Jewish Leader Says American Jewish Community Is ‘Directed’ by Israeli Foreign Ministry

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 36 Comments

Yesterday’s Times previewed the upcoming espionage trial of two former AIPAC staffers in the right context– the ever-louder conversation about the Israel lobby.

the case comes with issues of enormous sensitivity and emotion, notably
the nature and extent of the ways American Jewish supporters of Israel
try to influence the United States government.

The two defendants are apparently going to argue that the information they passed along to the Israeli government was conventional Washington talk, not state secrets. My own feeling is that this whole area is a giant mess right now, that Israeli and U.S. interests have been thoroughly conflated in Washington, possibly illegally, and the country needs to separate its interests from Israel.

I’d like to offer a piece of evidence on the issue. Last night I was reading Wrestling With Zion, a wonderful volume by progressive American Jews who are alarmed by what Israel has turned out to be. It contains a staggering statement.

Wrestling With Zion was published five years ago but it gets more and more meaningful with every passing hour. I don’t think the book has ever been reviewed in the New York Times, though last year the book was singled out by the American Jewish Committee in a McCarthylike report that suggested that progressive Jews who criticize Israel are anti-Semites. That AJC report was hateful. Soon after it came out, I met Alisa Solomon, the book’s co-editor, a gentle, serious, generous journalist, teacher and Jew. The idea that she is an anti-Semite–well, it is simply crazy, and yet I saw how this charge had hurt her personally. A year later I can say that both the AJC report and Solomon’s book are symptoms of a generational crisis the organized Jewish community finds itself in right now. For the Jewish leadership is agonized that young Jews, following leaders like Solomon, are becoming alienated from Israel.

Now at the end of the book, Solomon and her co-editor playwright Tony Kushner print a dialogue among several activists and writers. It includes the following exchange between two Brit Tzedek Jews–progressive Zionists–Marcia Freedman, who is a former member of the Israeli Knesset and former president of Brit Tzedek, and Rabbi Ellen Lippmann of Brooklyn, a brave rabbi who has openly criticized Israel.

LIPPMANN: [In early 2003, at a meeting of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which calls itself "the national public affairs arm of the organized Jewish community]… the Reform movement tried to come with a resolution about settlements. It seemed like a fairly innocuous resolution they tried to put forward. They weren’t even able to bring it forward until they watered it down. And then it was defeated because it was seen as much too far to the left for what a group of American Jewish organizations could bring to the American government, though it was pretty mild compared to what I think many of us would want them to say.

FREEDMAN: It was just about freezing settlement building. It was a nothing statement. It supported a two-state solution. But I think to understand better what happened there, you have to understand that that organization is the umbrella organization for the Jewish Community Relations Councils, which are part of the organized Jewish community and therefore part of the organized Jewish voice that’s being directed out of the Israeli Foreign Ministry [emphasis Weiss's] and AIPAC. That was not anything that represents the Jews. It represents a certain section of the Jewish population that is ‘the organized’ population.

Does that statement require interpretation? Freedman, a very well connected person, a Californian who was once in the Israeli Knesset, is saying that an important issue in the American Jewish community, perhaps the most important moral/political issue of the last 20 years, calling for a freeze on illegal and racist Israeli colonialism, is being decided for American Jews by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. And this is not controversial!? This book has been out for five years. Since then, Walt and Mearsheimer have presented a convincing argument that the neocons pushed the Iraq war out of concern for Israel, and the Jewish community has by and large risen against them. Where is the journalistic investigation of Freedman’s statement? Where is the soul-searching?

I’d add that in Jewish, when we say "make aliyah," or move to Israel, it means "to go up." While those who don’t live in Israel are called the  "yoredim," those who have gone down, which I gather is a bit of a slur. In current organized Jewish belief, there is a higher status given to those who live in Israel than to those who live in the U.S. Which may help to explain the abdication by modern privileged empowered American Jews of all moral authority to Israelis, who live in a brutalized and weak state trapped in a cycle of violence.

Yesterday’s Times said:

For Aipac and to some extent the larger pro-Israel community in the
United States, the charges… could
raise what they regard as an unfair, even toxic question about whether
some American Jews hold a loyalty to Israel that matches or exceeds
their loyalty to the United States.

I say that question is logical and timely.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

36 Responses

  1. Arie Brand
    March 4, 2008, 5:02 pm

    "that matches or exceeds their loyalty to the United States" and, say I, anything the United States claims to stand for (freedom, democracy etc.).

    From the latest issue of Vanity Fair:

    "Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)"

    So much for Witty's statement, a few posts back, that the conflict would be easily solved if Fatah and Hamas were not battling each other.

    Arie Brand

  2. Jim Haygood
    March 4, 2008, 5:45 pm

    .

    As much as one welcomes seeing former employees of the seditious foreign lobby AIPAC put on trial, something doesn't smell right about this case. As the Times reports, the charge against Rosen and Weissman is 'conspiracy,' a b.s. derivative charge that the government uses when it can't prove an actual crime. Then, it's noted that two unnamed government officials who allegedly passed sensitive information to the AIPAC pair are not charged with anything. How can it be illegal to pass it on second-hand, while the original source is immune?

    A more hopeful aspect of this troubling case is the defense's effort to call a whole passel of Bush administration witnesses — Rice, Hadley, Abrams, Armitage, Wolfowitz, and a dozen others — and confront them with explicit evidence of having leaked classified information to AIPAC.

    So maybe, just maybe, we've got a 'win-win' situation here: either two high officials of AIPAC get nailed as felons; or, if their "everyone's doing it" defense is successful, it may prove in a court of law that the Bush administration is completely penetrated by Israeli agents and spies.

    Official Washington will be shocked — SHOCKED — to learn that such things take place! And so will I. They never told me this in the turnip patch.

  3. Ed.
    March 4, 2008, 9:04 pm

    "both the AJC report and Solomon's book are symptoms of a generational crisis the organized Jewish community finds itself in right now. For the Jewish leadership is agonized that young Jews, following leaders like Solomon, are becoming alienated from Israel."

    Organized Judaism's problem is not "alienated young Jews" merely as a result of Israel's treachery. Organized Judaism's problem is that more and more young Jews are finding out that organized Judaism is hardly a religion at all, or even an ethnic association. They are finding out that it is more of an ideology based on a mythical racial continuity, and that they have been indoctrinated and lied to for all these years.

  4. Jim Haygood
    March 4, 2008, 9:19 pm

    .

    As an example of Ed's contention, check out the Amazon.com reader reviews of "Wrestling With Zion." Isaac Barr writes, "[Tony] Kushner [and his] buddies are the same as Neturei Karta except that they are not religious and know little about Judaism. Judaism cannot be separated from Zionism."

    Holy moley! If Christian leaders had asserted a millinneum ago that "Christianity cannot be separated from the Crusades," there might not be a church today.

    Yoking Judaism to the secular heresy of zionism — a blasphemy propagated nearly across the board in organized Judaism — is the surest formula for destroying it. The younger generation, which tends to have a sensitive nose for self-serving b.s., is naturally horrified by such depraved rantings.

  5. the sword of gideon
    March 4, 2008, 9:36 pm

    I didn't know that your were concerned with the future of Judaism Jim. I'm touched.

  6. samuel burke
    March 4, 2008, 10:17 pm

    I've got a great suggestion for your peeps…….just be an American and honor the constitution as the founding document; to be adhered to as the guiding light of our vision, a nation whose brother and sister nations are friends, not foes to be conquered, either economically or fundamentally, whether secular or any other form of government.

    is duality of nationality related to a hatred for the nation wherein you live, or is it a longing for your own nation, whose clarion call you must obey, and always wish to serve?

  7. americangoy
    March 5, 2008, 1:02 am

    Sorry Digby I take it back – this is the best blog right now.

    The whole front page of articles is staggering, timely and well researched and written.

    Mr. Weiss is making an incredible contribution to the American discussion of AIPAC, Israel and USA's Middle East and, indeed, worldwide foreign policy.

    I just hope that as many Americans are exposed to this blog as watch the drivel on FOX….

  8. bar_kochba132
    March 5, 2008, 5:13 am

    Bad News for Ed, Phil and and the rest who agree with them.

    Two interesting news items today in Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post.

    (1) A Gallup poll showed that Israel is the fifth most esteemed country in the world by Americans, after the UK, Canadak Germany and Japan. and some others. Israel has a 71% favorable rating and 25% unfavorable. By contrast, the Palestinian Authority has 14% favorable rating and 75 unfavorable.
    So much for the myth that American politicians support Israel because of some evil power AIPAC and the Jews have…they are responding to voter sentiment.

    (2) Second..it is a myth that young Israeli have a lower degree of support for Israel now than in the past. A poll reported in both newspapers says Jewish identity and support for Israel among American Jews has held steady for two decades. True, younger Jews have a somewhat lower interest in Israel but as Jews age they increase they interest in support, no doubt due in part to encountering antisemitism like we see here at Phil's site. The "Birthright Program" has an all-time high number of young Jews applying for their tours of Israel.

    TOO BAD, PHIL!

  9. Jim Haywood
    March 5, 2008, 6:37 am

    .

    Yeah, well, we've all got polls. The broadest one I know of is BBC's poll last year which surveyed 28,000 people in 27 different countries (not just the U.S., where attitudes are distorted by the Israel-shill media):

    ————

    LONDON – Israel, Iran and the United States were the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.

    The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries — Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela — as having a positive or negative influence on the world.

    Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.

    link to msnbc.msn.com

    ————

    Israel leads the negative perception list, followed by Iran, the US and North Korea. These four nuclear nutcases (including the outlaw, Israel, which refuses to submit to any nuclear inspection) DESERVE each other.

  10. bar_kochba132
    March 5, 2008, 8:49 am

    You know, Jim, the Jewish people had an even lower popularity rating 1939-1945. That's why we've resolved that we are not going to allow ourselves to be in that position again, regardless of what some "progressives" and others might think.

  11. Charles Keating
    March 5, 2008, 8:59 am

    A survey of American Jewish opinion, released last December by the American Jewish Committee, revealed: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East — including both in Iraq and against Iran.

    link to salon.com

    Given this plus the general anti-war thrust that tipped Congress to the democrats, and as shown by many polls of the total US population, what's with our elected government?

    PS: Most Americans have no information about the I_P conflict, nor its historical context except the soundbites: Israel is our alley and the only democracy in the Middle East & Palestinians=
    human torpedoes.

  12. bar_kochba132
    March 5, 2008, 1:38 pm

    Charles, what other "democracies" are there in the Arab Middle East? Are you including the Palestinians in that group because of their election? Please give a "non sound-bite" description of the status of democracy here. What other country in the MIddle East has a pro-American population. I don't mean countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia that receive American aid or military protection while the beneficiary curses their benefactor out in the media and even praises anti-American terror.

  13. Chuck
    March 5, 2008, 1:53 pm

    Israel might be considered a democracy after they let all those who've been occupied for the last 40 years vote in Israeli elections.

    And if they don't get to vote, get the hell off their property and return to the other side of the Green line.

  14. Jim Haygood
    March 5, 2008, 1:57 pm

    "What other country in the MIddle East has a pro-American population."

    What, having Israeli PMs and mayors come to New York and flatter us is supposed to be worth $3 billion a year? Thanks, but I'd rather save the money and let Israel say anything they want about us. In fact, if you read the comments on Haaretz articles, plenty of Israelis already despise both the US (for what little influence it does exert) and themselves (for the shame of taking our dirty money, when they could afford to pay their own way). This sordid, co-dependent relationship is damaging both parties.

  15. Chuck
    March 5, 2008, 2:07 pm

    Do thoughtful people still consider the USA a democracy when we get a choice between Jew authorized candidate #1(Hillary or Obama) who fully support Israel and their settlements or Jew authorized candidate #2(McCain) who likewise fully supports Israel and their settlements?

    Even more surreal is what happens in states such as Minnesota where the population is 99%Christian. They will be permitted a choice between Jew Norm Coleman, a 100% backer of Israel, and Jew Al Franken, likewise a 100% backer of Israel. Thanks to all the campaign money flowing in from New York, Miami and Los Angeles the honest question as to why the USA was attacked on 9-11 and why our economy has sucked ever since will never be brought to the attention of all the useful idiot Christians pulling the lever for either Coleman or Franken. Some democracy that is!!

    Fortunately for Jews, they can quickly forgoe their American citizenship and migrate to Israel when the shit from this entirely unsustainable mess hits the fan.link to nytimes.com

    The host will die but who cares?…On to the next victim.

  16. Charles Keating
    March 5, 2008, 3:53 pm

    With its tribal-monotheistic theology, Judaism was viewed with deep suspicion by polytheistic, multicultural societies in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt where nearly a million Jews lived among polytheistic Egyptians, Greeks and the governing Romans. The 'first pogrom' in Alexandria in 38 AD was ordered against the collective self chosen ones by then diversity's elite in the person of Roman governor Flaccus. Thousands of Jews were beaten, raped, and paraded through the streets to be burned on bonfires by diversity's public opinion. To be chosen is to be chosen, taking the good with the bad, no?

    Since those early days monotheism has been imbedded by both Christianity and Islam, the two main forces for the Great Spirit of so many other colonized peoples–but only the Jews retained the exclusive tribal aspect of the one god, spinning themselves as the light to the world by virtue of spiritualized and mostly realized endogamy.

    Interestingly, the Jews' narrative depicts the slaves fight against oppression of the rulers; the non-Jewish Christians originated in the rebel slave class (see Nietzsche); Islam too fought against the successor oppressors.

    The point is: Always look at the underdog narrative. God defends the underdog. A close inspection often has a problem with who is the underdog. But politicians, well, they spin facts & while we are alive, we get to see the results.

  17. samuel burke
    March 5, 2008, 4:01 pm

    why is it even necessary to have this conversation, why not just evolve, accept as fact that the foreign policy of the united states and israels diverge at best on this issue, humanitarianly speaking of course.

  18. Charles Keating
    March 5, 2008, 4:44 pm

    Because the American people are oblivious.

  19. Arie Brand
    March 5, 2008, 5:01 pm

    Bar-Kochbal's logic:

    We are popular (see some survey): so we CAN go on with what we are doing;
    we were not popular (Nazi Germany): so we SHOULD go on with what we are doing.

    Heads I win – tails you lose.

    Arie Brand

  20. the sword of gideon
    March 5, 2008, 5:38 pm

    Charles Keating:
    You are one strange guy, seriously. Do you sit around in a dark room thinking these things up? BTW I do appreciate the honesty by not couching your overt anti-semitism in some sort of anti-zionist bullshit. Oh and one other thing. The only thing that I have to do to get a secular liberal Jew to turn into the reincarnation of Ariel Sharon is to show them a few of these postings by you, Ed, some of the others. It's actually been good for aipac membership.

  21. Protest II
    March 5, 2008, 6:13 pm

    Phil and his followers are passionate to liberate the Palestinian from their misery.

    The pioneering historian Benny Morris has analyzed the 1948 Naqba and brought many details to the surface.

    At the end, he says it clearly that the Palestinian leaders were directly responsible for the Naqba.

    Phil's blog allows no such an option.

    Phil's blog is hilarious, a curse to the cause of the decent Palestinians, and an offense to honest Israelis.

  22. Chuck
    March 5, 2008, 6:13 pm

    How ridiculous. AIPAC is already full of "secular liberal Jew"s. Contrary to Witty's assertions of diversity among Jews, when it comes to Israel, there's not a dime's worth of difference between 90% of the "secular liberal Jews" or the black hatted orthodox with whom they in every instance make common cause with regard to Israel.

    The proof is in the pudding, ie the US Congress. Don't like Norm Coleman or Al D'Amato? Then you can go with Al Franken or Hillary Clinton. The degree of choice offered to the American public is not much different than the 4 different options of Pepsi offered up by John Belushi 30 years ago.

  23. sim
    March 5, 2008, 7:35 pm

    Hey, no word from Phil since his boy lost Texas and Ohio! Here's hoping he did the honorable thing and committed harikari.

  24. MM
    March 5, 2008, 7:36 pm

    "Phil's blog is hilarious, a curse to the cause of the decent Palestinians, and an offense to honest Israelis."

    Well I can at least be proud of the first and third items in this huffing and puffing protestor's complaint.

    And considering the protestor's record of helping the cause of decent Palestinians (consisting of 99% Zionist apologist hogwash), I think we can safely disregard his assessment on their account.

    Benny Morris and a hundred or more other Zionist historians know about Zionist crimes and still think it was the Palestinian or Arabs' fault, what do I care?

    Zionism is colonialism. Western capital stealing indigenous people's lands. Doesn't matter which tribe is doing it, doesn't matter their bullshit Biblical justifications, doesn't matter what their other enlightened "liberal" (neoliberal) attitudes are, doesn't matter: Palestinian blood just continues to spill, Palestinian land just continues to get seized by a rogue, apartheid state.

    And no, Zionism is not Martin Buber's or Judas Magnes' ideal any more than the 21st century U.S.A. is Walt Whitman's or Eugene Debbs'. Zionism is not what "progressive" Zionists imagine it might one day be. Zionism has a clear form, and it is racist and colonialist to the core.

  25. Teddy
    March 5, 2008, 8:43 pm

    MM,

    And there was nothing else to Zionism? No other reason for it? Just colonialism and imperialism? No pogroms and raw discrimination that made Eastern and Central European believe assimilation was impossible? No desparation in the 1930s and '40s because the gates of the world were closed (and don't give me the infernal, conspiratorial line that somehow the Zionists caused the Holocaust or were glad that it happened, which I used to read all the time on Phil's blog)? No 2000 years or so of getting their butts kicked by the world until they decided, "we need our own little patch of land," at a time when national self-determination was considered a relatively progressive idea by much of the world.

    That said, many of the Zionist pioneers were racist, and orientalist, and the entire saga does not resemble the golden myths American Jews learned in their childhood about the founding of Israel. But let me tell ya, MM and all your compadres, much of the bile on this blog is reminiscent of the attitudes that convinced Jews in the late 19th century that Zionism was the only solution available to them.

    So keep it up, as someone else wrote awhile ago. You're doing AIPAC's work for it!

  26. Tank
    March 5, 2008, 8:44 pm

    link to cnn.com

    no mention on mondoweiss yet

  27. Ed.
    March 5, 2008, 9:39 pm

    The only thing that I have to do to get a secular liberal Jew to turn into the reincarnation of Ariel Sharon is to show them a few of these postings by you, Ed, some of the others. It's actually been good for aipac membership.
    Posted by: the sword of gideon | March 05, 2008 at 02:38 PM
    So keep it up, as someone else wrote awhile ago. You're doing AIPAC's work for it!
    Posted by: Teddy | March 05, 2008 at 05:43 PM

    You guys just don’t get it, do you? Tirades and threats to join AIPAC, join the JDL, join the ADL, move to Israel, call Homeland Security about gentile intolerance of Zionism, whatever…It all merely demonstrates what an increasing number of Americans already suspect: Jewish Zionists are more loyal to Israel than they are to America. And you think that this is going to gain you sympathy? Look, Israel is a Jewish nationalist state, therefore, that is where devoted Jewish nationalists should be living, not in America. I think even an increasing number of Jews are starting to recognize what should be elemental logic, hence we are seeing more and more Jewish critics of Zionism demand that Jewish Zionists shut up and quit claiming to speak for all Jews. You don’t sh*t where you sleep, and you don’t lobby for a foreign country at the expense of your own. Why don’t diaspora Zionists simply practice what they preach and move to Israel? It will solve a lot of problems for everyone, Jews and gentiles alike. The fact that so many diaspora Jewish Zionists want to have it all ways probably causes more anti-Semitism than anything that any gentile could ever say or write.

  28. the sword of gideon
    March 5, 2008, 10:32 pm

    Chuck, you don't know shit about Jews except what you get out of "Mein Kampfh".

    Ed, your just has big an asshole has you always were. I'm not looking for sympathy. Just making the point that all it takes for a wishy washy universalist, limousine liberal Jew, to turn into a contributor to the guys in Hebron is to read the shit you and the rest of storm troopers right. So keep it up.

  29. James Morris
    March 6, 2008, 3:43 am

    Subject: State Department blog puts up another post of mine (my email to Pedro Echevarria and Ambassador David Satterfield who was warmongering against Iran on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' this morning)

    Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:59:09 -0500 (EST)

    See the top of the comments of the following URL to see how my email included below was added there:

    link to blogs.state.gov

    Forwarded:

    Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:46:52
    From: "James Morris"
    Subject: For Pedro Echevarria and Ambassador David Satterfield
    To: Pedro Satterfield
    CC: David Satterfield

    Dear Pedro,

    How could you allow Ambassador Satterfield to warmonger against Iran (for AIPAC) this morning during his segment for 'Washington Journal' when it is obvious that he is acting as an agent of Israel instead of a being loyal member of the American government? You can read more about his mention in the ongoing AIPAC espionage case via my post on the 'Welcome' page (can scroll down to it at the following URL) of the State Department blog which was launched last year (you had to have known about his mention in association with the AIPAC espionage case but apparently didn't have the courage to even ask him about such):

    link to blogs.state.gov

  30. Rowan Berkeley
    March 6, 2008, 4:02 am

    I don't buy the idea that AIPAC is run by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. It is equally possible to construct a number of models in which their interests conflict.

    In the meantime, concretely, let me remind you of Meyrav Wurmser's fury that Israel did not attack Syria as it was "supposed to," in 2006.

  31. Jim Haygood
    March 6, 2008, 7:49 am

    "Zionism is not Martin Buber's or Judas Magnes' ideal any more than the 21st century U.S.A. is Walt Whitman's or Eugene Debbs'. Zionism is not what "progressive" Zionists imagine it might one day be. Zionism has a clear form, and it is racist and colonialist to the core." – MM

    One word: BRAVO!

  32. Charles Keating
    March 6, 2008, 10:58 am

    "We want to lay the foundation stone of the house which is to shelter the Jewish nation,'' and ''Zionism seeks to obtain for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine.'' declared Herzl. And his anti-assimilationist dictum that "Zionism is a return to the Jewish fold even before it is a return to the Jewish land," was an expression of his own experience which was extended into the official platform of Zionisn as the aim of "strengthening the Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness."–Lowenthal, The Diaries 0f Theodor Herzl. pp.215.

  33. Charles Keating
    March 6, 2008, 5:18 pm

    The origin of Zionism was based on fear of assimilation in Western Europe before the 20th Century. The original Zionists
    were reacting against Enlightenment's policy, as were the
    German racial nationalists. Both sought refuge in the mythos of blood and soil. With the romantic suicide of Hitler & Company below in the bunker, rather than high up on the hill, a new Roman appeared with industrial strength. The cut to Israeli survivors at the end of Saving Private Ryan with no appearance of
    a single Palestinian tells you everything. If you want to see Private Ryan today, go see a U S Army recruiter in a shabby Mall–he can put you in touch.

  34. the sword of gideon
    March 6, 2008, 7:37 pm

    Hey, Keating. Your an idiot, that was at the end of Schindlers list. I know your sorry that they didn't all get knocked off by the krauts but that's life. And the original idea of Zionism came from the Dreyfus affair. But I do like the ever so subtle analogy between six million dead Jews and the Nazi's. Which I guess makes those happy go lucky lads from Hamas, Islamich Jihad, and Hezbollah, the real Jews. Do I have that correct?

  35. Charles Keating
    March 7, 2008, 4:54 pm

    What does the Dreyfus affair have to do with the plight of the
    Palestinians? Why did Ryan's family have to die? Why is Private Ryan dying now? Why do 97% of the USA population have to fork over their hard-earned dollars to Israel?

  36. Montag
    March 8, 2008, 9:04 pm

    On the subject of "yoredim," an Israeli TV station did a report on Israelis living in the U.S. They utterly reject the yoredim label, arguing that they are "Israelis who choose to live in the U.S."–just as if the U.S. was part of the Occupied Territories.

Leave a Reply