Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for January, 2010

Hebrew University: If One Wall is Good, Two Are Better

Monday, January 4th, 2010

“Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.”

–Robert Frost, Mending Wall

Issawiya with Mt. Scopus in background (Wikipedia Commons)


It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single Palestinian in possession of a Qassam must be in want of an Israeli university into which to lob it.  How else to explain this bizarre story:

According to the Jerusalem online newspaper Mynet, Hebrew University’s Student Union Chairperson, Ofer Raviv, recently recommended that a Separation Wall between the university’s Mount Scopus campus and the nearby Palestinian village of Issawiya be constructed. Hebrew University officials suggested that such a wall could be financed by the parking meters located on Mount Scopus and the Jerusalem Municipality has agreed to examine this possibility.

I think it’s the job of student body presidents to come up with whacked out ideas and tell the administration it’s the greatest idea since sliced bread.  But it’s the job of the university to reply: “Are you out of your f’ing mind?”  Apparently, the first thing happens in Israel, but not the second because the school administrators are almost as ideologically whacked out as the students.

The ostensible reason for the Wall is that the villagers of Issawiya are thieves.  Everyone knows that all Palestinians are thieving vermin who will just as soon slit your throat as look at you.  So ma pitom, why should anyone be surprised at the sensibleness of such a proposal?  The more walls the better I say.  If I could build a wall entirely sealing off West Jerusalem from East I would do it.  Better yet and to be completely secure, let’s a build a wall around every square block of Jerusalem.  I always say: “Good walls make good neighbors.”  Or is it “no neighbors?”

What have the Palestinians ever done for us anyway?  If they would just shut up and let us transform this land from the swamp it was when we inherited it from them and make it bloom with silicon and wi-fi networks as God intended, we’d all be better off.  Or maybe just we Jews would be better off.  The Palestinians can’t read anyway so how will computers help them?  Aw, f(&k ‘em.”

Seriously though, not content with the Separation Wall which appropriates 15-20% of Palestinian land beyond the Green Line, the Hebrew University, under pressure from its right-wing student body president is actually contemplating building a new and improved wall within a wall.

I would like those Hebrew University administrators who squawk about the international BDS movement and the academic boycott to explain how building this wall buttresses their argument that Israeli universities are the bastions of liberalism and the free interchange of ideas.  How these institutions of higher learning are the solution to the problem and not the problem itself.  How they conduct research that benefits the underprivileged Palestinians and educate their young.  Given this contemplated heinous atrocity why should anyone in the world give them or their arguments the time of day?

IDF Trains Muslim-Hating Dogs

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Nazi attack dog harrassing a Jew

It’s come full circle I’m afraid to say: Nazis trained dogs to hate and harrass Jews and now the IDF is returning the favor.  Israeli TV reports that the IDF conducted a military ceremony at which it displayed the talents of its trained attack dogs–one of which was to attack upon hearing the Arabic: Allahu Akbar.  Here’s the Haaretz story (English/Hebrew):

Israeli Arab MK Ahmed Tibi on Monday told the Knesset plenum that at a canine unit ceremony held the day before, parents of the soldiers witnessed demonstrations proving these allegations.

“IDF dogs are trained to pounce and attack any Arab who shouts Allah Hu Akbar, as a Pavlovian reaction,” said Tibi. “So here I say: Allah Hu Akbar. Are there any dogs here to attack me?”

Speculations of such practice were exposed first by Israel Radio’s military correspondent, Carmela Menashe.

Let no one say that Israeli Palestinian MKs don’t have a ferocious satiric sense.  I loved the double dare shout out to all the rabid rightist MKs who might have taken a run at him for introducing a Muslim chant in the Knesset (“Are there any dogs here to attack me?”).

IDF Canine unit logo

Israel has a much vaunted armaments export industry which earns the country billions in foreign currency.  Now they can add this innovative new product to their offerings.  It won’t go over well in Muslim countries.  But it should do quite nicely for countries like Denmark, Britain, Switzerland, France and Germany which have periodic bouts of unpleasantness fomented by their uppity Muslim residents.  This should keep them in line and earn much needed export income for the Jewish state.

For those who question the story, it was witnessed by the Israeli parents of IDF recruits who attended.

So not only do we have Israeli racial profiling at airports in which dark-skinned, Arab or Pali-symp passengers are singled out for special harassment, now we have dogs trained to attack on hearing a Muslim praise his God.  I say, with great shame, that what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.  I fully anticipate that Muslims will train their own dogs to attack on hearing Hebrew prayers like the Shma.  And if you are a Jew who takes offense at this, think who brought it on.  It wasn’t me.  It was the racist dog-training ghouls in the IDF who thought this little kuntz up.

Through a possible editing error the original Hebrew version says the IDF has NOT denied the report, while the translated English version says the IDF has denied it.  Since the Hebrew is the original my money is on the latter being correct.  Which may be verified by the following non-sequitur non-denial issued by the IDF:

“One of the canine unit’s many capabilities is to train the dogs at locating the enemy when dressed both in uniform and as civilian. This is an ability that has proven itself in many cases.”

Unfortunately, dogs cannot distinguish between training that is racist and training that is not.  Apparently, the IDF can’t either.  Remember the impact that the Abu Graibh photos ad on the U.S. image in the Muslim world?  It single-handedly upped Al Qaeda recruitment by hundreds of percent.  What impact do you think this story will have on recruitment for anti-Israel acts of violence?

State Department on Rosenthal: Stand by Your Woman

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Rosenthal: State stands by their woman

Despite the controversy stirred by the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere and Israel lobby usual suspects against Hannah Rosenthal for her remark in a Haaretz interview that Michael’s Oren’s dissing of the J Street conference was “unfortunate,” the State Department has issued a statement of full support for her:

“Special Envoy Rosenthal has the complete support [ed. italics added] of the department. As a matter of longstanding policy the United States has supported a peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To that end the U.S. government encourages broad dialogue among responsible partners for peace.”

Many of us were worried after State slapped her on the wrist and said that she had spoken out of turn, that this might signal a capitulation to the forces of pro-Israel darkness who were itching for her scalp.  In particular, Jeffrey Goldberg, who called Rosenthal “dopey” and Shmu Rosner, who called her “not smart” were leading the Jewish male sexist charge against Rosenthal.  They’re bound to be disappointed that they didn’t have enough juice to get her fired.

Rosner in particular wrote breathlessly every time he picked up a crumb that could be used to besmirch Rosenthal, even writing in the Jerusalem Post that she had “new problems” because Phil Weiss, Steve Walt and Andrew Sullivan were supporting her.  Phew!  I was offended that he didn’t even bother to include me in the supposedly anti-Israel Murderer’s Row.  But he assured me he wouldn’t omit me next time.

Also, a few comments on the deliberate or unintentional inaccuracy of some blog and media reports about Rosenthal’s background.  One of the main reasons she was targeted was that she was affiliated with J Street, the target du jour of the Israel lobby these days.  Contrary to Ron Kampeas’ coverage, for example, she was never an “officer” of J Street and had nothing to do with running the group or dictating policy.  She was one of 200 honorary members of its advisory council.  Every Jewish organization has one of these and they are there to showcase VIPs who endorse the group but have nothing whatever to do with its day to day operations.  So much for yoking Rosenthal to J Street.

Now, maybe Shmu & Goldberg can go back to finding some other perfectly innocuous Jewish progressive to tar and feather for holding less than sufficiently pro-Israel views about something or other?  And mazel tov to Secretary Clinton and the Obama folks for standing by their woman.

Rabbis for Peace Urge ‘Going Biblical’ to Solve Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Rabbis for Peace urge U.S. ambassador to 'go Biblical' on Palestinians (Arutz Sheva)

Thanks to reader Gene Schulman for this unintentionally hilarious story from settler news, Arutz Sheva:

A delegation of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace (RCP) met with U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mr. James Cunningham, today and called for a reassessment of the entire U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Israelis and Palestinians. The rabbis told Ambassador Cunningham that it was time to try the Biblical approach to the dispute over the Land of Israel.”The past 17 years have proven without a shadow of a doubt that every square inch ceded by Israel to the Palestinians was transformed into a platform of hatred and terrorism,” RCP Director Rabbi Avrohom Shmuel Lewin told the ambassador. “In other words, the ‘land for peace’ formula in the Israel-Palestinian context, besides being a formula that goes against the Divine will, is ineffective, obsolete, and an exercise in futility. Most of all it is a dangerous policy that only leads to bloodshed and instability in the region and harms vital American interests in the region as well,” Lewin said.

What in God’s name (literally) was the U.S. ambassador doing meeting with these Neanderthals?  My heart half went out to him for the suffering he must’ve undergone merely spending 20 minutes in a room with them.

Apparently these Jewish gentlemen must’ve thought that Ambassador Cunningham paid especially close attention to Israeli halachic discourse, which is what explains this oddity:

Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky, Chairman of the RCP…presented the ambassador with the Halachic (Jewish legal) ruling signed by over 350 prominent rabbis in Israel that it is forbidden to give up even one inch of territory controlled by Israel today because it will bring bloodshed and instability to the region.

I’ll bet Cunningham turned right around and messengered that precious document to the White House where it will be scrutinized for any messages from the Divine which may be augured therefrom. Really, who do these bozos think they are? Because 350 racist Orthodox rabbis can be found who are willing to spill the last drop of Jewish blood to defend the indefensible–that means that America’s president has to hop to it and do God’s will or…what? Fry?

After you read this passage, I’m sure you’ll be convinced too that the U.S. diplomat was as moved as the report indicates:

The ambassador was visibly moved by Rabbi Sholom Gold…who described the suffering that the Jewish People have endured ever since the implementation of the Oslo Accords…”It’s all a play of words, there is no peace process,” he said. “From the day that we started conceding and withdrawing we did not have one day of rest and peace. Why should our enemies want to make peace with us when they see that with terrorism they get what they want? Even the U.S., Israel’s supposedly best friend, sides with them in demanding a freeze and evacuation of settlements. Is the triumph of Arab terror one of American interests?” Gold asked.

“Why, yes certainly,” the ambassador must’ve replied. “We’re in cahoots with those A-rabs against ya.  Didn’t you know that?”

Poor Jim Cunningham.  Read this and imagine what it must’ve been like for him to have to sit through this utter misery.  And while I’m not a policy analyst, if I were Barack Obama I’d be signing Rabbi Gerlitzky up for a senior staff position in Washington:

Ambassador Cunningham told the rabbis that he does not see how the problem can be solved “without taking into consideration the Palestinians,” to which Rabbi Gold remarked: “Ever since we started taking the Palestinians into consideration the situation only worsened.”

The ambassador asked the rabbis, “So what is your solution to the problem?”

Rabbi Gerlitzky replied: “You must switch the entire approach to the situation. We all believe in the Holy Bible and up until now we tried every formula except for that which is delineated in the Bible. Let’s try it and who knows, Mr. Ambassador, maybe this is your defining moment, that G-d Almighty has placed you in this capacity in order to precipitate a new course which will bring a true peace to the entire region.”

What Biblical formula can he be referring to? Possibly God and the Jewish people wiping out Amalek? That would constitute a Biblical formula for dealing with the problem, wouldn’t it? And I’ll bet I’m not far off.

Dan Halutz, Facebook Phenom

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Dan Halutz's Facebook page

Psst, are you ready for some fun?  I’ll let you in on it on one condition: don’t blow the secret.  This is too good and funny to be true and I don’t want to spoil it by having anyone squeal.

I was looking through my Facebook profile and noticed one of my Friends had linked to a new page seemingly created by Dan Halutz.  He’s the former chief of staff of the IDF who commanded the ignominious Lebanon war while he wheeled and dealed with his stock broker over his investment portfolio.  Perhaps his distraction contributed to the IDF’s lackluster performance in the war.  I say lackluster not because the Israelis didn’t kill enough Lebanese.  They did that–somewhere around 1,200 died during the month of that war.  But the performance was lackluster in that over 100 Israelis were killed, all of northern Israel was a barren wasteland for a month, and Hezbollah was neither dislodged nor vanquished–all of which was promised by Halutz before and during the war.

Some Israeli jokester has created a spoof website that is deliciously ironic.  Not to mention that fabulous real photo of Halutz looking like George Clooney in a tank and yukking it up.  Here are some of the more hilarious Wall segments:

Personal Information

Activities:
Fighter jet pilot, soldier and general.
love extreme sports. modern weapons.
I also love jogging in the early morning, and play the African game of Homboh.
Interests:
exploding bodies
long range bombing, financial portfolio
Favorite Music:
the sound of napalm in the morning
Favorite Quotations:
What do you feel when you drop a 1-ton bomb on a residential building? “A slight bump to the (airplane’s) wing” – D. Halutz
About Me:
I have a Wikipage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Halutz

Some of the comments by Dan’s Friends are pretty funny:

Dan Halutz Going off-line untill monday. happy new year!

December 30, 2009 at 9:08pm ·

Mary Woodward

Mary Woodward

What? You putting extrajudicial murders on hold till then, Generalissimo??
PS Happy New Year to you, also, Sir.
December 30, 2009 at 11:12pm

Tom Vee

Tom Vee

Happy New Year! Maybe your New Year’s resolution should be not to kill as many children, yes?
And this thread:

Dan Halutz I am Mr. Halutz and Dr. King

December 29, 2009 at 7:13am ·

Mary Woodward

Mary Woodward

And I am…confused, Generalissimo?
December 29, 2009 at 8:01am

Dan Halutz

Dan Halutz

On one hand, I am a war-machine, nothing but a bump in the wing. On the other hand, lately I started felling this pain, or a twitch, somewhere in my chest every time I blow a kid to smithereens.
Dr. Jakyl & Mr Hyde…
December 29, 2009 at 8:10am

Mary Woodward

Mary Woodward

Don’t break my heart, Generalissimo!
December 29, 2009 at 8:14am

What makes all of this even more delicious is the fact that real live right wing Israeli politicians have been hoodwinked by the satirical page and have “friended” Dan, including Likud MK Danny Dannon and settler extremist Moshe Feiglin. It’s all too funny for words: enjoy. But let’s keep this our little secret.

Israel Lobby Supports Suspected Human Rights Violator for Fear of Israeli War Crimes Culpability

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
Mohamed Ali Samantar, accused Somali human rights violator befriended by Israel lobby

Mohamed Ali Samantar, accused Somali human rights violator befriended by Israel lobby

The Forward brings word that our friends in the Israel lobby have some strange new bedfellows in the form of a former Somali cabinet minister accused of  atrocities and other human rights violations.  The minister is being tried in U.S. courts for his alleged crimes.  Jewish groups like ZOA, Agudath Israel, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, American Jewish Congress, and the ADL argue in friend of the court briefs that our judicial system should have no jurisdiction:

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 3 in the case of Yousuf v. Samantar, in which a group of Somalis is seeking financial damages from Mohamed Ali Samantar, Somalia’s former defense minister. He also served as prime minister from 1987 to 1990. Samantar was a top official in the regime of President Siad Barre, a socialist-leaning dictatorship that was denounced by international groups for its systematic use of torture and arbitrary arrests, and for the rape and murder of political rivals and dissidents.

Among the five Somalis suing Samantar are a student who was allegedly detained and raped 15 times by a military man, a former officer who alleges he survived a mass execution and a businessman who claims he was tortured for months by the regime Samantar helped lead. Two of the plaintiffs are now American citizens. The case was filed under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

…Pro-Israel activists, fearing a precedent that will allow others to pursue legal action against Israel for alleged war crimes — as has happened in Europe — have filed briefs opposing their suit.

What is passing strange about the lobby’s position is that it argues regarding Palestinian terror that U.S. courts SHOULD have jurisdiction. So somehow it will argue that the Somali represented a government which should have sovereign immunity while the Palestinians didn’t and don’t.  But what should be difficult for the Supreme Court justices to swallow is conceding that raping and massacring citizens should be construed as a legitimate government policy.  I think they’d really have to stretch the definition of what is acceptable behavior by a government or its officials.  It would be something like arguing that no officials responsible for Abu Graibh should be prosecuted because the acts committed there were official U.S. policy.

The Forward reporter notes the oddness of the current Israel lobby legal position:

Fighting to maintain immunity for foreign officials seems to place Jewish activists far from positions they have taken in the past. Supporters of Israel actively backed legislation that paved the way for relatives of terror victims to sue terror organizations and their sponsors in American courts. Over the years, these lawsuits have yielded several rulings against Hamas, Fatah and Iran for compensation reaching hundreds of millions of dollars.

The chief U.S. firm trolling for Jewish terror victims in order to pursue claims against Arab banks and other deep pockets has cogently articulated the reason for opposition to this suit:

“There will be a rash of lawsuits of this kind against Israel” if the court rules for the plaintiffs, warned Alyza Lewin, an attorney with the firm of Lewin & Lewin, which has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of Samantar and against making foreign officials vulnerable to civil lawsuits.

…“You’d have the entire Middle East conflict here in the U.S.” if Samantar won, agreed Marc Stern, co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress. Stern, who also filed a brief on this issue, claimed that allowing civil suits would “require Israelis to recount in an American court years after the event why every rocket was fired and why each attack took place.”

Of course, that’s a gross exaggeration.  What Lewin and Stern fear is that Israeli impunity might end here in U.S. courts and that Israeli officials might have to face justice in the heart of the most powerful nation on earth.  That’s enough to strike fear in the heart of the lobby and IDF officers who might be the first to sit in the dock of justice.

Oh, and speaking of strange bedfellows–Saudi Arabia has joined the lobby in filing an amicus brief.  So Abe: how does it feel to be in bed with Saudi royalty and a Somali torturer?  A bit uncomfortable perhaps?  Or have you no shame and feel no pangs of conscience about this?  Not to mention that the lobby finds itself on the opposite side of the fence from international human rights groups who welcome the Somali suit.  But the lobby is so often on the side of the devils, rather than angels in human rights matters like these.

Obama Administration Singing the Same Old Tune: Sanctions Can Work

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

After the most recent round of intense Iranian civil unrest spurred by the death and mourning for the reform movement’s spiritual godfather, Ayatollah Montazeri, I would’ve thought the Obama administration would’ve learned the appropriate lesson: back off.  Don’t do anything.  Let events in Iran take their course. Hope the reform movement eventually gets the upper hand.  Do what you can to help make that happen by laying off and making strong statements supporting human rights in that country.  And indeed, Barack Obama did make such a statement.

Iran sanctions: gutter ball (Alex Nabaum/NYT)

But either Obama’s not fully running the show or Dennis Ross and his buddies are doing some freelancing at the N.S.C. because the news reported by the N.Y. Times is disconcerting:

As President Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, the administration says that domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Tehran’s nuclear program make its leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions.

…In interviews, Mr. Obama’s strategists said that while Iran’s top political and military leaders remained determined to develop nuclear weapons, they were distracted by turmoil in the streets and political infighting, and that the drive to produce nuclear fuel appeared to have faltered in recent months.

What’s interesting about the last paragraph is that the source provides no proof the protests have hindered the nuclear program.  And if nuclear research has indeed faltered (a debatable claim as I mentioned), why impose sanctions which will drive Iran’s back up against the wall and make it even more recalcitrant than it already is??  The problem with sanctions is that they are a policy which provides no climb-down mode for Iran.  Even if it wanted to (and I see no reason that it does), there is no way Iran can back down from nuclear research and save face under the dangling sword of sanctions.

There is more dubious material in this report:

The White House wants to focus the new sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the military force believed to run the nuclear weapons effort.

The sentiment is, of course, well and good since the Revolutionary Guards are hated within and without Iran.  But the fact is that the sanctions legislation most recently passed by Congress, the Guards will actually be benefited and not hindered.  These sanctions target Iranian oil imports.  The Guards have had 15 years to development alternate sources for every sanction-affected product including petroleum.  So banning such imports will only force the Iranian people to turn even more decidedly toward Guard sponsored black market sources.  In other words, it will enrich an already fabulously wealthy government apparatus and strengthen the role it plays in the Iranian economy.

The article vaguely refers to “financial” sanctions which can hurt Revolutionary Guard front businesses.  And they’re not trying to do that already?  What possibly can they do that they haven’t tried already?

If smart Iranian analysts like Roger Cohen and Muhhamad Sahimi know our sanctions help the Guards, why doesn’t the U.S. government?  And if it does, why is it deluding itself and attempting to delude the American people with this garbage??

Government officials acknowledge that Iran’s “nuclear breakout” period has been pushed back to anywhere from 18 months to three years.  If that’s the case, then why the rush to sanctions?  The whiz kids in the White House claim that this longer period will give sanctions more time to “work.”  The truth of the matter is that sanctions began in 1995 and they haven’t worked from the beginning.  And there is no possible set of new sanctions that can change that unless the entire world agrees to join in our regime.  This simply isn’t going to happen and Obama, the rest of the world, and the Iranians know this.  So what we are doing is simply a charade that makes the American people feel we’re doing SOMETHING (when we’re not), and keeps the neocon war hawks off Obama’s back.  It’s a poor excuse for a coherent policy toward Iran.

My hunch that this story emanates from a Ross-like source (if not the former Aipac analyst himself) is reinforced by this passage:

Another administration official said that Israeli officials, while still publicly hinting that they might take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, “now feel that what’s happening in Iran makes the country vulnerable to real sanctions…”

Few in this administration have Israel’s ear like Dennis Ross.  Few care more about what Israel thinks than he.  Few articulate their policy options with greater attentiveness to Israeli concerns and interests.  This smells like a Ross to me.

Whoever spoke these words or wrote them hasn’t a clue what really motivates the Iranian reform movement:

Sanctions will be a difficult balancing act for the administration, since it acknowledges that three previous rounds of sanctions have failed to deter Iran, and it also wants to avoid angering Iranians protesting in the streets by depriving them of Western goods.

My God, is this what the reporters think concerns the protesters?  That they can continue getting their supply of Paris fashions and Gallois cigarettes?  Try getting to the real concern for the demonstrators: that these sanctions will undermine them politically in the eyes of the Iranian people.

Michael Slackman, a much more knowledgeable Times reporter has this far more intelligent comment on this issue also in today’s issue:

…Harsh sanctions over the nuclear program might actually be welcomed by some of Iran’s leaders as a device to help restore national unity. But…given the [government's] repressive response to the protests and political opposition, it was not at all clear that such a tactic would work.

It appears, according to this report, that the Mossad has had a major success in debunking the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which stated that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  The NIE drove Israel up the wall and if this report is correct, the Mossad has secured one of the crown jewels of its campaign for a hawkish response to Iran:

Mr. Obama’s top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before President George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003.

Now, Israeli intelligence will hope and expect sanctions to fail (which they will) and that the U.S. will move to the next stage, which will be either a U.S. or Israeli attack on the nuclear plants.  Watch this space for further developments.

Look Who’s Calling Hannah Rosenthal ‘Dopey?’

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

Yup, you guessed it, Jeffrey “The Brain” Goldberg.  You see, Jeffrey’s on the journalistic gravy train over the Hannah Rosenthal story accusing her of being “dopey” for attacking Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren for his refusal to participate in J Street’s first conference and his subsequent lies about J Street being against “every policy of every Israeli government.”  Rosenthal had the temerity to call Oren’s refusal “unfortunate.”  Apparently, that’s a hangin’ offense as far as the Israel lobby is concerned.

And yes, Jeffrey, you’re carrying water for Mort Klein, Malcolm Hoenlein and the Aipac boys on this one.  They all want her scalp.  And you do too because you smell blood in the pro-Israel water.

One of Goldberg’s arguments claiming that opposition to the nominated anti-Semitism czar is bi-partisan is Alan Solow’s blast against her.  Solow claims to be a liberal Dem and supported Obama’s presidential campaign.  But The Atlantic’s Jewish politics maven neglected one small fact about Solow’s statement.  It probably wasn’t written by Solow at all.  Much more likely it was written for him by that doyenne of the Jewish neocon movement, Malcolm Hoenlein, who is the power behind the Conference of Presidents (which Solow chairs).  So much for the “Get Hannah” movement being an equal opportunity bi-partisan cabal.

You’re dead-wrong, Jeffrey, about both Rosenthal’s brain power and the appropriateness of her comments.  Michael Oren is a liar.  As such, he had Rosenthal’s comments coming to him.  He lied about J Street and he lied in his comments about Nofrat Frenkel’s arrest at the Kotel (why no word from you about Oren’s “misspeaking” on that incident, Jeffrey?).  Or is protecting the ass of your personal pal, Michael Oren one of your job descriptions over there at The Atlantic?

You know who else called Rosenthal stupid?  That other Israeli neocon “brain” Shmu Rosner:

(It) seems quite obvious that Rosenthal isn’t smart…

Not only that, Shmu’s just written a new smear of Rosenthal for JPost which breathlessly exposes a “new problem” she has.  What’s the problem?  No, there are no revelations about all expense paid trips to Iran or weekends at Osama’s Afghan ranch.  Rosenthal’s new problem is that she actually has supporters in the blog world.  Supporters who are…[drumroll please] ANTI-ISRAEL!  Whoo.  Who are these Israel haters?  Andrew Sullivan for one.  And Phil Weiss and Steve Walt.  Anti-Semitn’ every one!

I couldn’t help expressing my chagrin at being excluded from the club as I’ve defended Rosenthal as well.  What, I wondered, had I done wrong to be left off Shmu Rosner’s enemies list?  Insufficiently critical of Israel, perhaps?  Or maybe I’m not a big enough target, in which case I beg you dear Reader to drum up more readership for this blog so we can make it on Shmu’s anti-Israel blog list.

There’s one other unfortunate fact I’ve noticed about the campaign to Get Hannah: have you noticed anything about the gender of her major detractors?  Yup, all old Jewish guys: Hoenlein, Klein, Goldberg, Rosner, Solow.  The cracks about her being “dopey,” “not smart,” etc. begin to reek of women-baiting.

Not a single female Jewish leader criticized her.  Or perhaps its a man’s man’s man’s man’s Jewish world out there and there are no female Jewish leaders left since Golda and Shoshana Cardin left the stage.  At any rate, this bit of unseemly piling on against Rosenthal bespeaks too much pro-Israel testosterone.  You know what it is that the Jewish boys don’t like about Hannah?  She speaks her mind.  And what can be worse for a nice Jewish girl than speaking her mind in a boychik’s world.  A shande!  Get that girl and put her in her place, back knitting yarmulkes and baking babke where she belongs.

Someone ought to tell the boys to cut out the bullying.  It’s unseemly.  Didn’t your Jewish mothers ever teach you any manners?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE