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, 2011

Stanley Fischer to Poor Israelis: Let ‘em Eat Cake

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011
stanley fisher

Stanley Fischer and Bibi Netanyahu celebrate the success of crony capitalism: 'Let 'em eat cake'

Stanley Fischer, head of Israel’s central bank, knows on which side his bread is buttered.  And it certainly ain’t on the side eaten by Israel’s poor or those supporting the J14 social justice movement.  No, Fischer is pleased as punchthat a few Israeli families own most of the wealth in the country and that it has one of the widest disparities of wealth in the developed world:

“I hope the tycoons will continue to be rich even after the recommendations are carried out,” Fischer said at a press conference in Jerusalem. “So far, they have done nothing criminal. Attacks on them endanger the economy,” the central bank governor said, defining such attacks as “populist.”

Is it truly the role of the nation’s top banker to champion an economic system which treats a huge swath of the Israeli population so savagely? I don’t expect bankers to sympathize with the poor (though it would be nice), but to so flagrantly thumb their noses at their interests is the height of arrogance. I half expected he was going to trot out that Republican battle cry of “class warfare.” At a time when half a million Israelis spoke out loudly in favor of social and economic justice, Stanley Fischer mounts the barricades defening wealth and privilege.  And this guy wanted to be president of the World Bank a few weeks ago?? Not one to rock the boat, even when it needs rocking, Fischer also championed the bloated excess of the Israeli military budget in a shameful exercise in pandering:

As to the possibility of cutting the defense budget to fund the Trajtenberg recommendations, Fischer said: “We are not a normal country and this prevents giving citizens what they get in other countries.”

You mean like a good education and health care system?  Or personal security?  Or a military complex ruled by civilian control?  I guess in Fischerworld Israel has to settle for second best until the politicians decide they’re going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which should be sometime in the next millenium, if we’re lucky.  No thanks to Fischer, though, who’ll be counting his pension and the consulting fees he’ll be raking in through sitting on the corporate boards of all those Israeli tycoons whom he lionizes.

Obama: Dead Wrong on Palestine

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011
mahmoud abbas

'Omigod, did Obama really just say that???'

Pres. Obama went before the UN today and delivered possibly the least credible, most irrelevant, and downright disappointing speeches of his career.  A career which has seen its share of stunningly wonderful, eloquent ones.  It is yet a another mark of how completely lost his presidency has become.

The major contention of this speech was that statehood would not come for the Palestinians at the UN, but rather must come through direct negotiations between the parties.  He’s got it precisely wrong.  Israel has guaranteed that negotiations between it and the Palestinians, even with U.S. mediation, cannot work and will never work.

France, in the form of Pres. Sarkozy, has it more or less right.  The two parties must be given strict time tables and even parameters for negotiation and told that if they fail the UN will recognize a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.  And that if Israel refuses to accept the outcome it will be subject to UN sanctions.

At this point, this is the only language Israel can understand.  I hate to express things this baldly since I am a supporter of Israel.  But supporting a country means leading it away from the precipice when necessary.

Speaking of precipices, Obama ought to take a very close look at the staff who’ve served him so poorly on this one.  Why, in heaven’s name did it even come to this?  If you have nothing to contribute on the subject, why even intervene in the way he has?  He hasn’t just wasted his political capital, he expended it unnecessarily in opposition to his own interests.  If Dennis Ross was the champion of this strategy it’s about time to do some housecleaning.  Several pundits have begun to call for Obama to rid himself of advisors like William Daley.  But he ought to take a look at Ross as well, who’s led him in a political Valley of the Shadow of Death.  Can a president countenance retaining advisors who lead him into irrelevancy on the world stage?

This comment by a NY Times reader was telling:

If the message is that the only way for the Palestinians to find peace is by declining to stand up for themselves, constantly backing down in the face of aggression, and capitulating to their enemies at every turn, I can’t imagine a better messenger to deliver that message than a man who lives it every day, President Barack Obama.

Sarkozy’s speech,which really wasn’t radical at all, appeared so, in juxtaposition to the stale irrelevancies of Obama’s.  Sarkozy too was capitalizing on the decline in Obama’s stature on the world stage.  He was telling the U.S. president: if you can’t lead, get out of the way.

Obama can expect many more such challenges if his rhetoric continues falling as flat as it has.  Further, Obama is not only falling flat, but he’s actually betraying the progressive expectations many of us had for him.  That means he’s going to retain all his Republican enemies, plus he will anger his former supporters who expected so much more of him.  Obama right now suffers from the worst of both worlds.  I fear that the upcoming elections may repudiate both him and all Democratic Congressional candidates.

Can any U.S. president not realize when he’s embraced warmly by Bibi Netanyahu, as he was in the latter’s UN speech, that he’s in big trouble?

Yediot: IDF Investigation Confirms All Eilat Attackers Were Egyptian, Not Gazan

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

Alex Fishman, Yediot Achronot’s veteran security correspondent, and one of the few Israeli journalists skeptical about the official government version of the Eilat terror attack, confirms what many of us knew all along: it was a tissue of lies.  The government reported originally that the Popular Resistance Committees of Gaza were responsible for the attack and that the attackers were affiliated with it.  Then an Egyptian newspaper reported that its military killed three of the attackers and that they were Egyptian.  That’s one of the reasons many of us doubted the official version.  Now Fishman reports that in fact, the military investigation confirms that all the militants were Egyptian.  It also raises the possibility that at least one of their member was an active duty policeman.

It was Fishman (along with myself and Idan) who asked where the bodies were and why they weren’t identified by Israel.  The reporter claimed that the IDF was playing a strange game of poker with Hamas, demanding that the latter acknowledge the dead were Gazan before Israel would release the bodies.

This explains why there were no mourning tents in Gaza and no reports there of any fighters killed by Israel.  Ehud Barak knew the knowledge that the attackers were not Gazan, as he claimed, would sink Israel’s entire plan to blame Gaza on the attack and its plan to take vengeance on it instead of the source of the attack, Egypt.

Idan and I have also reported that it is extremely suspicious that Bibi Netanyahu prohibited the Shabak chief, Yoram Cohen, from testifying before the Knesset intelligence committee on the Eilat attack.  This is an unprecedented breach of protocol on the part of the prime minister’s office.  It can only be explained by the fact that Bibi doesn’t want Cohen to expose the government to any more ridicule than it’s already facing regarding its ineptitude surrounding the Mavi Marmara attack, and the frantic extraction of Israeli diplomats frm the Cairo embassy while under assault by Cairo protestors.  The prime minister can only explain away so many lies and so much incompetence at any given time.  Defending the lies he and Ehud Barak spread about Eilat might be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Miraculously, the IDF still claims, according to Fishman, that the PRC was the author of the attack.  Idan Ladau, who’s been one of the sharpest Israeli bloggers covering this issue has written a comprehensive rebuttal of the government’s version.  One thing that he notes, and which Amira Hass confirmed in her reporting in Haaretz, is that the Eilat attack was a very complex, sophisticated one which required tremendous logistical and organizational skill.  Anyone who knows anything about the PRC knows that their cadre receive elementary training and possess nothing but very light weapons.  They simply don’t have the skills, manpower or sophistication to pull this off.  The statement by a PRC representative below confirms this.

This report by Time reveals that not only did the PRC deny responsibility, but they continue to do so even after Israel murdered their top commanders in a drone strike:

“If the Israelis have any proof, give it,” says Ahmed Yusuf, a former Hamas official who now runs a Gaza think tank. “I met with these people for the Popular Resistance. They said, ‘We want to distance ourselves from what happened in Eilat and wondered why they were threatening us.’ ”

…”I mean, the operation was still on when they assassinated our people,” says a spokesman for the PRC who goes by the name Abu Mujahed. “The way they controlled and managed to fight for hours, it shows that whoever’s behind it has a very strong organization structure. It’s like they have a military background and experience in how to do this.”

PRC militants, he says, undergo “normal basic military training — small arms, nothing fancy.” Recruits specialize either in small arms or the swift firing of mortars and rockets into Israel. “You have to understand, we’ve only worked against the Israelis on the Gaza front,” says Abu Mujahed. “Up to now, the decision is, you only can operate within your geographical border. This has to do with our strategic thinking. It has to do with our relationship with others — Egypt and the other factions.”

For any who aren’t familiar with Palestinian militant groups, they’re not shy about claiming responsibility for terror attacks against Israelis, especially ones in which there are shahids, martyrs for the Palestinian resistance.  Yet still the PRC refuses to conform to the Israeli narrative.

Landau also reveals that SITE, a website monitoring jihadi activity, claims a different terror group claimed responsibility (paid membership required) for the Eilat killings:

A group calling itself “Jama’a Ansar Beit al-Maqdis” (Ansar Jerusalem, or Supporters of Jerusalem), claimed responsibility for the August 18, 2011, multi-stage attacks in Eilat, Israel, in which eight Israelis were killed.

No Israeli media have reported this fact nor seriously challenged the government version that the PRC was responsible.

Landau, who has a delicious ironic sense of humor, credits a group of us “crazy, deluded” bloggers for pursuing this story and not allowing the government to maintain its tissue of lies unchallenged.  Note that this is almost precisely the language used by Haaretz’s Avi Issacharoff, in deriding my own version of events.  So far, Landau’s and my version is holding up pretty well.  Issacharoff’s, not so well.

Landau writes a damning critique of Israel’s behavior after the attack:

Israel knew that the terrorists were not from Gaza and did not receive their orders from Gaza.  Even further, Israel dragged Hamas into an escalation of conflict against the latter’s wishes.  Israel knowingly lied to its citizens about the origin of the attack and the purpose of its targeted killings [of five PRC leaders and a one year old baby] in Gaza.

The real reasons for the lie: a) the government of Israel and its security apparatus wanted to drag the Palestinians into a cycle of blood vengeance just before the UN statehood vote, thereby strengthening the militant elements on the other side [i.e. Hamas, PRC at the expense of Fatah] and to frustrate the options for [non-violent] popular resistance, because every militant killed in Gaza further inflames their colleagues; b) to take the wind out of the sails of the J14 social protest movement and divert the anger of the Israeli public outward [toward Gaza];  and c) to frustrate those demanding drastic reductions in the military budget, part of the platform of the social justice movement.

The IDF investigation further reveals that the only Israeli soldier to be killed in the attack was actually killed after dark by Egyptian forces hunting the terrorists and that the five Egyptian security forces killed were shot in return fire from Israeli forces.  It sounds like the situation was a holy mess.  Any legitimate investigation would want to figure out how to avoid this slaughter so that both sides could be shooting at the bad guys instead of killing each other.

Ken Marcus’ Campus Jihad Against Anti-Israelism

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Gary Tobin, the late and renowned Jewish demographer, founded an academic institute before his untimely death in 2009 called the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.  I knew Prof. Tobin and studied his surveys of American Jewry with great interest when I was a fundraiser for Brandeis University, where he taught.

But I’m sorry to say that since his untimely death in 2009, the Institute, under the leadership of his wife, Diane Tobin, has taken an u-turn away from Gary’s core academic interests.  Ms. Tobin, it should be noted, has no academic background in Jewish studies, demography or any similar field.  Now, IJCR has largely been turned over to the concocted academic field of “anti-Israelism.”  Academics and wannabes use the term as almost synonymous with anti-Semitism and hope that they can raise consciousness in the U.S., to the extent that so-called anti-Israeli attitudes on American campuses and elsewhere will gain the same stigma that anti-Semitism has.

Last June, the anti-Israelism field was dealt a hard blow when Yale University closed its academic program for the study of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism because it had become too politicized (i.e. anti-Muslim and pro-Israel) and because few faculty members would collaborate with it or take it seriously.  At a major conference organized by the program and its director, Charles Small, the main theme seemed to be bashing Muslims and warning of the threat Islam poses to Jews and the world.

kenneth marcus

Ken Marcus, Jewish Torquemada crusading against campus 'anti-Israeilsm'

A senior IJCR staff member, Ken Marcus, leapt to the Yale program’s defense and called its closure an example of political correctness run amok.  He all but claimed that the act by the University was due to pressure from Muslim pressure groups.

It’s not surprising then, to find that Marcus is one of the key intellectual authors of a new campaign to exploit newly written federal civil rights statutes (Title VI) which forbid campuses from creating a hostile environment for various ethnic and religious groups, including Jews.  Marcus and his friends at Stand With Us are uniting to explore campuses where they can apply their new theory.  To do so, they must find campuses where they can recruit sufficient Jewish students to complain that they are afraid to be Jews on campus because  of the environment of fear and intimidation created by pro-Palestinian groups.

All this will require a Department of Education that is sufficiently malleable to take all this seriously.  Given Pres. Obama’s need for the Jewish vote in the coming presidential election and his wish to be seen as uber-supportive of Israel, it isn’t at all clear that Education officials will throw this nonsense where it belongs–in the garbage can.  They’ve advanced farthest at UC Santa Cruz, where they’ve filed a formal complaint against the University.  They recruited a junior lecturer (I wonder why they couldn’t find a senior faculty member to take up the cause?), Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, to act as their sponsor on campus and filed the complaint in her name.  Said lecturer actually wrote an article for the far-right American Thinker asking whether Jewish students were safe on campus.  In it, she hails the groundbreaking research of “investigative journalist,” Lee Kaplan, one of the stranger crackpots (along with Debbie Schlussel and Pam Geller) on the right-wing pro-Israel scene.  I wonder if Rossman-Benjamin thinks publishing at American Thinker will add to the luster of her academic CV?  The Department’s Office of Civil Rights has agreed to open a formal investigation of her complaint against UCSC.

Marcus has repeatedly contacted an Evergreen College faculty member who is known for his sympathy to anti-Occupation groups on campus.  The former asked repeatedly by phone and in writing to interview the faculty member, seeking to know “his personal political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”  He mentioned as well, that he’d already interviewed noted Jewish critics of Israeli policy, Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler, as if this might give the faculty member (who isn’t Jewish) cover.  Marcus clearly intended to build a dossier which might be used to bolster any complaint brought against Evergreen.  In short, this, for Marcus, is becoming a productive new venture.  A Jewish campus jihad.  We can expect a raft of such complaints against various campuses which allow protest against Israeli Occupation to be too vociferous for Marcus’ taste and those of his wealthy pro-Israel benefactors.

Marcus and the academic pro-Israelists (two can play at this game, you know) also must recruit students who’ve been “damaged” or traumatized by their treatment on campus.  So they seek out students who’ve transferred out because they felt there was a hostile climate for Jews.  Students who’ve appeared in Stand With Us videos attacking Evergreen have spoken about anti-Occupation protests on campus as if they were personal attacks on their Jewish identity.  They speak of trauma like a Jew might speak of trauma induced by anti-Semitism or Jewish suffering from the Holocaust.  As I wrote above, this is all part of a master plan by charlatans like Marcus to build both an academic field and legal theory that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Like Daniel Pipes before him, Marcus is an ideologue clothed in academic robes.  He has some academic pretensions, but his heart is pledged to Israel and not academe.

Israeli’s Pacific NW consul general, Akiva Tor, is also intimately involved in the project as the StandWithUs website documents meetings he attended with Rob Jacobs and others at which the projected civil rights complaint against Evergreen was planned.  Given last night’s post I wrote which documents a proud boast by deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon that this is precisely the sort of tactic that the Israeli government is embracing, it seems clear the Israeli government is deeply engaged in this campaign of harrassment against American institutions of higher learning.

For anyone whom this development doesn’t trouble, let’s compare this to say, the U.S. government helping organize an Israeli campaign to direct debate on Israeli campuses about U.S. policy including the use of civil rights complaints filed with the Israeli government to force schools to police offending speech.  If this doesn’t seem outrageously intrusive in the domestic academic and political life of a country, I don’t know what is.

This attack on academic freedom corresponds with the efforts of Im Tirzu to compile and publicize lists of supposedly “anti-Zionist” Israeli campuses, departments and faculty.  There is a concerted effort to regulate speech so that certain subjects and views either can’t be discussed or their discussion will involve paying a price in public opprobrium.

Returning to Ken Marcus, why does he persist when universities like Yale are dismissing them and their colleagues as lacking academic rigor?  Because there’s gold in them thar hills.  Over $4-million worth (which excludes a $5-million endowment from Prof. Tobin’s life insurance policy) according to IJCR’s 2010 IRS 990 report.  There are scores of generously endowed Jewish foundations like the Schusterman Foundation and many others which lap this stuff up.  That’s why Schusterman, for one, funds campus efforts of Aipac.  Their idea of building strong young Jews is by training them to espouse pro-Israel views.  Secondarily, strong young Jews also learn that a major part of their identity involves detesting campus criticism of Israel.

The Marcuses of academia must not be allowed to succeed.  If they do, then any of us, including and perhaps especially the Jews, will be consigned to the hellish Inferno of self-haters and Israel-haters.  Anti-Israelism is a hoax theory perpetrated on academia and American campuses by a hoax theorist like Ken Marcus.  He wants to stigmatize what is protected speech on campus.  Not only should there be academic freedom on campus to express political views, there must be freedom of speech, an even more basic American right enshrined in our constitution.  Students must be allowed to protest.  It is part of a hallowed campus tradition.  If pro-Israel students dislike the protest let them mount their own–and they do.  But to take speech critical of Israel and seek to punish an entire university for allowing it is simply treif and un-American.

Ken Marcus may be a lawyer with experience dealing with civil rights and constitutional issues, but his interest doesn’t extend much beyond his own nose and his own co-religionists’ (and even a narrow band of those, at that).

Oh, and I almost forgot to tell you why Marcus may think he’s got a special “in” with the Department of Education in its review of these current and future civil rights complaints.  He’s a former litigator who also helped write, you guessed it, those new Title VI regulations which incorporated Jews as a protected group on campus.  He did that when he worked for…the Department of Education during the Bush administration.

Consumer activists and peace activists are rightfully indignant about the revolving door between government and industry which permits a federal official to write a regulation that will impact a business and then go out and take a job company for whom he wrote the regulation.  It encourages these officials to collude with potential future employers to write rules that will meet industry’s needs, rather than those of the consumer.  This is almost precisely what Ken Marcus did.  He helped write a rule and now he’s trying to exploit it for the imagined good of Israel and his poor, suffering pro-Israel students.

Marcus also boasts on his curriculum vitae that he is an official of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, an inaptly named group which engages in heavy pro-Israel advocacy.  He was staff director of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under George Bush.  You can tell whose civil rights he championed when he was there and whose he likely ignored.

On a separate note, Electronic Intifada reports that the president of the Evergreen campus Hillel is a StandWithUs Northwest Emerson Fellow.  I have spent many, many hours of great Jewish enjoyment in campus Hillels at Columbia, UCLA and UC Berkeley.  When I was there, these were houses that welcomed all Jews.  There was a Hillel rabbi who took no sides in the Israel debate, but rather attempted to provoke discussion and learning, rather than exclusion.  Until recently, this was true of Evergreen Hillel as well.  It had been a place open to students with diverse views of Israel.  But increasingly, Hillel is becoming a place where only certain Jews are welcome.  Those who oppose the Occupation or support the campus divestment initiative no longer feel so.  That’s because StandWithUs, as Israel’s Channel 10 news noted in its interview with Danny Ayalon, is an arm of the Israeli government, in effect a lobbying agent for a foreign power.  Accordingly, Hillel is being turned into a cheering section for the Israeli government.  This is an infinitely sad development for those of us who’ve known and appreciated the wonderful Hillels at campuses where we’ve studied.

The Hillel president, Joshua Levine illustrates the confusion SWU and pro-Israelists encourage between Jewish identity and support for Israel.  He said this:

“There are days I feel uncomfortable walking across campus alone because I wear a yarmulke [Jewish skull cap] on my head,” Levine alleges.

There are many Jews wearing yarmulkes who don’t support StandWithUs.  Some who don’t support the Occupation either.  So the issue isn’t wearing a yarmulke.  That’s an expression of Jewish identity.  When you confuse Israel with Judaism you get into a terribly sticky wicket.  It is Levine’s extreme views that cause him conflict with those on campus criticial of Israeli policy.  It isn’t his yarmulke or his Jewishness.  After all, many of the campus leaders of the anti-Occupation protests are Jewish themselves.  And Joshua Levine has no monopoly on Jewishness.  There are many ways to be Jewish.  In fact, as many ways as there are to approach the issue of Israel.  Instead of suppressing this debate on campus, we should encourage it along with values of tolerance and civility.

Israeli Diplomats Complain Foreign Ministry Abandoned Them During Siege, Mossad Agents Were In Cairo Embassy

Monday, September 19th, 2011

As they return to Israel, according to a story in Yediot Achronot, diplomats and their families who escaped the siege against the Israeli embassy in Cairo last week are washing their dirty laundry in public concerning their displeasure with their treatment by the foreign ministry: “While the riots raged in Cairo, Jerusalem abandoned us.”  They are claiming that they were ignored when they earlier warned about the possibility of a mass takeover of the embassy and that if they’d been listened to, they could’ve managed an orderly closing of the embassy instead of the dangerous military operation that eventually was necessary to extract them from Egypt.  They also complain that the MFA treated them dismissively compared to how the Mossad treated its personnel in the embassy.  Further, they claim the ambassador, during the rioting, tended only to his own needs and ignored those of his staff.

Some of the complaints sound petulant and petty.  For example, there is carping that the Mossad personnel were met at the airport by individual limousines which took each to his or her home, while the diplomatic staff had to make due with a bus that waited for them.  There is a bit of justice here: the diplomats were quite upset that they left Cairo with nothing but the clothes on their backs and that all their personal property remained in Cairo (which they never expected to see again).  Do I hear echoes of the way Israel treated the Mavi Marmara passengers?  All the embassy personnel were given to tide them over was a $100 check to buy basic necessities when they returned.

By the way, this is the first admission by any Israeli media that there were Mossad agents in the embassy during the takeover.  In the blog post I wrote earlier, when I discussed the papers which were thrown out of the building by protesters, I imagined the possibility that in their haste personnel might’ve left secret intelligence materials unsecured.  It would be interesting to know whether any secrets were compromised during the takeover.

Israeli Foreign Ministry Sponsoring U.S. BDS Lawsuits

Monday, September 19th, 2011


olympia food coop logoElectronic Intifada and I have been reporting on the Olympia Food Coop BDS lawsuit brought by five members who claim the business violated its procedures by approving a boycott on nine Israeli products in its stores.  Up till now, we knew that Stand With Us and the Israeli consul general, Akiva Tor were instrumental in the process of initiating the suit as the SWU website indicates they attended key meetings at which decisions were made about the legal case including hiring of an attorney.

But now Tzinor Layla, Israel’s Channel 10 news program (at 3:04 of the above video) confirms via an interview with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, that the Israeli government itself is willing to sponsor these lawsuits and presumably paying the legal bills.  Frankly, I find it astonishing that a foreign government would sue a U.S. company for such an alleged infraction.  First, I’ve never heard of a foreign government suing any overseas company for supporting a boycott against it; and second, I’ve never heard of a government initiating a lawsuit against an overseas company for political, as opposed to pecuniary reasons.

In interviews they gave to Electronic Intifada, Rob Jacobs of StandWithUs and Akiva Tor, Israeli consul general in the Pacific NW lied when the first claimed he knew nothing about where the funding for the lawsuit was coming from and the second lied when he claimed that he, and by extension his government had nothing to do with the suit.  You’d have thought that Tor and Jacobs would’ve coördinated things better with their bosses back in Tel Aviv.  Let’s watch to see how Tor and Jacobs worm their way out of this one.

In my earlier post I called this the pro-Israel version of lawfare, that noxious concept touted by Alan Dershowitz to deride human rights activists having the chutzpah to demand Israeli accountability for their actions.  It is a deliberate attempt to interfere with, and destroy American businesses willing to take a position that angers the Israeli state.  I say this is un-American and that it violates basic rights to free speech.  Besides lawfare, this is a perfect example of a SLAPP (strategic limitation of public participation) suit.  That is, a frivolous use of the legal system to strategically limit public participation in an issue that is rightfully part of social discourse.  On its merits, the Washington courts should throw this sucker out.  But the problem, as I’ve found, is that judges sometimes either get the law wrong or wish to allow a plaintiff to get his or her moment in court.  So they refuse to do the right and proper thing.  We’ll have to see how this plays out.

Concerning Stand With Us’ involvement in this process, an Israeli journalist who’s followed the group’s activities inside Israel and abroad told me: “Stand With Us is an unofficial arm of the Israeli government.”  In this blog, you’ve heard me often talk about groups like NGO Monitor, Im Tirzu, Middle East Forum, The Israeli Project and Stand With Us as doing the bidding of the Israeli government.  You’ve heard me claim that they closely coördinate their activities with the government and in effect become its mouthpiece.  But this is the first direct confirmation that SWU, at the very least, is literally joined at the hip with the MFA. In the video Ayalon specifically confirms the government’s “partnership” with SWU and acknowledges it has similar partnerships with other Jewish and non-Jewish American organizations. No sense of discretion here. Israel, under the Lieberman-Ayalon Plan, will throw its weight around the world, even attempting to smash food coops in Washington State.

Personally, I don’t mind having Israel lobby type organizations advancing their political agenda.  After all, that’s free speech and the American way.  But where I do begin to have a problem is when these groups become agents of a foreign government.  Of course, people like Rob Jacobs and Roz Rothstein are oblivious to the implications because for them loyalty to Israel is the same as loyalty to the U.S.  The interests of the two are virtually the same.  That’s the poison of this notion of pro-Israelism which posits no free will or independence on the part of American Jews and their leadership.

I’m hoping to inform the five litigants suing the Olympia Food Coop that they are fronts for the Israeli government in this matter.  It may not change their minds, but I hope it will at least give them pause.

One aspect of the legal strategy of the plaintiffs I find odd.  Since they are members of the coop they are filing their suit AS the coop.  They are claiming that they truly represent the coop and its interests whereas the board and staff and everyone else who voted to endorse the boycott are either impostors or abusers of the coop’s bylaws.  Keep in mind, that these five all ran for the Coop board and lost by a wide margin.  Another shrewd aspect of the legal thinking in this case is not to argue the merits or demerits of BDS.  The litigants know that not only will they fail if they put the issue to a vote, they know that a U.S. court would throw out a lawsuit against a company that was purely politically motivated.  The only possible legal grounds they have is to argue that the coop board violated its own bylaws in endorsing BDS.  Keep in mind too that all this brouhaha is over nine Israeli products taken off the shelves.

BBC Poll: 45% of Americans Support Palestinian State

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

recognition of palestineDespite the drumbeat of negativity heard virtually every day in the American media from the Obama-Clinton-Ross crowd, Americans support by a strong plurality independence for Palestine.  A BBC global poll of 19 countries including the U.S. found that overall 49% backed statehood and 21% opposed.  In the U.S. it was 45% for and 36% against.   In France, Germany and Britain, support was over 50% and opposition ranged from 20-28%.  Overall, 30% of all respondents said either their country should abstain or could not give a definitive answer.  Unfortunately, one country missing from the poll appears to be Israel.  I’d love to know the numbers for Israel (though they would certainly be negative, but I wonder how negative).

But hey, whoever said anything about democracy influencing world diplomacy?  As far as the U.S. is concerned democracy is for chumps, especially when the power brokers get to work divvying up slices of the pie–or in Palestine’s case, withholding them.

Visit the Palestine194 website.

Rick Perry on Why One-Quarter of Texans Have No Health Insurance: Federal Government

Sunday, September 18th, 2011
rick perry

Rick Perry: newest recruit for Seal team 6

More than a quarter of all Texans have no health insurance whatsoever. During his first presidential debate Perry blamed that fact — as he has in the past back home — on Washington. (“Well, bottom line is that we would not have that many people uninsured in the state of Texas if you didn’t have the federal government.”)

–Gail Collins, Rick Perry, Uber Texan, NY Times

Galileo believed the sun revolved around the earth and rejected climate change, if you can believe Rick Perry.  And just like Rick Perry, Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs, right?

Now Gail Collins reveals the dastardly plot by the federal government to deny health insurance to all those poor Texans earning minimum wage as cooks, dishwashers, and fast food servers.  You see, if there were no federal government, the nice employers and insurance companies would be flocking to provide this service for every single person in Texas.  You can bet your bottom dollar on it, baby.

Rumor has it that Seal Team 6 has recruited Perry to be an honorary member.  Now that they got Osama bin Laden, Perry’s gonna help them on their next assignment: to stop those Ay-rabs from taking over the guvmint and imposin’ Sharia on all us good Christian folk.  What’s that?  I’m not one of those good Christian folk?  I guess I better watch my step.  I’m just not Perry’s kind of American.  Less’n course I come to Jesus.  Then I too can be a good ol’ boy like Rick.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE