The BDS movement's goals have become so blatantly obvious that even such uber-Leftists as Peter Beinart and MJ Rosenberg have been forced to admit that BDS's goal is not a 'two-state solution.'
Peter Beinart, the de facto spokesman for Liberal Zionism, famously called for a boycott of the West Bank
in 2012. In the same article, however, he also called for the
increasing investment inside the Green Line, in order to distinguish
“Zionist BDS” from the predominant BDS movement.
“Boycotting anything inside the green line invites ambiguity about the boycott’s ultimate goal — whether it seeks to end Israel’s occupation or Israel’s existence.”
MJ Rosenberg, a longtime critic of Israel’s West Bank
policy, who was spurred by last week’s debate at the University of
Michigan, to write a detailed piece about the duplicity of the BDS used the same argument:
The reason why BDS keeps
failing despite the almost universal recognition that the occupation of
the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are illegal
and immoral is that the BDS movement is not targeting the occupation per se. Its goal is the end of the State of Israel itself.
In its view, all of historic
Palestine is occupied territory; that means Tel Aviv and Haifa as much
as Hebron and Nablus. Obviously, a movement dedicated to eradication of
Israel as a country is never going to achieve support other than from a
radical fringe.
Rosenberg and other supporters of the two-state solution –
including those who support a “limited boycott” of the West Bank for
that purpose – are best positioned to see that the BDS movement is not a
“peace” movement and does not aim for a Palestinians state alongside a Jewish state.
BDS is an all-or-nothing proposition. You can't support BDS and support a 'two-state solution.' Beinart and Rosenberg apparently see that. Does J Street? Do other 'liberal Zionists'? Hmmm.
Jewish anti-Semite MJ Rosenberg tweeted on Thursday that he met with Chuck Hagel a few years ago, and no one needs to worry because Hagel was lying during Thursday's hearing.
I spent a couple of hours with Hagel a few years ago. Talked about Israel. Happily, he is lying today & knows it. He'll be a good SeDef.
— MJ Rosenberg (@MJayRosenberg) January 31, 2013
Just like we all thought.
You can find a collection of MJ's tweets from Thursday here. You will need to shower after reading them.
Do you think Chuck Roast would lie just to be appointed Secretary of Defense? I'm shocked, just shocked.
According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypt's Great Pyramids--or, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabi'i, those "symbols of paganism," which Egypt's Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax. Most recently, Bahrain's "Sheikh of Sunni Sheikhs" and President of National Unity, Abd al-Latif al-Mahmoud, called on Egypt's new president, Muhammad Morsi, to "destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As could not."
This is a reference to the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's companion, Amr bin al-As and his Arabian tribesmen, who invaded and conquered Egypt circa 641. Under al-As and subsequent Muslim rule, many Egyptian antiquities were destroyed as relics of infidelity. While most Western academics argue otherwise, according to early Muslim writers, the great Library of Alexandria itself--deemed a repository of pagan knowledge contradicting the Koran--was destroyed under bin al-As's reign and in compliance with Caliph Omar's command.
However, while book-burning was an easy activity in the 7th century, destroying the mountain-like pyramids and their guardian Sphinx was not--even if Egypt's Medieval Mamluk rulers "de-nosed" the latter during target practice (though popular legend still attributes it to a Westerner, Napoleon).
Now, however, as Bahrain's "Sheikh of Sheikhs" observes, and thanks to modern technology, the pyramids can be destroyed. The only question left is whether the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt is "pious" enough--if he is willing to complete the Islamization process that started under the hands of Egypt's first Islamic conqueror.
Nor is such a course of action implausible. History is laden with examples of Muslims destroying their own pre-Islamic heritage--starting with Islam's prophet Muhammad himself, who destroyed Arabia's Ka'ba temple, transforming it into a mosque.
...
Much of this hate for their own pre-Islamic heritage is tied to the fact that, traditionally, Muslims do not identify with this or that nation, culture, heritage, or language, but only with the Islamic nation--the Umma.
And in the US, they refer to Jews as 'Israel firsters.' When will the refer to Muslims as 'Umma firsters'? Answer, never. Because many of the people who use the term 'Israel firsters' are Jews who are ashamed of their own heritage.
In an earlier post, I reported that Jewish anti-Semite MJ Rosenberg is leaving Media Matters. You didn't really think he was leaving voluntarily, did you? According to an anonymous tipster, this video, entitled "Who said it, Media Matters or white supremacists?" is what got MJ fired.
Jewish anti-Semite MJ Rosenberg has left Media Matters to strike out on his own.
The reason for this step is that it disturbed me greatly to see an organization to which I am devoted facing possible harm because of my critical writings about Israel. I have no doubt that the crowd that opposes any and all criticism of Israeli government policies will continue to turn its guns on Media Matters if I am associated with it.
I could not live with myself if that happened — not only because I care deeply about the organization and my colleagues, but also because Media Matters does such important work confronting the lies that emanate from the far right and especially Fox News.
My presence here is being used in an effort to shut Media Matters up. That won't happen, of course. This is an incredibly successful organization. (Just ask Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — or Rupert Murdoch, for that matter — about its impact). But the last thing I want to do is allow the right to use my support for a reinvigorated Middle East peace process to distract Media Matters from its primary mission: fighting for truth in the media.
So I am moving on, although my readers won't notice the difference.
I am sure that none of you will be surprised to hear that the anti-Semitic Media Matters is connected to al-Jazeera, nor that the connection is the despicable, Jewish anti-Semite, MJ Rosenberg.
Representing Media Matters at the first Al-Jazeera “Unplugged” forum on social media at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort in Doha on May 22, 2010, Rosenberg explained that Khanfar invited him to the forum during a meeting in Washington earlier that year.
In his stunning speech at the forum, Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.
“Bush has been replaced by Obama,” Rosenberg said.
“Yes, I applaud too. Which means people from the United States government go on Al-Jazeera. This is very significant. Under the Bush administration, Al-Jazeera was boycotted by the United — it was worse than boycotted: As you well know, it was bombed by orders of the United States government.”
Rosenberg was presumably referring to either the U.S. bombing of Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad bureau in 2003, which killed one journalist, or the bombing of an Al-Jazeera office in Kabul in 2001. The U.S. government maintains both were accidental, not intentional.
While Rosenberg called Fox News “a very, very dangerous force in the United States” and Fox News host Sean Hannity “one of the biggest right wing liars on Fox News” during the speech, he praised Al-Jazeera as “mainstream” and “factual.”
“It just shows that everywhere in the world people are watching Al-Jazeera because people know it’s going to be — one, it’s factual,” he said.
“It has footage, it has pictures which we are essentially not allowed to see in the United States, that the networks don’t allow of what is going on in Iraq, what’s going on in Afghanistan.”
Bizarrely, Rosenberg also claimed the left-of-center New Republic magazine, which regularly defends President Obama, was “very much of a right wing, Jewish publication.”
In his speech, Rosenberg also praised Obama for treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worse than any American president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister.
“When Netanyahu came to Washington, no president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister as coldly as Netanyahu was treated by Obama,” Rosenberg said, with obvious joy, to what was presumably a largely Arab audience.
“Suddenly Israel today is, even though it gets what it wants to a certain extent, Israel is treated as another country, a foreign country, which makes it no different than all the other foreign countries. That is what Obama is trying to do: take Israel away from being the 51st state and make it a foreign country like Lebanon or France or any normal foreign country.”
“He has done that,” Rosenberg added. “You know, he has sent the Arab world signals from day one of where his heart is.”
Indeed, Obama has from day one (and even before) sent the Arab world signals of where his heart is. So why is American Jewry not listening?
J Street Funder Bill Benter paying MJ Rosenberg's salary at Media Matters?
I'm sure that many of you remember Bill Benter, the mysterious, Hong Kong-based gambler who financed much of J Street's budget. Well, it seems that there's another US-based organization that has been the beneficiary of Benter's generosity: Media Matters. Specifically, Benter may have contributed money to keep Jewish anti-Semite MJ Rosenberg on the payroll (Benter wouldn't confirm that part).
“I have been a contributor to Media Matters for many years and am proud to support the important work that it does fighting for truth in media, working for more honest political discourse and promoting our shared progressive values,” Benter told TheDC in a statement.
A source told TheDC that Benter donated to Media Matters, at least in part, so the liberal organization could bring MJ Rosenberg on board as its foreign policy voice.
Rosenberg has become a lightning rod for questioning the loyalty of American supporters of Israel by calling them “Israel firsters,” and for taking other radical positions. Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law School professor, has denounced him in a series of recent interviews and articles, saying that Rosenberg’s rhetoric and ideas are similar to what neo-Nazi and pro-Hezbollah websites offer.
According to tax documents obtained by TheDC, the Media Matters Action Network paid Rosenberg $129,568 in 2010, plus $4,505 in other compensation. That organization is one of Media Matters’ political arms. It is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
TheDC wasn’t able to independently confirm the source’s claim that Benter donated to Media Matters with the intent of endowing Rosenberg’s salary, and it appears that Benter contributed directly to the 501(c)(3) — not to its affiliated 501(c)(4) group.
When TheDC asked Benter’s intermediary, Matt Dorf of Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications, whether Benter was in any way involved in bringing Rosenberg on board, and whether Benter possibly solicited funds for Media Matters’ (c)(4) affiliate to help pay Rosenberg’s salary, Dorf said the latter question was “exactly the right question” and that he would ask Benter.
Dorf later replied that Benter would not be providing any further statement.
Read the whole thing. Gee, you think J Street and Media Matters could have the same sources of funding? What a shock that would be.
If you had any doubts that MJ Rosenberg is a Jewish anti-Semite, this video should dispel them.
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have more after the video.
Notice the continual references to the 'Israel Lobby.' Rosenberg is the initiator of the term 'Israel firsters' - a term which implies dual loyalty by any American who supports Israel.
Joel Pollak adds:
Supporters of CAP and MMfA accuse critics of trying to shut down debate on Israel–ironically, while celebrating the removal of one of their critics, Josh Block, from the listserv of the Truman National Security Project.
Block, a Democrat, had been quoted in the Politico article describing some of CAP’s views as “borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” His removal was described by the Truman Project as punishment for a “personal attack”–when, in fact, his comments were not personal at all in nature, and have been substantiated and supported by mainstream American Jewish organizations.
Regardless, both CAP and MMfA are, as Politico points out, “[t]wo of the Democratic Party’s core institutions,” providing policy ideas, media talking points, and support staff to push the left’s agenda in Washington.
Until recently, the anti-Israel views espoused by CAP and MMfA were on the far-radical fringe of American political debate. As CAP and MMfA have grown in importance, however, their anti-Israel agendas have become more prominent within the Obama administration and the Democratic Party as a whole, leading to a rift that has already had electoral consequences.
Unless Democrats act to contain the damage, the controversy over charges of antisemitism at CAP and MMfA could affect debates–and votes–in the crucial campaign of 2012.
Read the whole thing. I'm not sure the Democrats care about accusations of anti-Semitism. They certainly won't stop American Jews from voting for them.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, December 18.
1) Your daily dose of irony
Where do the following paragraphs appear?
Can anyone argue with the assertion that, for neocons, Obama is always wrong and Bibi is always right? Not only that, they denounce those who dare criticise Netanyahu over anything while never ever letting up on Obama. How can it be that the prime minister is always right but the president is always wrong? But I need to offer a clarification. By the term "Israel firster", I do not mean that right-wingers and neocons who advance bellicose Middle East policies are putting the interests of Israel first. Far from it. They are putting the interests of Binyamin Netanyahu and his hardliners first. After all, if they were putting Israel first, they would not be promoting policies (such as war with Iran or the perpetuation of the occupation) that could very easily lead to Israel's destruction or, at least, to the loss of its Jewish majority. The people I call "Israel firsters" are, in fact, Netanyahu firsters.
Worse, is the fact that LA's Jewish Journal reproduces Rosenberg's columns too. The latest there, is called The “pro-Israel” right loses it, and in it Rosenberg praises Thomas Friedman for being pro-Israel! How anyone who willingly has his columns republished on an Islamist website can accuse others of losing it is extremely ironic; not that Rosenberg possesses the self-awareness to recognize that. But I wanted to focus on part of the defense of Friedman:
The Friedman quote that absolutely drove the pro-Likud right crazy was directed at Binyamin Netanyahu:
I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
For this, Commentary called Friedman a practitioner of the “new anti-Semitism,” with virtually all of the usual suspects following suit. Tom Friedman an anti-Semite! Imagine.
I'm sure his readers in Qatar and the Gulf will love the "Israel Lobby" line. Friedman and Rosenberg just confirmed their darkest fear! (Does Al Jazeera translate these article into Arabic?)
Unfortunately, there is not enough debate over what it means to be “pro-Israel” and little frank discussion of the fundamental, even existential, choice facing Israel and the United States at a strategic fork in the road. Down one path, Israel maintains the status quo. Settlements beyond the Green Line continue to expand, and doubts regarding the existence of a true partner for peace are used to justify continued procrastination in taking meaningful steps toward a two-state solution. All too quickly on this path it will become clear that there no longer is a Green Line. Rather, there will be one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean left to grapple with how to remain a democratic, Jewish nation when a majority of the people living there are not Jewish.
I’m not in the least bit joking and honestly don’t think I’ve exaggerated the above points covering what the American and European left (including its Jewish components) thinks should be the proper Israeli policy. Nevertheless, I don’t see the Kadima or Labor parties adopting such a program. I think it would be most amusing to go down to the corner of, for example, King George and Dizengoff streets to quiz random Israeli pedestrians about what they think of this plan. As always, since the mainstream Western media generally does not allow a real response to the ridiculousness of the program it advocates for Israel you won’t be reading any of the points made above in such places. People will just be left to believe that the current government is just unreasonably reactionary; that most Israelis support Obama (or if they don’t they deserve what they get); and if Israel just let the American far left choose its government than everything would be just fine. In fact, every public opinion poll in Israel backs up my points. Indeed, if anyone left-wing blogs or the mass media does remark on this article it will only be to brand it “right-wing.” Not at all. It's just right.
Recently one of my state legislators visited Israel. While I suspect that he generally is in agreement with J-Street, I don't believe he has a formal affiliation with the group.
One of the things impressed upon us by many of the leaders and thinkers we’ve met with these past four days: the unwillingness of politcal figures on both sides to come to the “damn table,” as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently said. As an Israeli academic put it at the end of the day, “You can’t prematurely create a Palestinian state under the wrong conditions.” Israel must demonstrate the merits of that argument to the Jewish Diaspora and the rest of the world.
He, of course, is misinformed. And that won't stop him from presenting himself as pro-Israel in 2014, when he's up for re-election. (He presents himself as pro-Israel to the roughly 30% of his constituents who are Jewish - mostly Orthodox.)
If he were pro-Israel, he would be able to demonstrate those arguments. One need not be a scholar; this isn't ancient history.
In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords. In his exchange of letters with Prime Minister Rabin, Yasser Arafat committed himself to rejecting terrorism and devoting himself to negotiations for peace. Over the next several years Israel withdrew from territory, freeing more than 90% of the Palestinians from Israel rule. Even "right wing" Prime Minister withdrew Israeli forces from most of the Jewish holy city of Hebron. Still President Clinton viewed Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace and worked to undermine him politically.
After Netanyahu was defeated in 1999 and succeeded by Ehud Barak, efforts were made to resolve final status issues. In July 2000, Arafat rejected an unprecedented offer from Barak to settle all the issues at Camp David Maryland. Two months later Arafat launched the "Aqsa Intifada," using the pretext of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.
In response Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield to destroy the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built in Judea and Samaria. Despite Israel's success in defeating the major terror groups it faced there, hundreds of Israelis were killed during this terror war.
Earlier in 2000, Israel completely withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, which, according to the conventional wisdom provided Hezbollah with its raison d'etre. But Hezbollah quickly violated the international border, kidnapping and killing three Israeli soldiers - a violation that was covered up by the UN. Hezbollah used the next six years to build up its capacity to strike Israel (and launched occasional attacks against Israel throughout.) When the threat became too great, Israel was forced to fight to destroy the infrastructure that had been built over the previous six years. With the Israeli capture of the Karine A, Arafat was discredited. International pressure forced his second in command, Mahmoud Abbas into the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. While he hasn't been as involved in terror to the same degree as Arafat, Abbas has proven himself to be just as corrupt. Later Salam Fayyad became the Prime Minister of the government, however this "moderate" face has no real constituency in the Fatah Central committee, which is still ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Furthermore Abbas refused a peace offer from Ehud Olmert in 2008 - one even more extensive that Barak's eight years earlier - claiming that (East) Jerusalem was non-negotiable.
In addition to the withdrawals from much of Judea and Samaria (or, if you prefer, the West Bank) and from southern Lebanon, in 2005 Israel withdrew all soldiers and civilians from Gaza. Hamas was the beneficiary of this withdrawal and was able to win legislative elections in 2006 and then a brutal power struggle with Fatah a year later, consolidating its hold on Gaza. In late 2008 after thousands of rockets were fired at southern Israel, Israel fought back with Operation Cast Lead to destroy Hamas's infrastructure.
This is Israel's case in six paragraphs. Over the past 18 years Israel has undertaken significant risks and made substantial material concessions for peace. Its efforts have been met with indifference at best, or even terror. Despite these risks and concessions, Israel is still portrayed as fundamentally responsible for the absence of peace. Even Israel's efforts to protect itself against outrageous attacks of terror are met with criticism not sympathy.
If MJ Rosenberg, or Jeremy Ben Ami or my legislator were truly pro-Israel they'd acknowledge all this. Instead their insistence that Israel is fundamentally responsible for the lack of peace or even (as my legislator seemingly argues) equally responsible, only excuses the intransigence of the Palestinians.
4) Clarification
I wrote on Friday, that PM Netanyahu's adviser, Ron Dermer, was incorrect about when Judge Goldstone's op-ed had appeared in the New York Times. Here's the full text:
Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, “positive” and “negative,” with “negative” meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were “negative.” The only "positive" piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge of Apartheid.
I mis-read the initial excerpted report, and thought that Dermer had written that the op-ed appeared in September.
This has got to be a first. Moshe Feiglin and l'havdil elef alfei havdalot (that's a way of saying I'd rather not mention them in the same sentence), the despicable MJ Rosenberg, both believe that Glenn Beck is an anti-Semite. Feiglin doesn't call Beck an anti-Semite, but that's the implication of saying that Beck believes in 'replacement theology.' Here's Feiglin.
I must admit that when a friendly non-Jew starts to quote the Bible, I get a bit nervous. It is not just the long history of anti-Semitism that has developed a genetic mutation in the noses of Jews, giving them great sensitivity to anything that smells of Christianity - but also my own personal experience with avowed lovers of Israel and the settlers who took great pains to mask their Christian motives.
As Glenn Beck is not in the process of conversion to Judaism, it is impossible to understand his quote from the Scroll of Ruth as meaning, "I am joining you." Apparently, the real meaning of his words is "I am replacing you."
A quick study of Glenn Beck's speeches before non-Israeli audiences and a simple internet search of his biography show that he is a believing Mormon who is motivated by a deep religious consciousness. In a live broadcast from the Temple Mount, Beck theatrically shows his audience how in that very place, Jesus turned over the tables of the Jewish money-changers who served the pilgrims to the Temple. He forgot to mention that with this act, that man created one of the most blatantly anti-Semitic Christian legends that lives on to this very day.
The problem is not Glenn Beck's beliefs. Beck is a good person who believes in what he is doing. The problem is that the most loyal Jewish public is giving him its support without thoroughly checking his message. They are unwittingly abetting a very gentle and heartwarming type of modern crusade. From a religious point of view, there is no difference between the Western Wall and the Southern Wall, where Beck's event is planned. They are both walls of the Mount of G-d's House. Would we allow a group of Christians to spread its message at the Western Wall? [No, of course not. But is Beck planning to spread a message of Christianity there? Not as far as I know. CiJ]
As long as Glenn Beck and his friends support Israel from the outside, understanding that your nation is your nation and my nation is my nation; that your god is your god and my G-d is my G-d, all is well and good and it is important to cooperate with them. But when it turns out that the agenda is actually replacement theology; a theology that aims to bring waves of Christian aliyah here and to use the Jewish renaissance in Israel as a springboard to a Christian renaissance – I cannot lend it the legitimacy of Manhigut Yehudit. [Beck has never said anything about living here or encouraging Christians to live here that I have heard. CiJ].
Glenn Beck speaks a lot about our obligation to tell the truth, so let us do just that: The Temple Mount is the home of the Holy Temple of the Jews – exclusively. All the non-Jews who understand that are invited to come to the Temple Mount (in the area where they are permitted according to Jewish law) to pray to the Master of the Universe, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Esau and Ishmael have their own holy places. Please honor our exclusive sovereignty over Jerusalem, including our spiritual sovereignty, just as we respect your spiritual sovereignty in your lands.
Now don't get me wrong. I agree with Feiglin's interpretation of Judaism. I don't agree that Beck is doing what Feiglin thinks he's doing. I don't believe Beck's that sophisticated. And even if he were doing it, are Jews going to bite for it? (I know that I have a commenter who will be happy to answer that question for me...). Beck strikes me as someone who sincerely wants to help and doesn't quite know how to approach us in a way that we won't find to be an attempt at missionizing. Would Beck contest Feiglin's assertions about the Temple Mount? I doubt it.
The particular Beck installment to which Goldberg alluded revealed as much about Beck's attitudes toward Jews as anything he has ever said publicly. He listed the nine people — an "intelligent minority" — who infected the 20th century with the view that the masses are "animals" who can be controlled through propaganda. According to Media Matters, Beck named AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, as well as:
Propagandist and ad man Edward Bernays, who revolutionized 20th century public relations.
Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, who was Bernays' uncle and influenced his method.
George Soros, who Beck claimed shared Freud and Bernays' philosophy that people are "animals" who can be "experimented with."
Cass Sunstein, who Beck insisted "is Edward Bernays" and has called "the most dangerous man in America."
Former SEIU president Andy Stern, who Beck said is part of a self-proclaimed "intelligent minority" of powerful men trying to manipulate the "bewildered herd" of America.
Walter Lippman, a prominent columnist of the mid-20th century, who Beck accused of viewing government "as a way to control people."
Frances Fox Piven, professor at CUNY, who Beck accused of "sowing the seeds" of revolution.
Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, who Beck said thinks of himself as "one of the elites that are there to guide the herd."
Of the nine, Trumka is the only non-Jew; the other eight are Jews. Other than their ethnic backgrounds, the Beck 8 have little in common. Ed Rendell and Sigmund Freud? Andy Stern and Walter Lippmann?
How can anyone, other than someone with a real hang-up about Jews, produce a list of the people who epitomize the "era of the big lie" and come up with this list of American Jewish writers, college professors, labor leaders and a governor of Pennsylvania! I mean, think of the some of the 20th century's monstrously criminal liars...
They also just all happen to be liberals or the forebears of 21st century liberal political thought. Maybe that's why Beck went after them?
In an interview with Israel Hayom, Beck says that he can't understand how a nation still facing the danger of extermination, this time at the hands of Iran, does not receive sympathetic and encouraging coverage in the world media.
"Someone has to speak the truth," Beck said. "If someone can tell it better than I can, then by all means, please do. In the meantime, I'll do it myself. But today, if someone is horrified about someone else telling the truth, then Israel, and the entire lifestyle of the West is in trouble."
...
