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 September, 2010

Grossman’s New Novel, ‘To the End of the Land’

Monday, September 20th, 2010

Israel’s foremost novelist, David Grossman, has just published a new novel in English, To the End of the Land (original Hebrew title, Isha Borachat Mi’BsoraA Woman Flees [Bad] Tidings).  While I have not yet read it, I’ve just read a remarkable, glowing review by Jacqueline Rose in The Guardian which has made me put aside my quarrels with Grossman’s liberal Zionist views to embrace the book.

It is interesting that Grossman and his translator have discarded the original Hebrew title in favor of a much more allegorical one in English.  ”To the End of the Land,” as a title does convey the heroine’s trek across the land of Israel.  It also conveys the notion that “the land” is a concept which we must somehow “get to the end of” if we are ever to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  That we must somehow liquidate the notion that land (whether viewed by Palestinian or Israeli nationalists) is sacred or more important than people and peace.  I know I’m not quite saying this right and will be jumped on by my Palestinian/Arab friends.  For this I apologize.

But I also rather like the simplicity and descriptiveness of the Hebrew original.

Many will know that while writing the book, Grossman’s beloved son, Uri, was killed on the last day of the 2006 Lebanon war.  In a monumental feat of pure guts, Grossman addressed a rally commemorating the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and subsumed his grief into a savage and profound assault on the then prime mininster, Ehud Olmert and his chief of staff, Dan Halutz. While this speech did not seal Olmert’s political fate (Israel is too polarized for such a possibility), it permanently tarnished him in the eyes of many Israelis. When he fell from power over a tawdry corruption scandal, many of the novelist’s criticisms of the politician were borne out.

david & uri grossman

David Grossman and son, Uri (John MacDougall/AFP/Getty)

Here are some excerpts from Rose’s review:

For some time now, David Grossman has been describing his writing as a means of survival, as a way of no longer feeling a victim in the “disaster zone” of the seemingly eternal conflict that is Israel-Palestine…With the publication of this extraordinary, impassioned novel, such purpose or hope acquires a new meaning and intensity.

To the End of the Land tells the story of Ora, who leaves her home in Jerusalem to walk across Israel to Galilee, in order to avoid the “notifiers” who might arrive at any moment to inform her of the death of her son. It is the trip they had planned together to celebrate his discharge from military service. Instead, he volunteers to rejoin the army in a high-intensity offensive – “a kick-ass operation” – against the Palestinians at the start of the second intifada…

Grossman has not ventured into this territory in his fiction for a long time – not since his earliest novel, The Smile of the Lamb, which was the first Israeli novel to be written about the occupation…Ora believes that Israel has no future: “It doesn’t really have a chance, this country. It just doesn’t.” Although Ora will never leave Israel, she is running away…

Ora is, as she puts it, the first “notification-refusenik”. Ofer will not die as long as she keeps talking and writing about his life (she keeps notebooks as she goes). “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,” Avram whispers to her near the end of the novel, “I will fear no evil, for my story is with me.” She also believes, in what she herself recognises as “flipped-out” magical thinking, that if she is not there to receive the notification, then it will be impossible for her son to have died…Before anything else, To the End of the Land is a novel that recounts like no other I have read the lengths to which a mother will go to preserve the life of her child.

…This is a novel that forces us to ask more than ever: who are the Arabs for Israel’s Jews?…in one of the most powerful scenes in the novel, Sami…drives her through a checkpoint with a sick Palestinian child in her lap to a makeshift hospital where she, and we as readers, are witness to the precariousness of life under occupation (a child on the other side against whom all the odds are stacked but who deserves no less to survive).

…It has become part of the legend of this novel that, while he was writing it, Grossman’s son Uri was killed on the last day of the 2006 Israeli offensive in Lebanon. It will never be read now without that knowledge, without that unspeakable pain, which is in danger of conferring on the book a mythical status. To the End of the Land is without question one of the most powerful and moving novels I have read. But we do the novel, and Grossman, no favours if we turn it into a sacred object, beyond critical scrutiny and outside the reach of the history to which it so complexly and sometimes disturbingly relates.

Bibi’s Physician Says He’s Plump, Puts Him on ‘Gaza Diet’

Sunday, September 19th, 2010
bibi netanyahu

Bibi: 'I will not give up shwarma!'

Bibi’s physician, after a recent physical exam, noted the prime minister was healthy but needed to lose a few kilograms.  Would it surprise you to learn that his doctor was a certain Dr. Dov Weissglas, and that the well-known diet doctor recommended his patented “Gaza diet” as a way to lose the required weight?  Yup, go hang for a few days with a Gazan family and subsist on their UNRWA hand-outs.  That’ll bring the weight back under control.

Weissglas also recommended that Bibi stay away from Gaza’s famous Roots Club & Restaurant, which had come highly recommended by the government’s press office director, Dan Seaman.  He definitely might regain those pounds if he hung out with the foreign reporters there drinking highballs and whatnot.

Olmert: I Attacked Syrian Reactor, Barak Opposed Me

Sunday, September 19th, 2010
Syrian nuclear reactor 2002

Syrian nuclear reactor circa 2002

A fascinating political power struggle is being played out in Israel, between Ehud Olmert and allies and Ehud Barak.  The fight involves Olmert’s political legacy as he faces serious corruption charges which threaten to tarnish or destroy his reputation, and also involves bitter interpersonal and political rivalries among all the parties.  But most fascinating of all is that this enormous battle is happening in the context of Israeli military censorship which is attempting to keep a very irksome genie in its bottle.

A little background: for several years up until its destruction in 2007, Syria was building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.  Those hostile to Iran have also claimed that it was supporting the construction costs.  When Israel discovered the project, a huge battle ensued within the Israeli political-military echelon about what to do.  Ehud Barak, defense minister, opposed attacking the reactor.  Though I’m not privy to his specific arguments or concerns, attacking it would’ve amounted to a huge provocation against Syria, possibly led to reprisals, and torpedoed the Israel-Syria peace talks mediated by Turkey.

Ehud Olmert, then prime minister, wanted to bomb the site and was supported by the chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi.  By parting ways with his boss, the defense minister, Ashkanazi, poisoned his relationship with Barak.  Though Israel did end up attacking and destroying the reactor with very little cost in political or military fallout.  It was viewed as an enormous success by a country that had seen its vaunted military deterrence evaporate in the face of failed attack on Lebanon in 2006.  Such success may’ve emboldened Olmert to agree to launch Operation Cast Lead two years later, in a failed attempt to destroy Hamas.

syrian nuclear reactor site

Before and after: after the bombing, Syria razed the entire complex

Until now, Israel has been very careful not to take credit for attacking the Syria site.  It has, much like the cat that swallowed the canary, remained silent while everyone else speculated about the perpetrator.  Syria too has become a willing conspirator by maintaining its own silence (though for radically different reasons).  The internal maneuvering among political camps inside Israel has revealed a secret the nation has hitherto not wanted known.

What makes this case even more interesting is that, as I wrote, the IDF military censor has intervened energetically in the fracas.  Here is a directive it sent to Israeli media outlets today:

The censor asks that any information concerning the battle between Olmert and Barak regarding security matters be submitted for approval.  It is prohibited to report on any political analysis about Olmert’s statements which allude to the attack on the Syrian reactor; even if you attribute such reports to foreign sources.

The censor was responding to this earlier report on Voice of Israel radio:

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues to attack Ehud Barak, also defense minister in his government, saying that he could not write about security subjects in his new book, and that he did not characterize who initiated daring security operations and who frustrated them in a slippery manner.  Our political correspondent explains that this is apparently an allusion to the attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor, perpetrated, according to foreign sources, by Israel.  Olmert spokes at a conference organized by the Geneva Initiative.

CORRECTION: Thanks to the reader who pointed out to me that the headline for the article below clearly indicated that this was a fictional interchange which Melman created.

Further, Gabi Ashkenazi spoke with Haaretz security correspondent Yossi Melman (Hebrew) last month and said:

The real reason Barak can’t stand me is that I opposed him and went with Olmert on several strategic matters about which it’s too early to tell.  I will permit myself to say that it concerns the bombing of an important enemy facility.  Barak opposed it.  But the prime minister and I made the decision to act, against his advice.  And we saved the State of Israel from an even greater threat than the one posed by Iran.

Yediot Achronot is excerpting passages from the new book (Hebrew) in its Yom Kippur supplement.  The autobiography has not yet been published.  If anyone knows the name of the book, let me know.

In a way, it’s not surprising that Olmert should be all but confirming the Israeli attack.  After all, he was the first prime minister to break protocol and admit that Israel had nuclear weapons.  For this, he was roundly chastised by the military censor and others.  It appears that the prospect of selling a lot of books in Israel and selling the rights to an overseas publisher has tempted Olmert once again to open his big mouth (and for which I’m deeply grateful, I might add).  Further, Olmert and Ashkenazi, both of whom left their government posts are sensitive to their future legacies and seeking to burnish them in the eyes of the buying public.

What Olmert doesn’t realize is that if he’d spent more time on peacemaking and less time on warmaking (Lebanon 2006, Syria 2007, Gaza 2009) he’d have assured his legacy for generations.

As I’ve said many times over the past year in which I’ve been reporting about secret Israeli intelligence matters, the IDF censor is yet again trying to walk the horse back into the barn well after it escaped.  In this day and age, you simply cannot exert centralized control over information or military secrets as they are attempting and failing to do.  Especially, when powerful figures are chafing to expose them.

Yom Kippur, May You Be Sealed for Good

Saturday, September 18th, 2010

I’ve always admired the holiday of Yom Kippur for its introspective meditation and simple clarity.  Known as the “white fast” (as opposed to Tishah B’Av, the “black” fast), it aspires to a sort of spiritual purity.  It’s not at all a sad day, just a serious one.

Yom Kippur is a day of cheshbon nefesh, a very personal stock-taking of our vices and virtues.  But we pursue this deeply subjective enterprise in a very public setting, surrounded by hundreds of our fellow Jews each engaging in their own private dramas.  It makes for a special set of tensions that can bring out the best in oneself and one’s community.

But this is not at all the way the holiday was celebrated in ancient Israel.  Then it was a day on which engagements were announced and there was even an element of fertility worship on such a day that might lead to such engagements.

Arab shuk, East Jerusalem

Arab shuk, East Jerusalem (Richard Isaac)

Returning to latter-day Jewish life, you pare down things on Yom Kippur.  You shed leather shoes and belts, you fast, you cleanse the soul, you pray to be sealed in the Book of Life, you summon the beloved dead in Yizkor, you pound your breast for the sins acknowledged in community, you sing beautiful, stately melodies; and then feverishly, at the day’s end as the sun sets and the doors to heaven close, you raise your worship to a profound intensity brought on by hunger and by an intimacy with the divine.  Then the shofar blows those piercing, lingering notes of the tekiah g’dolah and it is over.  Hundreds of you raise your voices in joy and relief.  You hope that your spiritual efforts won favor and were enough for God to give you another year.

Back in graduate school, I loved the poetry of Yehuda Amichai, one of the greatest Israeli poets of the 20th century.  He wasn’t a political poet per se.  But he didn’t shy away from political themes either.  Here he describes a walk in Jerusalem’s Old City a few short months after the end of the 1967 War:

On Yom Kippur 5728 [1967],
I donned dark holiday clothing and walked to Jerusalem’s Old City.
I stood for quite a while in front of the kiosk shop of an Arab,
Not far from Sh’chem (Nablus) Gate,
A shop full of buttons, zippers and spools of thread of every color;
And snaps and buckles.
Brightly lit and many colored like the open Holy Ark.

I said to him in my heart that my father too
Owned a shop just like this of buttons and thread.
I explained to him in my heart about all the decades
And the reasons and the events leading me to be here now
While my father’s shop burned there
And he is buried here.

When I concluded it was the hour of N’eilah (“locking the gates”).
He too drew down the shutters and locked the gate
As I returned homeward with all the other worshippers.

–from Achshav Ba’Ra’ash (“Now, Noisily”), Schocken, 1975, page 11-12
translation Richard Silverstein

When I first studied this poem I thought it was an almost miraculous attempt to bridge worlds from Jewish Europe to Jewish Israel to Arab Palestine.  But as time has passed and the conflict has deepened and grown ever more toxic, one sees more of what is absent.  There is a narrator engaged in a form of communication that is part prayer.  But it is so internal that he makes no real contact with his interlocutor.  He wants his new neighbor-by-conquest to understand why he is here, why great suffering brought him from Europe to this Jerusalem.  It is, for the Israeli, a seemingly friendly approach like reaching out your hand to a stranger and hoping he will shake it.

While reaching out to the Palestinian shopkeeper even in prayer is laudable, there is no sense of community.  Who is he addressing?  Isn’t this done more for himself than the Palestinian?  If so, then it is a failed communication as so much of the “dialogue” between Israeli Jew and Palestinian has been for much of this century and the last.

The Palestinian.  What does HE think?  What and where are his roots?  Why doesn’t the narrator care? Why does he only want to make his own personal story known but not to hear the history of the Palestinian shopkeeper?  In a nutshell, this poem epitomizes the romance and failure of the liberal Israeli narrative.  It sought to communicate to the Palestinians the Jewish narrative without absorbing any of the Palestinian.  And that is the tragedy of liberal Zionism.

It is not only Amichai…it includes Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman, a veritable roster of Israel’s most distinguished men (yes, they are mostly men) of letters.  There are writers who have broken free of this mold, but they are generally the younger generation (though Dahlia Rabikovitch was the exception here).

IDF Assassinates Hamas West Bank Leader

Friday, September 17th, 2010
iyad shilbayeh assassination

Iyad Shilbayeh, victim of IDF assassination (Maan)

When you’ve been covering the shenanigans of the IDF as long as I you get a sense for the use of code words in describing conflict situations.  The killing today of a Hamas militant in the West Bank, as described by Haaretz, especially stunk to high heaven:

According to the IDF, an Israeli army unit had been conducting a raid for wanted Palestiniains in a village east of Tul Karm, when one of the wanted men, named by Israel Radio as Hamas West Bank strongman Iyad Shilbayeh, began “running suspiciously toward the [IDF] force, refusing to heed the soldiers’ request to stop.” “The unit, feeling threatened, opened fire, killing the suspected,” the IDF Spokesman’s office said, adding that “the incident was being investigated.”

The “tells” in this passage are the fact that the IDF says the incident is under investigation.  Believe me, the IDF doesn’t investigate anything for any reason unless it feels there is a very good reason to do so.  The reason they are investigating is that they know this was a targeted assassination and that they will be accused of that fact.  Further, the fact that the news story describes a militant essentially committing suicide by running at armed Israeli soldiers cries out as fraud. Sure enough, this is how Ynet reported the incident:

According to Palestinian sources, however, dozens of military vehicles entered the village at 2 am. The Troops, alleged the sources, arrived at Shilbayeh’s house and grabbed his brother, Muhammad, to use as a human shield. The force, said the brother, blew up the bedroom door and proceeded to shoot Shilbayeh three times – once in the neck and twice in the chest, while he was in bed. His body was transferred to the Palestinian Distric Coordination Office several hours later.

shilbayeh assassination

Sleeping mat on which Shilbayeh was murdered

UPDATE: I can now confirm based on an independent report from Maan, which includes information provided by the hospital where the victim was received that the IDF is lying bald-facedly in its account.  We await word on the “investigation” it will carry out into this assassination.

It should be quite easy for anyone to determine which version is correct.  Either he was shot while running towards the soldiers or shot in bed.  An autopsy should clarify which party is telling the truth.  If the IDF really wanted to confirm its version it would perform such an autopsy and prove they are correct.  If they do not do so their story is horse manure.  It’s sure starting to smell like a horse pasture around here. So why the assassination?  First, Hamas has been allowing rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.  There are reports that the rockets contained white phosphorus, a claim that has not been verified by any credible source yet.  A new escalation such as this would likely be responded to by the IDF with an escalation from its side. Why they would kill a Hamas militant in the West Bank rather than in Gaza, where the rockets are fired?  Because Hamas claimed credit for killing four Israelis in the militant settler stronghold of Hebron.  Israel and the PA are supposed to be observing a truce with no targeted killings in the West Bank.  You can see how diligently Israel adheres to such agreements when a target of opportunity arises.

New Israel Fund Will Refuse Funding Palestinian NGOs Rejecting Jewish ‘Sovereignty’

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

JTA is reporting the final version of New Israel Fund’s new funding guidelines.  When last I spoke with an NIF representative I was assured that the guidelines would not do precisely what these do:

Groups that work to “deny the right of the Jewish people to sovereign self-determination within Israel” will not be eligible for New Israel Fund moneys.

NIF director Daniel Sokatch…said the language would prohibit proposals for a binational constitution of the kind that two NIF grantees submitted several years ago.

“If we had an organization that made part of its project, part of its mission an effort to really genuinely organize on behalf of creating a constitution that denied Israel as a sovereign vehicle for self-determination for the Jewish people, a Jewish homeland, if that became the focus of one of our organizations, we would not support that organization,” he said.

adalah's democratic constitutionSokatch is referring to Adalah’s Democratic Constitution, a proposal for a new Israeli constitution that would guarantee equal rights for Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens.  The Constitution is NOT a proposal for a binational state.  In fact, the document itself calls for a “multicultural and bilingual” state, not a binational one.  Rather, it is a proposal for a unitary state in which the rights of all ethnic groups are respected and equal.

This is the same Palestinian political activism which caused Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin to announce that he would treat such Palestinian nationalism as akin to undermining the state.  Further he announced that whether political activity on behalf of the project was legal or not, he would treat it as criminal–and he has been true to his word.

So, in effect, NIF has been cowed and bowed to the will of the state’s security apparatus and defined Palestinian nationalism as unworthy of its financial support.

Sokatch rather lamely appends a ‘clarification’ saying that NIF wasn’t punishing Palestinians for their political views, but rather for their activism:

He added…that NIF would not deny funds to grantees that had philosophical disagreements. The difference, he suggested, was in a grantee’s activism, not in the views of its directors.

Frankly, I don’t have a clue what this means nor can Sokatch if he said what is paraphrased here.  I should add that knowing what I do about the quality of some JTA reporting, it’s entirely possible that the NIF director made a more coherent, articulate statement than this.  But if this is what he said, then it is the lamest, most halfed-assed, confusing statement I’ve read from a so-called progressive organization in ages.  Can anyone genuinely tell me what Israel “as a sovereign vehicle for self-determination for the Jewish people” means?  It’s little more than mumbo-jumbo.

Frankly, as far as NIF is concerned Azmi Bishara’s vision of Israel as a state for all its citizens is dead.  Israel wants a state for its Jewish citizens under which Palestinians citizens are suffered.  Yes, NIF claims it favors equality of all citizens, but it really supports the predominance of Jews in national life.

If Sokatch doesn’t understand that the proposed new Israeli constitution was an attempt to realize the political-ethnic aspirations of Israel’s Palestinian minority and NOT a threat to Israel as a Jewish homeland then he’s either ignorant or worse.  This is my lowest moment in an ambivlent relationship with NIF.  I cannot in good conscience support it’s work when it turns it back on its Palestinian grantees and an entire Palestinian NGO community.  I would urge these grantees to unite and protest this terrible formulation of the guidelines.  I can’t help but think if most of the Palestinian and even perhaps a few Jewish grantees refuse to apply for funding that this will send a shock through the system.

Until today, an NIF slogan graced my sidebar.  In Hebrew it said, “We will not shut out mouths.”  I was proud of NIF for standing up to the Im Tirzu bullies with that statement.  But these new guidelines essentially tell Palestinian NGOs that there are red lines and that they too better shut up about promoting too democratic an Israeli state; otherwise they’ll lose their funding, as it appears may happen to Adalah (if it currently receives any).

What I’d really like to see is a new NGO grantmaker without such constraining ideological blinders filling their funding guidelines.  I only wish I personally had the funding to create such a group.

I would encourage my readers who may have given to NIF in the past not to do so unless and until the guidelines are changed; and instead to contribute to individual Palestinian and Jewish NGOs.  I have lists of worthy ones here and here.  This list was compiled years ago and can’t attest whether every link will be active now.

I would especially encourage you to make a gift to Adalah (as I will) as the initiator of this important initiative to create an egalitarian Israeli constitution with a vision of two peoples living together in a single state.  If NIF is turning its back on Palestinian groups like it, let’s set a proper example and perhaps induce a bit of shame for this betrayal.

The Terror Industry and Anti-Jihadism, Who Benefits?

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Norman Finkelstein coined the phrase the “Holocaust industry” in his book of the same name, to describe the nexus of Jewish groups, lawyers, politicians, and communal leaders who enrich their power and pocketbook by trumpeting the anti-Semitism threat and causing anxiety and paranoia among world Jewry as a result.  As a result of Finkelstein’s acute analysis, he’s earned outrage and scorn from those in the Jewish community who he has skewered.

For the past decade or more, since the 1990s demise of the Communist “menace” and its accompanying gravy train, neocons have turned to terror as their new bogeyman.  A new Terror Industry has sprung up and it is populated with the usual retired generals (William Boykin), former government officials (Bolton, Gaffney), corporate opportunists (Aubrey Chernick), ideologues and intellectual heavy-lifters (Pipes, Horowitz, Podhoretz, Peretz, Kristol).  Just as the Jefferson’s tree of liberty needed to be fed with the blood of tyrants, so the Terror apparatus needs to be fed with new political fodder.

Such is the effort led by Jewish pro-Israel neocons to turn anti-jihadism into the Terror Industry’s new mantra.

There at the creation was Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy.  You’ll recall that Gaffney was a middle-ranking member of Ronald Reagans’ Defense Department.  As early as 1990, Christopher Hitchens, before he became a parody of himself, wrote in his book, How Neo-Conservatives Perish,  about Gaffney’s prescience in grasping at the need for a new source of political power to replace the decline of Communism.  Since then, he’s become one of the go-to guys for all things hawkish, neocon and pro-Israel among policy wonks.

Today, Matt Duss wrote about a report on alleged American Muslim terror threats which was, I’m embarrassed to say, actually endorsed by three members of Congress.  Among them were Her Looniness Michelle Bachman and Peter Hoekstra, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  If you want a sense of what the national security agenda of a new Republican House majority would be read the report, Sharia: The Threat To America.

According to it, the new Muslim bogeyman is Shariah, about which the authors in their Times op-ed say:

Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat:Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism…

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates…

The other side of the divide is dominated by “Islamists,” who are Muslim supremacists. Like erstwhile proponents of communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a global theocratic and authoritarian regime, called a caliphate. On this side of the divide, Shariah is a compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to wage jihad to install and to which the rest of the world is required to submit.

For these ideologues, Shariah is not a private matter. They see the West as an infidel enemy to be conquered, not a culture and civilization to be embraced or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of government like ours to coexist peacefully with the end-state they seek.

…we need to come to grips with Shariah. Whether pursued through violent jihad or the stealthier techniques the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” or dawa (the call to Islam), Shariah rejects fundamental premises of constitutional governance and American society…

Here’s the money quote:

Shariah adherents – including a network of Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations operating in the United States – are seriously pursuing civilization jihad in this country. Their agenda is about power, not faith…

…The endgame of Islamist ideology is the same whether pursued by terrorists or nonviolent activists: to extort American society into Sharia compliance.

The Sharia Report was sponsored by Gaffney’s CSP, and written by three former Cold Warriors turned anti-jihadis, among them James Woolsey and the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy.  In the Washington Times where he celebrated the release of the report he had the temerity to say that among the Muslims Pres. Obama invites to the White House for Iftar dinners might be members of Al Qaeda.  He’s also notorious for claiming that Pres. Obama “might” still be a Muslim.  He also claims that the current administration has “communicated submission” to America’s enemies.

Duss in his post, has identified an old familiar Jewish extremist face peeking out of the CSP woodwork, its general counsel, David Yerushalmi (ne Beychok).  When last seen in this blog, he had been banished by, of all people, Daniel Pipes for embarrassing the group, Stop the Madrassa (where he also was general counsel), with his ultra-extremist beliefs.  That group was the catalyst for the anti-Muslim backlash that led New York’s mayor and schools chancellor to demand the resignation of Debbie Almontaser, the founding principal of the Muslim charter school, the Khalil Gibran Academy.  She has successfully sued the city under an EEOC suit.

Though trained as a lawyer, Yerushalmi earns his living from the Terror Industry and its new anti-jihadi adjunct.  He has reportedly become Frank Gaffney’s “rabbi” when it comes to the study of Islamism and jihadism.  But where has Yerushalmi learned about Islam?  Does he have a graduate degree, even from as slanted a source as Bernard Lewis?  No.  Did he study Islam with any noted scholars (even non-Muslim)?  Doubtful.  What Yerushalmi has are some half-baked notions he’s either read in a book or developed out of his own paranoiac imagination about the Muslim menace.

Among Yerushalmi’s more wacky views: American Muslims should be confined to concentration camps for the threat they pose of overthrowing the government.  This is a quotation from his website:

The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation.

He and his anti-jihadi Gauleiter, Dave Gaubatz, orchestrated a “sting” against D.C. area local mosques by posing as worshippers and seeking to “out” the imams for their alleged support of jihad and terror.  You’ll recall this is the same Gaubatz whose son posed as an intern while working at CAIR and stole internal organizational documents which dad was hoping would prove CAIR’s commitment to a Sharia overthrow of the U.S. government.  Daddy G. just accepted a legal ruling that he must return the documents which his son had stolen.

Returning to the other Dave (Yerushalmi), giving the vote to African-Americans was a foolish idea.  He calls this “raw” or “liberal democracy” and he’s agin’ it.  Doesn’t think much of Abe Lincoln, either.  Says the Founding Fathers opposed democracy as well.  He may be one of the few Jewish white supremacists around.  He calls Bill O’Reilly a “secular progressive” and of Sean Hannity, he says he ”participates in the destruction of America’s national existence.”

He’s apparently learned a lesson or two about keeping his outlandish views under wraps because his website, SANEWorks (Society of Americans for National Existence), used to be publicly accessible and now is only available to those who pony up the $2,000 subscription fee.

At the press conference which featured the announcement of report, Matt questioned Gaffney about the origin of the notions of Islam found in it.  The former secured a damaging admission from the anti-jihadi wonk:

Noting some of the report’s broad and controversial claims about Islamic law, such as that all Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against unbelievers, I asked Gaffney how many actual Muslims or Islamic scholars he and his group had consulted with in writing the report. He could not name any, though he noted that he had consulted with various Muslims “over the years.”

So there you have it. A report on the threat posed by Islamic law to the United States, one of whose leaders admits to having started studying Islam only three years ago, whose authors admit consulting with no actual Muslims, produced by a think tank that has previously claimed that key members of the Obama administration are part of the Iran Lobby.

In short, this is all nonsense.  But it is very dangerous nonsense.  It is nonsense that could easily lead us into war with Iran. And that would be for starters.  These ghoulish hatemongers propose a holy war against 1.4-billion people.  They would have our country in a perpetual state of conflict, a latter-day anti-Muslim Sparta.  As for me, I prefer to be Athens any day.

We must say no to the Terror Industry and their anti-Muslim ideologues.  If they are ascendant in the national political debate, it means the destruction of everything many of us hold dear about this country.  And we’ll say Dick Cheney was a piker by comparison.

Are You a Pro-Israel Media Maven? HasbArianna Is

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010
arianna huffington

Arianna Huffington aka Hasbarianna, willing target of pro-Israel hasbara campaign

If you are, the Israeli foreign ministry (MFA) has a junket for you: it’a a real metzieh.  Israel has allocated $25-million for hasbara efforts of which $15-20 million will be dedicated to romancing the stones of the pro-Israel social networking and media world: Arianna Huffington, that means you, baby.  You’re the leading Hasbara target and you ponied up your journalistic probity in return for a good, long sip at the MFA trough.  If you don’t believe me look at this shameless bit of pandering to her Israeli Sugar Daddy.  Arianna, mazel tov to you:

The campaign will focus on hosting figures the ministry has identified as having significant influence on public opinion. The first step in that effort was seen in ministry involvement in coordinating Arianna Huffington’s visit to Israel…

The ministry says it will work to cover the visits of many other opinion makers next year. The focus will be on people involved in lifestyle issues, culture and art, as well as leaders of specific population segments such as the gay community.

The Foreign Ministry also plans to fund activities already underway online. For example the site “I am Israel,” which features video clips and articles about the average Israeli. The project, part of an effort to change the world conception of Israelis, was initiated by individual Israelis. While the ministry is not currently involved in this site, in the future it intends to fund such projects.

I’d like to recommend a Hasbara-related neologism: Ariannabara or Hasbarianna.  Frankly, I think it’s shameful for any journalist to accept funding from the MFA for such a trip and if I can get my hands on the names of those who join the dog and pony show, they’ll be up in lights here.  I have no problem, in fact encourage, bloggers to visit Israel and even, if they must, taking briefings at the ministry.  But to participate in such a bald-faced Hasbara project is unconscionable.  And if you’re thinking of joining up, I put you on notice.

Doubtless, there are those true blue and white uber-Zionists who will be proud to join and wave the flag.  They’ll boast about their participation.  David Abitbol and his groupies are an example of someone who will no doubt participate in such a fashion (maybe we can call Hasbara in his case, Abitbara or Hasbabitbol).  And Jeffrey Goldberg too.  These people either have no  shame or they’re already true believers and cannot be moved.  But others may still have a shred of a conscience or integrity and be interested in preserving their jounalistic integrity.  It is those who should be informed about this.

I’ll be waiting for my invitation.  But it may be a long time coming.  All I get instead are these Hasbarist commenters doubtless sent here by our good friends in the MFA.  Could they at least throw in a T-shirt?  Maybe one of those cool Operation Cast Lead IDF T-shirts?  The ones about which I submitted a Huffington Post post which they refused to publish?  (By the way, that was one of Uri Blau’s great stories for Haaretz.)

H/t Rebecca and Ofer N.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE