David Meyer, an Israel-bashing rabbi testified in Congress on European anti-Semitism

Times of Israel: "Twelve experts of varying religions and homelands urged the US Congress to speak out against hate speech and anti-Semitism throughout the world, notably Europe. The human rights subcommittee of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee held a two-hour hearing on Wednesday in which experts testified that anti-Semitism is resurgent, particularly in Europe."

It is indeed odd that David Meyer, a French rabbi who lives in Belgium and who is a relentless and harsh critic of Israel who advocates a bi-national State was invited as an "expert" on anti-Semitism to the United States Congress.  Rabbi Meyer is more known for his criticism of Israel on the European media than for his fight against anti-Semitism.  Pity that in his exposé before the Committee he didn't elaborate on his unbelievable views on Israel.

In 2010, he gave an interview titled "It is more than time for Israel to wake up" to the French communist paper L'Humanité. This is how he was introduced: "Rabbi David Meyer holds dual French and Israeli citizenship. He is the author of several books and now lives in Belgium. He has been a committed militant for years and has unrelentlessly denounced the colonization [settlements] which he considers a fault on the part of the Israeli leadership. He has also been a critic of the blockade imposed by Tel Aviv [the capital of Israel!] on the Gaza Strip. He strongly condemns the attack against the peace flotilla off the strip of Palestinian land and calls on the Israeli leadership to "open their eyes" and to come out of their "messianic bubble".

"What is your reaction to last week's tragic events [Turkish flotilla]?
David Meyer: "I find them appalling. And I think that in such circumstances the role of religion is to show to those in one's own camp [the Jews] that they are no longer able to see [i.e. that they are blind]. There in the Jewish world and in Israel an inability to see what it means to put hundreds of thousands of people in prison for years just because they voted for Hamas. This is what Israel is doing in the Gaza strip. It is a sign of absolute failure of Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue. This is very serious. Israeli leaders have no excuses, no mitigating circumstances. You do not kill civilians, especially when you are responsible for the situation created by the blockade. If the Jewish world does not wake up, nothing Jewish will be left in the State of Israel and it will of no interest. Jewish tradition teaches us that man must be able to surpass himself and see the human side even in his enemy and in the friend of his enemy. If the Jews of Israel are no longer capable of this, Israel will not survive. This is my fight and I am determined to continue."

When asked about a European movement JCALL inspired by J Street, Meyer boasts that over the previous decade he has gone much further and said things much harsher about Israel than those contained in the "call" and that he "even said before the last election that one has to become a dissendent on the face of what the State of Israel is becoming. We must call a spade a spade and say that there are moral faults when creating an injustice that is not necessary for one's survival. The colonization [settlements] is not necessary. I signed the petition to express that while showing my commitment to Israel". He complains that religion in Israel has "infected the secular world". And how will the future of Israel unfold? " I have always thought that long-term solution will be a federal and bi-national State, but it should go through a temporary phase of two States, Israel and Palestine. My model is Belgium, where we live together even if we do not like one other. Obviously, what is happening in Belgium is worrying, because if the federal model no longer works here, there is little change it will succeed there." He praises Jimmy Carter and criticises Barack Obama: "An outside power - the United States have the capacity - must force Israel out of its isolation and say, as Carter did in his time: "Enough is enough". I was hoping that Obama would do it, and I do not understand his procrastination."

America and Israel are inseparable - Europeans are suspicious

At the European parliament, it's neither Shimon Peres nor Netanyahu who get standing ovations.  It's Mahmoud Abbas who is invited and gets a standing ovation.  On 4 Feb 2009, PA President Mahmoud Abbas in an address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg: "You must stop cooperating with Israel as it's placing itself above the law. Their actions have no legal basis and must be ended. Israeli leaders should also be charged with infringing international humanitarian law." 


Der Tagesspiegel (Amerika und Israel sind untrennbar verbunden)

I've had the privilege of writing for Der Tagesspiegel, one of Germany's leading newspapers, on several occasions. This time, I was asked to write on the different reaction in the United States and Europe to Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington. AJC, including our office in Berlin, has grown increasingly concerned about Europe's general drift away from understanding Israel's yearning for peace and profound security dilemmas.  -- David

America and Israel are Inseparable, by David Harris (26/05/2011)

Six days of high-profile Middle East drama have just ended in Washington. Framed by President Obama's speech on the region, on May 19, at the State Department and Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks to Congress on May 24, observers were taking careful note of words, temperature and body language in the complex interplay between the two leaders.

But the overarching story remains the same as always: The United States and Israel have forged a unique relationship, supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Whatever the occasional differences in policy, normal even for the closest of friends as we have seen between Washington and Berlin, the key point is what unites, not divides, the two countries. The rousing ovation by the Congress for the prime minister said it all – shared values, outlook and threats.

Some observers in Europe see it differently. They scratch their heads when Democrats and Republicans alike give repeated standing ovations to an Israeli prime minister they view with suspicion. They despair that Israel, in their eyes the main obstacle to "perpetual peace" in the region, is lauded for its pursuit of peace and right to defend itself in the Congress. And they offer theories of "Jewish power" in a vain attempt to explain America's identification with the Jewish state.

Those observers are missing the bigger story. America does not support Israel just because of American Jews, who comprise only two percent of the population. Rather, it is because Americans of many backgrounds identify with Israel as a liberal, democratic society in a sea of tyrannies; understand Israel's struggle, from day one, to defend the Jewish people's right to self-determination in a tough neighborhood; and grasp that Israel seeks peace and a two-state solution, but its main problem today is the absence of peace-seeking partners.

But then again some of those observers missed earlier stories.

They believed in Yasser Arafat long after it became clear that he was a corrupt, duplicitous leader.

Jimmy Carter: Hamas wants an end to the violence, but not Israel

- Jimmy Carter reiterates apartheid accusations against Israel ... and much more

Swiss newspaper Le Temps has more on former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's views on Hamas and Israel.  Translation of an excerpt :

"What do you say to Hamas leaders ? Do you trust Khaled Meshaal [a Hamas leader who is a refugee in Damascus] who is considered as a terrorist in your country?

Let's be reminded that he was not considered a terrorist until he won the elections in 2006. The United States insisted that elections be held, I was there.

When I meet with Hamas officials, they say clearly that they will accept any peace treaty negotiated between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas and which is to be approved by the Palestinian people through a referendum. Such a referendum is both a Hamas and a Fatah requirement. They also told us that they would not be opposed to an agreement based on the Arab Peace Initiative. I have been meeting Hamas leaders for many years. They have always stated that they would accept a truce [Carter confuses truce and peace] in the West Bank and in Gaza if Israel did the same. Israel has rejected this proposal because it does not want a truce in the West Bank. Hamas wants an end to the violence."

- Carter offers Jewish community ‘Al Het’
- Jimmy Carter to U.S. Jews: Forgive me for stigmatizing Israel
- Carter: Grandson’s race not reason enough to apologize ...

Jimmy Carter reiterates apartheid accusations against Israel ... and much more

"I'm not saying that Israel is not a democracy, but it is not a democracy like ours." (Subtle distinction)

"Gaza is like a cage in which 1.5 million Palestinians live, 75% of which are refugees."

"If you look up an English dictionary, apartheid means the domination of one people by another and the formal separation of these two peoples [!]. This is what is already happening in the West Bank. Israel is clearly the dominant power and requires by law the total separation between Jewish settlers and Palestinians. That's why I use the word apartheid."

"When I meet with Hamas leaders, they clearly state that they will accept any peace treaty negotiated between Abbas and Israel that is approved by referendum by the Palestinian people."

Jimmy Carter was in Switzerland where he gave an interview to two newspapers Le Temps (Switzerland) and Le Soir (Belgium).  He reiterated his vicious accusations against Israel - Israel has apartheid policies and is not a democracy - while whitewashing Hamas.  His allegations are in stark contrast with the apologies he offered to the U.S. Jewish community in 2009 : Carter offers Jewish community ‘Al Het’, Jimmy Carter to U.S. Jews: Forgive me for stigmatizing Israel and Carter: Grandson’s race not reason enough to apologize ... 

Unauthorized translation of excerpts of Jimmy Carter's interview:

Jimmy Carter's "strong views on the Israeli occupation have earned him much sympathy in the Arab world and the contempt of the Israeli governement. Jimmy Carter is back from a trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner delivers his analysis.

How was your last trip?
The Palestinians' situation is as follows: in Israel, they are subject to 35 laws which discriminate specifically non-Jewish citizens, who were denied the right to own land, to marriage, to travel, to have access to medical care and the media. In East Jerusalem - occupied by Israel - the Palestinians are not treated as citizens. The Silwan community, where there are 55,000 Arabs, has no playground and there is no school building. Jerusalem Mayor apologized while explaining that he was planning a tourist and archaeological site there. The Arabs who have lived there for sixty-five years will be forced to leave. In the West Bank, more than 300,000 Israeli settlers have confiscated land and properties off the Palestinians to build their own houses. Finally and even worse, Gaza is like a cage in which 1.5 million Palestinians live, 75% of which are refugees.

US defends Israel at the UN, Europe as usual does not

"Let me suggest a few other reasons why the EU “would abstain during the vote”: cowardice in the face of Muslim minorities at home; appeasement of the OIC [Organisation of the Islamic Conference, almost all of whose members are dictatorships or tyrannies of one form or another. On their behalf, it was introduced in the Rights Council by Pakistan] and its oil and gas producing members at the UN; a spineless political correctness in not wanting to rock the boat inside a UN institution which has as much respect for human rights as a paedophile ring does for the rights of children; etc; etc; etc. Say what you want about Barack Obama, but America even under his watch was the only country in the world to say no to this revolting spectacle."

Source: Robin Shepherd

In the latest display of sickening hypocrisy at the United Nations, the Human Rights Council yesterday endorsed by 30 votes to one this month’s report by three anti-Israeli lawyers which charged Israel with “wilful killing”, “torture” and “inhuman treatment” over the Mavi Marmara Gaza-flotilla incident earlier this year.

The United States was the only country to oppose the report, while France and Britain were among 15 others abstaining. What really strikes one, however, are the liberal-democratic credentials of those who backed the motion. To think! Being judged on a human rights issue by China, Libya, or Saudi Arabia? Actually this is no laughing matter. It is a depraved and disgusting statement on what the United Nations has become. It is, therefore, worth looking at the backers of this motion in a little more detail.

I have used the Freedom House Freedom in the World 2010 index — which ranks countries as either Free (F), Partly Free (PF) or Not Free (NF) — as my point of reference. Here are the countries which voted in favour of the report with their Freedom House designation in brackets:

Angola (NF), Argentina (F), Bahrain (NF), Bangladesh (PF), Brazil (F), Burkina Faso (PF), Chile (F), China (NF), Cuba (NF), Djibouti (PF), Ecuador (PF), Gabon (NF), Guatemala (PF), Jordan (NF), Kyrgyzstan (NF), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (NF), Malaysia (PF), Maldives (PF), Mauritania (NF), Mauritius (F), Mexico (F), Nigeria (PF), Pakistan (PF), Qatar (NF), Russian Federation (NF), Saudi Arabia (NF), Senegal (PF), Thailand (PF), Uganda (PF), and Uruguay (F). With only six countries in the group ranked as free, no less than 80 percent are either only partly free — meaning they are grubby, corrupt and often murderous pseudo-democracies — or are not free — meaning in most cases they are outright tyrannies.
Read the whole piece HERE

US Congress rejects Goldstone report - Jewish group lobbying European governments

"The fact that the person who is pushing the Goldstone Report onto the General Assembly agenda is the Libyan President of the General Assembly, Ali Abdesselam Treki, speaks volumes about the so-called concern for human rights. Nations like Libya, Iran and Pakistan, who are ranked among the worst offenders of human rights and racism, fight for power and control in the United Nations system not to serve humanity, but to deflect any criticism aimed at their authoritarian leadership." (Moshe Kantor)

Hopefully the lobbying is successful and Europe follows the U.S. in its rejection of the Goldstone report.

1. US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36; full text & voting breakdown
(UN Watch)
______
2. Jewish group lobbies European governments to vote against Goldstone report at UN

PARIS (EJP, article by Maud Swinnen)---The European Jewish Congress (EJC) is actively lobbying European governments to vote against the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war when it is discussed on Wednesday in the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The EJC, which is a body representing Jewish communities across Europe, called on European and other democratic nations to challenge the ‘automatic tyrannical majority’ in the UN.

Thus far no European nation has voted for the Goldstone Commission Report, either during the resolution for its mandate nor when voting for its ensuing resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

"I hope that this trend will continue and that Europe can enlist like-minded nations to ensure that no democratic nation votes for a resolution on the Goldstone Report," EJC President Moshe Kantor said. "We need a coalition of decent democratic nations to combat the automatic tyrannical majority that can impose its views at will by sheer weight of numbers and nothing else," he added.

The EJC said it is "deeply concerned" that the United Nations structure is being hijacked by nations who want to use their voice to suppress true human rights.

"The fact that the person who is pushing the Goldstone Report onto the General Assembly agenda is the Libyan President of the General Assembly, Ali Abdesselam Treki, speaks volumes about the so-called concern for human rights," Kantor said. "Nations like Libya, Iran and Pakistan, who are ranked among the worst offenders of human rights and racism, fight for power and control in the United Nations system not to serve humanity, but to deflect any criticism aimed at their authoritarian leadership."

The EJC feels that many of the United Nations institutions like the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Durban process do not serve the purpose they were built for. "Unfortunately, the original and moral mandate of the UN is being hijacked for political agendas at the cost of millions of people who desperately seek its help."

US 'concerned' with Goldstone report

"We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable." (Susan Rice)

Unfortunately (predictably), no such reservations and concerns about the Goldstone Report were voiced either by the European Union or by European governments.

Source: article by E.B. Solomont, TJP

The United States expressed grave reservations Thursday with the findings and recommendations of a UN report that accused Israel of war crimes during the Gaza conflict and left open the possibility of prosecution at The Hague.
"We have very serious concerns about many recommendations in the report," Ambassador Susan Rice, the permanent US representative to the UN, told reporters following a closed Security Council meeting.

The nearly 600-page report, presented on Tuesday by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended that if no appropriate independent inquiry takes place in Israel within six months, the Security Council should refer the matter to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court.

"We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council," Rice said on Thursday, in the first official American response to Goldstone's report. "We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable." [...]

Several members of Congress issued sharp condemnations of the Goldstone Report, which they said ignored Israel's need to defend itself against terrorism.

"In the self-righteous fantasyland inhabited by the authors, there's no such thing as terrorism, there's no such thing as Hamas, there's no such thing as legitimate self-defense," Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said in a statement. "Certainly, the United States should do all that it can to ensure as little time as possible is wasted on this distraction from the real work of making peace," he said.

In a similar vein, a joint statement by Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada and Eliot Engel of New York staunchly defended Israel's right to defend itself against rocket and mortar attacks from the north and the south.

"Israel took every reasonable step to avoid civilian casualties," they wrote. "It is ridiculous to claim that Israel did not take appropriate actions to protect civilian populations."

- Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO "cut and paste"
- Goldstone´s sins of omission

Cairo speech: Obama mentions anti-Semitism and the Holocaust

"Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

Source: America.gov

Elie Wiesel expects Obama to be 'very moved' by visit in Buchenwald

The mixed lessons, and legacies, of Munich 1938, by Ian Buruma

Source: Los Angeles Times

"Seventy years ago in Munich – on Sept. 30, 1938 – the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, signed a document that allowed Nazi Germany to seize control of the Sudetenland, a large chunk of western Czechoslovakia heavily populated by ethnic Germans. (...)

What exactly has the world learned from Munich 1938, and is it the correct lesson?

If anything, West Europeans after World War II drew conclusions that were closer to Chamberlain’s thinking in 1938 than Churchill’s. After two catastrophic wars, Europeans decided to build institutions that would make military conflict redundant. Henceforth, diplomacy, compromise and shared sovereignty would be the norm, and romantic nationalism based on military prowess would be a thing of the past.

Out of the ashes of war a new kind of Europe arose, as did a new kind of Japan (which even had a pacifist constitution, written by idealistic Americans but gratefully accepted by most Japanese). Nationalism (except in soccer stadiums) made way for smug self-satisfaction, for having found a more civilized, more diplomatic, more pacific solution to human conflict.

Of course, the peace was only kept because it was guaranteed by a nation – the United States – that still stuck to pre-World War II notions of national and international security. But Europeans, or many of them in any case, conveniently ignored that.

Too much dependence has also had an infantilizing effect. Like permanent adolescents, Europeans and Japanese crave the security of the great American father, and deeply resent him at the same time.

All this is making the Western alliance look incoherent and, despite its vast wealth coupled with American military power, strangely impotent. It is time for European democracies to make up their minds. They can remain dependent on the protection of the U.S. and stop complaining, or they can develop the capacity to defend Europe, however they wish to define it, themselves. The first option may not be feasible for very much longer in the twilight days of Pax Americana. And the second will be expensive and risky. Given the many divisions inside the EU, Europeans will probably just muddle on until a serious crisis forces them to act, by which time it could well be too late."

Ian Buruma is a contributing editor to Opinion and a professor of human rights at Bard College.

Missing Paul Newman (1925-2008)

Paul Newman, Oscar-winning Hollywood actor who remained at the top of his profession for more than 40 years, The Telegraph

Survey: 66 percent of the French have a good opinion of Americans

According to a survey, 66 percent of the French have a good opinion of Americans, while 29 percent have a bad opinion (with 5 percent of 'don't knows').
.
The survey also found that 18 percent of the respondents have a good opinion of President George W. Bush. An overwhelming 86 percent prefer Barack Obama and 35 percent John McCain.

The poll was carried out on September 2 and 3 by TNS Sofres for the French-American Foundation and published by Le Figaro. About 1,000 people were questioned.
.

Joseph Biden is a strong supporter of Israel

Source: EJP

.

"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama choose Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, a politician considered as well-versed in foreign and defense issues, as his running mate.

The choice is widely seen in Washington as shoring up the Democratic Party ticket's foreign policy credentials in the battle against Republican John McCain.

The 65-year-old Biden is currently in his sixth term in the US Senate and is Delaware's longest-serving senator. He is the chairman of the foreign relations committee in the Congress.

He is considered a strong supporter of Israel. In a march 2007 interview with the US-based Jewish cable television network Shalom TV he declared: "I am a Zionist."

He described Israel as "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."

He travelled with Barack Obama to Israel in late July, when Obama promised strong support for Israel against the threat from Iran, and said he would strongly support the Mideast peace process soon after he takes office.

In the same interview, Biden revealed that his son is married to a Jewish woman, of the Berger family from Delaware, and that he had participated in a Passover Seder at their house.

He added that "probably my most poignant Seder memory is not with the Bergers, but what happened right after I came back from meeting Golda Meir (in 1973). I had predicted that something was going on in Egypt. And I remember people talking about what it meant to them if Israel were actually defeated."

Like Obama, Biden supports direct talks with Iran. "I believe the United States should agree to directly engage Iran, first in the context of the 'P-5 plus 1', and ultimately country-to-country, just as we did with North Korea," Biden said in an early July press statement.

The 'P-5 plus 1' refers to the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany.

"The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb," he said."

And where will they bury Mahmoud Darwish?

Mahmoud Darwich considered that America was guilty of "universal despotism".

Many Arabs never tire of criticizing and loathing America, but reflexively knock at her door when they face a problem. How ironic to think that Mahmoud Darwich, the celebrated and emblematic poet and intellectual, who was thought to represent the Palestinian resistance and conscience, chose precisely to go to Texas to have cardiac surgery and died there.

From My Right Word blog:

"Arab poet Mahmoud Darwish has died after surgery at the age of 67, hospital and Palestinian Arab officials say. He suffered complications after undergoing open-heart surgery in Houston Texas.

Here are some of his thoughts in June 1982:

Shortly after noon, the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish comes by the Commodore. He has written no poems about the war. "I write my silence," he says. "I need distance to be a witness, not a victim." Since words are powerless against tanks, he feels that his silence is stronger than words. Still, a poem has power. Is Palestine itself a poem? "Yes," he says. "Because a poem is an unachieved desire."

Yet, at the moment, he is "fed up with poetry and refugee camps and walls." He believes that "Beirut is our last stand. From here to the grave, or to the homeland." Then he relents a bit. "We have to save the idea before we save Beirut. Beirut is not the capital of our idea." Darwish is 40. He has been a refugee four times and has been thrown in jail. "If the Palestinians find a homeland, they may discover the same dilemma as the Jews. The Jews were great creators in the abstract. Now only their army is great. Israel is the grave of Jewish greatness."

Darwish had published a poem during the first Intifada, one which I read in an English-language Arab periodical named Al-Awdah (The Return). It's theme was:

"Leave our land and take your dead bones with you".

I guess he'll not want the same treatment for his bones, eh?"
.

Japanese lawmaker calls for reduction in funding to UNRWA

It is unlikely that EU States will agree to this proposal.

From TJP:

"A Japanese parliamentarian said this week that he would work to urge his government to reduce funding to UNRWA, the mammoth UN body which deals exclusively with Palestinian refugees and their descendants, in the wake of continuing criticism of the organization.

"I would like to persuade the Japanese Government to reduce funding to UNRWA," said Yoshitake Kimata, a Member of the House of Councilors of the National Diet of Japan.

The Japanese lawmaker was in Jerusalem this week for a conservative conference of pro-Israel evangelicals from Asia, which included a session by Tel Aviv University's Dr. Martin Sherman on the differences between UNRWA, and UNHCR, the UN's main refugee agency.

Israel has long complained over the direct involvement of some members of UNRWA's predominantly Palestinian staff with Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
UNRWA insists that such cases are aberrations, and that it has a "zero-tolerance" policy towards terrorism."

Related:
US congressmen demand UNRWA reform

Jean Bricmont and The De-Zionization of the American Mind - The anti-US ravings of an arrogant man

Prof. Jean Bricmont of the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, has an ugly paper in Counterpunch (see Counterpunch: A Neo Nazi Magazine) in which he advocates the de-Zionisation of the American mind. He deems this would have a “greatly humanizing effect on American culture” and has the gall to lecture the American people, the American Government, the “unsavory people” of the American Right and even … the American Left! All have superbly ignored the ravings of an unsufferably arrogant man for whom Americans are Zionized brainwashed fools who have relinquished self-determination to the benefit of the Lobby.

Bricmont wants Israeli’s feeling of superiority shattered and believes that “Americans have a great responsibility is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support.” One can only guess who should be doing the other half of the job. Another ominous remark: “And that is also why it is easy to dismiss its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously, Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works”. There we go!

The Israel Lobby by Walt and Mearsheimer pales in comparison with the violent and contemptuous anti-American (not to mention Jews and Israelis) tone of Bricmont’s paper. His great achievement is that every single sentence smacks of smugness, self-importance and contempt - the give-away words “hate” and “hatred” crop up ten times ...

The Professor also pairs up with Martial Demunter to give sparsely attended “cycles of conferences” in Brussels on “The USA, Zionism and Israel” while Demunter holds forth on “Guilt and Holocaust Manipulation”! A nice pair.

Here are some excerpts from How to Deal with The Lobby, The De-Zionization of the American Mind

“… the level of hatred that leads a large number of people to applaud an event like September 11 is peculiar to the Middle East. Indeed, the main political significance of September 11 did not derive from the number of people killed or even the spectacular achievement of the attackers, but from the fact that the attack was popular in large parts of the Middle East. That much was understood by Americans leaders and infuriated them. Such a level of hatred calls for explanation.

And there can be only one explanation: United States support for Israel. It is indeed Israel that is the main object of hatred, for reasons we shall describe, but since the United States uncritically supports Israel on almost every issue, constantly praises it as “the only democracy in the Middle East” and provides its main financial backing, the result is a “transfer” of hatred.

Why is Israel so hated? (…) the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.

Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the “law of return”: any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy by three religions has become the “eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

It is precisely this racist aspect that infuriates most Arabs, even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine (if they live, say, in the French banlieues). This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein (the latter thanks to the US), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism. (…)

What protects the Israel lobby is the fact that anyone who would denounce an opponent funded by the Lobby as a quasi-agent of a foreign power would immediately be accused of anti-Semitism. In fact, imagine that Big Business is unhappy with the current U.S. policies (as it well may be) and wants to change them--how could they do it? Any criticism of Lobby influence on U.S. policy would immediately trigger the anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism accusation. (…)

Associated with this identification comes a systematically hostile view of the Arab and Muslim world, which both increases the lobby's effectiveness and is in part the result of its propaganda. Despite all the talk about anti-racism and “political correctness”, there is an almost total lack of understanding of the Arab viewpoint on Palestine, and, in particular, of the racist nature of the problem. It is this triple layer of control (selective funding, the anti-Semitism card, or rather canard, and the interiorization) that gives the lobby its peculiar strength. (And that is also why it is easy to dismiss its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously, Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works.) (…)

What should the Left do? Well, simple: treat Israel as it did South Africa and attack the Lobby. The reason Israel acts as it does is that it feels strong and that, in turn, is for two reasons: one is its “all-powerful army” (currently being tested in Lebanon, not conclusively yet); the other is the almost complete control over Washington policy-making, specially the Congress. Peace in the Middle East can only come when this feeling of Israeli superiority is shattered, and Americans have a great responsibility is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support.

Now, there are, in principle, two ways to do that: one is to appeal to American generosity, the other is to appeal to their self-interest. Both ways should be pursued, but the latter is not enough emphasized by the Left. (…) Also, if the United States were to distance itself from Israel, it would pursue policies opposed to the traditional ones, and far more humane. The other problem is that a large part of the Right (from Buchanan to Brzezinski) correctly sees American interests as being opposed of those of Israel, and the Left (understandably) does not like to make common cause with such people. But if a cause is just (and, in this case, urgent) it does not become less just because unsavory people endorse it (the same argument applies to genuine anti-Semitic hostility to Israel). The worst thing that the Left can do is to leave the monopoly of a just cause to the Right.

The Left cannot expect the American people to change radically overnight, abandon religious fundamentalism, give up oil addiction or embrace socialism. But a change of perspective in the Middle East is possible: the strength of the lobby is also its weakness, namely the naked king effect-everybody fears it, but the only reason to fear it is that everybody around us fears it. Left alone, it is powerless. To change that, one should systematically defend every politician, every columnist, every teacher, who is targeted by the lobby for his or her views or statements, irrespective of their general political outlook (to take an analogy, act as civil libertarians do with respect to free speech). (…)

Rolling back the lobby would necessitate a change of the American mentality with respect to the people of the Middle East, and to Islam, like ending the Vietnam war required a change in the way Asians were looked at. But that alone would have a greatly humanizing effect on American culture. (…)

It is true that a change in the U.S. policy with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict would change nothing about traditional imperialism-- the United States would still support traditional elites everywhere, and press countries to provide a “favorable investment climate”. But the conflict in the Middle East, involving Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, has all the aspects of a religious war-with Islam on one side and Zionism as a secular Western religion on the other. And wars of religion tend to be the most brutal and uncontrollable of all wars. What is at stake in the de-Zionization of the American mind is not only the fate of the unfortunate inhabitants of Palestine but also unspeakable miseries for the people of that region and maybe of the rest of the world. The ultimate irony in all this is that the fate of much of the world depends of the American people exercizing their right to self-determination, which, of course, they should.”

See:
Israel on trial in Brussels: Iranian and Syrian Ambassadors give standing ovation to judges

Coexistence: 77% of Arabs say won't replace Israel, by Reuven Weiss

Ynet News reports on findings pointing to peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between Israeli Jews and Arabs:

"Seventy-seven percent of the State of Israel's Arab citizens would rather live in the Jewish state than in any other country in the world, according to a new study titled "Coexistence in Israel".

The survey was conducted by the John Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University with the assistance of researchers from Haifa University.

The study was aimed at examining the relations between Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens on the State's 60th anniversary, and included 1,721 respondents.

The findings also revealed that a great majority of Israel's citizens (73% of the Jews and 94% of the Arabs) want to live in a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities.

The study went on to show that 68% of Jewish citizens support teaching conversational Arabic in Jewish schools to help bring Arab and Jewish citizens together, and 69% believe contributing to coexistence is a personal responsibility.

Sixty-six percent of Jewish citizens and 84% of Arab citizens believe the Israeli government investments should begin now, and not wait until the end of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The project's lead researcher, Professor Todd L. Pittinsky, research director of the Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership (CPL), said in a press release, "These data support what we’ve found in our allophilia research around the world—evidence of interest, comfort, and affection among some, even in communities in conflict."

Pittinsky notes that much media coverage focuses on the divisions between Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel, and not enough on the sincere and concerted efforts to coexist peacefully."

American Zionism, in Jewish Current Issues

Article posted by Rick Richman @ Jewish Current Issues:

"Walter Russell Mead (Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations) has a fascinating article that will appear in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled “The New Israel and the Old: Why Gentile Americans Back the Jewish State.”

Widespread gentile support for Israel is one of the most potent political forces in U.S. foreign policy, and in the last 60 years, there has never been a Gallup poll showing more Americans sympathizing with the Arabs or the Palestinians than with the Israelis.

Over time, moreover, the pro-Israel sentiment in the United States has increased, especially among non-Jews. The years of the George W. Bush administration have seen support for Israel in U.S. public opinion reach the highest level ever, and it has remained there throughout Bush's two terms. The increase has occurred even as the demographic importance of Jews has diminished. In 1948, Jews constituted an estimated 3.8 percent of the U.S. population. ... By 2007, Jews were only 1.8 percent of the population of the United States ...

In the United States, a pro-Israel foreign policy does not represent the triumph of a small lobby over the public will. It represents the power of public opinion to shape foreign policy in the face of concerns by foreign policy professionals. ... [T]he ultimate sources of the United States' Middle East policy lie outside the Beltway and outside the Jewish community.

Mead’s article addresses the subject from the time of the Founders through the administration of George W. Bush. Here is an example of some of the rich details in the article (links and emphasis by JCI):

In 1891 ... Methodist lay leader William Blackstone presented a petition to President Benjamin Harrison calling on the United States to use its good offices to convene a congress of European powers so that they could induce the Ottoman Empire to turn Palestine over to the Jews.

The 400 signatories were overwhelmingly non-Jewish and included the chief justice of the Supreme Court; the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee; the future president William McKinley; the mayors of Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington; the editors or proprietors of the leading East Coast and Chicago newspapers; and an impressive array of Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic clergy. Business leaders who signed the petition included Cyrus McCormick, John Rockefeller, and J. P. Morgan.

At a time when the American Jewish community was neither large nor powerful, and no such thing as an Israel lobby existed, the pillars of the American gentile establishment went on record supporting a U.S. diplomatic effort to create a Jewish state in the lands of the Bible.

Theodor Herzl’s book “The Jewish State” did not appear until 1896. (See also: The NeoChristian Lobby)."

Read also:
1921: Anti-Semitism is “un-American and un-Christian”

"In opinion polls Americans express overwhelming support for Israel", Gerard Baker

From an article by Gerard Baker in The Times:

"If Jews wield little direct electoral clout, the reason for the power of the Israel lobby, say its critics, must be that it uses the financial and political muscle of American Jews to exercise a stranglehold on foreign policy debate. It requires politicians to commit America to uncritical support for Israel, irrespective of other US interests in the region.

There is a lot wrong with this idea. In a country as diverse as America, candidates are constantly trying to ensure that they are in the good graces of people of almost all faiths and traditions. (...)

But there is a bigger reason to object to the familiar characterisation of the Jewish lobby. AIPAC is undoubtedly one of the most effective lobbying organisations in Washington. But it succeeds because very large numbers of Americans share its aims, not because it somehow strongarms politicians into supporting it. Candidates want AIPAC's approval because they know that being seen as pro-Israel is central to their foreign policy credentials.

In opinion polls Americans express overwhelming support for Israel. They see it in kindred terms - a thriving democracy forged in an inhospitable climate. For Barack Obama in particular, dispelling doubts about his pro-Israel credentials is essential to winning the votes of most Americans."

Google founder: "My family left Russia because of anti-semitism"

Article by Tom Gross @ Mideast Dispatch:

"Google founder Sergey Brin, who stayed on in Israel for a few days after the conclusion of last week’s 60th anniversary celebrations, has told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz that “anti-Semitism was the main reason his family left Russia.”

As I mentioned in a previous dispatch, Brin, 34, was in Israel for President Shimon Peres’ presidential conference “Facing Tomorrow,” and took the opportunity to visit Google’s growing Israeli offices. He said Google is also considering buying some Israeli hi-tech start-up companies.

Brin was born in Moscow in 1973 to Jewish parents. His father, a would-be physicist, was banned from Moscow University under a Communist Party decree banning Jews from physics departments.

Ha’aretz writes: “Mikhail Brin decided to study mathematics instead, and was offered a place although the entry exams for Jews were sat separately, in rooms that were notoriously known as ‘the gas chambers.’ In 1970, he graduated with distinction. Later, he gained his PhD from the University of Krakow, and worked for the Russian economic policy-planning agency.

“Sergey’s mother, Evgenya, worked in the research lab of the Soviet gas and oil institute. Like her husband, she had struggled against the anti-Semitic discrimination which prevailed in the Soviet academia, and defied it.

“... The Brins decided to leave Russia in 1977. Despite the fear of being declared “refuseniks,” Evgenya was adamant to leave.

“In 1978 they applied for emigration permit, and as a result Mikhail was fired and Evgenya had to resign. The family barely got by for several months until their application was approved in 1979. Shortly afterwards, the gates of the Soviet bloc were hermetically closed for emigration.”"

English Parliament debates growth of anti-semitism in Britain, by Irene Lancaster

From Irene Lancaster's Diary:

"English Parliament debates growth of anti-semitism in Britain, and calls on the BBC and the Church of England to do more

(...) the parliamentary debate about the growth of antisemitism in Britain. It took place last week, on Thursday, May 15th.

If you go to the comments section on the Engage webpage, you will find out how to access the video of the debate.

Here is part of what two MPs from different parties said about the matter of antisemitism in today's Britain. I have reversed the order in which they appeared:

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)
"The threat and reality of anti-Semitism is with us ... Jewish people are the only community in our country who live in a permanent state of siege and underlying fear ... although I am not Jewish, I am targeted because I am seen as someone who stands up for the Jewish community. I have had hate mail and death threats. I have been on the receiving end of action by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee..."

Mark Prichard (The Wrekin, Conservative)
" ... in some, but not all, parts, the BBC is still institutionally biased against Israel.... I welcome the comments that Pope Benedict made in his Cologne speech. I think the Church of England should do more; it should speak out against anti-Semitism."

This was an important debate, which took place on the date by Gregorian calendar of Israel's 60th anniversary. The debate linked antisemitism in Britain to the way Israel is reported in the media, specifically mentioning bias in the BBC as a Government-funded organisation, and calling on the Church of England to do more to speak out.

The most obivous cause for concern still remains the atmosphere and reality of campus life for Jewish students and staff in many universities. However, the BBC and the Church of England - pillars of the establishment - could do a great deal more to influence the pervading ambience in the country. This might go some way to assuage the feeling 'of permanent state of siege and underlying fear' experienced by the Jewish community of this country, correctly expressed by the non-Jewish Labour MP for Hendon, NW London.

Another worrying feature is the universities' admission policy, which many feel discriminates against the Jewish community as an ethnic minority.

Contrast with President Bush's speech of congratulations to Israel on her 60th, which he gave in the Israeli Knesset (originally modelled on the British parliament), which took place on the same afternoon as the parliamentary debate on anti-Semitism in London."