Dunkin Donuts has pulled a commercial featuring pitchwoman Rachael Ray wearing a scarf because Michelle Malkin and other conservative observers thought the scarf looked too much like a keffiyeh, what Malkin describes as "the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad." ...
The Boston Globe reports that Dunkin Donuts caved to pressure from the conservative blogosphere — and the fear of a mass boycott — and removed the ad:
The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin' Donuts decided it'd be easier just to yank the ad.
Said the suits in a statement: ''In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.'' ...
23/08/08 "ICH " -- - In the light of the revelation (devine or not) about Pastor John Hagee’s assertion that Hitler was God’s agent, is it too much to hope that Jews everywhere, and Jewish Americans especially, will insist that Zionism terminate its unholy alliance with Christian fundamentalism?
This alliance has always seemed to me to be the greatest madness and also the biggest obscenity in the continuing story of conflict in and over Palestine.
Historically speaking, Christian fundamentalists were classic Jew haters on the grounds, they said, that the Jews were the “Christ killers”. So what explains Christian fundamentalism’s support for Israel right or wrong - support which today includes much of the money to fund Zionism’s on-going colonisation of the occupied West Bank?
The evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell gave this answer.
The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was the most crucial event in history since the ascension of Jesus to heaven and
“proof that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh… Without a State of Israel in the Holy Land, there cannot be the second coming of Jesus Christ, nor can there be a Last Judgement, nor the End of the World.”.
Another answer is that provided by Yakov M. Rabkin, the Jewish Canadian Professor of History at the University of Montreal. In his book A Threat From Within, A CENTURY OF JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM, he writes:
“The massive support extended to the State of Israel by millions of Christian supporters of Zionism is overtly motivated by a single consideration: that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land will be a prelude to their acceptance of Christ (when he returns) or, for those who fail to do so, to their physical destruction.” (My emphasis added).
Simply stated, Christian fundamentalism’s only interest in the Zionist state of Israel is in assisting it to become the instrument for bringing about, as foretold by the Christian Bible, the end of the world in a final battle at Armageddon between the forces of good and evil. In this scenario the Jews will have a choice - either to junk their Judaism and become Christians, in which case they will be beamed up to heaven, or to be annihlated [em. added]… It seems to me that there’s a case for saying that Christian fundamentalism is, potentially, a far bigger threat to Jews and Judaism than all the Arabs and other Muslims of the world put together, including a nuclear-armed Iran! ...
14/05/08 "Salon" -- -The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg conducted what he's calling an "interview" with Barack Obama regarding Israel, but it sounded much more like an inquisition. Goldberg repeatedly demanded that Obama swear his devotion to Israel and affirm prevailing orthodoxies ("I'm curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?"; "Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don't know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it"; "Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?"; "If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?"). Afterwards, Goldberg pronounced himself satisfied: "Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me."
Marty Peretz, after a telephone conversation with Obama devoted primarily to Israel, similarly clears Obama of any suspicions of disloyalty, approvingly noting that Obama "recognizes" that Israeli settlements of the West Bank are not "the core problem" for the conflict with the Palestinians (to Peretz, such settlements "are very much a side-issue"). Peretz further decrees that Obama's "exhilarating experience with American Jews and with their bonds to the dream and realities of Israel" was evident in both Goldberg's interview and in Obama's call with Peretz.
Needless to say, Obama's vows of devotion to Israel were not enough for the right-wing polemicists who endlessly play on the fears of American Jews and exploit Israel-related issues for political gain. GOP leaders in the House -- such as Minority Leader John Boehner -- issued highly inflammatory statements regarding Obama's interview with Goldberg, condemning Obama for describing Israel as a "constant sore" when, in fact, Obama used that term to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- not Israel (that lie by Boehner and others was so severe that Goldberg, to his credit, embraced Andrew Sullivan's description of Boehner's statement as a "flat-out lie" and added that it was "mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable").
But beyond the outright lying, right-wing condemnation of Obama's desperately pro-Israel remarks is highly revealing. David Frum complained yesterday that while Obama embraced the notion that "the Zionist idea has justice on its side," he followed that up with a "disclaimer." What was the "disclaimer" that so upset Frum? This:
OBAMA: That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it's a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds.Hideous! We can't have an American President who reserves the right to do something other than "agree with every action of the state of Israel." Frum generously declares that Obama is not anti-semitic, but finds him guilty of being "cavalier with Israel's security" (this blogger pronounces Frum correct and adds this "condemnation" of Obama: "I do not believe that the man hates Israel, but he doesn't love it either"). ...
...
President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset
The Knesset - 15/05/08 -- Jerusalem -- -2:55 P.M. (Local) THE PRESIDENT: President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thank very much for hosting this special session. President Beinish, Leader of the Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, distinguished guests: Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people with these words: Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach. (Applause.)
...
Commentary: Reading this abject nonsense makes me wonder which is the superpower and who is the obsequious servant in this relationship. No doubt, Dubya himself has absolutely no idea how this kind of speech will be received in the rest of the Middle-East, but his Neocon puppeteers do. This is not some kind of diplomatic 'faux pas', some redneck idiot from Texas (which he is not, but nevermind) spewing off some 'cowboy talk'. This is a carefully written speech whose message to the Israeli is simple: "we will stop at nothing to obey and please you". But even more importantly this speech is directed at the rest of the world and its messages is equally simple: Fuck you!
We don't care about international law, we don't care about human rights, we don't care about decency, we don't care about your suffering or your outrage, and as a matter of fact, we don't care about you either. To all those who would want to see the USA as an honest broker, as a impartial negotiator or even just a neutral party we say: F**k you!
To Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah the message is also clear: you will not prevail against the 307 million "Israelis" which oppose you. Just like the Borg in Star Trek, the USraelian Empire always repeats the same ultimatum: "Resistance is futile, you shall be assimilated".
