of Jihadi murder and mayhem since then, they simply do not believe that it is real.

I am not sure that Tamar Fogel could convince them otherwise.

Another reason why leftists cannot face radical Islam is because they are, to be blunt, blinkered by an ideology, post-colonial theory, that most of them have kinda, sorta absorbed through osmosis. That is, the vast majority of self-described progressives have not studied either Marxism or its ideological little brother, post-colonial theory. Nonetheless, they generally believe that the white, European west, including the United States and Israel, have committed atrocious crimes against native peoples of color throughout the world and, therefore, as people of good conscience we must stand with oppressed Arabs or Muslims against our own countries and cultures. They have convinced themselves that the only moral position is to oppose the western countries in their various conflicts overseas. And they honestly believe that doing so is in everyone’s best interest.

Still another reason why progressives refuse to address the rise of political Islam is because of “group think” tendencies. Because they do not discuss it and none of their ideological friends discuss it, there must be nothing to discuss. And so everyone remains silent.  It's the Hush-Hush Factor.

Finally, there is the power of shear bullying and the ganging up on transgressors. This is the kind of thing that you see on Daily Kos constantly. A major function of large political blogs like Daily Kos is in the patrolling of the boundaries of discourse and seeking to shame and ridicule those who transgress such boundaries. The tactics are ridicule, shaming, demonizing, and demeaning the individual who steps out of line.

This intellectual repression on the progressive left stultifies.

If we cannot discuss political Islam, the rise of which over the last year represents the foremost geo-political development since the fall of the Soviet Union, then we can never prepare ourselves to deal with it. If we cannot discuss it then we cannot know its history or inclinations or level of developing power or even decide whether or not it represents a threat.

And this is precisely what the Obama administration is encouraging. Because, at the direction of the president of the United States, government officials are discouraged from noticing or mentioning the Islamic nature of this movement, they cannot even begin to honestly discuss it, which is why it is obvious that they have no idea whatsoever what to do about it.

Political Correctness has run amok and the result is that we cannot honestly discuss the rise of radical Islam in progressive-left circles, or even within the Obama administration, itself. Country after country has fallen to the Jihad in the Middle East and the best that progressives can muster concerning the rise of this highly oppressive movement is to congratulate them on “the blessings of Democracy.”

It is pure foolishness.

To Keith Moon, A Fond Farewell

Michael

Does anyone remember Keith Moon?

No. Not that Keith Moon, but the Daily Kos blogger.

I betcha Doodad does!

I wrote "To Keith Moon, A Fond Farewell" right after he got banned.

It's been two whole years since we suffered the loss of our beloved Keith Moon.

;O)

So, here's a little trip down memory lane.

.
.
.

As the Daily Kos I-P community struggles to find solace in the unfortunate departure of the beloved Keith Moon, I think that it is important that we not only acknowledge our loss, but recognize that we can go forward and that we will go forward. The pain we are suffering, the emptiness in our hearts where Keith once resided, will heal in time. And although any attempt to catalog the debt that we owe to Keith is impossible, we all understand that his legacy, the example he set as a quintessential American Original, will not fade.

What we can do, as individuals, as community members, it seems to me, is find comfort in the fact that Keith is out there somewhere. Our sadness at his departure should not cause us despair or mean the end of our struggle for social justice, equality, fair play, and general goodness. Our sadness at his departure should not mean that we back away from the tough challenges ahead. Keith was an inspiration to us all. His heart, his humor, his essential human decency was unique. When Keith spoke he radiated something that comes from the finest place within all of us.

And now his is no longer with us.

I know that the temptation for many of you will be to fall into despair, depression, and ennui. But think what Keith might say? Allow your mind to travel back to his words of wisdom, the special touch that he had with one and all, his ability to inspire hope in the hopeless, compassion in the compassionless, joy in those without joy. Because, in truth, what made Keith so special is that he represented the very best within ourselves. That is the key. We can, and will, honor his name. We can, and will, acknowledge his contributions. But, most importantly, we will strive to open ourselves to what he taught.

And, so, we wish Keith the fondest of fond fare wells.

And we pray that wherever Keith may be, whatever his current struggles, that he will bring inspiration to others, as he did to this community.

Fare thee well, Keith Moon.

Fare thee well.



The tune is for my older brother who has passed.

Police Hurt as Hundreds Riot at Temple Mount

Michael

Following Friday prayers, hundreds of Muslim worshipers throw rocks at police who disperse rioters with stun grenades.

They just love to riot and throw rocks at people.

Of course well-meaning and ignorant progressives tell themselves that Arab-Palestinian violence against Jews is Israel's fault.  The truth of the matter is that Arabs have been throwing stones at Jews in the Middle East for centuries.

This is not about Israel or the "occupation."   It is about a theologically inspired hatred toward Jews that goes back to the days of Muhammad. Arabs in the Middle East tend to look down upon Jews as inferior (dhimmis)... if not the children of apes and pigs... and therefore Jewish sovereignty on any land that was once controlled by the Umma is repellent to them.

Thus they throw rocks.

If this conflict were really about the fact that the local Arabs do not have a state for themselves, then they would have accepted such a state on any number of the numerous occasions when they have been offered statehood.

They've refused statehood for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one since at least the Peel Commission of 1937.

Yet Barack Obama thinks that the reason that the Palestinians do not have a state is because Jews are building housing for themselves in places like Shiloh.

What a disgrace.

.

Overhaul (Updated)

Michael

You guys will please excuse the interruption as I figure out what the new commenting application will be.

I've dumped Disqus because it simply was not working properly and that means a whole bunch of comments went away with it.

Please forgive me, but there is no way around this that I know of.

If you have any suggestions, please feel free to let me know.

In the mean time, I need to figure out the best way to get back up and running.

Update:

Commenting is restored and the old comments are still there, BUT for some reason it has all the comments listed under my name.

{Sigh}

Update 2:

It looks to me like we are good to go.

Any comments that you make in the future should show up under your own username and the new "last comments" widget is much, much faster than the old one.

If you guys have any further concerns, please let me know.

.

Brief Notes: On Grooves and Ruts

Michael

We spend a lot of time around these parts criticizing political Islam (for its genocidal tendencies), the progressive-left (for its acceptance of political Islam), and progressive Zionism (for its failure to stand up when it counts).

Part of the reason that progressive Zionism fails is because they are, in my opinion, in an ideological rut. They’re just playing the same records, the same old LPs, over and over and over again until the grooves are worn and useless.

We have got to move beyond old ways of thinking because times have simply changed. Here are two examples. Let us consider, in broad strokes, the progressive movement and the Oslo peace process. It is obvious that neither are particularly viable in advancing peace for, or the well-being of, the Jewish people. This is difficult to imagine to many, many people (Jew or non-Jew) because both movements long ago took on lives of their own that are entirely distinct from their actual utility for good.

American Jews, needless to say, were central to the development of the progressive movement as it emerged out of nineteenth century abolitionism. The progressive movement is as American as baseball and your grandma. (Maybe not my grandma, but that’s beside the point.) The reason that Jews went into that movement is obvious. We were a persecuted minority and it was the progressive movement which stood up for black people and women and labor and persecuted minorities like the Jews.

But times, my friends, have changed. When I look at the progressive movement now what I see is a political structure, bolstered by an ideology, that is directly harmful to the well-being of the Jewish people because it is directly harmful to the well-being of the Jewish state. The polls remain consistent. Conservatives and Republicans have much higher rates of friendliness toward Israel than do liberals and Democrats. That is simply a fact.

Although there is anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on the far fringy right, it is on the left where anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is being mainstreamed and institutionalized. Within the Democratic Party, within the mainstream liberal news outlets and many unions, many universities, and some “high” denominational churches, Israel is persistently defamed and demonized. Thus anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is a growing problem on the left and one that we need to consider when we think about our political allegiances.

BDS, of course, is also left-wing.

So, why should Jewish people support a political movement, the progressive-left, that also supports people who seek to rob Jews of self-determination and self-defense?

It makes no sense.

Furthermore, given the fact that the progressive movement no longer even stands for universal human rights, as we can plainly see from their near total disinterest in Darfur or the Congo or the Kurds or Tibet, not to mention the civil liberties of women and gays and Jews in the Middle East, why should we maintain any allegiance to a shell of a political movement that incorporates elements that are directly hostile toward Jewish well-being?

As for the peace process, it is over.

There is no peace process. Is that not obvious? The truth is that there never has been an actual peace process with the Palestinians. The reason for this is not because of those insidious conservative Likudnik followers of Jabotinsky and that Devil Incarnate, Meir Kahane, but because Muslim religious prejudice does not allow Jewish sovereignty on land that was swiped by Arabs shortly after Muhammed kicked the bucket.

That’s the truth.

And because that is the truth we need to start thinking in different terms than we did, say, when Clinton was president and when we still hoped for a negotiated end of conflict. If the Palestinians refuse to accept a state for themselves in peace next to Israel, then we need a unilateral solution. What that unilateral solution might look like is open for discussion. But to continue praying that if only we can yank enough Jews out of Judea it will produce peace is beyond wishful thinking.

It is, in fact, ridiculous.

We need to break out of the progressive Zionist rut.

.

Should We Dump Disqus?

Michael

A few months ago we introduced the Disqus commenting system to Israel Thrives because nested commenting is important for discussion, but this product may be proving itself more trouble than it's worth. School warned me about this on day one.

Sooooo...

I am seriously considering dumping Disqus, but if I do that it means that every comment that any one of us has made since its introduction will be deleted.

All I want is to be able to hit the damn "reply" button and actually reply to a comment. If Disqus cannot consistently handle that then Disqus should probably go away.

I do want to hear what you guys think, tho, before I plunge forward with this change.

.

A Restatement of the Fundamental Argument

Michael

The progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, creates and supports venues that demonize and defame the Jewish state, thereby also creating hatred toward the Jewish people.

Among political blogs such venues include Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian.

These venues do not generally criticize Israel, but dehumanize that country.

For this reason, among others, the progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, undermines the well-being and safety of Jews around the world, sometimes resulting in violence toward us.

Therefore, as a matter of common sense and basic human decency, Jews should leave the progressive movement and the Democratic Party as we seek to build alternative political structures that are not home to toxic anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, who would see us robbed of self-determination and self-defense.

.
.
.

Let it also be noted that the above does not necessarily represent a consensus among people who participate here, include the frontpagers. It strikes me as an entirely reasonable argument and conclusion, despite the fact that many people would consider it more than a little contentious.

.

The Republican Candidates and Israel

Mimi

Obama Abandons Israel

Obama has turned his back on Israel. He has embraced Iran, ignored terrorist organizations and sucked up to Palestinians on all fronts, souring relations with Israel. No matter what Israel’s enemies do, be it firing rockets at civilians or as Muhmound Ahmadinejad demands Israel be “wiped off the map,” the Obama administration mounts a one sided continued pressure that puts the fault squarely on the shoulders of the people of Israel. The Obama administrations course of ever-more appeasement has weakened the US military and threatened existing security related commitments to its allies.

Despite the failures, Obama continues to claim he has done more to bolster Israel’s security than any other President in history, “I try not to pat myself too much on the back,”– so why does he have to repeatedly defend his abysmal record? How can he say he has done more than Richard Nixon who initiated Operation Nickel Grass to ensure Israel was well supplied through the 1973 Kippur War? What of Ronald Reagan who ensured Israel’s military was fit for purpose? And let us not forget Harry Truman who helped drive the effort to ensure the United Nations recognised Israel’s fundamental right to statehood. It is clear that Democrats have let down Israel, but there is hope for a stronger future for Israel in the Republican Party.

The Republicans and Israel

  Republicans have been courting the Jewish community lately in order to gain their vital votes in the swing states, and the evidence suggests that more and more Jews are leaving the Democratic Party. As mentioned in the introduction, Republicans have traditionally been very much pro Israel and the current selection of candidates ready to oust Obama is no exception to this. Out of the four remaining candidates all of them say they support Israel unconditionally so. But there are some subtle (and not so subtle) differences that every pro Israel voter should be aware of before casting their all-important vote. This is particularly important when you consider the current turmoil in the Arab world and Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be catastrophic to see what would happen if the power of balance transfers to the Muslim Brotherhood dominating the political affairs across the Arab world - a path the Obama administration is ever approaching.

Rick Santorum

Santorum has often contradicted his own understanding of Israel. He has referred to the Golan Heights as “occupied territories.” Last June, as he was referring to the Golan Heights and the West Bank, he talked about four decades of Israel “occupying that ground, and having that ground be part of Israel.” In May too, he spoke of the West Bank Palestinian Leadership.” This definitively contrasts his recent statements that “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians.” Hopefully he has made his mind up on this, but his repeated contradictions should be noted and taken into consideration when voting. On a more reassuring note, Santorum has recently said “The bottom line is that this is legitimately Israeli country. And they have the right to do within their country as we have a right to do within ours.” Therefore, if Israel wanted to conduct a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, they could do so without having to ask the US first under a Santorum Presidency.

Newt Gingrich

  Gingrich picked up a lot of media attention when he described the Palestinians as an “invented peoples,” indeed, the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson then stumped up $5million for a pro Gingrich super-PAC, Winning Our Future. Whilst the statement is accurate to a degree and has an emotional appeal to Jewish voters and Christian Zionists, it could be interpreted as a somewhat thoughtless exercise in pandering to a large bloc of American voters. Gingrich has stated that Israel cannot be expected by the international community to open up peace negotiations when the Palestinian governmental Authority joins forces with various terrorist organizations. Gingrich is of course a firm ally of Israel and no one would doubt that, what could be worrying is his erratic behaviour when it comes to dealing with delicate issues. Sometimes, a bit of well thought out diplomacy can go a long way.

Mitt Romney

  Romney’s book No Apology famously accused President Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus,” showing off his sympathetic approach to Israel’s challenges, pledging his first foreign trip as President would be Israel. Romney has always argued for a two-state solution through negotiated peace. Like Santorum and Gingrich, Romney is a firm believer that Israel should be able to conduct its own affairs without the US’ say so. Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorist and Arab threats is, as Romney says, “essential for international security.” With Romney, you can expect a very similar approach to that of George W. Bush.

Ron Paul

  This one is an interesting candidate to say the least. Some would argue that his non-interventionist policies would create a power vacuum in the Middle East, Paul of course would argue differently. Weather you think his ideas are dangerous or otherwise, he does raise some unique and interesting points that other candidates fail to talk about. For instance, in 1981 when Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq nearly the entire US Congress voted to condemn the action whereas Ron Paul supported Israel. In that respect, his views would follow that of the other candidates. Paul argues that Israel is dependent on the US for money, military power and permission on diplomatic fronts. Paul points out that whilst Israel receives around $3Billiion a year in aid, its Arab neighbours get $12Billion (some estimates say it’s nearer $21Billion) a year – underlining Paul’s argument that aid can damage the US and its ally’s security interests. The issue of the $3Billion in aid a year is a divisive one, some would rightly argue that it helps maintain a strong national defence for Israel. Others (including Benjamin Netanyahu) have said that Israel can defend itself and the diktats attached to the aid are not worth the money. Whatever your opinions of Paul, his views do raise some important issues that probably need further public debate.

Final Thoughts

  It’s clear that if any of these candidates were to go on to win the general election, Israel would have a firm ally at its disposal. All of them believe Israel to be one of its greatest allies and would likely support Israel if the times got tough. What does differ is their approach to this and the character they bring with their ideas. Santorum’s main focus is largely directed towards the Iranian nuclear issue and would vehemently support Israel attacking Iran. On the other hand, his lack of clarity on foreign policy could be problematic should Israel want to pursue the peace process with the Palestinians. Gingrich is a hawk no doubt, but his temperament could possibly cause more harm than good. Romney is a moderate and would ideally like to see two-state solution, but his discontent for Arab dictatorships would translate into a solid backing of the US’s military assistance to Israel. Paul has likely been overly misunderstood by the establishment. His non-interventionist beliefs are a divisive issue, though he does point obvious flaws in US foreign policy such as US financial aid to Israel’s enemies.

In foreign affairs there are many issues that we simply cannot foresee, or ones that can’t be appropriated into simplistic “pro-Israel vs. anti-Israel.” When it comes to these situations, what truly matters is whether the voter trusts the candidate’s judgement and character. These are questions voters must ask themselves when deciding on the next President. Whilst it may seem easier to discuss balance transfers, local news and general chatter, it's integral to think in depth about your voting intentions so the right person for the job can really get to grips with the deepset matters and sort them out once and for all. 

[Editor's Note - Mimi is our newest front pager here at Israel Thrives and, as you can see, is a very good writer. I am very much looking forward to her participation going forward and I like the idea of this blog being nonpartisan in nature. We have room here for liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans and, really, anyone outside of anti-Zionist circles or those who come here with malice on a contentious topic. Welcome, Mimi!]

.

Kossacks Love Islamic Jihadists

Doodad

Yesterday there was another diary crying the blues about an Islamic Jihadist on a hunger strike by Troubadour, serial Israel hater. Today another serial Israel hating Kossack, Assaf, reports the news that the Jihadist has agreed to stop the hunger strike since Israel has agreed to release him  by April. Assaf crows that:

 Make no mistake: Khader's strike and his victory are an integral part of the Arab Spring.

Why do Kossacks celebrate these Islamic Jihadists? The answer may be found in Assaf's final remarks:

Will the West and Israel, especially the liberal-progressive sectors of those socieities, be ready to finally do right in Israel-Palestine? Or will they be shamefully dragged, kicking and screaming, like has happened to other Western-backed dictatorships in the region?

Obviously they see Israel as no better than, " other Western-backed dictatorships in the region."  What fools they be.

Here's a little bit of truth about the poor innocent hunger striker:







Khader is an EVIL BASTARD. Anyone who stands with him is part of that evil. Soysauce calls him a HERO. Fire bad tree pretty calls it a victory for resistance. dKos is a shithole.

On Jewish "Support" for the Democrats in 2012

by oldschooltwentysix

[Note: This post was written several days ago, but since the topic has again been joined with regard to my politics, I decided to post it here. The original may be read at my blog, here. I also commend those interested to read my recent post about the OIC here.

These are the issues that interest me and the approach that I take. I write as much for myself as anyone else, and to allow intolerance and personal animosity toward other individuals to creep in is not only wrong and illiberal, but a diversion from the larger purpose of trying to make some sense out of the mess.

If that makes me "deranged" or a Republican, as some like to claim, then I suggest that they re-examine where they are coming from, and how they comport to the definition they give themselves.]

In response to a the point made to me that Democrats do not deserve Jewish support this cycle, I say:

To me, it's not time to decide, although I cannot foresee not voting for Obama. Then again, support means different things to different people. As to the Democrats overall, I think they are solidly pro-Israel, as are most Americans. Obama supports Israel because America and Democrats do, and he fully understands that it is in our national and security interest no matter how he may feel personally.

I think the Republicans make some good points, but are too belligerent and prone to doing things like Bush. They take what is a winning argument over the actual nature of the conflict and tear it to shreds with incompetent and even negligent implementation. They tend to seek answers by starting with hard power. However, I believe they are ahead at understanding there IS a threat, where some Democrats are prone to diminish it as scaremongering.

One need only look at Europe. I am a broken record, but what is happening today is a product of what happened there several decades ago when European and Arab states agreed to formal "multiculturalism" as ransom for oil. Millions flocked from the "South" into Europe, even at the expense of other Europeans in the East, with increasing cultural demands. Through the agreement and its offshoots, the environment in Europe now shows signs of conflict. There is not only the culture clash, but the democracy deficit from the supranational EU that has Europe approaching the brink.

Parenthetically, although they agreed to do so, the Arab states did not even have to make their societies multicultural. Relatively speaking, no one wanted to go to them, only leave. In many of these states, persecution against minorities and non-believers continued apace. To illustrate, in Saudi Arabia it is unlawful to build a church or for a non-Muslim to travel to Mecca. In Iraq, 130,000 Jews has shrunk to around 10. In Egypt, tens of thousands of Coptic Christians flee.

The extent of the problem in Europe is seen in the urban streets and schools, in the divisions of societies and the standards of law. The latest legal aspect is the effort in the Human Rights Council by the OIC to silence and criminalize criticism of religion, or what is considered "blasphemy" according to a particular society, despite the obvious implications for freedom of expression. It is known as Resolution 16/18:

"Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief"

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University, had this to say in an LA Times op-ed last December, when Secretary Clinton hosted an international conference to discuss implementation:

The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to "deter" some speech in the name of human rights.

While the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify the prosecution of those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.

[...]

The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with "the principles of the sharia," or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing "negative racial and religious stereotyping" and asked states to "take effective measures" to combat incidents, including those of "religious intolerance." Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18's call for states to "criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief." It also "condemns" statements that advocate "hostility" toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to "incitement" rather than "defamation" of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.

The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of "intolerance." Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of "respect and empathy and tolerance." One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people.

I think that Obama's decision to support this OIC initiative that denies free expression was a huge mistake and will hurt minorities and oppressed across the globe. Just as people are becoming aware and want to speak, the information faces censorship under law. A prescription for conflict arises. As I said, the implementation of the policy by OIC states will be no less one sided than in the case of Arab states creating multicultural societies.

Sadly, Europe holds the balance in my view. Despite the way it likes to lecture, it has such a poor record when it comes to peace. If it descends into further chaos, many will suffer. Israel will feel the brunt. Cooperation with the attempts of the OIC (and MB) to implement Sharia tips the balance in the wrong direction and increases the threats to non-believers everywhere.

Many Progressives in the US are like the Europeans I mentioned, an elite intelligentsia immune to the fact that, just possibly, their positions may be good in theory, but not in practice. Others engage in humanitarian racism that looks for scapegoats rather than placing agency for criminal acts on the perpetrator. When, in addition, they tie their star to Obama, it deprives them of ability to consider his actions solely on their merits. And when they treat people who challenge with other theories as less intelligent or rational, it no longer even relates to the merits. It does, however, illustrate a side that is alien to the dignity of others, a tenet of being progressive.

In any case, even though we try and do out part, it all can change in a speck of time, so I reserve decision. I cannot be too hard on myself or even the others for not having the answers, even the ones who think they do. Like most on the planet, we really have no control, except to make individual choices and to treat others with respect, understanding that many demand it without the slightest intention of reciprocation.

Parroting Arab Propaganda

Michael

Progressive-left defamers of Israel are, essentially, parrots.

Much like the president of the United States, himself, progressives listen to what anti-Semitic Arab propagandists say about Israel and then they tell one another the same thing. Anti-Semitic Arab propagandists claim that Israel is an "apartheid state," thus progressive-left defamers of Israel claim that Israel is an "apartheid state." It doesn't matter that Israel is the least apartheid country in the entire region. It doesn't matter that Jews and Arabs share hospitals and restaurants and hotels, and so forth, in Israel. Truth is entirely irrelevant. What matters is dragging the Jewish state through the mud on a daily basis in order to soften it up for its eventual dissolution or destruction.

This is what the progressive-left does in regards Israel. The political right tends to defend Israel, while the political left, at the direction of anti-Semitic Arab propagandists, tries to tear that country down.

Yet Jewish dhimmis still vote for Democrats and progressives.

Anti-Semitic Arab propagandists claim that Israel is a racist, colonialist state, thus progressive-left defamers of Israel claim that Israel is a racist, colonialist state. It doesn't matter that Jews have been living on that land for something close to 4,000 years, long, long before Muhammad was even born. It also doesn't matter that the Jews of Europe migrated to Eretz Israel, not out of some imperialist project, but because they were escaping persecution. But truth is entirely irrelevant. What matters is dragging the Jewish state through the mud on a daily basis in order to soften it up for its eventual dissolution or destruction.

Yet Jewish dhimmis still vote for Democrats and progressives.

Anti-Semitic Arab propagandists claim that Israel is in violation of international law and persecutes the "Palestinian" minority, thus progressive-left defamers of Israel claim that Israel is in violation of international law and persecutes the "Palestinian" minority. It doesn't matter that Jews in the Middle East have been a persecuted minority under Muslim imperialism for 1,300 years and after gaining their freedom, subject to one-hundred years of Arab and Muslim war against them. But truth is entirely irrelevant. What matters is dragging the Jewish state through the mud on a daily basis in order to soften it up for its eventual dissolution or destruction.

Yet Jewish dhimmis still vote for Democrats and progressives.

Sad, really.

.

Netanyahu, Obama Schedule Iran Meeting

Michael

Netanyahu, Obama schedule Iran meeting

US president, Israeli prime minister to meet in White House on March 5th against backdrop of reports on possible Iran strike; Bibi to arrive in Washington next month for AIPAC conference

I wonder if Obama will actually allow Netanyahu to enter the White House via the front door?

Progressive distaste for Israel is so intense that Obama would rather see Iran get the bomb than for Israel to prevent it.

But, then, what would we expect from an American president that quite literally helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt?

.

What Do “Progressive Zionists” and Radical Islamists Have in Common?

Michael

Well, aside from the fact that “progressive Zionists” and radical Islamists share a pure hatred for western conservatives, the main thing that they have in common is a strong compulsion to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live.

The Islamists, of course, despise Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel and scream at us on a more or less daily basis that they intend to commit genocide or push us out of Israel.

(Mentioning this fact, by the way, is considered “racist” among progressives. These alleged humanitarians do not mind that 5.5 million Jews are surrounded by 300 to 400 million Arabs who, for the most part, do not want them there and many of whom are ready to kill and be killed in efforts to prove it. But if anyone mentions this little fact they get their reputations dragged through the mud.)

The “progressive Zionists,” needless to say, do not have genocidal intentions toward their fellow Jews. It’s just that they have specific ideas about which Jews should be allowed to live where. Any Jews who live beyond the Green Line, in Judea, for example, are considered evil “settlers” who must move elsewhere if the Palestinians can ever accept peace for themselves and their children. After all, what kind of moral monster would expect Palestinians to make peace with Jews if they must be forced to live among them?

And, recently, a “progressive Zionist” even wrote a piece suggesting that Jews of a political type that he does not appreciate should get the hell out of the United States and move to Israel.

Y’know, I can almost understand the kind of radical Jihadi conceit which tells them that they have every right to tell Jews where we may, or may not, be allowed to live. They live within a theological system which tells them that Jews are the "children of apes and pigs." I get that. What I fail to understand is just how other Jews could possibly delude themselves that they have such a right or why they would ever choose to exercise such a non-right?

Whatever one is to make of this, it just reeks of malicious arrogance.

.

Brief Notes: What of Obama's Secret Meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Michael

I honestly do not know what to make of it.

Ha'aretz reports that from as early as spring, 2009, Barack Obama held a secret meeting with Brotherhood members in Washington, DC, and that the meeting was kept from public scrutiny.

Furthermore, according to this Reuters' story from October, 2011:

U.S. officials have met members of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, a U.S. diplomat said, after Washington announced it would have direct contacts with Egypt's biggest Islamist group whose role has grown since U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

Washington announced the plans in June, portraying such contacts as the continuation of an earlier policy. But analysts said it reflected a new approach to the way it dealt with a group which Mubarak banned from politics.

This is something that needs to be further looked into, so if anyone can point me to additional material this would be greatly appreciated.

The only thing that I can say for sure is that if Barack Obama, or Obama administration officials, met with the Muslim Brotherhood in the spring of 2009 it suggests support for that organization. Furthermore, Obama's demand for Mubarak's resignation helped clear a path for the Brotherhood. This strongly indicates that the administration has quietly favored the Muslim Brotherhood all along.

Why would that be?

My guess is post-colonial ideology, not malice.

It's a dangerous naivete, and a willful ignorance of Jewish history and the history of radical Islam, combined with great power.

.

Obama Administration Caves to Iranian Nukes

Michael

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey said Saturday that an Israeli strike on Iran "wouldn’t achieve its long-term objectives" and would be "destabilizing."

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Dempsey said that taking military action against the Islamic Republic would not be not "prudent."

The US general claimed that the economic sanctions imposed on Iran together with international pressure are beginning to have an effect. “We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor. We also know, or we believe we know, that the Iranian regime has not decided to make a nuclear weapon."

Clearly the Obama administration, in contradiction to its stated policy, is going to do nothing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry. Heck, they are telling us that they do not even believe that Iran has decided to make such weaponry.

Israel is on its own due to the fact that Barack Obama is "in the bag" for political Islam. This feckless administration has compared the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East to a combination of the Revolution of '76 and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s. It has declared the genocidal Muslim Brotherhood organization, an organization with an historical provenance that goes to Nazi Germany, as "moderate" and is now allowing the Islamist regime in Iran to gain the ultimate weaponry.

Yet, despite this, "progressive Zionists" tell us what a good, good friend that Obama is to both Israel and the Jewish people.

That may very well be the case, but in order to believe it one must shut one's eyes, close one's ears, and stick one's head deeply into the ground.

.

"British Muslim Zionist pulls no punches"

Michael

The below is a lengthy excerpt from an article published in The Canadian Jewish News, written by Myron Love.

A Tip 'O the Kippa to Daniel Bielak for calling it to our attention.

.
.
.

WINNIPEG — Kasim Hafeez has seen the truth and, in an address to a largely Jewish audience at the Asper Jewish Community Campus on Feb. 6, he pulled no punches.

"Wahhabism, the Saudi Arabian version of Islam, is little different than Nazism, Hafeez said.

"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas should be facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, he said.

"Anti-Zionism is code for antisemitism, he said.

"The Islamic concern for Jerusalem is purely political, he said. Until the creation of Israel, Jerusalem was unimportant to most Muslims.

"And often, he noted, those who claim to be pro-Palestinian are just anti-Israel.

"Hafeez, 29, a British-born Muslim of Pakistani origin, knows of what he speaks.

"Until just a few years ago, he was part of that Jew-hating Muslim world. He was even ready to go to Pakistan to train as a terrorist.

"His worldview began to change after stumbling across a copy of Alan Dershowitz’s book, A Case for Israel. “I figured it was just Zionist propaganda,” he said of the book. “I thought I would read it and be able to refute it all.”

"Instead, Hafeez found that Dershowitz’s arguments challenged all of the myths about Israel and the Jews that he grew up with. And, he said, he couldn’t find any Muslim sources who could refute Dershowitz’s points.

"He decided pursue this new line of research and read books by Sir Martin Gilbert and other pro-Israel authors. Then he decided he had to go to Israel to see this “apartheid, fascist” and “racist” country for himself.

"Not surprisingly – considering where he was coming from ideologically – he was immediately detained after landing at Ben-Gurion Airport. “Although I was held back for eight hours, I was treated with respect,” he recalled. “The guard kept apologizing and offering me coffee and pastries. I understood that he was just doing his job.”

.
.
.

Please read the rest through the link above.

.

We Love Israel. Palestine? Not So Much

Doodad

Good and not unexpected news from Israel Matzav:

A Gallup poll shows that Israel's approval rating in the United States is at 71%, up 3% from last year. This year's ratings for Canada (96%), Australia (93%), Germany (86%), Japan (83%), and India (75%) are all record highs for those countries in Gallup trends that stretch back at least a decade. Additionally, the survey finds Great Britain (90%), France (75%), and Israel (71%) rated near their all-time highs. The seven countries listed are the only ones with higher ratings than Israel.

The 'Palestinians' have a positive rating of 19%, ahead of Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran.

Progressives will likely be upset that their beloved Palestinians are still not winning Americans hearts.

Normal President VS Obama

Doodad

 Barry Rubin hits it on the head again

Normal president: The Egyptian government is holding Americans as hostages. Therefore, I will withhold any proposal for more aid to Egypt until they are released!

Obama: The Egyptian government is holding Americans as hostages. Therefore, I will now introduce a proposal to give $800 million in aid to the new Arab governments, mostly to Egypt.

Get it? This administration either has no idea of how proper diplomacy and statecraft works or doesn’t care. Either way, it is a disaster.

.

Bibi Calls It Like No One Else Will

Doodad
Maybe because he actually lives in the target state.

 If anybody needed a reminder that the sanctions have not stopped the nuclear program, it was the guided tour by the Iran’s president in the centrifuge hall yesterday," he said. “I hope they work, but so far they have not." Netanyahu characterized Iran as a regime that “breaks all the rules." A regime that was formed through the taking of the US embassy in Tehran, Iran -- Netanyahu said -- has ever since continued to show no respect for international rules. The most recent example, he said, was attacking foreign diplomats and their wives. “They send children into mine fields, they have suicide bombers, they send tens of thousands of rockets into our cites and towns," Netanyahu said. “Such a regime should obviously not have an atomic bomb, and I believe that the international community is becoming aware by the day of what it means for Iran” to have nuclear potential, he said.  

Whatever you think of Bibi, he tells it like it is. Would that more would do the same. But then, they don't live in the kill zone, do they?

Progressive Zionist Mierde

Michael

I have to say, I could hardly be more disgusted.

Telling Jewish people they may not build housing for themselves in Judea and demonizing those who choose to live there?

Suggesting that certain kinds of Jews are not fit to be Americans?

Constantly blaming conservative Israelis for the fact that the Palestinians have never accepted a state for themselves?

Comparing the Likud to Hamas?

Refusing to really acknowledge the Jihad, despite 9/11, despite Daniel Pearl, despite the Fogels, even despite the Islamist Winter?

Backing Barack Obama despite the fact that he threw any potential for a negotiated end of conflict into the garbage entirely?

Giving as much credence to the "Palestinian narrative" as to historical truth?

And, perhaps most shamefully, refusing to really take one's own side in a fight.

This is "progressive" Zionism.

The very last thing in this world that Israel needs are American Jewish "progressives" telling them what's what.

I promise you that.

.

On Progressive-Left Intolerance

By oldschooltwentysix

As you know, I objected to the deletion of their remarks and indicated that it was not a good decision when VB did it to me either. Their words were silly, and in some cases demeaning, but they help to show where things stand. The more that is out there, the more the truth will rise.

What I did find troubling was the repetitive questioning of sanity and motivation. Why not accept that not everyone sees what occurs the same or from the same level? I oppose trying to jam one's views down the throats of others, no matter from what side. I also oppose defining those who think differently as "others" and there was way too much of that.

I am against banning as well, FWIW.

I am curious to know if these folks think that everything in the world is just fine. It seems so. Because Obama is such a good friend to Israel, we need not look at anything else that is taking place, or discuss the merits of his actions either. Obama's friendship is the only criteria to make a valid judgment.

But what if there are other issues where things are NOT fine, potentially more important, as Jews, democrats, Americans, to peace and security? Why get so apoplectic about those who address what is going on, who wish to provide more food on the table, especially a table that is imbalanced in information?

Are domestic politics their entire universe? Is that how it should be? Or are matters interrelated and interdependent?

Despite accusations, we do not condemn ALL Muslims. We are NOT Republicans. We DO condemn the millions who despise Israel, Jews, American, Westerners, and even our accusers who label us. Ironic, but we actually do it in the name of human rights: for Jews, Americans, women, gays, children, believers, and non-believers. Go figure!

Since late 2006 I have criticized Obama, from the left! Yet now, because I have the audacity to express disappointment in his responses to the onslaught of the OIC, MB and Political Islam in their geopolitical attack against universal human rights, seen daily across the globe, I am harangued as right wing by self professed "better" Democrats than me.

So it goes.

.

My First Bannings! (Good For Me.)

Michael

I have decided that Mets and Volleyboy1 are no longer welcome on these premises.

Their Stalinistic demands for ideological conformity tend to bring out the worst in everyone, including myself, and since I own this joint I have no reason to put up with it.

Ta-Ta, Gentlemen.

{And, better yet, get lost.}

Thanks.

.

Progressive-Left Racism

Michael

It must be obvious by now that the so-called "Arab Spring" is nothing of the sort. What we are looking at is the "Islamist Spring" or perhaps the "Islamist Winter," but this movement throughout the Arab world is far less about democracy, despite what ideologically blinkered "progressives" would tell you, than it is about the rise of al-Sharia, political Islam, the Jihad.

Every time progressives wax enthusiastic for the “blessings of liberty” arising from the so-called “Arab Spring” they are in fact rooting for the Jihad, wittingly or not.

It is, in part, for this reason that I accuse the Obama administration of cheer-leading the Jihad. It’s not that I believe that Obama’s intention is to do so. It is that his administration is, in fact, doing so. Whatever Obama’s intention he is validating and promoting the Jihad through validating and promoting the Jihad’s foremost organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, who he met with in secret prior to helping them gain power in Egypt.  It’s undeniable at this point, but most of the administration’s remaining liberal Jewish supporters will continue playing ostrich until the very end.

The reason that the Obama administration is cheering-on political Islam is because as “progressives” they understand that the Arab and Muslim worlds have suffered terribly at the hands of white, racist, imperialist, Zionist, colonialists (i.e., bad) white people and therefore if Arabs and Muslims choose to champion an anti-Semitic, anti-Gay, and anti-female political movement, such as political Islam, it must represent the rich and benevolent flowering of Arab democracy and what well-meaning liberal could possibly oppose such a thing?

That political Islam is entirely inconsistent with democracy, or basic human decency, due to the fact that al-Sharia is an undemocratic and violently racist form of government does not seem to bother progressives. Neither does it seem to bother progressives that political Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood, are also characterized by an anti-Semitic genocidal obsession. On a daily basis the imams and the ayatollahs scream for the murder of Jews and when Jewish people point this out, we get defamed as racists by western progressives.

Arab religious leadership screeches for the genocide of the Jews and we have this material on video. One need only look through the archives of MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch, among other places, to see clip after clip of Arab and Muslim religious leadership calling for Jewish genocide.

Yet so much of the progressive-left in the United States and Europe actually sides with the Jihad and does so based, in ironic delusion, on notions of “universal human rights.” This is how blinkered the left has become. Many of them honestly believe that as a matter of “social justice” the Jews of this generation, just like the Jews of every generation, must be violently confronted and that “righteous Jews,” anti-Zionist or Israel hating Jews, must lead the way against Israel. This is just the kind of thing promoted on Daily Kos and the Huffington Post and the UK Guardian.

What this must mean for young, idealistic Jewish college kids is beyond me. They are told by their progressive peers that they are racist and beneath contempt merely if they wish to support their own people through supporting the Jewish state. This is something that progressives force on young Jewish kids that they force on no one else’s kids. Only Jewish kids are taught that if they wish to be moral they must be opposed to the well-being of their own people.

You do not need to take my word for it. Read Matt and Zach over at the Huffington Post Monitor or Adam Levick over at CiF Watch, which covers the Guardian. They do a terrific job of showing the operations of progressive anti-Jewish racists in progressive-left venues.

Most progressives, however, simply do not see it. It is not that most progressives are anti-Semitic. They are not. It is that they do not get it. They do not care. And they very much want you to shut the fuck up.

It is the red-green alliance and the reality of it was driven home to me during the Mavi Marmara incident in which progressives joined with Jihadis to confront Israeli Jews for the purpose of breaking the blockade of Gaza, a blockade put into place because Hamas, the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, was rocketing southern Israel for years.

The effect of this, ultimately, is that there is a wing of the progressive-left that is acting as the current manifestation of the world’s oldest hatred. They are not marching around in shiny black boots. They are merely flinging anti-Semitic tropes at the Jews in much the same way that some people have always done so. Just as the Nazis told themselves that Jews were nefariously controlling the government of the Weimar Republic, and betrayed the German nation during the First World War, so many progressives tell one another that the nefarious “Israel Lobby,” or AIPAC, is influencing the American government and the American media to the detriment of the American people, in service to Jewish interests.

It is the same form of the same old hatred, but now it is coming at us from the political left.

So, as an American Jew that cares about the Jewish people, both Israeli and diaspora, should I not consider western progressive anti-Semitic anti-Zionism to be the contemporary iteration of genocidal anti-Semitism? I do not see how I cannot.

My father’s side of the family was lost to the actual Nazis in World War II during Operation Barbarosa in the Ukraine. They were lined up in the very ditches that they dug and shot because well-meaning people kept telling one another how heinous the Jews are.

Just like, sadly, so many progressives tell one another today.

.

Has the Left Betrayed the Jews? (Fizziks Responds)

Here:

I feel like you changed the topic mid-debate, to something that one couldn't possibly disagree with.

I thought we were debating whether Jews should abandon the Democratic party.

I didn't think we were debating whether the far left has betrayed the Jews. On the later question, the answer is obvious, it is hell yes, and there can be no debate. If that was the topic, then we wasted our time because we already agree.

But I thought the topic of contention was whether Jews should abandon the Democratic party in light of this, which would involve exploring and debating the things that I tried to explore, namely

1) the connection, or lack thereof, between the Democratic party and the far left,

2) the record of the Democratic party politicians and mainstream supporters on Israel, and

3) whether the Republicans are any better.

Those were the three topics that I tried to explore.

And I made my case that

1) the far left has relatively little influence in mainstream Democratic party politics, and most of the far-leftist examples you cite do not seriously consider themselves part of the Democratic tent,

2) mainstream Democratic party politicians and people are supportive of Israel, and

3) part of the Republican 'base' has its own problems, with Ron Paul pulling 20% support.

So therefore, Jews have no reason to abandon the Democratic party.

.

Exposure of Political Hypocrisy from Down Under

by oldschooltwentysix 

(cross posted at oldschooltwentysix)

I don't know Daphne Anson, but some of her personal story parallels my own, as to the evolution of thinking we both share about the situation of irrational hatred for Israel and its manifestations, including those from many on the Left that act as if the sole judges of morality.

This "progressive antisemitism" presently combines with Muslim antisemitism to bring forth almost all the incitement to hatred against Israel and Jews that we see and hear on an everyday basis. Most people reject these extremist views and can recognize the difference between valid criticism of Israel and hatred for it as the Jewish state.

Yet, the question arises whether the disparate treatment of Israel, as compared to ANY other state, is itself discriminatory and convincing evidence of antisemitism.

Which brings me DA's post about words reported from a member of the Australian Parliament who rose in support of a motion on the subject of human rights in Iran, Kelly O’Dwyer. Her full statement can be found at J-Wire in an article entitled: "The Silence of the Greens."

I think that MP O'Dwyer raises some good points, especially concerning the Greens, and it makes me ask why should people follow advice from others who raise theories that in practice seem to fly in the face of experience and reality?

She assuredly understands the issue of human rights and the context:

There must be no more serious and heinous act in this world than a government turning on its own people and committing violent atrocities on its own citizenry.

President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is her main target and she sets forth a small litany of his hate speech, including that Israel should be annihilated.

Any one of these statements on its own warrants immediate condemnation, yet this despicable vitriol is left unchallenged and has been left unchallenged too often and for too long.

She then speaks about Australia, but it has wider ramifications to us all who care about the use and abuse of human rights internationally:

In Australia during this time one must ask the questions- Who stands conspicuously quiet? Who stands silent while these human rights are abused? It is not those sitting directly opposite me. It is, in fact, the Greens, those people who suggest that they are the champions of human rights and the keepers of the moral chalice, those professed keepers of all that is right and ethical. Where, I ask you, is Senator Brown in condemning these actions? Where is Senator Hanson-Young on her soapbox demanding justice? Where is the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, in this chamber supporting this motion? Where are the Greens protests in the streets? Most importantly, given all that we have learned about the boycott, divestments and sanctions scheme that grew from the Greens local council movement in Marrickville, where are the calls for the boycotts of Iranian companies or even of Syrian ones, to be truly consistent? No, all that is simply reserved for Israel.

Interestingly, the Greens also profess to be strong champions of human rights, particularly for those who are homosexual. Yet it is the country of Israel, the only democracy in the region, that legislates rights for women and homosexuals. In fact, in a recent poll conducted by GayCities.com in conjunction with American Airlines, Tel Aviv was rated the best gay travel destination of 2011. Yet here the Greens condemn Israel and not Iran.

Could you imagine if the Prime Minister of Israel had prayed for the ‘annihilation’ of the Palestinians? How many motions would the Greens have moved by now? How many press releases, demonstrations and media conferences would they have called? I conducted a search on the Greens website. I typed ‘Iran’ into their search feature, 23 results were returned and in those results there was not one mention—not one, single, solitary mention—of the atrocities that have taken place, of the abhorrent preachings of the President of Iran or of the blatant human rights abuses posed against ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals. However, if you type in ‘Israel’ you will find pages and pages and pages—in particular pages as to how you can be involved as well in the BDS movement. This is a truly sad state of affairs and it is of great concern in particular to me that the Greens do not stand with us in this chamber against such violence against human rights workers, women’s rights activists, journalists and government opponents.

The Greens seem to quote the UN when it suits them and ignore them when it does not conform to their agenda. And make no mistake: the Greens agenda on Israel is well and truly on show.

She seems to describe a familiar group, at least to me, who are so convinced that they can only do good that they dismiss arguments to the contrary and ignore the daily events in Iran and elsewhere. To them it is so simple: Israel and pro-Israel supporters, as seen in the disproportionate lack of attention they give anywhere else. Should these advocates possess any more credibility in these matters than those they love to criticize? Or, all things considered, perhaps they should have much less.

Has the Left Betrayed the Jews?: A Discussion Continued

Michael

{Cross-Posted at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers}

There are political realities that become so large over time, and thereby so normative, they just seem to fade into the wallpaper. Likewise, there are political realities that have such painful consequences if directly addressed that people simply avoid acknowledging them.

I am more and more convinced that this is the situation that liberal American Jews find themselves within the progressive movement and within the activist base of the Democratic Party.

My thesis is that the progressive movement, and the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party, has betrayed its Jewish constituency through accepting anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of the larger coalition.

In the previous piece I offered four pieces of evidence.

1) That the larger progressive and Democratic blogs and journals express, at worst, a true hatred for the Jewish state and, at best, a comfortable acceptance of that hatred.

2) The ongoing agitation of anti-Semitic anti-Zionists within large Democratic and progressive venues such as Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian.

3) The polling which consistently shows that Republicans and conservatives are far more well-disposed to Israel than are Democrats and progressives.

4) And the fact that Israel is the only country on the face of the planet in which progressives discuss whether or not it should ever have come into existence and whether or not it should continue to exist.

Fizziks has been kind enough to engage my argument in an effort to refute it.

While Fizziks' argument is strong enough to give me some pause, I do not believe that he has actually succeeded in refuting my argument. Part of the reason for this is that the question is not whether I am entirely right or I am entirely wrong. The question really is, to what extent, or to what degree, is the above true? Is it true enough that we need to discuss it and re-orient our politics accordingly.

I believe it is.

Fizziks' effort to refute my thesis takes the form of attempting to diminish the significance of a blog like Daily Kos by arguing that it is not representative of the progressive-movement or the Democratic Party, that national political figures within the Democratic Party tend to be pro-Israel, and that there are elements on the right who also discuss whether or not Israel should have even come into existence.

Fizziks writes:

In short, Daily Kos, and these other places like HuffPo, are rarified worlds that do not, a present, reflect the real world of the Democratic Party. Daily Kos is at present full of deranged keyboard warriors, most of whom are not even Democrats, and has a presently active readership of maybe 10,000 people. It has no prestige or power in the Democratic establishment anymore, and its' views, as evidenced by my co-op example above, do not reflect the views of the base of the Democratic party.

There are several problems with this seemingly strong argument. The first is that my thesis says nothing about national politicians, nor about the Democratic Party as a whole. It is specific to the progressive-movement and the activist base of the party. Furthermore, although I neglected to stress this earlier, it is not even just about the blogs like Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. It is also about anti-Zionist trends within academia and the hatred spit at Israel on prominent American universities, about anti-Israel NGOs that seek to perpetually defame that country or paint it in the worst possible light, and about the the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (BDS), a movement that has become institutionalized within the larger progressive-left.

Fizziks points out that BDS has been, thus far, unsuccessful and he is right. For the most part BDS has been unsuccessful as Jon Haber tends to stress in Divest This!  But this does not suggest that anti-Zionists have not become part of the constituency of the progressive-left or have not embedded themselves within the activist base of the Democratic Party. The evidence for this goes far beyond any two or three political blogs and is clearly evident in the things mentioned above, the universities, the progressive journals, the NGOs, and the BDS.

So, there is simply no question that that the progressive movement, and the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party, has accepted anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of its larger coalition. The only real question for those of us bold enough to engage it is whether or not this constitutes betrayal of its Jewish constituency. It doesn't even matter if Republicans and conservatives do this, as well, because we are not discussing them. They are also far less relevant, on this question, to American Jews because American Jews tend to be progressives and Democrats, not conservatives and Republicans.

My conclusion, as someone who pays close attention to the Israel-Palestine discussion within progressive venues is that, yes, the progressive movement and the activist base of the Democratic Party has betrayed its Jewish constituency via an acceptance of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. That they have accepted anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of the larger constituency is irrefutable. Those of us who pay attention see it on a daily basis. I tend to write about Daily Kos, because I come out of Daily Kos, but even if prominent political blogs like Daily Kos or the Huffington Post or the UK Guardian represent "rarified worlds," which given their size and taken together, I do not believe that they do, this does not explain away the presence of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism on the campuses and within the "human rights" organizations.

Until friends of Israel, Jewish or otherwise, are willing to recognize this situation and acknowledge it and discuss it, we can never actually address the issue in a manner that will be helpful. We cannot create strategies and tactics until we are ready to acknowledge that the situation exists.

I want to thank Fizziks for taking the time to address the issue, despite our disagreement, because this is the only way we can even begin to move forward. It has to start with a recognition of political conditions as they are.

Only then can we determine what they mean and what to do about it.

.