Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs - New York Times: "By DAVID S. CLOUD | Published: August 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.
...
A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel. ...

- posted by Editor @ 8:20 PM

C-SPAN: ADVANCED VIDEO SEARCH RESULTS: "Council on American-Islamic Relations News Conference on Israeli Influence

Council on American-Islamic Relations holds a news conference on the Israeli influence. Participants are: John J. Mearsheimer, Univ. of Chicago; Stephen M.Walt, Kennedy School of Government; Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director; Corey Saylor, CAIR government affairs director.
8/28/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 30 min. "
- posted by Editor @ 7:31 PM

mparent7777: Prominent Rabbi: Jews Who Don't Support Lieberman Are Bad Jews: "By Marc Gellman | Special to Newsweek | Updated: 3:55 p.m. MT Aug 11, 2006 | WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY

Our columnist is mystified that so many Jewish voters deserted Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Aug. 11, 2006 - Joe Lieberman did not lose the Democratic primary because of his support for the war in Iraq. He lost because of his lack of support from Jews. Joe got the support of black Baptists (except of course for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who stood so conspicuously behind challenger Ned Lamont on election night). He got the support of Catholic Union guys. He got the support of all the Connecticut papers, and he got the support of most Jews, but not at all an overwhelming number of Jews and that is why he lost. He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That's why he lost, and I don't get it.
...
... Those who want to bring all the troops home by next Monday, and those who want to “nuke the bastards” are both nuts. So among reasonable non-rabid people, the differences over Iraq are just not that big. And for this we dumped Joe? It just makes no sense to me and it ought to be a huge embarrassment to all card-carrying Jews whether they agreed with Joe or not.

There are and have always been only two kinds of Jews: tribal Jews and cosmopolitan Jews. Tribal Jews love anything Jewish. Cosmopolitan Jews love anything but Jewish. Tribal Jews are not trying to pass, assimilate or deny their tribal roots, their attachment to Israel and their love of other Jews no matter who they are. Cosmopolitan Jews are trying to pass and assimilate and become an undifferentiated member of the majority culture. The problem with tribal Jews is that they have trouble loving non-Jews. The problem with cosmopolitan Jews is that they have trouble loving other Jews. The reason for this split is you are Jewish by blood and not by belief. Judaism, which is the religion of Jews, has many wonderful beliefs but you can reject them all and still be Jewish. ...
Please understand, this is not a political rant. Yes, I support the war and yes I support and admire President George W. Bush, but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror. My disappointment is with my people. I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe. I cannot understand why Joe's percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign). I have opinions on way too many things I don't know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you."
- posted by Editor @ 8:50 PM

Gallup: Many Americans Harbor Strong Bias Against U.S. Muslims | By E&P Staff | Published: August 10, 2006 10:40 AM ET

NEW YORK A new Gallup poll finds that many Americans -- what it calls "substantial minorities" -- harbor "negative feelings or prejudices against people of the Muslim faith" in this country. Nearly one in four Americans, 22%, say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.

While Americans tend to disagree with the notion that Muslims living in the United States are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a significant 34% believe they do back al-Qaeda. And fewer than half -- 49% -- believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States.

Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some "prejudice" against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too "extreme."
- posted by Editor @ 7:07 AM

US Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"�|�US News�|�Reuters.com: "Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:07pm ET146

By Amanda Beck

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.

U.S. officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of al Qaeda.

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington. ...

- posted by Editor @ 7:05 AM

A Foolhardy War, Unleashed by Fools by Eric Margolis: "

The news about the Mideast most North Americans get is heavily biased by the media’s need to cater to reader prejudices and misconceptions.

To find out what’s really going on in Israel, I turn to that nation’s finest newspaper, Haaretz.

Last week, Haaretz columnist Doron Rosenblum wrote a remarkable, explosive analysis that no one would ever dare print in North America, where any criticism of Israel brings a storm of abuse and often terminates careers.

The real cause of the latest Lebanon war, wrote Rosenblum, was not seizure of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbullah, but an earlier TV speech by Hezbullah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, that provoked Israel’s leaders to fury and an act of supreme folly.

Nasrallah taunted Israel’s new triumvirate of PM Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, sneering they were "small" compared to Ariel Sharon. "Adding fuel to the fire," wrote Rosenblum, "Nasrallah emphasized the 'small' with his fingers."

According to Rosenblum, "bad-tempered" Olmert, "egocentric" Peretz, and "arrogant Halutz" flew into rages at this grave Levantine insult to their manhood, and sought to prove they could out-Sharon Sharon by turning a minor skirmish into an all-out war.

This sounds bizarre, but remember, George Bush Sr invaded Panama after its ruler, Gen. Manuel Noriega, called him as a "wimp."

Israel’s old Lebanese curse just keeps getting worse. A number of respected press agencies have reported the skirmish that triggered this war didn’t occur in Israel, as Israel claims, but just inside Lebanon.

If true, this would hugely embarrass Israel and sink it deeper into the hole it has already dug itself after laying waste Lebanon and killing scores of civilians at Qana with a US-supplied missile.

Israel first claimed it was targeting missile launchers firing from Qana. Its amen chorus in North America went into high volume to justify the attack.

But Israel’s military now admits there were no rockets being fired from Qana the day of the attack. A decade ago, Israeli artillery killed 106 civilians there.

Former US President Jimmy Carter wrote that Israel’s savaging of Lebanon is "inhuman and counterproductive." He echoes world opinion. Israel has become the target of international condemnation.

One of Israel’s finest thinkers, Uri Avnery, says Olmert and Peretz don’t know what they’ve unleashed: "they are not running the war, the war is running them." Like Bush in Iraq, their generals promised them an easy victory and instead produced a human, political and military disaster.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looked even more pathetic than usual after proclaiming a temporary humanitarian cease-fire in Lebanon – which Israel promptly ignored. While pretending to talk peace, she was actually blocking international efforts to impose a cease-fire in the hope that Israel would quickly finish off Hezbullah. She deserves to be fired.

Like well-trained seals, the entire US Senate, and all but eight of 435 Congressmen, voted full support for Israel’s war, even blocking calls to limit civilian casualties. ...
- posted by Editor @ 7:03 AM

No political upside in criticizing Israel: "No political upside in criticizing Israel | August 7, 2006 | BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Reports of Israeli air attacks on Qana, Lebanon, killing at least 28 people including 19 children July 30 threatened Israel with an American public relations calamity. But this soon was eclipsed on cable television and newspaper front pages by actor Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic rant.

Only a conspiracy theorist might claim this was an intentional escape route for American politicians to avoid a possible Israeli atrocity, but it certainly served that purpose. Washington remains largely a bipartisan, criticism-free zone for Israel.
...
... Other members of Congress who have said anything at all critical of Israel are few in number. Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, whose family has roots in Lebanon, deplored Israel's attack on Lebanese power plants and other government infrastructure. Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, in a letter to Rice, declared that "a continuation of the bombing campaign, as it is being carried out, is against the interests of Israel and the United States."

Such critics of Israel inevitably are taken to task, sooner or later -- usually sooner. When 28 left-wing Democratic House members signed a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Lebanon, Rep. Bob Filner of California was the only Jewish co-signer. The ink was hardly dry before he was contacted by the American Israel Public Affairs, the lobbying organization. ..
- posted by Editor @ 6:53 AM

New York Daily News - Politics - Cheney: Nutmeggers egg on Al Qaeda: "

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Lieberman's loss to an anti-war upstart will only encourage Al Qaeda and other enemies of the U.S., Vice President Cheney said yesterday.

'The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, [from] the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people,' Cheney said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow echoed him, saying that giving in to the anti-war left and leaving Iraq means waving 'a white flag in the war on terror.'"
- posted by Editor @ 8:00 PM

Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism: "Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism | By MAX BLUMENTHAL

08/09/06 'The Nation': -- -- Washington, DC -- Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is 'a biblical imperative.' CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.
...
Thanks to Brog's parrying of Jewish criticism and securing the cooperation of major Jewish organizations, his "brother" Hagee faces few repercussions as he prays for Armageddon. With local CUFI chapters growing across the country, a "rapid response network" of thousands of pastors developing, and an open door to the White House, Brog and Hagee are planning for the long term. "We want to speak to Washington and encourage support for Israel whatever the conflict may be," Brog said. He paused, adding, "Provided of course that Israel's cause continues to be just."

But the renewal of the peace process and rolling back the West Bank settlements would be an unjust cause. For Hagee and for CUFI, all roads lead to a "nuclear showdown: with Iran. Diplomacy would only make God angry. As Hagee warns in Jerusalem Countdown, "Those who follow a policy of opposition to God's purposes will receive the swift and severe judgment of God without limitation." ...

- posted by Editor @ 8:45 PM

War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution: "By R. Jeffrey Smith | Washington Post Staff Writer | Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture. ...

- posted by Editor @ 5:34 AM

STANFORD IDEOLOGICAL WAR LEADS TO SUIT / Middle East professor sues conservative who linked criticism of Bush to terrorism: |
Carrie Sturrock, Chronicle Staff Writer | Friday, August 4, 2006

Stanford University's Joel Beinin is used to criticism for his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but when a conservative commentator put the professor's photo on the cover of a booklet titled "Campus Support for Terrorism,'' it started a whole new war.

Beinin, a prominent Middle Eastern scholar, filed suit in March -- turning his ideological clash with FrontPageMag.com Editor in Chief David Horowitz into a legal one.

Horowitz removed the photo from later printings, but Beinin said the harm had already been done and is demanding unspecified damages. With the United States at war in Iraq, Beinin said, it's a scary time to be labeled a supporter of terrorism.

"Horowitz is -- if not a coordinated part -- part of a broader attack against people who speak out against Bush's Middle Eastern policies," said Beinin, past president of the Middle Eastern Studies Association. "If you don't fight back and allow the Horowitzes to do and say what they want, it pollutes the political environment to the point where you can't have intelligent discussions about what we do in the world."
...
Both men are Jewish, but they stand on opposite sides of a deep fault line of opinion on Israel and its actions in the Middle East. Beinin believes Horowitz's antipathy toward him stems in part from the fact that he is Jewish -- Horowitz calls Beinin a "self-hating Jew" -- and that he has criticized Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and called for a Palestinian state.

Horowitz, who is frequently seen on cable television programs such as "The O'Reilly Factor," is a 1960s radical turned conservative who founded the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. The center has since been renamed the David Horowitz Freedom Center and is publisher of the online magazine Front Page. His books include "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left."

He calls Beinin an "apologist for terror" and not only published Beinin's photo on the cover of "Campus Support for Terrorism" but featured him in his subsequent book, "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America." ...
- posted by Editor @ 8:59 PM