I saw Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations on MSNBC last night
talking about foreign policy with Tom Brokaw and Obama adviser Susan Rice. The Israel/Palestine issue was the subtext of much of the
conversation. Rice said that Obama would not put off action on I/P till the
second term. Haass said that the U.S. finds itself increasingly alone in the
world and the U.S.'s "Achilles heel" is its Middle East policy–an apparent reference to Israel/Palestine.
This underscores my post of the other day that Zionism is an Establishment
value. No one here can tell the American people what the rest of the world knows, that
American policy is out of step. No one can blast the settlements. Only the
designated fringes are allowed to do so (even liberal Meretz can't do so). Jimmy Carter
and Walt and Mearsheimer were banished for saying, The policy is wrong. Earlier this year when I wrote about Zbig Brzezinski for the American Conservative, he hastened to point out to me afterward that he had never endorsed Walt and Mearsheimer's book (No, just their paper). Spineless. He is afraid of being sidelined, like Rob Malley. Being defunded.
Haass
can only say it is our Achilles heel, as if to say, This is part of us–Nakedness is an essential element of the Emperor's new clothes…Obama I think will change this.
Obama I think will change this.
Evidence?
I blogged "The Jewish Clause" court case at Zionization of the US Judiciary. Judge Greiman's dissenting opinion indicates how deeply Zionism has become embedded in the American legal system.
I corresponded with Michele's husband Ethan to obtain some more information, and I compared the difference in coverage between the general and Jewish press.
No evidence MM. Only the audacity of hope.
a) you leave the choice to the couch potatoes, who vote what the priest and FOX news tells them.
b) you vote McCain and turn your attention on Iran.
c) you vote Obama, hoping it will make a difference.
d) you start a revolution. (Four is my favorite number, so I had to add something.)
Sorry, that was the first obviously Krautish mistake, it feels.
you vote "for" Obama.
Joachim, nice article summarizing the "Jewish clause" case. I thought you were very fair to dissenting judge Grieman, but I too would love to see a review of his decisions.
I second the transilvanian count. That was another great work by Martillo.
Anonymous: I second the transilvanian count. That was another great work by Martillo.
LeaNder: Not bad. But the problems start where matters are squeezed too tightly to fit the larger design. Were ideology steamrolls reflection. Like here:
Zionization of US judiciary
The argument over Michele's complaint even echoes the question of Palestine. When Michele or Palestinians attempt to address misappropriation or theft, Greiman and Zionists justify their positions by reference to the 4,000 year old heritage of Judaism even though Shaye Cohen argues that Jewishness begins in the fourth century CE. A case can even be made that Rabbinic Judaism did not crystallize until the 10th century CE.
Could we have the exact Shaye Cohen Source, Joachim? It can't be this:
The Beginnings of Jewishness
"Could we have the exact …"
LeaNder, why don't you just post your opinion on when rabbinic Judaism started, and give your reasons for thinking so. This ain't MySpace.
Geesh, what a pain: Why don't you just post your opinion when rabbinic Judaism started
LeaNder: OK, Geesh my reaction was a bit heavy. But if something strikes you and you either do not understand or it makes no sense to you. What would you suggest, I should do other than ask?
I think Joachim should be prepared for such a question. It doesn't seem to make sense to suggest that the origins of Judaism and of the Christian religion can be traced back to about the same time frame or century. And 4AC/CE or 10AC/CE circles too much around the famous Anno Domini or the year "0" for my taste.
Strictly that feels as if he wants to harmonize the Jewish and the Christian calenders. And since historically this makes no sense, he should be prepared to give the original source. Even more if he cites a prof in Jewish studies from Harvard.
"And 4AC/CE or 10AC/CE circles too much around the famous Anno Domini or the year "0" for my taste."
Oi vey. And this is analysis?!
Are you going to tell us what date you use for the beginning of rabbinic Judaism, or are you keeping it to yourself?
The dating of the rabbinic beginning of Judaism is not at all the question here, airhead.
What interests me lies here, since if true this would be really revolutionary:
Greiman and Zionists justify their positions by reference to the 4,000 year old heritage of Judaism even though Shaye Cohen argues that Jewishness begins in the fourth century CE.
Now, I find it hard to believe that Shaye J.D. Cohen, Nathan Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard Univeristy, really said or wrote this.
And if Joachim writes this, he must be prepared to answer were Cohen wrote or said so. I of course can simply ask Cohen himself. He should know what he wrote, don't you think?