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

Posts Tagged ‘democratic-party’

Aipac’s Congressional Lobbying Trips to Israel Endangered?

Friday, December 29th, 2006

Aipac is definitely NOT a lobbying group. Rather, it is an “educational” organization. Yup, if you believe what Aipac is peddling they have nothing whatsoever to do with the sleaze represented by the likes of Jack Abramoff. They’re merely an educational outfit trying to enlighten the U.S. Congress about the goodness of the State of Israel.

JTA is peddling this horse manure in Congressional Travel Limits Don’t Faze Nonprofits. The new Democratic majority is considering legislation to ban Congressional junkets. And pro-Israel Jewish groups which lobby, er educate, Congressmembers about the “right” way to think and vote regarding issues related to Israel are tremendously nervous that they’ll be swept up in the fervor to uproot the type of shenanigans pulled by the likes of Jack Abramoff. While it’s true that no Aipac junket provides golfing at St. Andrews, these trips ARE lobbying of the clearest sort and should come under the proposed guidelines. However, it looks like the proposed legislation has been rewritten so Israel trips will still be permissible unfortunately:

Top Democrats informed Jewish groups this week of proposed travel reform legislation that would ban lawmakers and their staffs from joining tours sponsored by organizations that employ registered lobbyists…Nonprofit groups that do not employ lobbyists would still be able to sponsor such tours…

You see, the issue is whether a non-profit like the American Israel Education Foundation, spun off by a lobbying group like Aipac in order to conduct these trips, should be considered part of the parent group or independent of it. If they are part of the parent, then they would be considered a lobby and Congress members would be banned from joining such trips. If they are independent, then everything would be kosher. Clearly, seeing AIEF as independent of Aipac is a useful fiction for both Aipac and its sycophants in Congress. And doubtless, that’s how the final legislation will ending up looking.

I was tickled though by some of the outrageous assumptions made by Jewish lobbyists, er educators about their function in the legislative process. This is from a United Jewish Communities representative:

“We are very upbeat that they have come up with a mechanism for stopping junkets, while at the same time maintaining bona fide educational trips for members of Congress and their staff,” he said.

Isn’t it interesting that a propaganda junket which, instead of “educating” rather indoctrinates members in the rightist Israeli world view so cherished by Aipac and its fellow groups–becomes such a lily-white enterprise in the pro-Israel lobby’s lexicon.

Note how the Jewish leadership manages by linguistic sleight of hand to distinguish itself from the Abramoffs of the world:

[The new legislation] would mean that lawmakers on legitimate tours will be deprived of insights from those Jewish-community professionals who know them best and meet with them most often in the halls of Congress.

You see, Jack was a skunky lobbyist. But Howard Kohr, Abe Foxman, David Harris and their flacks are “Jewish professionals.” They uphold much higher standards of course. They would certainly never engage in hanky panky with a Congress member to get their vote on legislation critical to the Israel Lobby. Never. They would never stoop to flattery, cajolery, or barraging them with propaganda or threats in order to gain a vote (much as Abramoff did). Never.

In defending their propaganda tours of the Promised Land, the Israel Lobby grasps at any straw to distinguish them from Abramoff type junkets:

It’s broadly understood that the Israel sojourns — grueling 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. affairs — hardly count as junkets.

But what they conveniently omit is the fact that these Israel trips, while not as blatantly corrupting as the Abramoff outings, are toxic nonetheless in their impact on U.S.-Israel relations in terms of the Congress. Members get an entirely distorted perspective on Israeli political discourse. They only hear from the rightist security hawks like Netanyahu or Sharansky. If they do hear from so-called moderates like Shimon Peres or Tzipi Livni, the political message conveyed is much more conservative than the message such politicians would convey to an Israeli audience. In other words, the Israeli sources tailor their message for what they perceive as Aipac’s hardline views of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

On these trips, they do not hear from Peace Now or Israeli human rights groups. They rarely if ever hear from the likes of Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid or parties like Meretz. They rarely if ever hear from Israeli Arabs who represent 25% of Israel’s population. Sure, they’ll see an Israeli air force base or maybe even get a helicopter ride showing them how allegedly vulnerable Israel is to Arab attack (this was a favorite ploy of Ariel Sharon with visiting U.S. presidents and other notables). But will they ever see the inside of Neve Shalom’s peace village? Hardly.

So if Aipac’s Congressional allies want to write legal fictions into law that’s their perogative. But it doesn’t mean the discerning among us won’t notice the chicanery and call the rest of the world’s attention to it. A lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist. Jack Abramoff learned everything he knows from Aipac whether he worked there or not. Aipac is a lobby and trips which its “educational” affiliates sponsor are for lobbying purposes. Plain and simple. As such, they should be banned. Until they are all I can say to Aipac is: “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Bob Dylan said that.

Lieberman Refuses to Rule Out Switching to Republicans

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006

Just after election night, I wrote that Joe Lieberman is the extremely weak link in the Democratic majority. In fact, I predicted that Republicans would pull out all the stops to bring him over to their side–and that he would go. I also wrote that his campaign promise to caucus with the Democrats was not worth very much especially in the longer term.

Today, the NY Times ran a story about Lieberman’s new found clout in the Democratic caucus including chairing the Homeland Security Committee. But my earlier alarm was confirmed by this:

Mr. Lieberman classifies himself as an “independent Democrat” and has said that recent events left him feeling “liberated” and “unshackled,” not exactly reassuring words to Democrats.

He stirred more anxiety Sunday, when in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he refused to rule out becoming a Republican (while adding, “I hope I don’t get to that point”).

In brief remarks to reporters Tuesday, Mr. Lieberman said he had refused to rule out switching parties largely because Tim Russert, the show’s host, “kept pressing me on it.”

But Mr. Lieberman also said that while “most of my vote clearly came from independents and Republicans” in Connecticut, “it’s fair to say that I couldn’t have won without Democratic support.”

Mr. Lieberman restated that it was possible he could join Senate Republicans, but he added, “I’m not going to threaten on every issue to leave the caucus.”

Here is the transcript of his remarks:

Russert: Would you consider crossing across the—going across the aisle, and joining the Republicans, if they gave you the same chairmanship that you had, and respected your seniority?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. Well, that’s a hypothetical, which I’m, I’m not going to deal with here…

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Jeffords of Vermont crossed over and joined the Democrats.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re, you’re not ruling that out at some future time?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I’m not ruling it out, but I hope I don’t get to that point.

The Times article also makes clear how angry Lieberman is at the way his Democratic Senate colleagues treated him during the campaign by backing Ned Lamont (what would Lieberman have had them do–abandon the official Democratic candidate for his non-Democratic candidacy?). Joe Lieberman seems like someone who doesn’t forget when he’s been wronged (at least in his own mind). This is clearly a guy who’s going to leave the Party. It’s just a question of when rather than if. The Times reporter asked him if he likened himself to a moderate swing vote on the Supreme Court like Sandra Day O’Connor’s used to be. A much more apt and telling comparison could be made with Jim Jeffords who left the Republican Party to give the Democrats a 51-49 majority.

Think about it. What do the Democrats really have to offer Lieberman in the long term. He can’t run for president again without being laughed out of the box. He won’t be offered a Senate leadership post other than the chairmanship that he must be given due to seniority. He’d probably look good to John McCain as a vice presidential partner (though whether Lieberman has the stomach to try that again is an open question). I see his future, if he has any, with the Republicans. And I say this in sorrow because it will rip the hard won majority from Democratic hands.

Bolton: He Just Keeps on Ticking, But Lincoln Chafee Has Had Enough

Saturday, November 11th, 2006

I wrote here yesterday that despite all Bush’s protestations during his post-election press conference about bipartisanship, his plan to renominate John Bolton to the UN bared his true colors for all to see.

But thank God for a humble and honest man. Sen. Lincoln Chafee is such a one. He’s one of that dying breed of Republican moderates who were essentially run out of the party on a rail through either hostility or gross indifference. Chafee was one of those who lost his seat. Despite whatever sorrow or bitterness he might feel about this, the man, unlike anyone in the Bush Administration, has principles. Besides, as a lame duck he can pretty much now do whatever his conscience tells him to without regard to political fallout or pressure. His conscience is telling him that it’s about time for John Bolton’s political battery to wind down and go kaput:

Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, [announced] that he would deny Republicans on the committee the last vote needed to send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the full Senate, some administration officials privately acknowledge that Mr. Bolton’s chances of confirmation are “nil,” one State Department official said.

Mr. Chafee, who was defeated for re-election on Tuesday, said: “The American people have spoken out against the president’s agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy. And at this late stage in my term, I’m not going to endorse something the American people have spoken out against.

Every once in a while you’ll find me saying something nice about a Republican. Hell, I even praised Bush and Condi once or twice when they did something positive regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But praising Chafee is a pleasure. The man deserves an award of conscience for his courage even though he has little to lose at this point. It still took moxie to tell his president and party leadership to shove it.

But those Bushites have other ideas of how they can get around Senate rules and the U.S. constitution:

Mr. Bolton is keen to stay at the helm of the American team at the United Nations, administration officials say, and White House officials, including Mr. Bush’s counsel, Harriet E. Miers, have been looking into whether the president can somehow bypass the Senate and keep him there. Administration officials said Vice President Dick Cheney was backing exploration of such a move.

Mr. Bolton “could be named acting permanent representative or deputy U.N. ambassador or something else that doesn’t require confirmation,” a senior administration official said.

Obviously, doing that will anger Democrats, the official said.

“Anger the Democrats?” Gee, d’ya think? I’d say if they try such a nitwit move the Dems will have Bolton hauled before so many committees he’ll need to move the Permanent UN Mission from New York City to some cubbyhole near the Congress building. Not to mention holding hearings about every subordinate he ever tongue-lashed and every speech in which he cooked the intelligence books. He won’t be spending much time at the UN at any rate.

But here’s one idea that might go over well with Democrats. Appoint him to shine the shoes of all the other UN representatives. That will teach him some humility he seems to be lacking.

And unfortunately, there’s more to this bizarre episode. Obviously, someone in the White House stays up far too late thinking of ways to both screw the Dems and place their man at the UN:

Mr. Bush could give Mr. Bolton a second recess appointment as the United Nations ambassador, but under the law he could not be paid for his work.

White House officials are looking into whether he can be paid by some other entity and still serve as ambassador, or whether a de facto position could be created in which Mr. Bolton served as ambassador for all intents and purposes, but not in name.

Such a move would almost certainly inflame relations between the White House and the ascendant Democrats and would probably kill any further talk about bipartisan cooperation.

If I were Harry Reid about now I’d be calling Bush or Rice or whoever’s making this personnel decision and saying: “You want to play at this game go right ahead. But we won’t play along. If you go forward with any of this malarkey we’ll not only personally tie up Bolton in hearings and testimony before Senate committees, but we’ll hold up the State Department budget (since I believe that the UN ambassador is classified as a State staff position) the next time it comes before us. So go ahead and make my day.”

That would put an end to what Chris Dodd is aptly calling Cirque du Soleil “contortionism.”

Dems Sweep With Allen Concession

Thursday, November 9th, 2006
Democrats sweep house and senate ny times headline

“Democrats Take Senate…Complete Midterm Sweep.”

God, you have no idea how happy and relieved I was to see this NY Times headline a moment ago. No, not happy, overjoyed. It was such a delicious feeling. And to see the sorry mope on Cheney’s face, as the TV commercial goes: “priceless.”

To go six long years in the wilderness with nothing but disappointment and bitterness at the sorry mess that Bush and his cronies were making for us. And now this. There is a God in heaven. S/He may not be a Democrat, but S/He has mercy on those of us who’ve suffered far too long under the jackboot.

87% of Jews Vote Democratic in Mid-Term Elections

Thursday, November 9th, 2006

Hey, Morrie Amitay and Repubican Jewish Coalition–eat my dust! They plunked down over a cool mil to finance a scummy anti-Democrat campaign during the mid-terms and what do they have to show for it?

American Jews expressed flagrant support for Democratic candidates for Congress, contributing to a turnaround in the House of Representatives. According to a CNN sampling of voters, 87 percent of Jewish voters voted Democrat.

This was the highest percentage of support for Democrats since the Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

The Republican Party tried to frighten Jewish voters during the election campaign, primarily with their ads in Jewish newspapers, but no one was buying.

In this election, Jews voted for candidates they thought would be good for Israel, but not necessarily the ones who would be the best for Israel, said Steve Rabinowitz, an elections expert who served in the White House during the Clinton era.

Hey, Morrie and RJC, I warned you you were wasting your money. You should’ve spared yourself and donated the funds to UJA. It would’ve helped Israel far more than the way you actually spent it. In fact, an argument might be made that American Jews saw through the ads and were so offended by them that those who might otherwise have considered voting Repubican either didn’t vote at all or voted Democrat. That’s an unscientific assessment. But Jews are pretty smart folks and know a political con when they see one.

Other interesting tidbits from this story:

Additionally, the number of Jews in Congress is expected to increase: Bernie Sanders (Independent) from Vermont and Ben Cardin (Democrat) from Maryland will raise the number of Jewish Senators from 11 to 13 out of 100 – in a nation where Jews comprise only 5 million of the 300 million person population.

There are some 25 Jewish representatives in the House of Representatives, several of whom are expected to chair important House committees in the future.

Hat tip to loyal reader Dan Sniderman.

Mission Accomplished! Democrats Take Back House and Senate

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006
bush mission accomplishedMission Accomplished, my ass Mr. President

I just had to write that headline! It gives me oh so much pleasure to stick that shiv into Bush since he used it so long against Dems in trying to prop up this lousy war.

But to be fair, I have to acknowledge I’m writing this at 1AM PST and, while it appears that Webb has won Virginia and McCaskill Missouri, Jon Tester’s lead has diminished considerably over the course of the evening and as I write this he leads by something like 3,500 votes with only 82% counted. That could be a nail-biter. Plus, I understand there are absentee ballots to count in the Virginia race. But I still think Dems have an excellent shot at taking the Senate.

democratic supporters celebrate house victoryDems celebrate majority control of House (credit: Getty)

It’s pretty clear that Bush does not have the political resilience to do a Clinton after 1994 and recalibrate his political strategy. He just doesn’t have the wit or guile to do that. So we will have a president who will continue to live in denial about the decline of his power. Oh God how it pleases me to write that. And Dick Cheney will become a chained bulldog. Ditto on how I enjoy writing that too. If the Repubs were smart they’d bundle Dick up in an overcoat & shove him into a car and take him to some secure location for the remainder of the Bush presidency. That guy’s going to be radioactive in the next two years. Oh and last but not least, poor Karl. To go out like this in such a fizzle. It’s gotta hurt. I HOPE IT DOES! LOTS!

claire mccaskill celebrates senate election victoryClaire McCaskill celebrates Missouri Senate victory (credit: Huy Richard Mach/St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Remember that recent crack of Bush’s about how when he gets really sad and lonely out there in the big bad Beltway cesspool, he likes to use Google Earth to take a look at the ranch and think how he’d like to be there. Oh how I’ll look forward to sending him there come 2008. It’ll be worth the wait to look at his crestfallen mug at the Inauguration of a Democratic president. The shame, the horror. How will he live it down? Of course, there’s a small matter of an election to win before we get there. But hey, I can dream.

Doesn’t this outcome make Charlie Crist, running for Florida governor, look prescient in refusing to be seen with Bush on the final day of the campaign? That was one of the delightful bits of news yesterday. Bush plans a FL. campaign trip solely to bolster Crist and the latter is the one who asked him to do it. And what does Crist do? He not only stiffs Bush, but he does it by joining John McCain at another rally! And guess who won the governor’s race? You guessed it, Crist. Smart guy.

We will have a Democratic party with very frail majorities and wanting to be extremely careful about not rocking the boat too hard, or rubbing the Repubs noses in their loss. I don’t see the Dems coming up with a bold centrist policy though I wish they could. The Congressional Republicans will be the wildcard here. Will they finally get some gumption and try to cobble together coalitions with Dems on a few discreet, major issues to get something done? Or will they follow the likely Bush path of obstructionism?

I’m heartened to hear that John Murtha will run for majority leader. He will be good for Dems on the Iraq issue.

The most important House race here is WA-08 in which Darcy Burner challenged Dave Reichert. The latter’s been ahead all night by 4% but the media’s still calling it “too close to call” with 40% of the vote counted. Hang in there Darcy! Wish I could’ve voted for you.

Pollster Sabato Predicts Democratic Wins in House and Senate

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

I should begin by saying that I’m not expert on polls or pollsters. I know that Larry Sabato is a nationally respected pollster who teaches at the University of Virginia. I don’t know his track record of success in election prediction. But I’ll happily take his predictions at face value (especially if they turn out to be true). He prognosticates that the Democrats will pick up 29 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate which brings them to 221 House seats and 51 Senate seats:

THE SENATE: +6 Dems = 51D, 49R

Despite hard-fought campaigning in every battleground state up until the very end, the overall Senate picture has not changed much since our Thursday assessment. The Crystal Ball still sees 4, 5 or 6 seats going to the Democrats, resting party control of the Senate squarely on the edge of the butter knife.

The Democrats must win all the close ones and capture all the toss-ups to gain control, which is very tough to do. The safe bet is that Democrats will gain no more than five seats, and thus the GOP will remain in charge by a fingernail of the upper chamber of Congress. But what the heck? We’ll live dangerously. We think the Democrats may…capture just enough seats to take over. This is our least confident prediction.

This is what Sabato has to say about the House race:

THE HOUSE: +29 Dems = 232D, 203R

We admit: the Crystal Ball approaches the task of predicting the range of Democratic gains in the House with some anxiety. Politically, the House has always been the more volatile chamber of Congress this year; it has been the locus of far more scandal, and as always, there are more than ten times as many seats up for grabs in the House than there are in the Senate…

Even since we last published on Thursday, our list of late breaking races has grown much longer, and most of the shifts we have seen have favored the party out of power. Many of these contests emerged as horse races too late for the major parties to compete dollar-for-dollar in the districts at stake, and many are in such deeply red territory that they might not be good long-term investments for Democrats anyway. The Democratic thinking goes: “if we’re headed for a majority, why play in states like Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, or Wyoming only to lose the seats in a less favorable political environment two years later?” Still, we’ll bet outcomes in one or two of these places will surprise us…

The Crystal Ball believes that Democrats will likely win more than enough races to take control (+25 to 33), and could see even larger gains if a large wave crashes even deeply red territory. By the same token, Democrats may end up leaving several of their 2nd or 3rd tier candidates stranded on 2nd or 3rd base with 47 or 48 percent of the vote on Election Night. We are betting that the toss-ups split evenly between the parties, 18 apiece. When we add up all of our predictions, Democrats gain 29 seats in the House to command the same size majority the GOP currently holds, 232-203

My only disappointment among Sabato’s predictions is that Dave Reichert beats Darcy Burner who I’ve been supporting almost since day one:

WA-08 – Toss-up – Rep. Dave Reichert (R) will win reelection overDarcy Burner (D). As a freshman, Reichert has had a big red target on his back all throughout this cycle, but his moves to moderate positions on issues such as stem cell research have met with applause in this suburban Seattle district. Republicans are now optimistic about holding this seat, and though we believe it will go down to the wire, we think Burner will fall just short of knocking off this GOP incumbent.

If she loses Darcy will’ve come damn close. But it’s a tragedy if Dave Reichert gets sent back to Congress. And hey, Sabato’s from Virginia. Maybe he’s no expert on Washington politics and wrong. Another poll last week had Burner ahead by 2%. Who’s right? We’ll find out tomorrow.

Republican Jewish Coalition $1-Million Campaign Against Congressional Democrats–Down the Tubes!

Friday, October 27th, 2006
republican jewish coalition attack ad“Democrats have a new vision for America’s foreign policy: it doesn’t include support for Israel”
“There are lies, damn lies,” and the RJC (credit: RJC) pdf for larger image

For weeks, I’ve been reading about the sleazy campaign waged by the Republican Jewish Coalition against Democratic candidates in the upcoming midterm election. I wasn’t going to comment about this initially because I saw it as a side issue. But I just saw two full page ads in the local Seattle Jewish paper, JTNews by the group and my sense of outrage was too great to restrain it.

The National Jewish Democratic Council circulated an e mail this wake about the RJC’s campaign noting that it cost them $1-million (update: the RJC has just announced it’s “expanding” the campaign, meaning it’s throwing bad money after worse). NJDC’s director, Ira Forman, was almost gleeful in recounting the failure of the campaign:

If this is what you get with $1 million in RJC ad buys, I hope that they spend $2 million in 2008.”

And I’ve got to agree with him.

When I first heard about the campaign I said to myself: “I can see Republicans pumping money into a campaign to wrest Jews from the Democratic Party if they had a centrist candidate who might appeal to centrist Jewish Democrats. But what do they think they’re bringing to the table in this election cycle that would make Jews jump into the arms of the Republican Party? Do they know something I don’t? I’d say this is pretty much the worst time in recent U.S. history to launch such a campaign. You’ve got the most radical right-wing president in several generations in power. Jews don’t like radicals of either the right of the left. So what’s to be gained here?”

In the Letters to the Editor section of JTNews, prominent Jewish philanthropist (and Democrat) Rob Spitzer threw up some interesting statistics thus sealing my case for me. The American Jewish Committee’s 2006 survey of American Jewish opinion:
republican jewish coalition attack ad

Indicates that not withstanding the RJC’s campaign, the number of Jewish…Democrats has increased from 48% to 54% since the…2002 [election]…The number of Jewish…Republicans has decreased from 18%…to 15%…The number of Jewish voters who identify themselves as liberal has increased from 37%…to 42%…The number…who identify themselves as conservative has decreased from 29% to 25%…

To give you a notion of the questionable reasoning used in these ads let’s take examples from both ads in the JTNews. The first is a reference to an LA Times/Bloomberg (the ad mistakenly refers to it as the “Los Angeles/Bloomberg Poll”) poll question:

Which of the following questions comes closer to your view: “The U.S. should continue to align itself with Israel” or “The U.S. should adopt a more neutral posture”…

To which, 64% of Republicans said they wanted a U.S. alignment with Israel while only 39% of Democrats did. The ad tagline: “Republicans are more likely to support Israel.” Which of course is patently false. First, 85% (that’s my educated guess and not based on any poll) of the Democratic Party and its Congressional representatives are in Aipac’s hip pocket. But that’s beside the point. Even more importantly, the RJC conveniently ignores the difference between supporting Israel, which the vast majority of Democrats do; and wanting the U.S. to align its foreign policy interests with Israel, which the majority do not. Admittedly, it’s not a bright-line distinction. it requires some elementary thought process to understand the difference between the two concepts. But ultimately, only someone semi-comatose or a willful political charlatan would deliberately misunderstand them.

The other oddity was the full page ad on behalf of Mike McGavick, the Repubican U.S. Senate candidate: “Mike McGavick, when you stand up for Israeli you do not stand alone.” Among the other points it made was this questionable one:

When many members of Congress said we should not take sides [against Hezbollah]–YOU STOOD WITH US.”

Excuse me, but only 8 House members voted against supporting Israel during the Lebanon war. In the Senate, the vote was unanimous. So where are the “many members of Congress” who voted against the pro-Israel resolution?? Simply put, they don’t exist. More lies and damn lies.

And further regarding Lebanon, what the RJC neglects to tell you is that the AJC survey found that only 55% of American Jews “approved…of the way the Israeli government handled the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon?. So if fully 35% disapproved, then why would it be a shande for eight House members to vote against a simplistic propaganda resolution waving the flag on behalf of Israel during the most disastrous war it ever fought?

Click here to see more of the RJC’s travesties and calumnies.