Dubya could have somehow modified his Borg like message and say "Resistance is futile, you shall be assimilated, just like we have been".
Looking at the abject and total assimilation of the USA into Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will not at all get discouraged, but in the countrary will be energized by the vital need to prevent a similarly sad fate to befall them and their people. In that sense, Dubya's speech is most useful at this time in the Middle-East's history: by showing the wretched condition which those who have been assimilated by the Empire are reduced to, Dubya's speech provides the most vivid illustration possible of the fact that resistance is life and life is resistance.
No pasaran!
Israel’s 60th anniversary is an opportune occasion to question why the U.S. government offers unlimited support to a country that persistently and routinely violates principles that Americans hold sacred.
The U.S. government finances an illegal military occupation in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. Since October 1973, total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. What does this aid buy? Illegal Jewish-only settlements built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinian towns and villages encircled by walls more monstrous in most places than the Berlin wall. Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks between Palestinian towns that bring the normal movement of people and goods to a standstill and constitute daily humiliations. Gaza sealed and under siege, with food and fuel withheld. Since the second intifada started in September 2000, at least 4,719 Palestinians have been killed and 32,213 wounded.
Israel’s strategy seems to be to make life so unlivable for Palestinians that those with options will leave, and those without options are controlled by the Jewish state. Is this a strategy that Americans can support?
Israel’s supporters excuse Israel’s appalling violations of international law and human rights by insisting that it is a democracy and thus shares a lot with the United States. But that is not true.
Israel distinguishes between citizenship rights, such as the right to vote, which is available to non-Jewish citizens of the state, and nationality rights, which are reserved for Jews. This is not a feature of democracy as we know it.
Several laws have been enacted in Israel whose intention is clearly to maintain Jewish numerical superiority and to reinforce the Jewish character of the state, all of which belie the claim that Israel is a democracy. Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, has identified more than 20 laws in Israel that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel by working the Jewish character of the state into the text of the law. Israel defines “public good” in ethno-religious terms; lands expropriated from Palestinians for the “public good” benefit Jewish citizens only. The 20 percent of the population that is Muslim and Christian are regarded as a demographic threat. Obsession over the ethnic and religious composition of a country is also not a typical characteristic of democratic societies.
Support for Israel is garnered under false pretenses and enforced through coercive tactics. Americans should consider the effect of these strong-arm tactics on our public life.
A small but powerful lobby has had an inordinate influence on the executive and legislative branches of the government, on the media, and on our public culture. Neither a former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner like Jimmy Carter, or establishment professors from prestigious universities like John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard University), are immune from charges of anti-semitism if they question Israel’s policies.
These assaults on the personal integrity of people who express non-mainstream political views has had a profoundly corrosive effect on free speech and public debate.
Members of Congress of both parties accept pro-Israel political action committee money and in return, they support and initiate legislation in support of Israel.
Both the public and the media have been trained to accept without question the unseemly spectacle of presidential candidates and elected officials who swear allegiance to a foreign country, as though this should inspire the trust of U.S. voters.
Israel’s illegal policies toward Palestinians and its neighbors have been the subject of more than 65 U.N. resolutions. Israel routinely ignores General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and its intransigence is defended by the United States. Supporting Israel puts the United States at odds with most of the people of the world, and it also means that the U.S. government grows accustomed to defending violations of international law. Yet neither Israel nor the United States is above the law.
Pro-Israel organizations and individuals have led the campaign promoting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry in this country. Generalizations and smears that would be easily identified as bigotry if African Americans or Latinos were the subject trigger no objections when they are made about Arabs and Muslims.
Palestinians in growing numbers are demanding equal rights for all residents of Mandate Palestine.
Americans can hardly oppose this demand while at the same time claiming to be a beacon of freedom and democracy for all peoples.
Ida Audeh is a Palestinian who grew up in the West Bank and now works as an editor in Boulder.
The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." ...
A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East -- including both in Iraq and against Iran.
It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the "surge" has either made things worse or has had no impact (68-30).
When asked whether they would support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran, a large majority -- 57-35% -- say they would oppose such action, even if it were being undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons." While Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are quite pessimistic about the prospects for Israel's ability to achieve a lasting peace with its "Arab neighbors," even there, a plurality (46-43) supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In the realm of U.S. domestic politics, it is even clearer that right-wing neoconservatives are a fringe segment of American Jewish public opinion. By a large margin, American Jews identify as some shade of liberal rather than conservative (43-25), and overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans (58-15). And, most strikingly, by a 3-1 margin (61-21), they believe that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq," and by a similarly lopsided margin (53-30), believe that Democrats are "more likely to make the right decision when it comes to dealing with terrorism." They have overwhelmingly favorable views of the top 3 Democratic presidential candidates, and overwhelmingly negative views of 3 out of the top 4 GOP candidates (Giuliani being the sole exception, where opinion is split).
Contrary to the bottomless obssession which most neocon pundits and office-holders have with All Matters Israel, the principal political concerns of most American Jews have nothing to do with the Middle East. Thus, they identify "economy/jobs" (22) and "health care" (19) -- not Terrorism -- as "the most important problem facing the U.S. today." Still, most American Jews agree that "[c]aring about Israel is a very important part of [their] being a Jew" -- a common, innocuous and indisputable attribute that typically triggers noxious charges of anti-Semitism if pointed out by those who oppose the neoconservative agenda. ...
NEW YORK (AP) - Israel's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter "a bigot" for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, "went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas," Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a luncheon briefing for reporters.
The diplomat was questioned about problems facing his country during a wide-ranging discussion with reporters lasting more than an hour. The briefing was sponsored by The Israel Project, a Washington-based, media-oriented advocacy group. ...
