I don’t like hearing it under any circumstances, but John McCain sure seems to find the worst situations to use the phrase “Judeo-Christian”, doesn’t he?

I have to admit, I had my doubts as to whether Nikki Tinker’s ugly campaign tactics would pay off. But given Steve Cohen’s crushing victory last night, I owe you all a huge apology.

The race between Steve Cohen and Nikki Tinker has certainly caused some stress for those of us concerned with Black/Jewish relations, but we may have worried too much: With 67% reporting, Cohen is stomping Tinker by 60 points.

Presumably, if a strong Tinker challenge fueled by anti-Semitic themes would have strained Black/Jewish relations, a majority Black district resoundingly rejected those tactics should be a great data point in its favor. Yes?

Despite his official reception, it’s a tough sell. Watch the CBS Report below. The Israeli commentator who pointedly insisted on using Obama’s middle name sounds like he’s been listening to too many webcasts of conservative talkers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity…

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that Obama is working to shore up his support among Jewish voters in the United States:
Read the rest of this entry »

Jews are among the smartest and most engaged voters when it comes to public affairs and knowing when they are being played, so it seemed like only a matter of time before they began parting ways with Joe Lieberman, John McCain’s very own Uriah Heep and a senator whose political dishonesty runs at a flood-tide pace these days.

Among high-profile Jews in Congress, Lieberman is viewed far more unfavorably than Barack Obama, according to a new poll. Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably.

Enough said.

An East Jerusalem Palestinian hijacked a bulldozer today and began attacking buses, cars and the people in them. A few people were killed and around 60 were wounded. Fortunately, the terrorist was quickly killed.

Jerusalem Post: Bulldozer driver shot dead after going on rampage in capital

Jerusalem Post: ‘Israel must demolish terrorist’s house’

Jerusalem Post: We acted precisely as we were taught

David Horovitz: Another attack from ‘within’

InfoLiveTV

Ynet News: 3 killed as Palestinian bulldozer driver goes on killing spree in Jerusalem

Arutz Sheva: Terrorist Bulldozer Rampages in Jerusalem, Murders Three

Haaretz: Bulldozer plows into crowded bus on Jaffa St.

Haaretz: VIDEO: Policeman shoots and kills Jerusalem terrorist during rampage

Ynet News: ‘I don’t know how I survived’

Bus driver, passengers recall Jerusalem attack, say ‘bulldozer repeatedly slammed into us’

HonestReporting.com Caught: BBC’s Shocking First Response to Terror Attack

While BBC Online currently covers the story “Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem,” this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC’s warped journalism, the initial headline read “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead”.

I am appalled to see that CNN is writing “terrorist” and MSNBC is writing ‘terrorist’ when these are TERRORISTS without quotation marks or apostrophes.

Credit for some of these links goes to Rabbi David in Iowa.

Just as it has in the United States, Barack Obama’s strategic ambiguity in regard to the Middle East and foreign policy in general has definitively shown up on Europe’s radar screen.

For Germany’s Die Welt, Lord George Weidenfeld writes of Obama’s recent speech to AIPAC - the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee:

“The candidate of American Democrats, Barack Obama, is campaigning with the help of the American Jewish lobby. Going further than many presidential candidates before him; Obama calls for an ‘undivided Jerusalem’ and threatens to do ‘everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.’”

Then highlighting the source of the global confusion, Weidenfeld continues:

“Confusing for many voters are the contradictory statements that Obama has made about the most controversial foreign policy issues. On the question of the moment: “How should we deal with Iran?,” Obama offers ambiguous answers. Before liberal students, he portrays himself as a true pacifist. However, before the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC - the acronym for the praised or damned Jewish lobby - he declares with the deepest conviction that there will be no limits when it comes to preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.”

But Weidenfeld cautions that after the campaign, whoever wins will have to engage in ‘intellectual decontamination’ to clarify where the winner truly stands.

Read the rest of this entry »

Let the Arab-Israeli battle for Barack Obama’s heart and mind begin …

For Yemen’s Al-Wahdawi newspaper, Ziyad Abu Shaawish writes of the crushing disappointment felt by Palestinians when Obama appeared before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee calling for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control. Read the rest of this entry »

Are Arabs finally coming to accept that the United States is not really part of a Zionist conspiracy in pursuit of a Jewish takeover of the world?

In this hopeful op-ed from Yemen’s Alsahwa newspaper, Sabah Al Kheshni makes quick work of the global Zionist conspiracy and argues against the common habit in many Arab countries of blaming everything that’s wrong on a conspiracy. In regard to the Iraq War and other targets of Arab angst, he writes in part:

“All strong nations believe they have the right to secure and expand their interests beyond their borders, just as America has done. … The conspiracy theory has become the peg upon which weak societies - most importantly ours - hang their misfortunes … The latest fashion is a conspiracy, hair-styles are a conspiracy - even freedom of expression can’t escape conspiracy …”

Read the rest of this entry »

Fascinating analysis by Shmuel Rosner in Ha’aretz, “Will next U.S. Congress top current record number of Jewish lawmakers?”

What we’ve got now:

The class of 2006 gave us a record number of Jewish legislators on Capitol Hill. The numbers: 30 Jewish members of the House (29 Democrats), 13 Jewish senators (9 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats and 2 Republicans). This is the highest number ever.

Rosner reviews the Cook Political Report and here are the places where he sees possible gains for the U.S House:

5. The Republican Toss Up column has no Jewish members of the House, but again, we also checked the list of challengers. Here is the outcome:

A. Alaska-AL: a leading Democratic contender, Ethan Berkowitz, is Jewish. He is leading among Democrats and lugging not far behind the main Republican challenger. Imagine: a Jewish legislator from Alaska! (Apparently, not the first one).

B. AZ-01: Howard Shanker is a Jewish attorney and is trying to become the Democratic nominee. One should note, though, that the list of prospective nominees is long and that the district is conservative. Shanker seems like a long shot.

C. NJ-03: In this open seat, Democratic nominee, John Adler is Jewish. It was a Republican district in 2006, but now it seems as if Adler has an edge.

Bottom line: Up to three new Jewish members (but if all of them win this will be a surprise, some of them have to overcome a primary battle first).

And then:

7. There are also a couple of long shots I’ve decided to include in this roundup. These are races that are not counted by anyone as Toss Ups, but if this year becomes a Democratic tsunami (as more and more people believe it might be), maybe some of them will change hands anyway. This, of course, will make this year much more likely to be a record year (more Jewish legislators and contenders are Democrats - oh, and voters too).

[The races are in NJ-05, WY-AL and VA-10.]

Turning to the U.S. Senate (here is the Cook Political Report info), of note:

2. The fierce battle for Minnesota is the one Toss Up, but it will not affect the number of Jewish legislators as both Senator Coleman and his challenger, comedian Al Franken, are Jewish. It might affect, though, the composition of the Jewish caucus, by possibly taking away yet another Jewish Republican seat.

…

5. And here is a nugget I can add thanks to a reader in NM: Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico, son of Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and a nephew of former Congressman Mo Udall from Arizona, is not Jewish, but is a long time member of Temple Beth Shalom in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He is married to Jill Cooper, a Jewish woman. And he is running now for the open Senate Seat in New Mexico. We didn’t count him as a member of the Jewish group in 2006, so we will not count him as one if he becomes a Senator. But maybe an honorary membership is due.

Rosner’s conclusion isn’t quite as strong as his lede implies, IMO:

In the House, no gains or losses are expected when discussing Democratic seats, other than the one of Lantos earlier in the year - but if some of the races get tighter we might see a couple of loses (up to four). A couple of gains are possible when we check the Republican seats - but for this to happen the Jewish contenders need to win the primary battles, and the elections. Since there’s no reason to believe that the number of Jewish Senators will change, this is really a close call: The 2008 Congress can repeat the record number of Jewish legislators; it can lose one or two Jewish seats; but a new record is also possible.

We’ll just have to wait for November 5 to know for sure, but more immediately, why should anyone care about this possibility? What does it actually mean - does it say more about who is running or who is voting?

What I’d prefer to read from Rosner is what impact if any he thinks the increasing numbers have made, on anything - not only the issues we’d most likely suggest might be influenced by a larger number of legislators who are Jewish.

Hattip Holly in Cincinnati.

Once again soccer seems to have brought out the worst in people. If they keep this up, they’ll start looking like California drivers. John Rosenthal writing in Pajamas Media:

The motto of the 2006 Soccer World Cup in Germany was “The world is our guest, you’re staying with friends” [Die Welt zu Gast bei Freunden] — or, in the simplified official translation, “A time to make friends.” Two years later, however, the prospects of a good showing by the German national team in the European soccer championships, currently being co-hosted by Austria and Switzerland, appear to be inspiring anything but friendly sentiments among some German soccer fans.

As first reported by the Austrian news agency APA [link in German], around 140 “mostly German” fans were arrested Sunday night in Klagenfurt in the run-up to the German team’s opening match against Poland. The rowdy German fans were chanting what the APA describes as “obviously racist and anti-Semitic slogans” that “recall the Nazi period.” More precisely and more bizarrely, they were in fact adapting anti-Semitic motifs from the Third Reich in order to insult their Polish rivals: chanting “All Poles have to wear yellow stars” and “Germans defend yourselves! Don’t buy from Poles!” The latter is a variation on the slogan with which the Nazis unrolled their infamous boycott of Jewish shops and businesses in 1933: “Germans defend yourselves! Don’t buy from Jews!”

The distinctive mixture of aggressiveness and Nazi nostalgia appears, moreover, not to have been limited to just those German fans that made the trip to Austria.

Read it in its entirety.

Soccer hooliganism, also called football hooliganism, is NOT limited to some fans from Germany. It’s a huge problem worldwide and has led to deaths. Go here, here, and here. In Italy soccer hooligans even killed a policeman.

Teams of opposing Hooligans have even confronted each other in pre-game rumbles — ending some young lives. Watch this:

What makes the Austrian incident different is the chanting of Nazi slogans — where passions over the game caused some young people to culturally regress.

What is it about soccer? Americans reserve this kind of violence and verbal abuse for driving and attending their kids’ Little League games.

One night in 1968, my father was in a Manhattan ballroom for the first time in his life, watching Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr. hand me an award. The expression on his face was the essence of “nachas,” the word immigrants used for the joy and pride their children give them to redeem a lifetime of suffering.

I had been six or so at a Fourth of July parade when the colors came by and my father’s hat went flying from his head, knocked off by the beefy hand of a red-faced man behind us pointing at the flag. Shame and rage rose in me, but my father only smiled sweetly, nodded and bent to pick up the hat.

Years later, I read that, as a child, Sigmund Freud was told by his father that a man had grabbed his new fur cap and flung it into the mud, shouting, “Jew, get off the street.” Freud recalled angrily asking, “What did you do?” His father answered calmly, “I stepped into the gutter and picked up my cap.” In dreams, Freud would later note, a hat may stand for male genitals.

My father never talked about the past. I knew him only as a man who went to work early, came home late, ate his dinner, kissed me goodnight and went to bed. We did not play ball or go to games or listen to them on the radio. He told no stories and passed on no fatherly wisdom. He expected nothing, envied no one. He just slaved sixty hours a week to put food in my mouth, and he loved me without words. What I learned about his life came later and not from him.

Read the rest of this entry

The issue of Arab angst over Israeli influence in the United States has very clearly spilled over into the issue of Barack Obama’s candidacy for the presidency, as recent Arabic translations on WORLDMEETS.US demonstrate.

This article from Al-Arab Al-Yawm of Jordan - which is a majority Palestinian country - expresses optimism over the emergence of Barack Obama, but also a sense that no matter who becomes President of the United States, that person will remain a tool of the all-powerful ‘Zionist Machine.’

Mohammed Ka’ouch writes for Al-Arab Al-Yawm:

“When the car carrying Senator Barack Obama, a colored man, crosses the street that separates Blair House [the official guest house] from the gates of the White House, all will have to acknowledge that he personifies a deep and monumental change in American society … Read the rest of this entry »

And now, the news so many generations have waited for: Giraffe meat is kosher!

An Israeli rabbi has declared giraffe meat and milk to be kosher, although his pronouncement is unlikely to have observant Jews clamouring to consume the exotic products, a daily reported on Friday.

“The giraffe has all the signs of a ritually pure animal, and the milk forms curds, which strengthened that view,” the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot quoted Rabbi Shlomo Mahfoud as saying.

The rabbi based his ruling on a recent finding by researchers from Bar Ilan University who took a milk sample while treating a giraffe at Ramat Gan safari park near Tel Aviv.

They found that the milk forms curds as required under Jewish religious law, a finding confirmed by another research institute, the daily said.

Giraffe meat is also considered ritually pure because the animal has a cloven hoof and chews the cud.

“Indeed, the giraffe is kosher for eating,” said Mahfoud, who was present when the researchers made their finding.

Now if they can determine whether porcupine meat is kosher, next year’s sedar dinner will be complete!

In one of the more provocative columns I’ve read in quite a while, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse yesterday penned a somewhat dismal bit of prognostication called Embrace the Horror. I have now read the piece three separate times, as well as listening to a discussion of it between Rick and Ed Morrissey on his Hot Air show yesterday. The article is a comprehensive look at the trials and tribulations facing “President Obama” during his first (and possibly only) term and I highly encourage you to read it if you’ve not done so already.

There was something about it, though, which simply didn’t sit right with me, though I couldn’t put my finger on it until this morning. One of the basic disagreements I have, though certainly not the chief one, is the assumption that Obama is a dead lock to win in November. While certainly possible, I still believe that the Illinois Senator has a tough row to hoe in his attempts to make his case with voters, including many in his own party.

Moran is certainly correct that the next president will face many daunting challenges. These, as he points out, include a moribund economy with no silver bullet solution in sight. They will also have to deal with the reality of disentangling ourselves from Iraq as opposed to the easy rhetoric of calling for immediately moving toward withdrawl. Any such plan will have to be put in place over the objections of some military leaders and a public who, while disenchanted with the war, are unwilling to see such a withdrawl turn into a rout or leave us looking defeated. Additionally, a host of other challenging domestic issues - taxes and NAFTA among others - await the next Oval Office resident, and Rick is absolutely right in noting that these will create a difficult swamp to wade through.

But it’s in the area of foreign policy where I believe Mr. Moran and I fail to see eye to eye.

The Iranian situation will resolve itself with or without President Obama’s help. If he actively tries to prevent Israel from removing what they believe is an existential threat, his presidency will be over. And since the US is going to get blamed for anything Israel does anyway, my guess is he will tacitly support any Israeli action against the Iranian nuclear program.

Would he attack Iran? Despite his bellicose comments about not allowing the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, since there will likely be no evidence that the Iranians are constructing nukes, it is extremely unlikely that a President Obama would greenlight any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel, of course, doesn’t have that luxury and once it is clear that Iran could enrich uranium on an industrial scale to the 85-90% level, all bets are off and US support or no, they will hit the Iranians with everything they’ve got.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why Barack Obama would be the most pro-Zionist President in American history. He managed to single-handedly disprove much of the argument I made alleging that non-Jews could not effectively advocate for Zionism as understood by Jews in the public sphere. Obama’s interview with The Atlantic is simply fantastic — it hits every base I could have asked for. He called Zionism “just”. He related it to anti-Semitism — not just as something in the past, but as something Jews need to worry about today. He seemed to truly “get” why the Zionist idea has such a hold on Jews — not just intellectually, but in his gut and soul. And he recognized that keeping Israel in a perpetual, apocalyptic conflict with its neighbors and the Palestinians is not something ultimately in the interest of Israel or the Jews — something non-Jews often forget because their brothers and sisters aren’t the ones ending up in body bags.

This is something we haven’t seen from any major public figure in my memory. It is something immensely to Obama’s credit, and something that should earn him the support of that vast portion of the Jewish community which identifies as Zionist and progressive.

One can forgive Florida’s substantial Jewish population for being confused these days. One day George Bush hints in a speech to the Knesset that Barack Obama is a Neville Chamberlain-like appeaser who would talk to enemies of Israel and the next day Israel is talking to its enemy Syria.

