Weird News from Israel

July 3rd, 2009

You can tell it’s summer; with so many reporters at the beach or on furlough, we’re being glutted with oddball little stories, some coming from the Jewish state and its environs.

Tablet, the newish online Jewish publication, has this winner: Israel’s blockade of Gaza has kept the swine flu out of the overcrowded region (read it here).

Seems if people can’t come or go, the flu bug can’t, either.

I’m wondering: how long will it be before Israeli right wingers tell us this proves the blockade is actually humane - a kind of enlightened public health exercise by Israel? How long  before the Palestinians figure out some way to recast this unexpected side benefit of the Israeli blockade as a sinister Zionist plot?

In another bizarre tale, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney visited Israel this week. Unfortunately for her, the accommodations were something less than the usual for VIP delegations. Instead, the former Georgia lawmaker, whose career was marked by repeated brushes with the Jewish community, was being hosted by Israeli penal authorities who, like Georgia voters a few years ago, were having a hard time getting rid of her.

Seems McKinney was on that boat that was trying to run the Israeli blockade to bring supplies into Gaza. McKinney pulled the same stunt back in December.

Israeli officials were busy this week trying to deport her, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported they were having a hard time because she was being – get this – uncooperative.

Imagine.

I thought about writing about the incident several days ago but was too busy yawning.  I mean really, this is a politician who successfully vied last year to be the new Ralph Nader and lead the Green Party to yet another stunning electoral defeat. Talk about irrelevant.

But it’s summer, and we need stories.

Leave a Reply


Obama angst points to widening Jewish leadership gap

July 2nd, 2009

4 Responses to “Obama angst points to widening Jewish leadership gap”

  1. Barry Says:

    I only take issue with James Besser’s remark saying, “If you’re a pro-Israel activist, chances are AIPAC’s words are gospel to you; if you’re not, it’s just another spoonful of alphabet soup.” The implication that to be actively pro-Israel demands adherence to AIPAC’s “gospel” is insulting to those of us who have had to put up way too long with the ganse machers who insist that any opinion to the left of Beit Podhoretz is that of a bad Jew. That said, the overall point of the piece is quite consistent with reality-based experience.

  2. A. Settler Says:

    Thank you for this article. As someone who lives in a Jewish town in Judea and Samaria, what some would call a “settlement” with the requisite negative connotation, your article has shown me what is probably the perspective of many Jewish Americans. Israeli Jews, however, have a much different view of your President.

    We’re worried. We’re very worried. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both wants to acquire nuclear weapons technology and repeatedly and earnestly declares his intention to “wipe Israel off the map”, we don’t dismiss this as mere posturing. He really wants to do it. Obama’s acquiescence to Iran in the form of a civilian nuclear program instead of outright and unequivocal condemnation of the radical theocracy’s mad race for The Bomb sent the message that he just doesn’t get it. The administration’s linkage between advancing the “Peace Process”, a euphemism for a Palestinian State west of the Jordan river, and dealing with Iran’s military nuclear program is a pathetic attempt to score a few good-guy points by pushing Israel into a corner. Iran will have nuclear capabilities in short order, threatening the Middle East and much of Europe; the negotiations on a Palestinian state have been ongoing for over 15 years with no reason to think they will conclude any time soon. Bad move.

    Obama’s assertion that Israel rose on the ashes of the Holocaust is obscene. Perhaps if the international community had carried out its obligations in Palestine in 1922 there would have been no Holocaust.

    On the issue of freezing building in settlements, even for “natural growth”, it is quite simply a red herring. The issue is not one of building, the issue is Obama trying to show the Arab world that he can dictate to Israel, that the “Israel lobby” is weakened and, by extension, so is the Jewish lobby in the US. You should take this to heart.

    Bush bumbled. Obama omits.

    Oh, as a “settler” I thank you for pointing out that some Jewish Americans have “sympathy for settlers”, but this is entirely unnecessary as no sympathy is needed. We’re fine, really we are. Using our legal mandate to the land (I know that many of your readers probably believe the repeated lies about “Occupation”, but if you can put rhetoric to the side it will take about 5 minutes of searching the Internet to realize that the Jewish State has clear legal title to the “West Bank”; I recommend that you begin with the work of the eminent Yale legal scholar Eugene Rostow and review former President Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks about Neve Daniel) we have built many thriving communities, each with its own character. One of the best things you can do for Jewish unity is urge the members of the “suburban reform shul in Chicago” to visit a settlement (sic) for a completely different, and perhaps opinion-changing, perspective.

  3. derek Says:

    If you’re a fringe left, vaguely, if at all, Zionist Jew, chances are J-Street’s talking points are gospel to you - including the talking point that says in order to claw itself into some recognition, J-Street and it’s enablers need to demonize AIPAC into being the domain of right-wingers, Republicans, machers, old rich Jews etc…

    Guess what? AIPAC is neither right nor left, and I’m a supporter ($36 this year) , though I’m lower-middle class, 26 year old Democrat in Boston. One need not be “right wing” to support Israel which is the whole point of AIPAC - despite the smears by it’s detractros.

  4. John D. Winston Says:

    One of the problems is the use of the words “pro Israel”. Typilcally, it has meant “Israel right or wrong” or “we can’t criticize Israel”. I am glad that J Street and other organizations like Brit Tzedek have indicated that they are pro Israel - pro peace. Another definition - One person at a meeting attended said that pro Israel means that someone does not support Boycotts - so the CUFI group was OK - even though the CUFI group has supported the growth of settmements - one of the biggest barriers to mid East peace. I can’t consider the group “pro Israel”

    As far as AIPAC’s neutrality, I remember reading about a speech “W” gave at AIPAC; “W” spoke only about Iraq and did not mention Israel - and was wildly cheered by the audience. Cheney was wildly cheered in 2005 by AIPAC. I have to agree with the classification of the AIPAC group as out of touch with most Jewish Americans (and Israelis for that matter).

Leave a Reply


Jewish Dems gloating: No Jewish Republicans in Senate

July 1st, 2009

Leave a Reply


How would a McCain administration be handling Iran?

July 1st, 2009

Leave a Reply


Minnesota Supreme Court rules, Coleman’s toast, Franken to be seated

June 30th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Did we learn the real lessons of the Madoff ripoff?

June 30th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Preaching to the raging choir: Israel, settlements and rhetorical overkill

June 29th, 2009

One Response to “Preaching to the raging choir: Israel, settlements and rhetorical overkill”

  1. Danny Says:

    It’s disheartening when so many fellow Jews that have higher levels of education than me are taken in by rumors and non diligent ideologues.

Leave a Reply


Jewish groups play different roles in climate change bill

June 28th, 2009

Leave a Reply


A lesson in why Darfur and Immigration ARE Jewish issues

June 26th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Ross to White House: it’s official

June 25th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Settlements talk a ‘waste of time?’ I don’t think so

June 23rd, 2009

2 Responses to “Settlements talk a ‘waste of time?’ I don’t think so”

  1. N. Michael Ross Says:

    Netanyahu is doing the right thing. Few doubt that Israel and the Obama administration could make some sort of deal regarding the settlements. I also understand what Obama is trying to do in reaching out to the Arab nations and trying to create a constructive ‘climate’ for negotiating with the Palestinians. However, therein lies the problem: so-called peace deals are made by interested third parties, i.e. ‘The Quartet’ and a host of others over the years, without bringing a majority of Palestinians to the negotiating table. This latest focus on ’settlements’ only shows that nobody, including Obama has been able to confront and deal with the fundamental issue, that is, who represents the embryonic Palestinian nation? Is it Hamas/Damascus, Hamas/Gaza, and/or PA/West Bank or all of them in some kind of politically stable arrangement? The history of the ME show that settlements come and go. Gaza once had Jewish settlements. Today, there are none. If, as and when settlements in Samaria and Judea need to be vacated in exchange for something tangible and valuable, I have no doubt that Israel will do what’s necessary. However, until the fundamental issues are dealt with, then the residents of Samaria and Judea should have the right to have children, and live reasonable lives, and expand their communities a little to take in natural growth. If the Palestinians are really worried about this, then, the first thing to do would be to get their leadership issues resolved quickly and then sit down in concert at the negotiating table with Israel.

    It really can’t work any other way. I know Obama and others have tried, but until the real parties to the dispute are willing to sit down and talk, nothing will change. This is unfortunate, because the parties have shown that they know who to fight with, but can’t bring themselves to deal with each other. This is a long shot: Maybe the place to start might be for the parties to recognize each other (as terrifying as that sounds).

  2. BA Says:

    Says Besser “…Palestinian terrorism and the unwillingness of Palestinian leaders to curb it have done far more to disrupt the climate for peace than settlements.”

    But there is never any discussion of the factors and causes that drove the rise in terror in the first place…such as increased contact between the two peoples on Geneva Convention internationally recognized occupied territory in the first place…or armed settler violence against residents of Hebron…never!

    No wonder the Palestinian center doesn’t hold with that kind of help from the side supposedly always in sought of peace.

    Seems very disingenuous to suggest that people having rights to have more children should be able to do so on somebody else’s internationally disputed land in communities built knowingly outside the law (by money from imperialist countries). Strange strange choices of fact patterns and moral codes here.

    Clearly a limited view of what it takes for a ‘climate for peace’, as always!

Leave a Reply


More homeland security money for Jewish institutions?

June 21st, 2009

Leave a Reply


New Polls on Iran, Israel - and, in Israel, on Obama

June 19th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Jimmy Carter, Hamas and the Obama administration

June 18th, 2009

One Response to “Jimmy Carter, Hamas and the Obama administration”

  1. N Michael Ross Says:

    Carter has access to the Obama/Clinton apparatus. He, and probably Obama himself, are wondering if dropping the ‘terrorist organization’ moniker as regards Hamas might influence Hamas to change its ways. That’s not a bad dream, but it is a dream. The reality is, that Gaza and the West Bank, may as well be different ‘countries’ under very different administrations. It clear that, at this time, no substantive progress can be made between Israel and the Palestinians. Never-the-less, Obama has to show ‘progress’ in the Middle East. For the uninitiated, having Israel agree to something looks like progress. In professional negotiation terms, Israel’s curtailing its settlement activities (whatever they are), or subjecting their decisions on their settlement management policy to the thinking of Obama/Clinton is, in a word, ‘gratuitous’. Regardless of the merits of settlement vs. no-settlement, once again, Israel dances with its own shadow, giving up a bit of this and a bit of that, while the PA and Hamas never bend. It shows weakness and negotiating ineptitude. Obama/Clinton/Ross should have been told: O.K. we can agree to revising our approach to settlements, but go to Hamas or P.A. and give us something. You, analyze the available options from the Palestinian side and we will see if we can work something out that makes sense for us, and for them. You came up with the original road-map plan, you should be able to come back with a reasonable concession from the Palestinians to balance what we will do with settlements. We will move ahead appropriately, if there is reasonable movement on the part of the Palestinians.

Leave a Reply


Dennis Ross getting a promotion, not the heave ho

June 16th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Pitchfork Pat Buchanan, MSNBC and the lack of Jewish outrage

June 16th, 2009

One Response to “Pitchfork Pat Buchanan, MSNBC and the lack of Jewish outrage”

  1. Hyman Rosen Says:

    The 78% of Jews who voted for Obama presumably dislike Buchanan co-equally with the other mendacious pundits of the right, not finding him worthy of special censure. The 21% of Jews who voted for McCain have sold their souls to the same pundits and participate in their public outrage, and are willing to tolerate veiled antisemitism as long as it comes with hatred of Obama.

Leave a Reply


Obama’s Cairo speech, friendship with Israel and finding the right balance

June 4th, 2009

Leave a Reply


Will Congress rise to Netanyahu’s defense on settlements?

June 3rd, 2009

3 Responses to “Will Congress rise to Netanyahu’s defense on settlements?”

  1. Steve Says:

    Are you joking?Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Henry Waxmans are in the middle they are about as left wing as you can get

  2. Moshe Says:

    I think what bothers many of us at a deeper level is how by doing this (Obama’s recent actions) he has weakened the bargaining position we originally had in an attempt to create any real and lasting peace. By doing so he has likely actually reduced the possibility we will then actually reach a solution. In all fairness - why should we at this point? Would it not be prudent to wait to the tide changes and negotiate from a stronger position ( full U.S. support) after he is gone or when he actually thinks through his ( Rahms) current analysis and lives with some of its consequences? Additionally I would argue against your characterization of our lobbying efforts- for many, if Obama is against us on this issue, lets just say will not be very eager supporters for him on his administration’s agenda and this in itself he needs very much.

  3. Donna Says:

    Obama doesn’t need AIPAC to follow through on his promise of a Palenstian state, he needs and has the support of the American people who are growing more weary everyday of the world sitting idley by while Isreal steals more land, resouces, dignity of a group of people. This “concession” by Nut-n-yahoo is so obvious that it doesn’t even deserve a response.

Leave a Reply


Obama’s Cairo Speech: Speculation Mounting

May 31st, 2009

One Response to “Obama’s Cairo Speech: Speculation Mounting”

  1. Christian Friend of Israel Says:

    Having recently returned from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land of Israel, my love for that land, which G_d deeded to Abraham many centuries ago, is even greater than before. In the Torah, G_d tells us that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. America has always been a strong ally of Israel and vice versa.

    Now, the shallow American masses have placed a Muslim of questionable origin in the White House. Amazingly, a large percentage of the Jewish vote went to Obama. Predictably, however, aside from daily damaging the US, Obama has set his sights on promoting Muslim dominance over Israel. With Obama in power, the US will no longer take the side of Israel, whether in war or in negotiations.

    How’s that “hope and change” working for you, my Jewish friends???

Leave a Reply


UPDATED: Anthony Weiner’s Options

May 27th, 2009

Leave a Reply