Is this love built to last?

After Tuesday's friendly meeting at the White House between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pro-Israel Obama supporters are keeping their fingers crossed.

They're hopeful there will be no more new apartment complexes in Jerusalem that make the president David Banner-angry. Not like the ones that are built in Washington and New York all the time with no complaints from the Israeli government.

They're hopeful there will be no more flotillas that caught the White House off-guard by starting a disagreement between two allies.

In short, they're hopeful there will be no further developments that would put the president in a tight spot as the 2012 election draws closer: torn between his leftist, anti-Israel supporters and his overwhelming command of the Jewish vote, which is staunchly pro-Israel. During his Administration's 18 months, the president has tried to straddle the fence: appear pro-Israel at home while presenting an Arabist or neutral position abroad. This strategy produced sharp drops in the president's approval ratings in both camps.

Avoiding another incident seems almost impossible. It's likely better for the president if Israeli-Palestinian peace talks do not resume. Any progress peace talks produce would enrage Iran and Syria as well as mobilize the "Arab street." Another regional Mideast war might ensue, putting Israel at the top of the news and the president in the middle again. Aside from peace talks, it's only a matter of time before a terrorist is successful; or CNN shows dead babies; or Israel permits its citizens to build more homes. For the president, that spells trouble.

4 years in captivity for Gilad Shalit

Hamas terrorists captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit on June 25, 2006. Hamas released a one-minute video of Shalit last year proving he is still alive. He has had no contact with the outside world--no visits by neutral parties, the Red Cross, or medical attention. Besides being a violation of the Geneva Convention, as Stand With Us points out, it is outrageous and disgusting that a human being is being subjected to being held hostage by a terrorist group simply because he was an Israeli soldier.

The demands by Stand With Us are legitimate. One conversation. One doctor. One Red Cross visit. The continuing hostage crisis is not tenable. Hamas has no interest in giving up Shalit other than possibly exchanging him for hundreds of terrorist prisoners being held by Israel, most with blood on their hands. This would merely encourage the terrorists to repeat the kidnapping. Shalit does not deserve to be the Terry Anderson of this decade. (Anderson was held by Hezbollah for six years in Lebanon in the 1980's.) Besides the clear existential threat Iran presents, the Israeli government and military should turn their attention to bringing Shalit home. This would necessarily include aggressive military action against Hamas.

I realize this didn't work last time. But Israel's mistake was ending its operation without securing Shalit's freedom. Bring Gilad home, Israel. We're all counting on you.

Existence vs. co-existence

When debating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in writing or in person, any number of issues are available for debate: borders, Jerusalem, the two-state solution, the status of West Bank settlements.

These topics are worth discussing among individuals who support the existence of a state of Israel in its current location, with final borders to be determined. Unfortunately, there are far too many partisans who claim to be Palestinian rights or human rights activists who advocate for Israel's destruction.

There are several explanations for this deep-seated anti-Israel, antisemitic sentiment. For some (millions?), it is purely religious. They believe Jews have no right to live in the Middle East, much less run a country on some of the most sacred land on earth. Anti-religion leftists and socialists cannot accept a country that has so successfully wedded religion, democracy and a thriving capitalist economy. And the Jewish anti-Zionists are deeply ashamed, rather than proud, of the beacon of hope and democracy that Israel, the Jewish state, represents.

Just as it is difficult or impossible for a Zionist to have a civil debate with someone who advocates Israel's destruction, one wonders how Israel is expected (demanded?) to negotiate peace with groups that declare her destruction as their solemn reason for being.

Tell it like it is, Helen

The late sportscaster Howard Cosell was famous for his no-holds-barred, "telling it like it is" style, which often cost him.

I thought of Cosell when I watched Helen Thomas' nasty antisemitic outburst and read her phony apology a few days later. (She did not apologize for her deep-seated antisemitic rant; she actually apologized for being so honest.) I laud Thomas for her honesty and integrity. She did not hide behind a genteel mask of objectivity. As a long-standing member of Washington's elite, it's quite possible that Thomas could truthfully claim, "Some of my best friends are Jews." But she didn't. Instead, she implied the anti-Israel canard that Israel's Jewish citizens are invaders, colonists and illegal squatters. They should "go back" to Germany and Poland, those lands where six million Jews were murdered barely 65 years ago. Thomas is making a huge assumption that Germany and Poland would welcome Israel's five million Jews.

Lost in the brouhaha is that Thomas' sentiments are echoed by millions of anti-Israel partisans worldwide: that the Jews should "get the hell out." No one screaming in front of the Israeli embassies and consulates last week held signs demanding a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The protesters' message was best expressed by what anti-Israel speaker Abdel Malik Ali told a UCI student who had just invited the imam to shabbos dinner with his family in Israel: "There will be peace when you are gone."

Good for you, Helen. And good riddance, too.

Does free speech cut both ways?

Much has been written about the anti-Israel fervor at the University of California-Irvine, fueled by its Muslim Student Association. MSA-UCI proudly participates in "Israel Apartheid Week" every year (just ended earlier this month). Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren gave a speech on the UCI campus. MSU-UCI organized a protest. MSU members attended the speech and attempted to disrupt the speech by shouting down Ambassador Oren. They were ejected and arrested by campus police. That video is here: http://bit.ly/ag7n4O

With the help of a member of MSU who is also on the student council, Associated Students of UCI, MSU managed to pass an ASUCI resolution condemning the police action and praising the actions of the MSU students who disrupted Oren's speech. The Jewish students' reaction is detailed here: http://bit.ly/9wOZrv The YouTube video of their appearance before ASUCI is here: http://bit.ly/cQ9oUU

In a post on MSA's own blog, MSA strongly objects to being investigated by the FBI (really?) for possible fundraising efforts on behalf of Hamas, which is illegal in the U.S. MSA alleges the FBI investigation was at the behest of the Zionist Organization of America. Perhaps this is just an opportunity for MSA to play the victim. In any case, the group's blog, at msuuci.com, had this to say about free speech: "This is only the most recent attempt to silence the MSU and restrict its constitutional right to freedom of speech, religion and association." And, "If anyone is acting illegally, it is the ZOA, by seeking to discard the very principles of the First Amendment in trying to shut us up and shut us down."

Apparently only one group on campus is entitled to free speech at UCI, and that would be the Muslim Student Association. It enforces its First Amendment smackdown with the aid and abetting of the student council, ASUCI.

What if MSU acted this way toward another group it philosophically opposes? Say, a group that advocates for gay rights? How would that play at a liberal campus in California?

I checked for Clubs and Associations at www.campusorgs.uci.edu. There is not just a club for gay students, but a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center, funded by student fees (and most likely taxpayer dollars). Its website is: www.lgbtrc.uci.edu.

For the destroy-Israel movement, Amir Abdel Malik Ali is a great speaker. You can see him here: http://bit.ly/rflRl The MSU website has a link for his speeches at UCI, but it didn't work when I tried it: www.msuuci.com/?=p1579. He is a great speaker and a great representative for his movement despite being a racist, a bigot and a demagogue. This is because he is African-American and does not have a Middle Eastern accent or appearance that characterizes so many men in the movement. This makes him much more appealing. I wonder how appealing he would be if he turned his attention to gay rights, which, as a devout Muslim, I'm sure he vehemently opposes. What if he spoke out against gay rights on campus? Would he be roundly booed? Shouted down? What if MSU organized a group attendance effort for a gay-rights speaker and shouted him down? Would the group receive widespread condemnation? Would it risk being kicked off campus by the dean of students?

It's worth a thought: to turn political correctness upside down. When it comes to Israel, the Muslim Student Association is the darling of the campus liberal extreme Left. When it comes to gay rights, though, MSA members better keep their damn mouths shut. Because they know what would happen if they picked that fight. Students just might exercise their First Amendment right to send MSA packing.

CAMERA highlights mainstream media's smackdown

As the crisis between Israel and the US administration unfolded, an upsurge in Palestinian violence and public invective against the Jewish state was frequently distorted and minimized by the media.

On March 16, 2010, the Palestinian leadership –– Fatah as well as Hamas – called for a "day of rage," inciting their followers to riot after the dedication of the newly rebuilt Hurva synagogue in Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter. The synagogue had been destroyed in 1948 when Jordan seized the Jewish Quarter and expelled its residents. Following the historical pattern of their predecessors, the Palestinian leaders called for jihad in defense of Muslim holy sites, falsely claiming that the opening of the synagogue was the first step in Israel's plan to take over or destroy a Muslim shrine, the Al Aqsa mosque.

The New York Times article reporting on the rioting did not even bother to mention the Palestinian call to violence, nor was an anti-Semitic screed delivered in protest against the Hurva synagogue by Hamas reported. CNN's Newsroom, meanwhile blamed Palestinian violence on Israeli actions.

A few days earlier, the Palestinian Authority renamed a public square in Ramallah after Dalal al-Mughrabi, a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 civilians (including 13 children and an American photographer) were murdered and 71 wounded.

Much of the media, however, downplayed or ignored entirely this Palestinian incitement and glorification of terrorism. Instead, the focus was almost entirely on Israel's alleged "provocations" – the announcement that it would build new homes in Jewish neighborhoods in annexed Jerusalem. It was this stated intention by Israel, the public was informed, that threatened the possibility of peace negotiations. "One of the biggest obstacles to peace," the Financial Times declared, is the expansion of "settlements." Palestinian calls to kill Jews were not similarly labeled an "obstacle to peace.".

CNN’s Newsroom

CNN’s "Newsroom" essentially absolved the Palestinian leadership from blame and even justified Palestinian rioting, arguing that it was Israel’s rededication of the Hurva synagogue, and not the falsehood-fueled calls to riot, that sent Palestinians "over the edge."

The March 16, 9 AM newscast featured Kyra Phillips explaining the source of tension in Israel’s capital, and in the process, revealing her ignorance of the history of Jerusalem:

Here's the crux of the battle. The U.S. wants Israel to nix construction plans for east Jerusalem that would integrate the predominantly Arab part of the holy city. And as you know for centuries, Palestinians have always wanted this land as their state...

...Palestinians already angry about those construction plans have been sent over the edge by the reopening of a synagogue in east Jerusalem...

...Hamas called the protests after -- or called for the protests, rather, after yesterday's reopening of a synagogue that was destroyed during the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. [emphasis added]

The idea that Palestinian nationalism is a "centuries-old" phenomenon is dubious at best. Historian James L. Gelvin points out that "Palestinian nationalism emerged during the interwar period in response to Zionist immigration and settlement," and that "Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism."

Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis notes that the very concept of a Palestinian nation "was unknown" through the Ottoman period that ended in 1919. Even "the concept of Arab nationalism" did not reach "significant proportions before the outbreak of World War I."

This viewpoint is shared by many Middle East experts.

CNN’s 10 AM newscast similarly had Paula Hancocks justifying the Palestinian incitement by explaining that it was "because of that announcement last week of these 1,600 new homes in east Jerusalem." She expanded her blame-Israel theme:

This will always wind the Palestinians up as they're worried that Israel will try to push Palestinians out of east Jerusalem and also because there was a synagogue that was re-opened just 300 meters or so from the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday night. And that has caused tensions to rise and Hamas, the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus called for a day of rage today.

Again, CNN falsely cast the rioting as a grassroots response to an Israeli provocation, without noting the Palestinian leadership lied about their mosque being in danger.

New York Times

Perhaps best typifying the focus on Israel while whitewashing the major Palestinian role in deepening the conflict was an article by Ethan Bronner in the March 17th edition of the New York Times, published the morning after the Palestinian "day of rage."

The article virtually ignored the Palestinian violence (which Ha’aretz analysts Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel described as "more serious than anything similar over the past two years ") as well as its most immediate cause.

Instead, its focus was on Israeli building. Nineteen of the article’s 26 paragraphs dealt with Israeli construction in disputed territory. Only two referenced the violence, which resulted in numerous injuries and included rock throwing and even live fire by Palestinians.)

The reporter didn’t bother to inform readers that the violence was largely a response to the incitement. For example, there was no mention in this article of this Hamas statement:

We call on the Palestinian people to regard Tuesday as a day of rage against the occupation's [Israel's] procedures in Jerusalem against al-Aqsa mosque.

As Reuters acknowledged in its reports about the violence, "Hamas and Palestinian officials affiliated with its rival Fatah movement have said the restoration work at the ancient Hurva synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's walled Old City endangered al-Aqsa, situated some 400 meters away."

But although an earlier story by Isabel Kershner (about the rededication of the Hurva Synagogue, but not about the violence) did reference Hamas’s claim about the alleged "destruction of the Al Aksa Mosque" and relayed the American characterization of such claims as "incitement," Bronner’s article mentioned nothing about the incitement to violence, and misleadingly focused on Israel by stating only that the Palestinian rioters were "protesting Israeli control and construction in East Jerusalem."

Neither New York Times story informed readers that it was not only Hamas, but also Mahmoud Abbas’s supposedly-moderate Fatah movement, that spread lies about the mosque. As Ha’aretz’s Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff put it,

the Palestinian Authority is playing a very dangerous game – perhaps the most dangerous of it all – over Jerusalem and specifically the Temple Mount. Mohammed Dahlan, who is not known for his religious fervor, Khatem Abdel Kader, who holds the Jerusalem portfolio in Fatah, and others called Sunday on Israeli Arabs and residents of East Jerusalem to go to the Temple Mount today to "protect it from the Jews."

Also ignored in both Times articles was the virulent anti-Jewish hate speech accompanying Hamas’s lies about the destruction of the mosque. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar stated that the Jewish people were destined to be destroyed.

"You who are opening Hurva are heading towards ruin," Zahar is quoted saying on the Web sites of the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot and Hezbollah’s Al Manar.

"Wherever you have been you've been sent to your destruction. You've killed and murdered your prophets and you have always dealt in loan-sharking and destruction. You're destined to be destroyed. You've made a deal with the devil and with destruction itself – just like your synagogue."

Washington Post

By contrast, a March 16 column by Washington Post commentator Richard Cohen, who has not hesitated to criticize Israel in the past, criticizes the media’s one-sided blaming of Israel. After noting that editorialists have been slamming Israel for its construction plans, he asserts:

it would have been nice for those same editorialists to have paused in their anti-Israel jihad to wonder a bit about the virtually simultaneous Palestinian veneration of terrorists. In fact, the determination in the West, particularly Europe, not to hold Palestinians morally accountable for terrorism -- as well as their commonplace anti-Semitism -- is a repugnant form of neocolonial mentality in which, once again, the Palestinians are being patronized.

Congresswoman, are you on Israel's side?

Pollak For Congress

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ##
March 17, 2010


Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Take a stand against the administration's attacks on Israel

This morning on the Don Wade & Roma show on WLS AM, Rep. Jan Schakowsky claimed that the Obama administration's attacks would not hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship. She the attacks were "not going to harm the long-term or even the short-term relationship between the United States and Israel," and she compared the argument to a marital dispute.

It is a completely inappropriate analogy, and one belied by the statement by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren that "Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975" and that this was "a crisis of historic proportions." Rep. Schakowsky is failing in her duty to speak truth to power on behalf of the residents of her district, who overwhelmingly support a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.

It is time for Israel's friends in the United States to stand up and be counted. I call on Rep. Jan Schakowsky to join me in condemning the Obama administration's ongoing attack on Israel, America's most steadfast ally. I urge her to denounce the dangerous posture of J Street, the far-left organization that she helped found in Chicago last month and which is backing the administration's hostile approach against the Jewish State.


Last week, the Obama administration attacked Israel for announcing that it would be building new apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem-an area that the White House had agreed would not be part of the "settlement freeze," and which will be part of Israel in any peace agreement with the Palestinians. Despite apologies from the Israeli government, the administration has continued to attack Israel in the U.S. media.


Members of both parties have criticized the Obama administration for its overreaction, which amounts to incitement against Israel and has created the worst crisis in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, according to Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. There was no similar criticism from the administration when Palestinian leaders dedicated a public square in honor of a terrorist the day after Vice-President Joe Biden's visit.


In the wake of criticism from Biden, David Axelrod, Hillary Clinton and others, Hamas has sent violent protestors into the street to denounce Israeli construction in Jerusalem, including the reconstruction of a centuries-old synagogue that was destroyed by Jordan after 1948. The Obama administration has given Palestinian leaders a new precondition for negotiations, without demanding that they live up to their commitments to stop terror.


Rep. Jan Schakowsky has been totally silent. But J Street, the far-left organization she helped found and build, has gleefully celebrated the crisis, calling on supporters to sign a petition supporting the administration's stance against Israel. As Rep. Schakowsky told J Street at its Chicago opening last month: "I've been a supporter of J Street since its inception." She is also the #3 money recipient from J Street PAC this cycle.


The administration and J Street are wrong in their attacks on the Israeli government. Banning Jews from Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem smacks of bigotry and gives Palestinian leaders an excuse to avoid peace talks. The attacks also embolden Israel's enemies at a time when the U.S. and Israel must stand together against Iran. It is time for Rep. Schakowsky to decide: where does she stand-with J Street or with Israel?


I call on Rep. Schakowsky to join me in taking a stand. Speak up for America's 62-year relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East. Stop the rhetoric that is more vitriolic than anything the Obama administration uses against America's enemies. Stop public demands for unilateral Israeli concessions. Start focusing on Iran's nuclear program, instead of joining Iran in attacking the Jewish presence in Jerusalem.


Rep. Schakowsky is the voice for J Street in Chicago and across the nation. She hosted their first gala dinner and was a featured speaker at their first national conference. It is up to her to speak out against J Street's petition drive and against the anti-Israel attacks of the Obama administration. Her silence, as long as it continues, will stand as evidence of her true beliefs about Israel. She must take a stand, before more damage is done.

Does the White House consider Israel a threat?

FROM: RJC Legislative Affairs Committee
SUBJECT: Congress Must Reject Obama's Threats to Unravel U.S.-Israel Alliance

The latest news reports make it clear that the Obama administration's campaign of criticism against Israel threatens to do irreparable damage to relations with our valued ally.

* The Washington Post reports that

In an effort to get peace talks back on track, the Obama administration is pressing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to reverse last week's approval of 1,600 housing units in a disputed area of Jerusalem, make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians, and publicly declare that all of the "core issues" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the status of Jerusalem, be included in upcoming talks, U.S. officials said.

*The New York Times tells us that the administration is looking to "turn the tables" on Israel's leaders, language more suited to dealings with an enemy than with an ally. The Times' reporting suggests that after a failed, months-long effort to entice the Palestinians into direct negotiations with Israel, the administration now wants Israel to accept the Palestinians' preferred framework - one in which our diplomats would negotiate for them.

*And at the Atlantic.com, Jeffrey Goldberg reports that Obama's ultimate aim is to destroy Israel's current government in hopes that the current governing coalition would be replaced by a more pliant one.

What happened to the promise made back in the 2008 campaign that during an Obama presidency, "the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel"?

Fortunately, more and more members of Congress are protesting what House Republican Whip Eric Cantor aptly describes as an "opportunistic move by an administration that wants to impose its view... onto our ally."

At first, most of those speaking up were Republicans. But now more Democrats have begun to break with the administration.

At this point, Obama and his lieutenants are isolated. Yet they show no signs of admitting their error.

We need to encourage more members of Congress to speak up, so that the administration will stand down.

Please take a moment to call or email your Congressman and two U.S. Senators. Urge them to speak out against the Obama administration's pressure campaign against Israel.

*Information about how to contact your Congressman can be found at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml (you will be directed to a site where you can identify who your Representative is and send him or her an email) -- or by calling 202-224-3121.

* Information about how to contact your U.S. Senators can be found at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm -- or by calling 202-224-3121.

Key points to emphasize:

* It is outrageous that the Obama administration is attacking an ally even as it coddles hostile nations like Iran and Syria.

* The cause of peace is set back when Israel's foes are led to believe that significant diplomatic gains can be achieved through American pressure - and without reciprocal concessions.

* The Obama administration's obsession with the peace process - even when the Palestinians demonstrate by their actions that they are not ready to make peace - has become a distraction from the effort to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Thank you for weighing in on this urgent and timely matter. This is the moment when we need to raise our voices!

It doesn't work that way, Saeb Erekat

The New York Times reports that the Vice President of the United States begins a five-day Middle East tour with the aim of restarting Israel-Palestinian peace talks.

Uh-huh.

In this article, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat warns that the hour for reaching a peace agreement is drawing nigh, and if an agreement isn't reached, then the only solution is Israrelis and Palestinians sharing one state.

Or, as we would call it, the death of Israel.

No, Mr. Erekat, it doesn't work that way. Typical Palestinian negotiating, or saber-rattling: warning, and then threats.

Israel no longer needs peace with the Palestinians. From this vantage point, Israel is at peace. The security fence reduced suicide attacks to almost zero. The PA-controlled West Bank is booming economically, and Palestinian security forces are cooperating with Israeli security forces there. All that is missing is for Israel to give up more land to the Palestinians. Because that has worked out so well in the past.

No, Israel is doing just fine, Mr. Erekat, and if you can't sell peace and coexistence to your people, that's not Israel's problem. Binational state? Like "right of return," just another insidious idea with the ultimate goal of destroying Israel's unique Jewish character and majority.

* * *

This is Blog Post #501.

Rabbi Yaakov Parisi at Skokie Chabad

Rabbi Yaakov Ephraim Parisi told his very inspiring story at a packed house at Skokie Chabad Friday night, March 5. He grew up in an Italian-Catholic home in Brooklyn and was religious from the start, serving as an altar boy and then leaving the Catholic Church and starting his own small church in Oklahoma. It was there he began studying Judaism, spending a fortune on Artscroll publications to enhance his learning and knowledge. Rabbi Parisi and his wife completed their conversion process on the same day about 12 years ago. Listening to him speak makes one realize what a treasure the history of the Jewish people really is.

Dinner was outstanding: challah rolls, gefilte fish, (pareve) eggplant parmesan, baby baked potatoes, and breaded chicken. Dessert was fresh fruit and Danish.

The only part of Rabbi Parisi’s speech in which I would disagree with him is what he said about Christianity. He singled out the Southern Baptist Church in particular for pouring millions of dollars into Jews for Jesus. If that’s true (and I suspect it is), that of course is abhorrent. However, many, if not most, conservative and evangelical Christian groups are friends to the Jewish people. This includes the Roman Catholic Church, which I think has 60 million or so American members. These churches support Israel and do not try to convert Jews because they do not believe Jews need to be saved. The major Jewish organizations in the U.S. could accomplish much by joining forces with Christians to:
Fight Islamic terrorism in the U.S. and worldwide;
Support Israel and oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement; and
(orthodox) Support tuition vouchers

The Jewish people constitute such a small segment of American society that it only makes sense to team up with other groups who share Jewish values.

Intifada on campus

Only in Israel

Jack Berger told this story:

He hails a taxicab in Israel and asks the driver to take him to the Jerusalem bus station.

The driver asks him, "Where are you going?"

"The Jerusalem bus station."

"I heard you. No, where are you taking the bus?"

"I don't think you want to take me."

"Try me."

"To Chevron (Hebron)."

"I'll take you."

"You're driving a new Mercedes. Are you sure?"

"Sure, I'll take you."

So they leave Jerusalem and take the highway to Chevron. They pick up a trio of teenage girls along the way who need a ride. When they arrive at the outskirts of Chevron, they run into a military roadblock, and the commander tells them they can't enter the city. (He probably says, "Eee efshar"--impossible--they love saying that.) At that point one of the girls hands the commander a card.

"What's this?" he asks.

"It's an invitation to my wedding," she tells him. "I'm getting married at Machpelah tonight."

He waves them through.

Tired of saying tehillim for Gilad Shalit

In 1979, Iranian college students took over the U.S. embassy in Teheran and held 52 men hostage for 444 days.* As a final insult to the American president, Jimmy Carter, the students released the hostages on his successor's inauguration day.

A political cartoon from that period showed the American eagle locked in a birdcage.

I thought of that image when considering Israel's situation regarding its soldier Gilad Shalit held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006. Hamas is a secretive, shadowy terrorist organization. But Israel is a sovereign state with an international spy operation that has no rival in the world. When Israel decides to assassinate Hamas leaders, it does so. In fact, the professional execution of a terrorist operative in Dubai last week is widely attributed to Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, which refuses to confirm or deny its involvement. This is its standard plausible deniability tactic.

So what's the problem? Why is Gilad Shalit still being held hostage, after nearly four years?

At the conclusion of a service in many orthodox synagogues, the prayer leader will say a paragraph of tehillim (usually Psalm 130) "because of the ongoing situation in Israel," which refers to the conflict in general but specifically to Shalit. I'm tired of it, not just because it makes the service longer (which is selfish) but because the situation could most likely be easily solved. There's only one way to find out.

There is probably no diplomatic solution to the hostage situation. If Hamas were to release Shalit at all, it would demand a significant prisoner exchange involving dozens or hundreds of convicted murderers. Other than that, there is no good reason for Hamas to give up its one ace in the hole to its sworn enemy. It would lose considerable credibility and respect from the "Arab street" it claims to represent.

When China kept American servicemen hostage for a week or so in 2001, the U.S. president apologized (twice--embarrassing), and the People's Republic allowed the men to go home. When Iran captured British servicemen in 2007, there was intense international pressure on Iran to release the men. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw a public relations opportunity and released them within two weeks, saying, "This pardon is a gift to the British people." Since the world's conscience doesn't lose any sleep over a captured Israeli, Israel is getting almost no help in securing Shalit's release, despite his French and (awarded since capture) Italian citizenship.

Could Israel please stop acting like a scared little kid and start acting like a regional military power?

Call up Hamas and demand Shalit's unconditional release within 48 hours. Then start hunting down Hamas' murderous operatives and assassinate them--one per day. Shalit would be home soon enough. What would be the world's reaction? The extreme Left would once again be in the uncomfortable position of defending homicide terrorism. Sure, it does that anyway, but when one weighs Shalit's plight against the lives of terrorists, most of world opinion would be on Shalit's side.

Your move, Israel. Do you want to see Shalit grow old in captivity? He turns 24 in August. He should celebrate at home.

_________
*They released the women and children almost immediately after the raid.

Toronto Film Fest's link to Tel Aviv enrages haters

I was a little surprised when I read that the Toronto Film Festival's first City to City choice would be Tel Aviv. The festival is running right now (Sept. 10-19). "That's an unusual first choice, especially considering so many leftists despise Israel, and I suspect that includes not a few in the film industry," I thought. Reaction was swift and nasty. A director withdrew his film and began circulating a petition to "protest TIFF's complicity with the Israeli propaganda machine." You don't say! (And we all know what a splendid job that propaganda machine is doing.)

In his pathetic, simpering response to this opening shot, TIFF co-director Cameron Bailey capitulates to the leftists by agreeing that Tel Aviv "remains contested ground." Contested by whom? By the Islamists and leftist extremists who believe Israel has no right to exist. And Bailey feels the need to acknowledge such extremist views? Consider the source, and his field of work, I suppose.

The petition critical of TIFF's choice of Tel Aviv gained traction and 50 signers, including Jane Fonda, Danny Glover and Alice Walker. After heavy criticism of the petition from Hollywood heavyweights (and Big Jews) Jerry Seinfeld, Natalie Portman and Sacha Baron Cohen, Fonda apologized. The petition says in part, "[W]e object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of...an apartheid regime."

Here we go again.

Apartheid.

And "regime," of course, is a code word for "totalitarian dictatorship."

It seems like comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa is a new development because The Worthless One President Jimmy Carter sealed the comparison with his 2006 book title Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. (During his subsequent book tour Carter conceded the Israeli government does not practice apartheid. Liar? You tell me.) I remember in the late 80's pro-Israel advocates trained us students how to combat and debate such comparisons. There were five main laws that set up apartheid in South Africa. The African National Congress, Nelson Mandela's opposition party, wanted those five laws repealed. Obviously, Israel never had any such laws and gives its minority Arab citizens more rights than they would enjoy in any Arab state.

The nasty, visceral reaction to Israel at every turn--academia in London, a film festival in Toronto--calls the liberal agenda's integrity into question especially when liberals are strangely silent on real human rights violations elsewhere around the globe. Burma/Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest? This should be a cause célèbre (with celebrities), but Suu Kyi's democracy movement is almost a secret in the West. North Korea's prison work camps? Worth investigation and publicity; only briefly famous because Pyongyang got lucky when it captured two pretty American women, thus forcing a visit by a former president. China's illegal occupation of Tibet and gradual elimination of Tibetan culture? The People's Republic considers Tibet an internal matter, and no one seems to mind.

And that's just Asia.

Israel's neighbors are some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Penalty for wearing a cross necklace in Saudi Arabia: flogging. Penalty for Driving While Female in Saudi Arabia: flogging. Penalty for being outed as a gay man almost anywhere in the Arab world: torture and public execution. (Yet you see a Queers for Palestine sign at every anti-Israel rally. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.) Arranged marriages of underage girls. Female genital mutilation. Honor killings. No consequences for rape. These are all common in the Arab world and duly noted by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report. No one seems to care.

The organizations that are supposed to care are the Non-Governmental Organizations, or NGO's. They are repeatedly shown to have the same nasty anti-Israel bias that is prevalent across the West. They are silent on terrorist war crimes against Israel but fire up their laptops at the first sign of Israel daring to defend itself. "You're shooting back? No fair!" This is how Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch operate. HRW suffered two recent embarrassments: a discovery that it raises funds in Saudi Arabia by promoting its anti-Israel work; and a discovery that an analyst at HRW is a Nazi memorabilia collector. After initially defending Marc Garlasco, HRW suspended the analyst today.

In apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow American South, we saw how racial/ethnic hatred prevailed over economic self-interest. South Africa suffered serious economic pain due to its apartheid system and the subsequent worldwide boycott. Societal segregation gave white Southerners the lowest quality of life of anyone in the U.S.--except for their black neighbors. Now, human rights advocates ignore their own principle and ideology to attack Israel...just because.

It's really the settlements, Mr. President?

By Joseph Aaron, Editor, Chicago Jewish News. This is a two-part column that I chose to reprint in its entirety from Chicago Jewish News as I plan to use it to rebuke letters to the editor that attempt to ape the president's faulty logic.

* * *


Let me see if I've got this straight.

A group acting in the name of Islam, sent by someone revered by many Muslims, flies two planes into the Twin Towers, killing almost 3,000 innocent people, the vast majority of them Americans, and the American president travels to one of the most repressive Islamic countries to make nice to the Islamic world?

The plight of the Palestinians, largely of their own making, them having rejected offer after offer from the partition plan in 1947 on, having murdered thousands of Israeli men, women and children, having walked away from a deal by the Israeli prime minister in 2000 that would have given them 99 percent of what they want, including part of Jerusalem as their capital, it is their plight that the American president compared to that of American slaves and to the systematic extermination of six million Jewish men, women and children?

The American president saw as a big concession to Israel and the Jewish people the fact that, in stirring and eloquent words, he made a big point of saying that yes, the Holocaust did actually take place?

I truly don't get it.

Now before I tell you how disappointed I am in President Barack Obama's big speech, let me just remind you that I am politically left of center, generally support the positions of the Democratic party, have been a strong supporter of the peace process from day one, believe Israel should give back almost all of the West Bank, believe there should be a Palestinian state and believe all religions are deserving of respect.

So I don't come at this like one of those knee-jerk right wingers like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News who believe Obama can do nothing right; or like those knee-jerk right wing Jewish groups like the Zionist Organization of America or the National Council of Young Israel who think Obama is out to get Israel; or like those knee-jerk crazy Jews, of whom there are way too many, who think Obama is an Arab lover intent on ending America's support of Israel.

When it comes to the Middle East, as with so much else, I think Obama's heart is in the right place. But what his speech in Cairo showed loudly and clearly is how much he sees everything as if it were an election campaign, how much faith he has in his own words, how much he thinks he is the first one to figure things out and, most of all, how unbelievably naive he is.

He really truly thought that by making this speech, by saying a few things out loud about what this side needs and feels and what that side needs and feels, that he would transform the dynamic of the Middle East and lead us to the peace that has eluded so many lesser leaders than him.

Proving only how little he understands the Middle East.

For starters, let me say loudly and clearly, that this speech will have virtually no positive affect of any kind on anyone in the region, that it will change nothing for the better. And that what little impact it might have will be a negative one.

Obama said his speech was all about telling the truth, which he seems to believe no one else has ever thought of before or done before. Problem is that he didn't tell the truth. Not even close.

And the clearest example of that was that he did not once, not once in an hour long, 6,000 word speech, use the word terrorism. Which is a very real reality in the Islamic world and emblematic of the basic malfunctions of the Arab Islamic world.

For a guy who said his speech was about telling the truth, he didn't once tell the Arab world the truth that it relies on terrorism as a way to make its political points. It did that on Sept. 11, it has done that in the 61 years since Israel was established, it even did that when a Dutch newspaper printed a cartoon many Muslims felt was insulting to Mohammed.

I find it stunning that while Obama in his speech said all the right things about democracy and human rights and the rights of women, the only two countries he visited on his trip were Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two places where democracy and human rights totally do not exist and have no hope of coming to be as long as dictators are in charge. Both brutally repress their own people, and it is clear that will continue, for once Mubarak goes in Egypt, his son will be anointed to take over, just as it is clear the royal family in Saudi Arabia will continue to rule with an iron fist and give free rein to clerics to continue to promote wahabism, the most hateful form of Islam.

Not one word of condemnation for either government in this speech devoted to telling the truth. Rather in his actions by visiting these two countries and publicly embracing their leaders, Obama gave them added legitimacy and reassured them he isn't going to ask them to change. Which is just one of the ways his speech will have a negative impact.

There are so many more. But before I get to how the speech will make things worse, let me first note the fact that Obama came to the Middle East and made two stops - Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Not Israel. Though it is right next door. Though that would have sent a signal to the Arab world, which in his speech he said must do more to accept that Israel is a part of their neighborhood.

Ask yourself one question. Can you imagine Obama coming to the Middle East and only visiting Israel? Is that conceivable? If he would come to visit Israel, would he not have felt it vital to visit at least Egypt and Saudi Arabia just to be fair? If he had only visited Israel, would we not have seen violent protests in the streets of Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

Okay, back to the speech. Obama began the part that focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with very moving words about the horror of the Holocaust, strongly condemning those who would deny its reality. I appreciate the words, I really do. But there is something very sick about the fact that in this major address to the Muslim world that he needs to firmly tell them not to deny the Holocaust.

The Holocaust happened. It is a fact, not something up for debate. To deny it is not to have a political difference, it is to be nuts, wacko, like saying there is no sun in the sky. That in 2009, such a basic historical fact is being denied by Middle East leaders and that so many in the Middle East buy that denial to the point the president of the United States has to tell them to stop that, tells you so much about the reality of the depravity of the Middle East and that its got a lot bigger problems than some settlements in the West Bank.

Speaking of which - and again I am no supporter of the settlements, believe too many settlers have said and acted in disgusting ways, and am more than prepared to give the Palestinians about 97 percent of the West Bank - but when exactly did the root of all the problems in the Middle East become the settlements?

Obama has evidently decided that he is being this brave, insightful leader by making the settlements the big issue at the start, by forcefully insisting that Israel stop building or expanding them. That to him is talking truth and that to him will lead to the Arabs then making significant gestures to Israel which will then lead to a lasting peace, two sides living by side by side, all because Obama out loud took on the settlements.

In fact, that shows how much he doesn't understand the way the Middle East works. He thinks if he shows the Arabs how he is pressuring Israel on the settlements, they in turn will be so grateful that they will come out and make gestures to welcome Israel to the neighborhood. If they see an effort to stop settlements, which they want, well, by golly, then they'll do something Israel wants.

Except that is not how things in the Mideast, or how the Arab mind, works, where the bargaining in the shuk mentality rules. By pushing Israel so hard on the settlements, what Obama has done, as the Arabs will see it, is hand them a stop to settlements without them having to give anything. A freebie. They put that concession in their pocket and wait for the next one. To them it shows how easy Obama is to roll and just whets their appetite to see what else they can get him to get from Israel.

We saw that with Gaza. Israel evacuated every single settlement in Gaza. All of them. Did that then lead the Palestinians to make a gesture back to Israel, to reciprocate and move peace forward? Just the opposite. They turned Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks on Israel. They saw Gaza not as a magnanimous gesture, but as a sign of weakness, saw it not as a step toward peace but as confirming the wisdom of their terrorist policy. Terrorism, they believe, got them Gaza and will get them more.

By so publicly calling for Israel to stop settlements, especially in his big speech, what Obama has accomplished is the following: he has made it politically impossible for Bibi Netanyahu to agree, for to do so would make him appear weak and caving in; and the one thing Israelis won't abide is a weak leader. And the one thing Arabs are keenly attuned to and ready to take advantage of is any weakness on Israel's part.

Obama's well meaning naivete about how the Middle East works has also done more damage...

As I said, he began the part of his speech about the Israelis and Palestinians by talking about the Holocaust. He noted that the Jewish people's "aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied."

No. Wrong. Dangerously, obscenely wrong.

The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted not in a tragic history but because Israel is the land that G-d promised to, gave to the Jewish people. G-d told Abraham that he would give that land to his descendants. Abraham, the father not just of the Jews but also the Christians and yes the Muslims.

The Jewish tie to Israel is rooted not in the Holocaust, not in pogroms, but in the Torah.

And if bringing in religion as part of a political issue makes you uncomfortable or angry, tough. Read Obama's speech and see how many references he made to the Islamic religion, how many times he quoted the Holy Koran, referred to the Holy Koran, talked about the teachings and messages of Islam. Well, if it's okay to note how important religion is to Muslims, if he said he visited Saudi Arabia because it is the "place where Islam began" then it should be okay to refer to Judaism, the Torah, how our tie to Israel is rooted in G-d saying that is our place, the home of His chosen people.

And if talk of religion is not enough to show the bond between the Jews and Israel, refer to history, to how there has been an unbroken Jewish presence there for more than 3,000 years, how Israel is the only place on earth where Jews have ever been sovereign, how it is the only place we have prayed for, worked for, dreamed about, no matter where we lived, for every day of our existence going back thousands of years, at the very start of our story, long before our tragic history.

No, the aspiration for Jews to live in Israel is not rooted in our tragic history, but in the fact that it is our ancestral, traditional, historic and yes, G-d given home.

The danger in saying what Obama said is if, in fact, we are in Israel because of the Holocaust, then the Arabs can justifiably ask why "the Arab nation" has to provide the safe haven for the Jews. If it was Europe that caused us so much suffering, let Europe make up for it. How about carving out part of Germany and making it the Jewish homeland? That would be more fair and just if the only reason we came to Israel was to escape the killing fields of Europe.

Another troubling aspect of his speech is that Obama concluded his remarks about the Holocaust by noting that "six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today." Then he went on, "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people ... have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

What? On the other hand? He is equating the systematic extermination of six million Jewish men, women and children, with Palestinian suffering in pursuit of a state?

It is a comparison nothing short of obscene, amazingly ignorant of history and fact.

Palestinian suffering has been of their own making. Suffering that could have been avoided had they simply accepted the United Nations' partition plan of 1947. Suffering that could have been avoided had the Arab countries not launched the war of 1967 in an attempt to destroy Israel. There were no settlements before 1967. Suffering that could have been avoided had the Arab countries provided the funds to close the Palestinian refugee camps and built decent housing for their brethren, instead of keeping the camps open to score political points. Suffering that could have been avoided if the Palestinians had agreed to the unbelievably generous offer given them at Camp David in 2000 which would have given them a state, 97 percent of the West Bank, half of Jerusalem.

On the other hand? Jews had no choice, no chance to avoid the suffering of the Holocaust, were nothing but productive, model, loyal residents in all the countries where they have been persecuted.

That the Palestinians have suffered is undeniable. That the Palestinians could have avoided their suffering had they just been willing to live in peace with Israel is also undeniable.

What Obama has done by his odious comparison is let the Palestinians off the hook. Yes, they can say, sure the Jews suffered in the Holocaust, which was not our fault by the way, but we have suffered just as much, and that's completely the Jews' doing. They suffered at the hands of the Nazis and we have suffered at the hands of the Nazi-like Israelis.

There was one other aspect of the speech that I found troubling. As the New York Times put it, Obama "twice referring to 'Palestine' in a way that put Palestinians on parallel footing with Israelis"... and that Obama's "empathetic tone toward the Palestinians ... left many Palestinians and their Arab supporters jubilant ... because they saw the speech as elevating the Palestinians to equal status."

Look, I strongly believe there should be a Palestinian state and that the Palestinians deserve to be treated with dignity, but the simple, very important fact is that they have not earned 'parallel footing with Israelis" or "equal status" and to just hand it to them was both wrong morally and foolish politically.

Israel and the Palestinians started in the same place 61 years ago. Some of the Jews able to survive the Holocaust and able to make their way to Israel joined the ragtag collection of Jews there, in a land with no natural resources. They chose to accept the half a loaf of the partition plan and went about the business of building a state. And so they have done. Establishing a vibrant democracy in a part of the world where that is an unknown concept. Creating from scratch an innovative high tech economy. They have made the desert bloom, assembled a strong army, brought forth a highly creative culture. They have absorbed Jews from every corner of the earth, revived an ancient language, built world class hospitals and universities and businesses-all while fighting war after war, enduring the enmity of its neighbors.

The Palestinians, by contrast, said no in 1947 and have squandered the time since, stagnated, no democracy, no economy. They have preached and practiced hate and intolerance, wrapped themselves in a blanket of victimhood, blamed the Jews for all their woes, purposely kept their people living in misery, become world experts at only one thing - terrorism.

There is a difference. The Palestinians have not earned what Obama gave them -parallel footing with Israelis. Yes, they deserve their own state, yes they deserve to live in dignity, but he should have told them that to get that, you have to earn it, show you deserve it, demonstrate you would do good with it. Let us see democracy and the rule of law and the dismantling of the terror networks, let us see as much effort in building an economy as in perfecting weapons, let us hear words of peace in your mosques and on your TV, not calls for Israel's destruction, as Hamas, the most powerful Palestinian faction and the only Palestinian party mentioned by name by Obama, continues to do.

You can't be given respect, you must earn it. The Palestinians have not done so. And yet Obama handed it to them, giving them no reason to work for it, showing them their way has worked. They have done nothing to show they are ready for peace, ready for their own state, and yet they have been given parallel footing with Israel by the president of the United States.

This speech was Barack Obama doing what Barack Obama does, using his gift of eloquence and his powerful words to show compassion to both sides, have each side try to understand where the other is coming from, demonstrate understanding for how each side sees things, urge that we forget the past and look only to the future, convince those listening that, with the audacity of hope and the belief that yes we can, any disagreement, even the most difficult and longstanding, is resolvable. He's done that with hot button issues from abortion to race, and doing that got him elected president of the United States.

Yes, I am thankful he said nice things about the "unbreakable" bond between the United States and Israel, yes, I am glad he told the Palestinians that violence has gotten them nowhere, yes, I am pleased he told the Arab world it must accept the fact that Israel "will not go away."

But the big problem with this big speech is that the conflict in the Middle East is not a political campaign and the people who live there are not just like the voters in Iowa.

The Arab Middle East is a place where time is measured not in election cycles, but in millennia, where up is down and right is wrong, where to be reasonable is to be seen as weak, where there is no win-win only win-lose, where hatred trumps the truth, where reaching out is seen as being a sucker, where Osama bin Laden remains a hero to many, where too many would rather kill Israeli children than make the future brighter for Palestinian ones.

The Arab Middle East is a place where the president of the United States has to come to implore, plead, make the case that it's time to finally admit that the Holocaust did actually take place.

George Will speaks on Israel

H/T: my friend Havah.

It is unworthy of the United States to aspire to be even-handed between those who would destroy and those who would preserve the only democracy in that region
Rick Richman - June 10, 2009


George Will speaks on Israel

http://jpundit.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451604c69e2011570f36df7970b-pi

George F. Will was the featured speaker at the dinner Monday evening at the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica, in celebration of the Claremont Review of Books. Will received the Salvatori Prize in the American Founding, and gave a masterful speech that included a mixture of political insight, conservative philosophy, humor and baseball stories.

After the speech, he took a few questions, including one that led him to reflect on President Obama’s apparent belief that disharmony among nations results from misunderstandings that can be cured by dialogue and communication (and the force of his own personality) -- a view that Will characterized as reflecting a 1930s approach to foreign policy:

We’ve seen this in his treatment of Israel in that remarkable speech, the atmospherics of which were fine, the specifics appalling.

I mean, in the 61 years since Israel was founded on one-sixth of one percent of land in that area described as land of the Arab world, there has not been a moment of peace for Israel, not as peace is properly understood.

How many Americans understand that when Israel was founded in 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded, no Palestinian state was destroyed? There had not been a Palestinian geographic entity since between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of British rule.

How many know that the West Bank, referred to by the President as “occupied territory,” inferentially as occupied Palestinian territory, is under international law unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate rightfully occupied by Israel, because it occupied it in repelling aggression that came from that territory in 1967. .

How the President believes that if we return to the 1967 borders, the antipathy to Israel, which predated the 1967 borders, will disappear, I do not know.

It would help if he . . . spent some time . George W. Bush, for all his defects, went to Israel shortly before he was elected and was squired around by another rancher named Arik Sharon. He took him up in a helicopter, to where Israel was at one point nine miles wide, and George W. Bush came home and said “My God, in Texas we have driveways longer than that.” . He sort of got the picture.

I remember -- if I could go back to an autobiographical moment -- in 1979 I was invited to talk to the B’nai Brith of Beverly Hills – not a nest of conservatives – and they said “Who should be the Republican nominee?” And I said, pick Howard Baker, George Bush, Ronald Reagan. And they said “Well, who would be best for Israel?” And I responded “Of course it would be Ronald Reagan.” They said “Why?”

I said -- “Two reasons: he believes in aircraft carriers. He believes in the projection of American power. Second, he is a romantic. He’s got the story of Israel, plucky little Israel.”

You need both. You need aircraft carriers and you need to appreciate the fact that Israel is an embattled salient of our values in a bad neighborhood. .

It is unworthy of the United States to aspire to be even-handed between those who would destroy and those who would preserve the only democracy in that region. .

Will was speaking extemporaneously, without notes, to an unanticipated question. His comments are worth listening to.

Antisemitism on the wane?

Until the horrible tragedy at the United States Holocaust Museum this afternoon, many people were apparently under the mistaken impression that antisemitic and racist hatred was on the wane, in the U.S. and worldwide. Just the opposite. The hesitation of media to criticize antisemitic hatred and Islamic terrorism across the Arab world has energized and legitimized such hatred.

Here is a case in point, which has little to do with Arabs but everything to do with Islam: Adbulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and killed William Long, 23, June 1 in West Little Rock, Ark. Muhammad, born Carlos Bledsoe, is an African-American convert to Islam. He called the Associated Press today (collect, from jail) and said his attack on Long, who was taking a cigarette break outside a U.S. Army recruiting office where he was volunteering his time, was justified due to U.S. military treatment of Muslims in the Middle East. This story is being handled very quietly by the media even though the circumstances are similar to what transpired in Washington today. The alleged killer is black and Muslim, so he is off-limits. Von Brunn is a white racist--a bit inconvenient that he hates Jews, too, like many Muslims. The media will go after von Brunn, and rightfully so. Muhammad should receive similar coverage, but he hasn't and won't.

The nasty, hate-filled attacks Israel receives on a daily basis at campuses across the U.S. are organized and coordinated by two groups: Muslims and white, middle-class left-wing extremists. The Muslim Student Association apparently spends much of its time and resources on Israel Apartheid Awareness Week (not to be confused with Islamo-Nazi Awareness Week) and spreading a propaganda campaign consisting of denouncements of such a horrible country that it deserves destruction. They harass and intimidate Jewish students, and Hillel houses have come under attack. If groups similarly attacked homosexuals or African-Americans, they would be banned from campus.

Two voting blocs voted for Barack Obama for president expecting him either to change his mind or renege on campaign promises: voters who favor legalizing gay marriage; and Arab-Muslim activists who favor the destruction of Israel. Apparently the latter were very disappointed that Obama addressed AIPAC in June, 2008. (He sent Vice President Biden this year.) They expected him to run for president and not appear pro-Israel? That might happen in 2012; we'll see. Too soon to tell. At this point, Americans who seek Israel's destruction must be pleased that the White House seems to be singling out Israel for criticism and are surely quite hopeful the U.S.-Israel relationship takes a sharp turn for the worse. The hatred of Jews is never far behind hatred of Israel. Without Israel, the International Socialist Organization doesn't have much of a political platform. Of course, everything it favors--women's rights, workers' rights, gay rights, abortion rights, laborers' rights--are permitted in Israel and banned across the Arab world. But Israel is a Jewish state, so it must be destroyed. I spoke to one socialist at the Howard cta station (mistake, I know) who told me he objected to Israel's status as a Jewish state. Of course the 23 Arab-Muslim states didn't bother him in the slightest. Socialists seem to have this idea of replacing Israel with a secular utopia. In the Middle East.

RedEye's Israel problem

RedEye,the free Tribune Co. tabloid publication aimed at people who ride the bus and/or train to work in Chicago, frequently prints international news in a couple of column inches. An item on Israel is limited to this coverage with what is often a very misleading headline. On Feb. 10, the headline was "More airstrikes in Gaza." No context as to what prompted the airstrikes. The first sentence said, "Israeli aircraft struck two targets in the Gaza Strip and a militant died in a clash with troops on the border Monday." Why did the "militant" (terrorist?) die? Maybe because he attacked the troops or was seen launching a rocket toward Israel? Or was it ruthless Israeli aggression? Yeah, right. We just don't know, and the casual news observer is left to draw his own conclusions. So first I criticized RedEye in my Twitter feed, saying, "Your 'More airstrikes in Gaza' item 02-10 gives no context for reason--Hamas rocket attacks. Your editor keeps doing this." This reached my 68 followers (wow! =)), plus a RedEye editor. The editor replied that context is difficult with only 30 words. I replied that context is necessary as far as Israel is concerned, and if RedEye doesn't have enough room, then the story should be dropped. In my Twitter comments, I have a 140-character limit. So I emailed ritaredeye@tribune.com and wrote:

Dear Editor:

Twice I have complained to your Twitter writer about items in the RedEye news roundup about Israel. The latest was yesterday's very biased headline: "More airstrikes in Gaza." Obviously there's much more to the story, but the Twitter writer explained, "Context isn't always easy in 30 words." Actually it was 46 words including the headline. Here's my version: same word limit, different angle:

Hamas terrorists attack Israeli troops in Gaza

A Hamas terrorist attacked Israeli troops in Gaza Monday, forcing them to respond, fatally wounding him. Due to Hamas terrorists in Gaza shelling Israeli civilian areas, Israeli aircraft launched a defensive response, striking two Gaza targets.

I'm sure you noticed the difference. Your story, perhaps pulled from anti-Israel media such as Reuters, euphemistically refers to "The violence" when the reality is "Hamas terrorist violence" and "Israeli defensive response." My story's perspective is different and yet retains the basic facts, in 43 words. Please be more careful when adding Mideast stories as anti-Israel bias frequently comes into play.

* * *

I think I made my point, and I hope RedEye pays attention.

Mayor Bloomberg takes down CNN from Jerusalem

Great interview. Smart response.

Shooting the breeze with Israeli soldiers

A light moment near Eilat (?) Jan. 1.