Were it only that simple.

A New York Times story today reveals that Sunshine State Jews — and predominately older ones — to be not only confused, but conflicted, paranoid and in some instances bigoted in their views toward Obama. Younger Jews, meanwhile, have turned out for Obama in respectable numbers.

All that noted, when it comes to enemies of Israel, it would be hard to beat the Bush administration.

As Israel celebrates the 60th anniversary of its birth this month, I state unequivocally that I would sacrifice my life to defend my Jewish brothers and sisters. But once the bloody intransigence of Hezbollah and Hamas are duly noted, the anniversary is an especially bittersweet one because of the Jewish neoconservatives who hijacked the Bush presidency, and that needs to be hammered home.

In polite company, my German Jewish grandfather would have used the German word zudringlich to describe the likes of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. That means “meddlesome.” In less polite company, he would have used one of his favorite profanities.

Granddaddy would agree with me that these neocons have been the worst thing to happen to Israel in a very long time because their fantasy of creating democratic, which is to say pro-Israel and therefore pro-Western states, in the Middle East was predicated on bellicosity and built on a willful ignorance of Arab and Muslim history.

That has been so abundantly apparent in Iraq, the first state where the neocons meddled. The result has been a slow-motion disaster that has taken many thousands of lives, been a sucking chest wound on the American economy and made Israel less safe, less able to leverage its interests, and the region as a whole less stable.

The timing of the Perle-Wolfowitz wet dream, coupled with the ham-handedness of Secretary of State Rice, could not have been worse for Israel, and with friends like the Bush White House, who needs enemies?

Zionism is, at its essence, the national liberation project for Jews as applied to creating a Jewish nation-state in Israel. Its object and purpose centers around Jews. Since Israel has been established, Zionism today means just that one thinks creating Israel was a pretty good move and it should stick around (a definition inspired by, if not outright plagiarized from by virtue of not being able to find a link, Phoebe Maltz). Consequently, being a Zionist doesn’t mean supporting any given Israeli policy. It does, however, mean affirming Israel’s right to exist, be treated fairly and equally in the global community, and be secure.

In America (and throughout the world, but let’s just stick with America) most defenders of Zionism as I define it are not Jews. This is not because Jews aren’t Zionists (by and large, they are), but just because because most figures with a national audience are not Jews. With the possible exception of Joe Lieberman (who spends most of his time today talking about how peachy things are in Iraq), pretty much of all the national figures who explain why America should support Zionism are non-Jewish. These people — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, whomever — are what I mean by proxies. They are non-Jews who are all out there in the public arena defending Zionism.

My thesis is that Zionism cannot be (or at least, is not) effectively defended by proxies….
Read the rest of this post at The Debate Link

As the despotic regime of Robert Mugabe slowly unravels, the content in its rigidly-controlled state media quite accurately reflects the mania of that unfortunate nation’s chief executive. In one of the most outrageous op-eds this news editor has ever read from any country, Nathaniel Manheru writes for The Herald of Zimbabwe about Americas’ new ambassador to that nation. Manheru begins by describing a quip he claims is going around Zimbabwe about America’s Ambassador James McGee:

“When it comes to interests and purpose, he [McGee] is decidedly White. …White America is now so confident of the Whiteness of its Blacks that color is no longer an issue. Color is no longer a perspective. Look at Obama - he could be White America’s next President, and be far better at pushing her agenda than George W. Bush!” Read the rest of this entry »

The Fox Movie Channel showed “Gentleman’s Agreement” last night, a preachy drama about anti-Semitism that won the Academy Award 60 years ago, and it brought into focus the realization that I may live to see a black man inaugurated as President of the United States.

What Barack Obama faces from now until November would be unimaginable to the people who made and saw that movie then, including a 23-year-old just back from World War II who had little audacity and even less hope of living in the rich, glossy world it portrayed.

Gregory Peck played a magazine writer who pretends to be Jewish. A decade later, I was an editor on one of those magazines, unknowingly hired by George W. Bush’s grandfather as the first Jew among thousands of employees, working with Laura Z. Hobson, who wrote the novel on which the picture was based.

Read the rest of this entry.