Is the rally's timing in August somehow related to the U.N. General Assembly vote on Palestinian independence which worries many in Israel and is planned for September?
"It worries me. September is a critical month for the state of Israel." So the timing is not coincidence.
"You can't always be reactionary. You can react but you should also be the one to lead, the one who gets the ball rolling. Why is everyone in Israel playing defense? Why do those who believe in freedom always have to be on the defensive? We have the high ground so why should be playing defense? Start paving the way." Beck said.
"August 24 could be just another event or the beginning of a movement in which people worldwide begin to understand that Jews won't be kicked around. If someone in the world has a problem with the Jews – then they got a problem with me, I'm a Jew in this regard."
Could that be the explanation to Beck's citation from the Book of Ruth that made Feiglin (and - okay me too) feel a little queasy?
"If we show fear and tell each other, listen it can't get any worse, then we will quickly find out that it can, much worse. The only difference is that this time, contrast to World War II, the U.S. isn't an industrial powerhouse just waiting for a reason to act. Back in those days America said lets show the world. It's no longer the case today. Today we don't have people like Winston Churchill either, people who said 'never give up, never surrender.' "
"So who will defend us? Who will be our messiah? China? The world is heading towards dark times, unless people begin to act."
Should I conclude from your words that the world is playing the same defensive game with the Iranian threat?
"I don’t want to talk about my country, but the West has buried its head in the sand – just as it did with Chamberlain on the eve of World War II." If someone came up to you everyday and told you 'I am going to kill your wife,' would you go back to your wife and say its nothing, or would you act?"
Do you think we are in a situation today in which Iran believes that an attack against it is not even an option?
"Four years ago, I told your prime minister, 'watch out – they're pulling one over on you.' I think they're pulling one over on my country, the U.S., as well. They aren't going to do anything. They will continue with this game, because nobody really wants to take real steps on this issue. Israel will have to attack by itself, because in the end the train cars will fill up again.
The big question that you need to ask yourselves is if you are going to climb aboard the train cars again - and you know how that ends – or are you going to say, excuse me, Israel has the right to live, Jews have the right to live, and the Holocaust is not going to happen again. I don't know when Iran's point of no return will come, but God help all of us if you or someone else is forced to attack there."
I was raised in Israel and taught to trust the American president almost like the Israeli prime minister. Is that still true?
"Even if Bush were still president today, I would give you a similar answer: look, I'm coming from a place in Poland where the king once granted the Jews a place to live. He said to them, here you will be protected. And they were protected – until one day he died, and then they weren't so safe anymore.
Don't trust anyone except yourselves. Israel needs to demand from the world the right to defend itself. Don't trust us or anyone else to protect you, because at some point, tomorrow or a thousand years from now, you will be let down, because everyone else has different interests than yours."
Every time I see Jewish criticism of a bible-quoting Christian, I look where it's coming from. If it's coming from the liberal left, I usually regard it with deep suspicion. I grew up on the liberal left, and I know how paranoid the Jewish liberal left is about anyone else quoting the bible. Including Jews. The Jewish liberal left is willing to set Israel up to be annihilated (God forbid) by the Arabs, but it's paranoid about any vestige of religion in American schools. It's funny how no one seemed to mind when Bill Clinton - then in his first term before he became a moderate - came to the Knesset and quoted his pastor and the bible. In fact, I recall one of the Haredi party representatives saying that he wished that the Prime Minister (Rabin at the time) would quote the bible as much as Clinton did in the Knesset! But let an American conservative come here and quote the bible and that raises all their hackles.
Beck seems to be saying all the right things to us. Is it too good to be true? Maybe. If Feiglin wants to confront him over the Temple Mount or anything else, I believe that he should. I'd love to see Feiglin confront Beck one-on-one on these issues. Of course, he'd have to get out of the car to do that.... But I don't believe Beck has the evil intent that Feiglin is ascribing to him. And I certainly don't believe he's an anti-Semite like Rosenberg claims.
I have a sense of deja vu regarding President Obama's seeming turnaround. In the last couple of months, he has seemingly let up on pressuring Prime Minister Netanyahu and has lowered both the tone and the priority of the 'peace process.' Now, word is coming out of Washington claiming that Obama's speech on Thursday night will be conciliatory to Israel, and well it might be if he doesn't want to be booed out of the room when he speaks to the AIPAC convention on Sunday.
I feel like we're back in 2008. We're being told to ignore the fact that Obama sat in Reverend Wright's anti-Semitic church listening to his sermons for 20 years and listen only to what he is saying now. We're being told to ignore the fact that one of Obama's closest advisers called for sending US troops to Israel to enforce a 'Palestinian state' because he fired her anyway and she won't be part of his administration. We're being told that the 'new Obama' understands that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done all he can to bring about peace and that he realizes that we cannot even negotiate with an entity that includes an unrepentant Hamas. We're being told all these warm and fuzzy things. And they are all a lie.
When we look at Arab leaders, we are constantly warned - and rightfully so - to look at what they are saying in Arabic before accepting what they say in English at face value. In fact, an entire cottage industry (principally MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch) has sprung up to translate the words of the Arab media into English. Similarly, we cannot just accept what Obama says to Israel supporters and ignore what he says to our opponents. So let's look at what Obama said to one of our opponents (whose word I have no reason to doubt on this), the insufferable MJ Rosenberg.
In 2007, the day after Obama declared his candidacy for president, I met with him in his office (I was then working for Israel Policy Forum).
Obama listened carefully while I explained why it was critical that he be an "honest broker" on Israel-Palestinian issues. Nothing I said, including my opinions of AIPAC's influence, would surprise anyone who reads my columns. My bottom line was that the occupation was terrible for the United States, for Israel and, most of all, for the Palestinians and that he should understand that the status quo lobbyists who defend everything Israel does are not representative of the Jewish community or anyone else.
Obama listened, cupped his ear, and said, "I can't hear you."
I didn't understand; I was sitting right next to him.
He then said: "No, not literally. I mean that I don't hear from people like you. But I hear from AIPAC {he then named the local AIPAC leader in Chicago} every week. I'm going to be President and, when I am, it is your job -- you and all the people who feel the way you do -- to make sure I hear that message. You cannot simply rely on the belief that you are right. You need to raise your voice so that I hear you and not just them."
So maybe, just maybe, the President wants us to shout and holler about, what appears to be, a sellout to AIPAC. After all, he is making no attempt to cover up what he's doing or why he's doing it. He only hears one voice.
Maybe Obama's latest actions are a cry for help.
Don't just read Yoram Ettinger's headline and assume that all is well for Israel in Washington. If Obama wins in 2012, all is not well. Every action Obama takes for the next 18 months has one goal and one goal only: To get himself re-elected. Once that happens (God forbid), the Obama who visited MJ Rosenberg, the Obama who sat in Reverend Wright's church, the Obama who was close friends with Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah, is likely to come out of the closet.
But of course: Media Matters blames 'Israel Lobby' for Egyptian uprising
The insufferable MJ Rosenberg has written a piece for Media Matters blaming the 'Israel Lobby' for what's going on in Egypt (Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection, who has more comments).
If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.
The regime that the Israeli government and its U.S. lobby have depended upon to enforce the status quo is going down. It is not clear when, but it's going to be soon, much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. And you can be sure that any democratic government that takes Mubarak's place is not going to play the role of America's (let alone Israel's) enforcer in the Middle East.
Hopefully, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty will survive — thousands of lives on both sides have been saved by President Carter's Camp David Treaty — but there are no guarantees. Far from it.
Of course, no one would even be worried about the peace treaty if the Israelis had agreed to implement the critical second part of the Camp David Accords.
That was the part that would have ended the occupation. But the Israelis chose to ignore it and the lobby and the ever-faithful Congress blocked Carter's efforts to push it through.
The 'second part' Rosenberg is promoting is the part about 'Palestinian' autonomy (not a 'state' - it never said that), and that failed to be implemented because the 'Palestinians' had no interest in it. They're interested in destroying the Jewish state.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
