Sunday, August 8, 2010

The Great Move

Well, the time has come for us to bid this blog behind and move on to bigger and better things. If you have come looking for "The Brothers of Judea" you should know that we are now at a blog named: Huffington Post Monitor and are located at this address:

All of our old information and posts (user profiles, blogger responses) are also located at the news site.

Hopefully we will see you all there! Email us if you have any other questions.

Jewish Power Struggle!

Did you know that there's a power struggle between the ADL and AIPAC for control of America? I never would have known that if it weren't for the well informed HPers speaking truth to power!

The original link.

The Past Is Past....Except When It's Not

I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to reference the expression, "Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it" on a blog. The only thing that it is more common to argue about between Zionists and anti-Zionists than current events is the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of the things that I find so amazing, though, is anti-Zionist hypocrisy on the subject of the past.

This hypocrisy most clearly takes a very simple form: Misdeeds of Israel's enemies in the past are not happening now, times have changed, the situation is different, so Israel just needs to get over it. But on the other hand, the actions of Israel from decade or even millennia ago (seriously) are continually dredged up and aired out in every single thread.

Here are two examples from this thread if you don't believe me. The first poster thinks it's totally natural that the Lebanese should be skittish around Israel because of Israel's invasions of Lebanon twenty years ago and four years ago. Meanwhile, the second poster completely dismisses the genocidal invasion of Israel by five Arab armies as a "deflection."

It strikes me as very hypocritical for anti-Zionists to expect Israel to simply "get over" the past (including the Holocaust) but not expect the same from their enemies. How many times are the AZs going to wave the bloody shirt of the Nakba while out of the other side of their mouths complain that the Jews play up the Holocaust too much? Nor, I think, would they be particularly receptive if I were to point out that Cast Lead and the flotilla raid all happened in "the past" as well, and it's time that they all moved on from it.

I personally think that the history of both peoples (right or wrong) affects the conflict to this day and neither actions should be dismissed as "off topic" or a deflection, as long as the poster referencing it explains how it is related to the current discussion. Honestly, this conflict is not that long and there are many people who still remember everything that has happened since the beginning. It might be pretty easy for bbsnews to forget about that time Israel almost got wiped off the planet, but it's harder for Israel to do so.

Say what you will about the Zionists on the HP, but at least they are not hypocrites in this way.

Jews Support "Ground Zero Mosque," Haters Come Out

In the week or so since Matt and I wrote our thoughts about the supposed "Ground Zero Mosque," both of our opinions have changed. I'm not going to speak for Matt but I was convinced that there is no good reason to punish Muslims who have nothing to do with the attacks no matter what the reason.

Anyway, the HP published a story about Jewish groups supporting the Cordoba Center. As you might expect there was a little bit of Muslim-bashing but also some Jew-bashing, including the old "no Jews died in 9/11" conspiracy theory. Here's what I found:

Sharmine Narwani's Moussa Interview (Part 1)

 Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani has written a very, very long interview with Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who might potentially become President of Egypt. In sum the article was about how they both thought the current peace process wasn't working and Mr. Moussa had some ideas of what to do instead. To be honest the interview is too long to analyze completely but I did want to indicate an exchange here that is very telling about Ms. Narwani's point of view:
S: We both know that today there can be no Palestinian state or peace solution based on a land-for-peace formula because the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since talks started in Madrid nineteen years ago have quintupled. Right?

A: Yes, yes, right.

S: While Likud has been yelling about building settlements, Labor has stealthily built them - it has made no difference which Israeli political party is in power. There's no land-for-peace formula, yet still to this day, we're talking about King Abdullah's peace plan, the Arab League's Initiative. Why such hypocricy? Why did the Arab League waste so much time until this very minute defending these initiatives and pushing the Palestinians to sit at this table?
  So what Ms. Narwani is getting at is that because Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued over the past nineteen years (implying that peace talks have been happening non-stop ever since) therefore the idea of "land for peace" is unattainable and therefore there cannot be a Palestinian state or a two-state solution. Of course this viewpoint is flawed for many reasons and here are some:

Ignores History of Peace Process: Like many anti-Zionists, Ms. Narwani is an expert in history until that history become inconvenient for making her case. Not only does she ignore the violence that the Palestinians have unleashed against Israel while those settlements were being built, but she also ignores the not one but three offers of statehood that Israel offered the Palestinians. All of which were rejected because "they weren't good enough," obviously. In fact according to her the only thing that has happened during the past nineteen years is that settlements have expanded. Then she wonders why "land for peace" doesn't seem to be working? There is no peace, why should Israel give up land?

Ignores Gaza Withdrawal. Ms. Narwani will find support among hardcore Zionists that "land for peace" doesn't work, but not in the way that she hoped to. Israel did withdraw the settlements and troops out of Gaza and now Gaza is more of a danger to Israel than ever before. In other words, Israel did give land to the Palestinians but there was no peace as a result of it. This would seem to indicate that "land for peace" is actually a myth, and that Israel shouldn't bother giving the Palestinians anything until a peace treaty is signed and sealed. But somehow I don't think that was what Ms. Narwani was going for when she said that.

Finally, Ignores Current Status of Settlements: According to Ms. Narwani, because there are a lot of settlers in the West Bank, there can't be a Palestinian state. It's not that I've never seen this viewpoint before, but every time I see it I am stunned that people who endorse this view can be so close-minded about solutions. There are many things that can be done with the settlers before giving up the idea of a two-state solution:
1) Give the 5% to Israel and expel the rest. It won't be easy but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to kill the settlers in the past so it will be easy to get recruits for that mission.
2) Make the settlers Palestinian citizens. If they don't want to be Palestinian citizens they can leave.
3) Offer the settlers incentives to move back home. That "incentive" can be their own life. I for one wouldn't mind.

The trouble, of course, is that all of these solutions involve the Palestinians giving something up for peace, whether it be 100% of the West Bank or a 100% Jew-free Palestine. And based on this interview, asking the Palestinians to make a sacrifice for peace is like a dirty word for Sharmine Narwani and her pals in the Arab League. But we'll discuss that more in the next post.

How Low Can You Go?

The original link. In the subsequent thread he attempted to back up this statement by citing a link by "Counterpunch."

Comments of the Day

The original link.

Friday, August 6, 2010

ATTENTION: We're Moving!

I wanted to let all readers know now that we are going to be changing the name and URL of this blog, starting next Monday. It will change into something along the lines of "Huff Po Watch," which is an attempt to make clearer what this blog is about.

There will be normal updates on Sunday, and the shift will probably occur Sunday night. Be ready to update bookmarks, etc. We'll provide more information when we further decide what's going to happen.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Gaza Blast Edition

Today there was a massive explosion in Gaza. Eight homes were destroyed! More than fifty people were injured! Why?
"Speaking on the condition of anonymity, camp residents told The Media Line that Hamas was using the house to store weapons. Neighbors said that in the past they had appealed to Hamas to cease their activities in the camp, but were quickly silenced.
“Usually when such explosions occur the armed groups in Gaza announce it’s Israel’s fault,” Hamdi Shaqqura, deputy director for program affairs at the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, told The Media Line.

“But our investigations often find that this is not the case.
 Sure would be nice if the HP or one of it's bloggers wrote about this story. It might actually convince their readership that Hamas operates in and around the civilian population.

Dissecting MJ Rosenberg's Latest Comment

MJ Rosenberg, in his most recent post, wrote an interesting comment in the talkback section. The context is a post by me asking “Whose Congressional careers has AIPAC ‘destroyed’?”

So let’s dissect this comment for a minute (it has since been deleted because of an abusive comment higher up the chain).

Rosenberg declares that every Congressperson fears AIPAC will fund their defeat, and thus do not say what they really think about the ME. This is an incredibly convenient setup for Rosenberg’s position. 

Congresspeople do not support the Palestinian cause to the extent Rosenberg would like them to. Why? It must be because of AIPAC. If any Congressperson supports Israel, it’s only because AIPAC told them to. If any Congressperson supports the Palestinians, they are breaking away from AIPAC and their career is on the line. Is there any other issue in America where this double bind is placed on Israel’s supporters, where they have to prove they support Israel of their own convictions?

Next, Rosenberg has an appeal to authority, namely, his own. That’s all well and good for him, but notice how he calls AIPAC, an organization made up entirely of Americans, “a foreign government’s lobby”. Just another dual loyalty accusation, implying AIPAC members are more loyal to Israel than America.
Rosenberg then makes the incredible claim that no member of Congress supports the policies they publicly enunciate. This makes no sense. Congresspeople are, at the most basic level, self serving. They do not vote for policies that have a good chance of losing them an election, no matter how much money they will get. If the American people do not support Israel, the Congress would not either. I have that much faith in American democracy to make that claim.

At the bottom of his comment, Rosenberg admits he left the Hill in 1993, but sarcastically guesses that now, after “Gaza”, people must really love Israel now. I think Rosenberg’s departure in the 1990s is significant to why his opinion of life on the Hill is so jaded, because there are two significant events that might have possibly changed the US-Israel relationship: The Second Intifada and 9/11. The Second Intifada showed the US government (if not the US people) that the Palestinians don’t actually want peace and a two-state solution after all, and 9/11 woke Americans up to the kind of pain, fear and suffering Israelis at that time were dealing with on a daily basis. If there’s any question about whether America and Israel were on the same page, those went away after those two events.

But the basis of Mr. Rosenberg’s argument, the way it always is, is about money. Rosenberg advocates that because AIPAC has lots of money, they can make the Congresspeople do what they want. Let’s put aside the obvious anti-Semitic implications of the statement and look at it from a rational point of view.

Let’s take a look at the statement “Lobby group X pushes their policies through the US Congress without any trouble because of all of their money” outside of the context of AIPAC. Let’s say, for example, Lobby group X is the gun lobby. The gun industry is a multi billion dollar industry. They have a lot more money than AIPAC. By Mr. Rosenberg’s rationale, there should be pro-gun legislation passed through the Congress at a mile a minute. But there aren’t. In fact, there are gun control laws (perhaps not as many as there should be) passed through Congress fairly regularly. How is this possible?

Ditto with the smoking and alcohol lobby. Those industries produce hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and you better believe some of those funds are heading to Congress. But the warning labels on cigarette packs are getting bigger all the time, and the drinking age is still 21.

What can we conclude from these examples? It takes more than money to make a Congressperson support your issue. Money alone will not pass a law. Congresspeople support one side of an issue because, at the most basic level, their constituents either support that side as well, or their constituents don’t care. Seeing as how a poll in February showed American support for Israel is at an all time high, I don’t think it’s the latter case.

It’s really pathetic that Mr. Rosenberg ignores all the evidence and other explanations about why Congresspeople support Israel in favor of a ZOG myth. It’s sad when you can’t accept the fact that your views are not shared with your countrymen, but most of us just get over it.

The Huffington Post and Spies

Yesterday the Huffington Post decided to give some coverage to Uri Brodsky being deported to Germany, allegedly because he is a Mossad spy.

They appear to have missed some other espionage-related incidents, though, such as a Lebanese general being arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel. There were also three Israeli citizens who are believed to be attempting a plot to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Sounds like there was quite a lot of clandestine operations going on over there. Would be nice if some of them were shared with the HP readership.

Meta Moment of the Day

HPer Hypocrisy on Display

I know it feels like we've been picking on this "barefoot" guy a lot lately but I wanted to show another one of his posts:

I'm sure you are all very familiar with the use of human shields, how terrorists fight among the civilian population so that way it is the fault of their enemies that those civilians die and not the terrorists who started the fighting.

When it comes to Hezbollah, though, the back and forth is so hypocritical as to be astonishing. On the one hand, some HPers like the one above will give the impression that Hezbollah is a bunch of guys meeting in a basement planning their next token rocket attack. All the civilians around them are not only unaware of Hezbollah's presence but they have nothing to do with what's going on.

But on the other hand people like Sharmine Narwani will tell us that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and therefore should not be considered a terrorist organization. One little problem, though: How did Hezbollah get to be part of the government? Answer: They were elected. By the people. Assuming of course Lebanon is as democratic as they also claim it is.

This just goes to show the multiple levels of hypocrisy among anti-Zionists. When it suits them, Hezbollah and Hamas are not armies numbering in the thousands of members who enjoy widespread support among the people. When it suits them, they are. Say what you will about Israel supporters, but they at least have one worldview and stick with it.

An Anti-Zionist Drops His Guard

It's always nice when a noted anti-Zionist like MarcEdward finally admits that he has a problem with Jews.

The original link.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Lebanon Shootout Conclusion

It is beginning to look like all the news surrounding the recent shootout between the IDF and Lebanon's military is winding down. The HP certainly has moved onto other topics for it's world section. I just thought I would note the comment dichtomy:

The original thread, in which we didn't know what exactly happened, accumulated about 1700 comments.
Then the second thread, which seemed to vindicate Israel (and it turned out it did) led to 900 comments, a little more than half.

In both cases the HPers continued to cling to their assumptions that Israel was in fact wrong, either in that they did cross the border (they did!) or that their tree-trimming operation was a 'provocation.' You can also check out the second thread to see a whole lot of off topic Israel bashing and deflections.

I do think this incident was informative because it showed us what happens when the anti-Zionists are confronted with a story (covered by the HP) which showed Israel to clearly be in the right. It is not a pretty picture.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Garden variety stuff for the HP:

The original link.

An HPer Reacts to Lebanon Firefight Story

The original link.

The Left vs. Anti-Semitism

I found a very interesting pamphlet on the Internet, supposedly distributed by the Olympia co-op after deciding to boycott Israeli products. It's about combating anti-Semitism from a rather far Left perspective. If you check it out you can read them say things like "Jews aren't evil, capitalism is!" and so forth. It's not particularly pro-Israel but provides very extensive information about forms of anti-Semitism and where it comes from. Ultimately a far Left but anti-anti-Semitism writing is not something you find everyday, so I thought I would share it.

HPW User Profile: YellowDay

If you have been reading Israel-related articles you have probably seen the user YellowDay pop up from time to time. He has more than proven himself to be anti-Semitic at this point, often claiming that "Oliver Stone was right" and so forth. Unfortunately many of his comments were deleted by the time I got to his profile (here is an example) but there were still a few worthy of note. Click below to read them.

YellowDay has been active since June 2010 and has about 80 fans.

Huff-Watch: Is the HP More Anti-Israel than Al-Jazeera

Our fellow blogger Huff-Watcher has a new article about the recent Israeli airstrike that killed a Hamas leader...we think. Apparently even though the Huffington Post referred to him as a "Hamas leader" every other newspaper including Al-Jazeera called him what he was: A bomb maker.

Why would the HP change the story? You'll have to check out the article to find out.

Comment of the Day

The original link.

"Most of the Unrest in the World..."

The original link.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see a particularly large difference between this post and saying "the Jews are responsible for all the world's wars."

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

After UN Vindication, Some HPers Blame Israel Anyway

Irrationality is on display again:

Well Butter My Biscuit....

The HP actually covered the UN defending Israel!

Note the lack of comments despite it's headline status. Check out this paragraph too:
"The Israeli soldier was cutting down the tree – something Israel does occasionally to improve its sight line into Lebanon – when Lebanese forces opened fire. The Lebanese army and a witness said U.N. peacekeepers intervened to ask the Israeli to stop cutting the tree, but Israel refused. UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, has not commented on that."
 Oh? What was that about warning shots? Nope!

Guest Post: MJ Rosenberg and the AJC

Our buddy MJ Rosenberg has written a blog post about the American Jewish Committee's decision to oppose the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", which is now a moot point as the Islamic center has received permission to proceed with construction. Nevertheless, BoJ reader "Ira Von Smackdownberg" has written a response to Rosenberg's blog post.

MJ Rosenberg writes: I have to admire the AJC -- the ADL's twin -- for opposing the Muslim center near Ground Zero but for scoring points by not being as racist about it as ADL.

Reality Check: MJ Rosenberg is being dishonest in his very first sentence. The AJC is not "opposing the Muslim Center." As the article he references states, they simply want to be clear who is funding it and that the views of the people who will run it are not pro-terrorist. That is different from "opposing" it. But MJ Rosenberg never lets accuracy get in the way of his attacks on anyone in the world who cares about Jews or Israel.

MJ Rosenberg writes: Instead of just saying "hell, no" to the mosque, David Harris, the neocon head of the AJC, says "yes, but."

Reality Check: Well, of course. Just about everything in this world has some sort of "but" attached. Doesn't mean that's a bad thing. [Matt: It's also not like they need the AJC's permission to build, Harris was just writing what he would prefer.]

MJ Rosenberg writes: He is all for building the center if it addresses some "concerns." It's like me saying that I will endorse Glenn Beck if he would just address my concerns about his right-wing politics 

Reality Check: No, it's not like saying that at all. It's merely saying that they are OK with it as long as a few concerns of theirs are addressed. As long as it isn't funded by terrorists and they don't support terrorists, there aren't any other concerns. Which is perfectly valid. Unless of course you are MJ Rosenberg, in which case everything that any Jewish or pro-Israel organization does is evil and wrong.

MJ Rosenberg writes: Imagine if the American Jewish Committee (and its sister organizations) were held to that standard.

Reality Check: Why would they be? Synagogues aren't breeding ground for terrorists. Most mosques aren't, either. But a couple are [Matt: especially Palestinian ones]. Including some associated with the destruction of the WTC.

"I Side With Hezbollah!"

The original link.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

The original link.

Ami Kaufman Comes Out Against Negotiations

Ami Kaufman has recently written an article for the Huffington Post in which he hopes for a speedy beginning and end to the peace talks between Netanyahu and Abbas. One would think that speaking out against peace would be considered antithetical to the Huffington Posts' values but apparently not. Before we go any further, though, I should probably just explain what Mr. Kaufman said.

At first he complains that the Arab League is "literally forcing" Abbas into peace talks (oh how terrible!) and grumbles that it makes Netanyahu look good. But according to Mr. Kaufman this is really just a political trick to gain political points because Netanyahu really has no intention of making peace with the PA. Why?
"He told Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Jerusalem last Wednesday that continuing the construction freeze in the West Bank after it expires on September 26 would be impossible politically and would bring down his coalition. That pretty much said how far the Israeli prime minister is willing to go for peace."
It goes without saying that continuing to build settlements is a provocation on the part of Israel, but it also goes without saying that settlements are only as much of a barrier to peace as the Palestinians let them. I feel I should remind Mr. Kaufman that in the past the Israelis and the Palestinians freely negotiated while settlements continued to be built and it was never considered to be a problem.

Consider the alternative: Abbas comes to the table, they start negotiating, Israel's government collapses and the whole thing starts all over again. Is that really so much better?
"If this is indeed the case, Netanyahu can't continue the settlement freeze without toppling the government, then how can he even think of attempting to dismantle an illegal outpost deep in the heart of Samaria?"
Hasty generalization. The illegal outposts are not more popular than the settlements in general. Not to mention the fact that Netanyahu's government has been dismantling the illegal settlements throughout the ceasefire and still manages to stay in power.

All right, so Kaufman continues by reminding us about current events such as Israel's withdraw from Gaza. He also characterizes Netanyahu's government as "extreme," but I guess that goes without saying. And then we get to the good stuff:
"And if indeed they are destined to fail, I only have one thing to say: Let them fail.

"And let them fail fast. The sooner the better.

"Let's allow Netanyahu to have his fun stalling for a bit, and then -- unfortunately -- let the violence begin. But let's just get it over and done with."
 Remember, Mr. Kaufman does in fact live in Israel. So it would be him and his family are at risk from this "unfortunate" violence that he seems to want.

The HP On Israel-Lebanon Clash

As you are all probably aware, yesterday there was a firefight between Israel and the Lebanese army, the circumstances of which are (naturally) still in doubt.

What I found to be is that as of the time I am writing this post, the HP's coverage of the story wasn't too ridiculously biased one way or another. The headline is exactly what happened: "Lebanon, Israel Clash Near Border; At Least Three Dead." There wasn't even a lot of extraneous information in the first five paragraphs this time.

Perhaps it is because of the balanced headline that the HPers actually seemed to have read the article before jumping to conclusions (though they often did anyway). Because of that the hatred against Israel wasn't as strong as we usually see, though I feel I should point out that many people believed the Lebanese army at face value when they said they "fired warning shots in the air."

Anyway, it didn't totally stop the HP crowd from acting the way they usually do:

But I gotta say that for the initial article, the HP did a pretty good job of presenting just the facts. Now don't say I never did anything for you, HP.

False Equivalence of the Day

The original link.

At the risk of failing to keep this blog PG-13, female genital mutilation is different from circumcision is many different ways. Most notably is the reason for it in the sense that Edward is describing: It is done (along with the burka) to oppress women and keep them subservient to men. Not to mention the blatant health risks. I don't think many people would consider circumcision to be harmful or damaging to men.

But I'm sure this fellow would be horrified if someone implied that he had problem with Jewish customs because of this equivalence.

Comment of the Day

The original link.

Updates on Lebanon Clash

Over the course of last night Lebanon admitted that it fired first (not warning shots), but that they were justified because the IDF crossed their border. However, the UNIFIL came to the conclusion that Lebanon's actions were not justified because the IDF did not, in fact, cross the border.

When Israel appears to be in the wrong, the Huffington Post can't get enough articles about the fallout from clashes between Israeli troops and their enemies. Think either of these stories will be featured on the HP?

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

"Merely Anti-Zionist" Comment of the Day

The original link.

Israel-UN Cooperation; HP No Longer Interested

When it came to Israel's raid on the Mavi Marmara a few weeks ago, the Huffington Post couldn't stop writing about it, as you may recall. In the case of the of the Mabhouh al-Mahoud assassination, the HP is continuing to publish stories about it months after it happened. It's pretty clear at this point that the Huffington Post loves stories of Israel's alleged wrongdoing even weeks later.

Although it is old news now, the Huffington Post still has yet to cover Israel's decision to cooperate with the UN investigation of the flotilla raid, though with preconditions as always. Though in all fairness they did let Israel-hating Phyllis Bennis publish an article about how Israels cooperation isn't really cooperation. Very informative.

Contradiction of the Day

These two posts were right after each other:

HPer Irrationality On Display

Yesterday the Huffington Post covered a story about Shimon Peres' relationship with the country of Britain. They decided to give it pretty high coverage in the "World" section as well. The story was about Peres denying (that's denying) that he had called Britain "anti-Semitic." In fact if you look at the article you will see that even the quote that was used to manufacture the claim against him wasn't particularly close to an anti-Semitic accusation either.

What I found so amazing was that immediately the Huffington Posters were off to the races with endless complaints about being "silenced," or that anyone who ever accuses Israel of anything is immediately labeled an "anti-Semite." It's like a switch had been thrown, all the people on the thread were parroting each other and crying on each others shoulders about how hard it is to criticize Israel and the Jews in this day and age. It's especially amazing because there wasn't even a real accusation of anti-Semitism for them to point to. They had to just repeat their talking points over and over again.

Here are some examples if you think I am exaggerating:

Seriously. It's like none of these people even read the article before they put fingers to keyboards.

Migrant Worker Story Brings Out the Hate

As Zach mentioned earlier, the story about Israel deporting some migrant workers brought out the haters, including more than a few comparisons with the Nazis:

The original link.

The original link.

But remember guys: A) Jews and Israel have absolutely nothing to do with each other and B) there is no anti-Semitism, only Jews playing the victim. Very important to remember.

HPW User Profile: Stefano888

I'll just let Stefano888 posts' speak for themselves. He has been active since January 2009 and has less than one hundred comments.

British PM and Turkey: Rue, Britannia!

well, of course, if Zionists dominate those nations already. and, if they do not, then they can manipulate the political systems and the media to pretend they do not. perhaps even at some point they can attached themselves to India and China as well.”

British PM and Turkey: Rue, Britannia!

Hey, i resemble that remark, EXCEPT for my best friend 22yrs/best man at my first wedding, 4 professorial mentors, the Three Stooges, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, Dr. Carl Sagan ...”
[my best friend is Jewish, I can’t be an anti-Semite…]

Catholic Patriarch Blasts Israel For Allowing Gay Parade

Because it is Israel. Israel is run by Zionist not Jews, per se. Zionist are concerned about Jewish birth rates and conversions. Please follow Israeli news items over at least the last month. It is not just about who is a Jew, but who can make more Jews. Remember, Zionists like to change the facts on the ground. They would also like to change them in the womb. Look at all the sperm donations the Israeli soldiers made before invading Lebanon. Only the Nazis would have done as much DNA testing as the Zionists have done in Israel. Also the sociological trends are against Israel: wealthy, educated, Jewish, atheistic, agnostic, and Gay/lesbian people tend to have fewer children. That will hurt Israel in the long-run and Zionists prefer the opposite. All of this is, unfortunately, part of the Israeli-Palestinian equation determining either a one or two state solution, if any.”

The Hp's Coverage of Israeli Migrant Worker Story

Yesterday the Huffington Post covered a story about Israel's changing policy toward migrant workers and decided to give it a top headline:

Unlike some of the other Israel-related stories the HP has headline, this story is actually important and was headlined by other Israeli newspapers.  I'm still going to make fun of the HP for headline the "obese mom" story though. I can't imagine why it was considered to be one of the three most important things going on in the world right now.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that what Israel is doing is wrong but what I wanted to talk about was the disconnect between the headline and the article, even though it looks like the headline is actually correct.

So the HP headline is that Israel is going to expel these children, period. But that isn't what the article says:
"Israel on Sunday approved new residency criteria that could result in the deportations of hundreds of children of migrant workers.

"Under the decision, children of migrants whose parents entered Israel legally may remain if they are enrolled in school, speak Hebrew and have been here longer than five years."
The AP missed a couple of criteria, though: The child must be enrolled in the school system for the coming school year AND (more importantly) if s/he was not born in Israel , that child must have arrived before the age of 13. Also, as some people on the thread pointed out, what this law really means is that although a few hundred children will be deported it also means that thousands of them will be legally allowed to stay. Regardless, I can't imagine deporting children is something that will sit well with the people in Israel. 

That being said, according to stories from Israel it looks like the deportations will in fact happen, though the HP's article doesn't come right out and say for sure.

Of course, no amount of bias one way or the other on the HP will make up for sheer stupidity on the part of some of the users:

Sounds like someone didn't read the article...

Conspiracy Theory of the Day

Nice to know he's so in touch with reality, citizen.

The original link.

Monday, August 2, 2010

News The HP Doesn't Cover: Bombed Rehab Center Edition

CifWatch alerted me to a story of a child rehab center demolished by a "harmless firework" fired from Gaza.

The HP has been good about letting us know about the latest exchange between Gaza and Israel. Sure would be nice if they covered this...

Deicide-Related Comment of the Day

The original link.

Today's Egregious HP Bias

Today the Huffington Post decided to write about a story in which being gay has now become illegal in more than 70 countries! Truly a tragic and fascinating story about the world in which we live today. Now some of those 70 countries include much of Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. You know what isn't one of them? Israel.

But guess what the HP decided to use as a picture for that article?

That's right. Pictures of people protesting gays in Israel. Even though Israel has nothing to do with the story nor is homosexuality illegal there.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, check out the picture used by the Independent:

Someone seeking asylum because he is gay! Much more relevant to the actual story. It makes one wonder why the HP would use the above picture. Maybe they just had some extra pictures lying around and needed to get rid of them?

There are no comments yet, so there is no way to know whether this decision by the editors misled the readership again.

Update: The picture has now been changed to one more similar to the one in the Independent.

The Cyclical Lives of Palestinian Civilians

As I know we have discussed before, waving the bloody shirt is one of the staples of Israel's detractors on the Huffington Post and elsewhere. What this amounts to is listing atrocities (real, imagined or exaggerated) by Israel and pretending that Israel's enemies have never committed any wrongdoings of their own. Most of the time this takes the form of morality by numbers which are quoted endlessly without context such as "Israel killed 1400 people in Gaza."

The trouble with this tactic is that it needs bloody shirts to wave, and the casualties need to be fresh. Even Cast Lead at this point is becoming pretty old, which is why the anti-Zionists have switched to flotilla raid instead.

Where this becomes a problem is that the anti-Zionists become dependent on more and more civilian casualties in order to keep using their favorite tactics. This leads to a cycle which goes like this:

-Hamas needs outside support.
-The outside supporters need bloody shirts to wave.
-Therefore, Hamas needs to keep creating bloody shirts for their supporters to wave against Israel.

This cycle will continue and the only thing it will produce is more civilian casualties. Hamas will continue to use tactics that get them results as we have discussed. And the AZs will keep waving the bloody shirt as often as they can in place of any other kind of reasonable argument. And this cycle will keep going and going and going until it is broken: Hamas can no longer need supporters from the outside denouncing Israel (not very likely), or until Hamas supporters grow a conscience and stop treating the lives of Palestinians as talking points. Unfortunately, this isn't very likely either.

It might sound cold to say, but in order for Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups to stop putting their own people at risk, the outside world has to stop falling for that tactic. I'm not asking us to be happy when Palestinian civilians die, or for us to look away. But I am asking us to recognize why they are doing and who to hold responsible for their deaths. Only when we stop falling for lies will the conflict began to be solved.

HP Bias: Another Timeline Issue

The Huffington Post, in yet another act of context-less headlining, published an article on Sunday entitled Israeli Airstrike Kills Senior Hamas Rocket Maker. Holy smokes! Israeli aggression, breaking the calm. Those stupid Israelis, always ruining a good thing with their compulsion to bomb Gaza for no reason.

This is the beginning of the article,
"RAMALLAH, West Bank — President Barack Obama warned Mahmoud Abbas in a letter that U.S.-Palestinian relations might suffer if the Palestinian leader refuses to resume direct peace talks with Israel, a senior PLO official said Saturday.
The White House had no comment Saturday. However, the Obama administration has been pushing Abbas hard in recent days to move quickly to face-to-face negotiations.
The PLO official said Obama sent the letter – the strongest U.S. warning to Abbas yet – on July 16...."
It continues about the peace process for quite some time, until the third to last paragraph where it finally says,
"On Friday, Gaza militants fired a rocket at the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon, causing damage but no injuries.
Israel retaliated with a series of airstrikes that killed a senior commander of the Hamas military wing and wounded 11 people. Hamas said it would avenge the death of the commander, 44-year-old Issa Batran.
Late Saturday, Gaza militants fired a rocket at an Israeli border community, damaging a building, but causing no injuries.
The violence came after weeks of relative calm and raised concerns of further escalation."
This presents quite a different picture. "Gaza militants" fired two rockets that hit Israeli cities, fortunately causing no injuries but considerable shock and property damage. It puts the retaliatory airstrike in badly needed context, something the headline does not do and the article practically covers up.

This article, of course, has over one thousand comments. Only on the HP.

HPer Blames America for Mumbai Attack

It's amazing how it's everyone else's fault when radicalized Muslims kill innocent people. So much for taking responsibility for their own actions.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Blowback from Goldstone

Yaacov Lozowick has pointed out a Robin Shepard article about the possibility of allegations of war crimes being leveled at the US military for its actions in Afghanistan. Shepard discusses how the US and the other Western powers just sort of stood by and let the UN create an extremely binding code of conduct for fighting wars and attack Israel with it, culminating in the Goldstone report. When the fire was on Israel for fighting an enemy using human shields, etc., even the US didn't do much beyond reject the findings of the Goldstone report. But Shepard predicts that now those same criteria might be used to accuse the US of war crimes, and then suddenly the US would care quite a bit.

This is, of course, what us pro-Israel people were saying all along. If a judge says that if you are fighting an enemy, and that enemy decides to fight out of civilian structures and use of human shields, you are still guilty of war crimes, that is the single greatest reason for your enemy to continue using such cold-blooded tactics. By failing to understand Israel's dilemma between self-defense and avoiding enemy civilian casualties, Goldstone et. al. are encouraging the terrorists to continue using those tactics. Only by declaring the use of human shields, etc., to not be a reason to attack a target will we see the use of human shields cease. The US government, Shepard predicts, will come to this realization soon enough.

Meeting Today

Matt and I are attending a meeting not only with Hawkeye of CifWatch but Israeli MK Ayoob Kaara. We'll let you know about it but if posts are delayed tomorrow that is why.

HPer on Armenian Genocide

I thought this was worth sharing:

Yeah! It's so crazy how people are so unsympathetic to the people who committed genocide! It's crazy!

The original link.

"Hitler Was Financed By Jews"

The original link.

Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade: HP Can't Help But Editorialize

The other day Jerusalem hosted a gay pride parade for Israel's LGBT community. The Huffington Post covered it, which is surprising in and of itself, but of course it can't help but throw in opinion: "Jerusalem Hosts Subdued Gay Pride Parade." The reason why it is subdued, of course, is because there were more than a few protesters. In fact if you look at the article there is more about the hardships the LGBT community faces in Israel than it's strengths.

Fortunately, that didn't stop the HPers from mostly looking favorably on the march and Israel for hosting them. The anti-Zionists who always claim simply to have a problem with Israel's actions and not Israel itself were nowhere to be found. Informative, no?

Sharmine Narwani Flips Out

MJ Rosenberg's article about the "ethnic cleansing" of Bedouins really got ol' "Dignity Rockets'" blood boiling. Check out a couple of comments she made railing against unspecified users (cough cough):

We would like to thank Ms. Narwani for contributing to productive, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas on the Huffington Post.

Comments of the Day

The original link.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Daoud Kuttab Strikes Again

As I believe I mentioned in the past, I wish all of the HP bloggers could be like Daoud Kuttab. Although he is pretty clearly pro-Palestinian, he isn't condescending or insulting and (most of time) just reports the facts. Sometimes, though, he publishes opinion pieces that are quite frankly chock-full of half truths and distortions. And when he does I feel obligated to call him out on it. Like his latest article for instance, about the peace process in general.

Mr. Kuttab begins by telling some personal stories. But then check this out:
"Only when the Turkish led multi-ship flotilla had challenged the blockade and embarrassed the Israelis who were blocking jam and coriander (among other things) did the blockade ease on food items, and not on any other materials needed for the conduct of a normal life."
There were flotillas before the MM one. It's just that none of them succeeded in getting their own people killed. If Mr. Kuttab wants to explain that "peace activists" getting themselves killed for the cause was what really caused Israel to back down, he would be making a good point and he would probably agree. But the flotilla simply "challenging" the blockade would not have made a difference. Just look at the other peaceful flotillas if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, what is this about "any other materials needed for a conduct of a normal life?" Can Mr. Kuttab be more specific? According to news reports (which I know can be unreliable) construction materials and weapon-making materials are the only things no longer allowed in. From the outside it certainly appears like normal life is happening. Even Hani Almadhoun admitted that water, electricity and the Internet were available, just not easy to get. Maybe this depends on what we mean by "a normal life."

Then Mr. Kuttab spins this story like crazy:

"One of these results was the victory of the pro Hamas reform and change parliamentary list. Among those who won parliamentary seats were four Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem. By running in the elections, they broke no Israeli law, but by winning a free and fair elections that was supervised by respected international observers such as former US president Jimmy Carter, they seem to have broken an unwritten law. This mysterious undeclared law seems to say that by winning the Jerusalem seats, because they had an Islamists persuasion these elected Islamists are doomed for life.

For a while after the elections they were left alone, one of them Khaled Abu Arafeh was even made minister in the Palestinian Authority for the affairs of Jerusalem. But the moment that an invading Israeli soldier was captured in Gaza, these legislatures and others in the West Bank were rounded up and put in jail. Recently and after being released, they are about to loose their rights to reside in Jerusalem."
 This is a perfect example of when certain people try to make a political issue into a legal issue. Hamas and Israel are still at war. Hamas is still a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction. So just because Hamas members live in East Jerusalem and were elected into their position does not mean that Israel is obligated to leave them alone. If anything I am surprised that Israel did not arrest them immediately.

It's also interesting that Kuttab claims that it was "because they had an Islamist persuasion" Israel mistreated them. Not because they were leaders of a genocidal terrorist organization. Does this strike anyone else as an attempt to play the race card? Even though Islamism is not a race?

What Do the BDSers Want?

Seeing as how we just discussed this topic, I thought I would share a video found by Elder of Ziyon about the BDS movement's true motivations:

I learned some things such as that BDS is very much against Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and a two state solution, and will actively work against it if they could. Here are some other interesting quotes.

"The right of return will extinguish Israel as Jewish state, and that is not an option."
-President Obama.

"BDS will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine."
-BDS activist Rossie Kasserof (?)

Ami Kaufman's (and MJ Rosenberg's) Latest Complaint

Even when there is nothing much newsworthy happening in Israel, it's nice to know that we can rely on the HP to dig down really deep to find a story that makes the Jewish state look bad. A couple of days ago Ami Kaufman was happy to provide it, a story about Israel "choosing trees over people." He tells a story about a group of Bedouins who were removed from a village, contrasts that with settlements, and makes many hysterical complaints about how evil Israel is. Oh, and MJ Rosenberg also covered the same story and said pretty much the same thing. But let's continue with Kaufman's article:
"And as is the case in any normal, Western country, when it comes down to people and trees -- you choose the trees, right? Right. And that's what Israel did today.
Israel sent its elite police forces, dressed in black, to deal with the enemy. The bedouin. Who are multiplying so fast, they endanger the Jewish identity of the State of Israel. And the Jewish trees will keep that identity alive.
I'm proud to be an Israeli today."
But as I am sure you are not surprised to know, Mr. Kaufman isn't telling the entire story.  I would like to thank our friends at HonestReporting for cutting through the hype and telling it like it is. They found the context in a Jerusalem Post article:
"In the statement, the ILA [Israel Lands Authority] said that residents first "invaded" the area in 1998, were soon evicted, and returned a year later.
The ILA said residents had been asked to rent the land for agricultural purposes for NIS 2 per dunam (0.1 hectare), but "they refused to pay and continued to infiltrate the land year after year."
After an eviction notice was issued in 2003, the residents filed a petition that made its way to the High Court of Justice.
While the petition was being heard, the residents "continued to infiltrate and squat on state-owned land, and in fact expanded their infiltration through constructing illegal and unproved buildings, crudely trampling on the law," the ILA said.
In 2007, the Beersheba Magistrates's Court dismissed residents' request for a delay in implementation of the eviction orders and ruled that residents were "infiltrators repeatedly seizing state land after being evicted."
There are tens of thousands of illegal structures in Beduin communities in the country, and several thousand more are built each year; far more than the number the state manages to demolish. Many of these settlements lack basic services, with residents living "off the grid" and not paying municipal taxes."
 Contrast this with Mr. Kaufman's (uncited) claims that this is really about the trees:
"But Israel and the JNF have a massive plan (Blueprint Negev) to make the Negev green with trees, and one of the planned forests is supposed to grow right where those el-Arakiv bedouin had the chutzpah to put their tents up."
 Uh, no, Mr. Kaufman. It has nothing to do with trees and everything to do with the Bedouins squatting on land that doesn't belong to them and then refusing to leave. You know, the exact same thing that the anti-Zionists accuse the settlers of doing? Mr. Kaufman has the right to complain that Israel is too lackadaisical with evicting the settlers as opposed to these Bedouins, but many of his other complaints are not valid and some are not even true. For instance:
"I don't get why 1,500 cops, with horses, bulldozers and a chopper came down today to the town of el-Arakiv and demolished all 40 homes, sheep stalls, removed belongings, destroyed trees and left over 300 people -- a majority of them children -- to fend for themselves in the July Negev heat."
Oh how awful! Oh wait, Israel is building 13 new towns for the Bedouin population. That's hardly leaving them to find for themselves.
"It doesn't matter that el-Arakiv was in the Negev before Israel was founded."
No. It doesn't. You break the law and your home gets demolished. Sort of like people who build illegally in East Jerusalem (Jewish or otherwise).

Like I have always said, I don't mind the HP criticizing Israel, even disproportionately. But dishonest criticism is a problem not only for people who care about this conflict, but for people who care about journalism in general. Unfortunately, dishonest criticism appears to be the HP's stock in trade these days.

Comment of the Day

The original link.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Gaza Edition

More and more articles from the Middle East on the subject of Gaza are being published, and many of them tear down the mythology built around the conditions there. Thanks to bloggers I have found two of them.

The first is an article by an Egyptian journalist named Ashraf Abu Al-Houl talking about low prices, an expanded recreation industry, and stores overflowing with goods. Now it is true that many of the resorts are only for Gaza's rich, but let's not forget that everywhere (including Israel) there is economic gaps between people and poverty. The mental image of Gaza is that of a "prison camp" where everyone is destitute and lives in continuous suffering. MEMRI translated the article here.

The second article is about Amira Hass. I'm sure most of you know her but if you don't she is the boilerplate Ha'aretz editorialist: Hates Israel, thinks it can do no right, would be happy if it was destroyed. In fact I am kind of surprised that she hasn't already joined the Huffington Post blogger stable. If she was going to, though, she won't be joining with this article, as she blames the PA for Gaza's siege. I was not expecting that.

Of course the HP is not going to cover either of these stories but will instead publish "fluff" pieces like Kate Lowenstein's blog post, stories that are not news but bash Israel all the same.

MJ Rosenberg: Israel "Ethnic Cleansing," Carrying Out A "Pogrom"

MJ Rosenberg is the second journalist to have covered a story about Bedouin evictions in the Negev, but I wanted to cover his story first. Ami Kaufman's will come later today.

Now as HonestReporting has covered, Israel is evicting the Bedouins not because they hate them or because they want to "Judaize" the Negev, but because the Bedouins were squatting on land that doesn't belong to them. This didn't stop MJ Rosenberg from making things up about the story, though, not to mention relying on Guardinista Neve Gordon for his source.

Obviously you only need to look at the headline of this article to see Mr. Rosenberg's loaded language: Throwing squatters out of a place that they don't own is only ethnic cleansing when Israel does it. I have a feeling that when Israel was literally dragging settlers out of Gaza Rosenberg was not only cheering them on but the thought that it was "ethnic cleansing" never crossed his mind (thought it clearly was). What is even more interesting is that since I first drafted this article last night the headline has been changed to "Israeli Destruction of Bedouin Village." I didn't take a screenshot but just look at the URL to see the original headline.

After his video comes the second and more insulting use of a loaded term:
"Professor Neve Gordon of Ben Gurion University in Israel witnessed the destruction of an Israeli Bedouin village earlier this week. Apparently, the pogrom is part of Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan to reduce the Bedouin population in the Negev (note: the Bedouin are Israeli citizens)."
I don't know what to say at this point, besides that pogroms are usually marked by rapes and murders. I can't imagine why Rosenberg would use this term except to expressly convey hatred against Israel by using emotionally-laden terms where they don't apply. Mark it down as yet another example of Rosenberg doing everything he can to stir up hatred against the Jewish state (and by extension, Jews) and the Huffington Post enabling it. Oh, and by the way, Rosenberg's source does not in any way mention a "plan" to reduce Bedouins.

The best part, though, is after I posted Israel's real reason for demolishing the village, Rosenberg fought back with this, though it has now been deleted:

Yes, it's funny alright. Check our archives if you don't believe me when I tell you that we have caught Rosenberg (a) lying, (b) telling half the story and (c) completely making things up in his articles more times then I can count. No, Mr. Rosenberg, I don't trust the Israeli government. But I trust you even less.
Besides, it's not easy for the Israeli government to make up a whole story about the Bedouin/Israeli government interchange, including High Court rulings and so forth. Especially when they are fully aware that the eyes of their own people and the world are upon them. On the other hand, the Huffington Post doesn't even look at Rosenberg's articles before it publishes them. So who is less reliable?

Let's conclude with another creepy personal attack by Rosenberg made on yours truly, just for posterity (also now deleted):
And another:

Oh of course, we're just supposed to believe you because you told us you were being truthful. How silly of me to think otherwise.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Nazi Comparison Comment of the Day

Because that's all the Nazis ever did, right? Occupy things?

The original link.

Gaza Rap Update!

Remember when Iara Lee wrote an article about the awesome and cool Arab hip-hop artists, and how they were going to lead the resistance through their cool dancing and lyrics?

Well, I wonder if she is now going to cover this story:
"Many youths, who make up the majority of Gaza's 1.5 million residents, are stuck between Hamas' strict version of Islam and an Israeli-Egyptian blockade that keeps them locked in with little work.
Inside, however, creativity blooms, sometimes clashing with traditional Gaza social codes or Hamas' standards of acceptable behaviour.
Rap, for one, raises suspicion.
"When we started, everyone said, 'Why are they wearing baggy clothes? Why do they greet each other like that?'" said Ayman Mghamis, 25, of Palestinian Rapperz, one of Gaza's 10 or so rap groups.
Gazans started accepting them, he said, but the Hamas government didn't.
Hamas police broke up a show in March that contained a rap act. Police said the event lacked permits, but the rappers took it as a cue to keep their heads down. While underground, the rappers distribute songs on the Internet and perform at events organized by international organizations, which they say keeps authorities at bay....
Underground activities are rare for Gaza women, who have greater housekeeping duties and are expected to be discreet in public."
 You know. Since she is so interested in Gaza's rappers.

Arab League Endorses Talks

Qaddafi of the Arab League said that they support direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu, of course, is ready to go and so is President Obama.

Abbas, on the other hand, said that he would not agree to direct talks without a guarantee for a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 war borders and an end to all settlement activity. But check out another statement by him:
"Abbas also told the Arab League he was facing "pressures I have never faced before in my life from the American administration and the European Union and the secretary general of the United Nations," adding that he would step down if he saw "matters are not going well."
But remember, it's Israel that the world is slowly moving against.

I'm just letting you know all of this, because the HP won't.

My Thoughts On the Ground Zero Mosque (Part 2)

When this issue was first broached I was unsure what to think about it. I could see both sides of the issue pretty well but I couldn't come up with an opinion that would satisfy all parties involved. But then I read a letter to the editor in the Hartford Courant, and I can't remember who it is by so I can't cite it but I thought I would give credit where it is due.

Although it is true that a mosque has stayed in that spot for years, it has now become a problem that the people behind it want to expand it massively into a community center. Now, some of it's defenders say that the goal behind doing this is to promote cross-cultural and cross-religious understanding. Which of course is a noble goal which all of us can get behind.

But here is the reasoning that the letter used: On one side are those Muslims and their allies who feel like the community center should be built. But on the other side are families of the victims of 9/11 who feel uncomfortable with that decision. The reality is that those people's losses are real and their feelings are real too. Calling them "bigots" and "Islamophobes" is that not the way that you deal with those feelings, as I believe Matt touched upon.

So if the goal of this endeavor is to create better understanding and tolerance, then why should we expect the victims of terror to be the ones to "man up"? It really is not very much to ask that the community center be built somewhere else, if the alternative is forcing the families of terror victims to accept something towards which they really are not very comfortable.

Although some on the HP try to make it so, this issue is not about religious freedom. It's about mutual respect. It always has been, I thought. And mutual respect should not have to start with the victims of violence until they are ready. And yes, if it were any other group in that situation I would feel the same way.

I know this is still a complicated issue and I am not going to dig in on this view. But this is the way I currently feel about it.

MJ Rosenberg Weaves a Tangled Web

Readers of this blog should at this point be intimately familiar with MJ Rosenberg. We’ve talked about him and his conspiracy theories and his personal attacks quite a bit. But just when I think we’ve said all we could possibly say about him, he comes out with a doozy of an article on the HP. There’s nothing particular terrible about the article itself, but if you follow Rosenberg’s writings, you start to see the whole narrative he is stringing together. Read closely every section of his posts I quote as we move forward.

Part 1

Rosenberg writes a bunch of articles about aipac and how powerful it is. He laments how the Israel lobby has too many politicians at its beck and call, and complains about the insidious tactics used by it. Yadda, yadda, yadda, America is at the mercy of aipac and we have to get out from under it.

Part 2

Rosenberg writes an article entitled neocons: bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran. Zach already wrote about this article at some length, but I will just remind you what he said. Rosenberg tells us in this article that the term “neoconservative” was coined by an American Jew (it debatably wasn’t) in a Jewish magazine. He talks about Commentary magazine, a Jewish publication that is now neoconservative’s “Pravda”. But hey, he points out that,
“FOR the record, the term neoconservatives, although invented by the still-neocon American Jewish Committee by way of its then magazine Commentary does not only apply to Jews… At the most, there are 200 neocons. They are not all Jewish although many are, and that number includes the leadership of aipac, the American Jewish Committee and some of the other major organizations (which, all together, have memberships representing 5% of all Jews)…. But, for the record, it is insulting to Jews to suggest that the neocons represent them. Nobody chose them….”

So what is Rosenberg saying in this article, really. The neoconservative movement is made up (not entirely!) of a small group of Jews and the neoconservatives want to bomb iran. You got that? Go through his article if you don’t believe me, that’s the thesis he’s putting together.

Part 3

And now we finally get to Rosenberg’s most recent article, Neocons Ready Fall Campaign to “Pearl Harbor” iran. It’s extremely short, and mostly consists of a personal attack on Jeffrey Goldberg, but it’s the final link in this chain Rosenberg is putting together. Here is the key sections of the article,

“It's still summer but the word in Washington is that, come fall, the neocon crowd that helped lie us into iraq will be out trying to do the same thing with iran…war with iran would be a disaster for America, for Iran and for Israel. It would also put America's forces in iraq and Afghanistan in even more danger than they are in now. Will that stop the neocons from urging the US or Israel to "Pearl Harbor" Iran? No. Why would it?”

Rosenberg is concerned about the neocons creating a false scenario that would lead America into war with iran.

So what is Rosenberg really telling us through these three parts? He’s telling us that a small group of Jews in Washington D.C. are lying and scheming to make the United States go to war with Iran, which would be a disaster for America. Rosenberg says this Jewish group is to (partially) to blame for the iraq war as well, and questions whether they are more loyal to Israel than to the United States.

Rosenberg offers numerous fig leafs (most Jews aren’t neocons, neocons are not exclusively Jewish), but his base premise, in my view, comes through loud and clear. The neocons are to blame for iran/iraq, neocons are mostly Jews, and therefore…, well, he leaves that last step up to his readers.

If you think there is any part in my logic and readings of Rosenberg’s words that doesn’t fit, email me and let me know. But I think I’m reading him accurately, and it’s extremely disturbing this person is given a platform to spread his manipulations on the HP.