Friday, April 30, 2010

Anti-Israel Attack In Britain

Speaking of anti-Israel protesters behaving badly, Elder of Ziyon links us to this story about an Israeli diplomat whose car was attacked while in the UK on a visit.

"The protesters were waiting for Lador-Fresher [Israeli deputy ambassador] outside the lecture hall, but this did not deter her from entering as planned. Immediately upon her exit, the protesters lunged at the diplomat, prompting security guards to whisk her back into the hall. Following a consultation on the site, it was decided to escort her out of the premises in a police car....The deputy ambassador was removed from the hall and into the police vehicle. However, this did not block the protesters, who surrounded the car and climbed on the hood, trying to break the windshield."

As Zach and I have said in the past, these people are not "pro-Palestinian". The Palestinians gain no apparent benefit from an assault on an Israeli diplomat. These protesters simply hate Israel and hate this ambassador because she is a representative of Israel. With all this talk of BDS recently, it's important to make the distinction between these two groups, although one often disguises itself as the other. 
Some "criticism" of Israel's policy is necessary from a pro-Palestinian point of view. If I was a pro-Palestinian individual (and to a certain extent I am), I would want a) the occupation of the West Bank to end, b) the blockade of Gaza to end and c) East Jerusalem for a Palestinian capitol. That is what the Palestinians as people absolutely require. Now here's what they don't require: settlement freezes, removal of non-violent settlers, all of Jerusalem, the boycott of Israel, UN/US/World Court condemnations of Israel, more weapons, Israel to have less weapons/less money, or Israeli diplomats assaulted on the streets. In my opinion, none of those things will result in either a, b or c. Putting "pressure" on Israel to remove the occupation will not work nearly as well as negotiating with Israel and signing a peace treaty that ensures the IDF will stay out of the West Bank if the PA keeps the peace. If my goal is the benefit of the Palestinian people rather than the hurting of the Israeli people, that's what I would do. You might disagree, though. 

Elder also points out that not a single British media outlet other than the Jewish ones covered the story of the attacked Israeli diplomat. This is extremely disturbing to see.

UPDATE: Our good friends at CiFWatch have more information, so head over there to read up. 

BDS Failure Followup

Jon at the DivestThis blog has confirmed that the divestment vote at Berkeley has failed, and not only that, but the vote for another BDS resolution at UCSD has also failed. Even though the resolutions would not have done anything on their own, since it is merely a student recommendation and therefore has little actual influence over school policy, these resolutions still could not come into reality. No matter how much the HPers tell us "BDS is gaining strength", here in America at least the complete opposite happened two days ago and has been for the past ten years.

Jon states that, "At Berkeley, after having made their presentations endlessly for weeks on end, after dozens of news stories, hundreds of blog entries, thousands of e-mails and millions of Tweets, they decided to demonstrate that the ASUC vote against their pet project was an example of – wait for it – them being "silenced" (illustrated by the BDSers covering their own mouths with tape and marching out of the room)." Once again, the anti-Israel movement talks out of both sides of their mouths. Before the vote, they spread their message as far and wide as possible, even getting people like Naomi Klein and Mustafa Barghouti to write editorials in widely read newspapers like the Huffington Post cheering them on. But the moment they lose, they complain that they are "silenced" and if more people heard their message, they would have won. It never enters these peoples' minds for a second that they might simply be wrong, and the student body at Berkeley heard their message plenty, they just didn't agree with it.

I should also point out that the resolution at UCSD was proposed and then voted on only three days later. For those HPers out there who believe the conspiracy theory of AIPAC infiltrating the student organization, I would like an explanation of how they were able to do that in three days, with no elections between the time of proposal and the time of vote.

What Israel Means to David Shasha (Part 2): The Raging Bull

Continuing my analysis of David Shasha's latest work on the Huffington Post, let's continue with this enlightening passage:
"For the traditional Jew, not just for Sephardim, the state of Israel represents a profound rejection of a millennia-old Jewish identity. The psychological impact of all this is formulated in the irrational American Jewish identification with Israel as the existential center of all Jewish life. Having rejected the traditions of the past, based on the religious values of Torah and Halakhah, contemporary Jews have recreated a religious culture based on the rituals and demands of the Jewish state and Zionism."
I would be curious to know what exactly this "millennia-old Jewish identity" is, exactly. Perhaps David Shasha is talking about the perception of learned but weak "shtetel Jew?" Or pious Jews like Rabbi Hillel who would prefer to sacrifice themselves for their faith rather than fight. I don't know, and I'm never going to find out because he does not elaborate. He instead continues like a raging bull, never stopping for breath or to explain what he means. What traditions of the past have American Jews rejected? How exactly have Jews of today created a "culture" that is based around Israel? I can't even refute what he is saying, because he isn't saying anything!

All I know is that at from what I know if Jewish culture (having attended a Reform schul and currently working at a Conservative one) is that holidays and traditions are still very much based around Torah and other ties to the past. Israel does show up on days like Israel Independence Day, but other than that merely stays in the background. So Mr. Shasha, if you would like to counter this argument with your own experiences, write another article. Let's continue:
"In typical Ashkenazi fashion, this new Zionist religion is authoritarian and draconian in its demand for conformity."
 "Typical Ashkenazi fashion" huh? Everyone's a little bit racist...

Mr. Shasha then spends the next few paragraphs with some hard hitting references to current events: Namely the Anat Kam case and Richard Goldstone being (no longer) ostracized from his grandson's bar mitzvah ceremony. It's a step in the right direction, at least this time he is talking about concrete things that exist on the Material Plane and not somewhere in his imagination. He presents key parts of the facts wrong, but that's no surprise. Let's jump down to here:
"Rather than judging Jewish behavior in traditional religious terms, the new Zionist imperative seeks to control human behavior and speech by setting out a series of protocols regarding the way in which we see and speak about Israel. This regime is controlled internally by the Jewish community, which determines who is "one of us" and who is not."
Ooh! The Zionists are controlling human behavior, huh? Where have I heard this before? I can't imagine. Anyway, Anat Kam was not ostracized from the community, she broke the law and was punished, so I'm going to ignore her for now and go to Goldstone. As I mentioned before, it wasn't just that Goldstone criticized Israel and his fellow (Ashkenazi) Jews didn't like it. In the eyes of many Jews, including apparently the ones in South Africa, Goldstone sold out his fellow Jews and threw them under the bus for his own personal gain. He put his name and Jewish background to a report that he knew was full of holes and inadmissible evidence. For Shasha to imply that he is being ostracized for simply saying the wrong thing is simply the latest in a long series of intellectually dishonest arguments we have seen. He continues:
"The actions of Jews like Anat Kamm and Richard Goldstone speak to the Jewish tradition of self-examination and the idea of justice in a wider sense. The Talmudic tradition teaches that Jews must not allow other Jews to act in ways that violate standards of morality."
 Give me a break. Breaking out the "sainthood" argument already, Mr. Shasha? Further background information has revealed that Kamm wanted the fast track to a career as a journalist and Goldstone wanted a higher position in the UN. They were willing to break the law (in Kamm's case) or slander their fellow Jews based on faulty evidence (in Goldstone's) to achieve their own gains. It would hardly be the first time that people who have committed similar actions were considered traitors to the Jewish people. Just because Mr. Shasha likes what they did does not mean that he can put motivations in their heads where they do not exist. Let's not linger too long though, because he's ramping up the rhetoric:
"But today Israel represents a reversal of the old moral codes. In its ethos is found a cruelty and meanness that is reflected in the way Jews conduct their discourse. Destroying individual Jews who are critical of Israel is seen as a positive commandment of the new Judaism. At the epicenter of this ideology is a pathological paranoia regarding anti-Semitism which often marks the Arab as the primordial enemy of the Jew."
 I wonder if at this point Mr. Shasha is just going to come right out and tell us that he doesn't think Israel should exist? And if not, what exactly is he saying? The sad part is that he doesn't even saying anything new; the transparent argument that everyone who even looks the wrong way at Israel is "destroyed" or "discredited" is so worn it might as well be transparent. No, Mr. Shasha, criticizing Israel will not earn you the ire of the Jewish community. Working to undermine and destroy it will. Maybe that is why you are so willing to defend Richard Goldstone, because you like the damage that he did to the credibility of Israel as a whole. If that is the case, at least have the courage to admit it.

Let's talk about the "in its ethos" sentence for a minute, because it speaks back to the image of the Jew discussion that I covered in part one. In some respect, Mr. Shasha is right: At it's core, Israel is about the Jewish people deciding to make their own way in life and to no longer be dependent on the majority people who rule over them. Whether Israel succeeds or fails, for the first time in a long time the Jewish people will be the guardians of their own destiny.

Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work out as nicely as we would like to think. 95% of all the countries in the world have had to fight for their existence at one point of another, Israel more than most. Because the Jews of Israel are no longer willing to roll over and let their enemies kill them, Mr. Shasha is going to castigate them all as being fundamental "cruel and mean?" Maybe he would prefer it if the Jews were suffering under...someone's....occupation rather than conducting one of their own. At least when Jews are enslaved they don't need to worry about offending anyone, least of all themselves.

Oh wait! It gets better! Because you see, according to our wise Brooklyn-dwelling Mr. Shasha, there really aren't any enemies of the Jewish people except the ones that exist in our heads! Anti-Semitism isn't real, we are just too paranoid! The Arabs don't really want to destroy Israel, we just need an enemy for our paranoid ideology! I don't even know what to say at this point. Does Mr. Shasha even pay the slightest bit of attention to what is going on in the real world? Or is he just clinging to that Leftist point of view where it is only the West (in this case the Jews) whose actions matter? Why does the world revolve around the Jews, Mr. Shasha? Why does external forces like anti-Semitism only exist in the way that we see them, rather than in reality?

In the end, this is coming back to "the New Jew," something that Mr. Shasha clearly despises. Jews who have power (physical or sexual) should not exist, in his view. Better to have the Jews as righteous victims than as guardians of their own fates and destinies. At least that way he doesn't have to feel bad about Jews acting like real people. Or is that acting like Gentiles? I don't know the difference, Mr. Shasha, I see everyone as human beings. Maybe you can help me out?

A Study in Contrasts

Matt already commented about the Egypt gassing thread yesterday, but I thought that I would talk a little bit more about it. In perusing the thread, I saw that there were a lot of astonished and angry reactions to the story. That is not surprising, it was a terrible thing for Egypt to do. But I then decided it might be fun to go back and compare the reactions of the Huffington Posters with the recent rocket attack on Israel that left a Thai worker dead. I feel like it is an appropriate comparison, although killing people in a tunnel with gas is a heinous thing to do and worse than a rocket attack, it is similar enough.

So take a look at the following comments and see if you can figure out which one belongs to which thread. Some key sections were removed and replaced with variables to hide the context and give away what it is referring to. Sorry if that means it is confusing. Click the link below for the answers.

A. "You misinterpret what this incident represents. It comes in driect response to [X]. [X] and [X] are what is driving this, not Palestinian [Y]."

B. "This is outrageous and criminal. Should be investigated. Cut aid to [X]. The [X] is a dictatorship"

C. "This is a criminal act by [X]. Its disgusting. Only savages do things like this."

D. "Two words....Mossad and distraction."

E. "There is no question that [X] gets the indirect blame for this [Y]. It is the outcome of imprisoning millions of people and depriving them of medical care, proper food and the chance to make something of their lives. If [X] wants to stop the [Y], it needs to stop the siege of Gaza. The siege has produced desperation which is leading to desperate acts."

F. "No one can come close to the talent of the [X] when it comes to conspiracies and deception."

G. "If true, this is ... barbaric."

H. "No, there is not. [X] is a war crime."
Ready for the results?

A, D, E, and F are from the rocket attack thread.
B, C, G, and H are from the smuggling/gas thread. Informative, is it not?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Life in Gaza: Bodybuilding Competition

Ynetnews reports that 70 bodybuilders will compete in Gaza for the championship. "About 70 men with big muscles and small shorts posed and flexed on stage before a panel of judges and a few thousand fans, all seeking prizes in the Gaza bodybuilding championship." Yes, Gaza must be the only "open-air prison" in the universe that can host bodybuilding championships. It's crazy how the AZs keep believing life in Gaza is so terrible, even after articles like this one are published every day.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Posted on an article posted today about Egypt gassing a smuggling tunnel to Gaza:


You can click for context, but what set him off is another poster saying, "I bet you're not Jewish". I'm sure the AZs out there would defend his post as a legitimate response, but I don't see it that way.

Berkeley SC Fails to Overturn President's Veto

After two weeks of waiting, the final vote to try to overturn the student President's veto of the divestment bill took place in Berkeley, and it failed, generating only 13 out of the 14 votes required. Even in the heart of liberal America, where bashing Israel in the name of peace is commonplace, divestment still didn't gain any traction. It will only be a matter of time before the BDS movement tries again in some other liberal college (my guess, Bard), but it's always nice to see that divestment has failed again, the way it has been for the past ten years. Close, but no cigar, guys.

Siege News for EoZ

Elder of Ziyon has a story that I think might be of interest to us.

From a French newspaper, over the next two years 200,000 laptops will be delivered into the Gaza Strip to be used by schoolchildren there. "spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said...'The campaign is beginning today in refugee schools in (the southern Gaza town of) Rafah, with the distribution of 2,200 laptops as part of a plan to distribute 200,000 laptops to our students in the Gaza Strip,'". So today, 2,000 laptops have been delivered into Gaza, the place described by the AZs as "open-air prison" and "torture". Shoot, schoolchildren here in the US don't all have laptops they can use. Clearly, this Gaza siege isn't nearly as bad as we are constantly lead to believe. 

Comment of the Day












The original link. And we get this kind of argument a lot: That Israel is pursuing a course that will destroy it, and only by being as anti-Israel as they are can we save it. In this way the anti-Zionists, who never have a word to say in praise of Israel, try to convince us that they really care about Israel and want what is best for it. Yeah. Sure. Oh, and the Nazi comparison really helped your case there.

What Israel Means to David Shasha (Part 1): The Image of the Jew

For those of you who aren't familiar with David Shasha, he's yet another member of the Huffington Posts' anti-Israel blogger stable. He often writes about Jewish issues, but even when he does it is usually done for the purposes of attacking Israel and it's actions. I could have sworn he had shown up on this blog at some point, but apparently not. Anyway, his latest work on the Huffington Post is called "What Israel Means to Me." The answer? Very little, apparently, and what little there is means something negative. What can you expect? This is the Huffington Post, after all.

Shasha starts off his work with an amazing and ridiculous strawman, even by HP standards:
"Over the years there has been a constant spate of books containing the testimonials of American Jews proclaiming their teary-eyed and deeply emotional love of the state of Israel. These books are part of the larger program of Israeli Hasbarah, the form of advocacy that seeks to assert the total primacy of Zionism as the centerpiece of Jewish life the world over."
 Give me a break. He's really saying that American Jews don't care about Israel and it's people unless they are paid to talk about it by the Israeli government? Does he provide any evidence to back up his absurd claim? To be honest, this is hardly the first time that Shasha misinterprets what is going on with the American Jewish community, and it isn't the last either. I like to keep an eye on what is going on in American Jewish life, and there is no "total primacy of Zionism." Mr. Shasha puts out his viewpoints early and strongly, and it only goes downhill from there.

I'm going to take a diversion here to talk about another weak Shasha argument in his second paragraph:
"In Adam Sandler's comedy You Don't Mess with the Zohan and Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, we find that the American Jewish love affair with Israel is based on an almost erotic identification with the perception of Zionism and Israel as a form of revenge fantasy. Sandler's Zohan is a figure whose sexual potency rests in his skill as a Jewish superhero, a man who kills Arabs to defend the Jewish people. Similarly, Tarantino's Nazi-era fantasy is a phantasmagoria of violence in the name of Jewish self-doubt and an inferiority complex."
 I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr. Shasha has not seen either one of these movies, because he pretty clearly misrepresents what they are about. I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I have in fact seen Zohan but in this case it's an advantage. For starters, Sandler's character never kills anyone, and falls in love with a Palestinian woman. In fact the whole point of the movie is that Sandler is moving to America because he is tired of fighting, his most likable qualities come from the fact that he is not in love with war. For those of who have actually seen it, we know that the movie's main theme is that the two sides need to fight the extremists, not each other. It's not about killing.

Basterds, on the other hand, is very much about killing. But Zionism doesn't make an appearance, and Judaism hardly appears in the story aside from the fact that the soldiers are Jewish. Even then, Brad Pitt's character isn't, and those Jews who are in the movie don't do anything purportedly Jewish like munch matzah or shvitz. At worst, I have heard Basterds described as a "Jewish revenge fantasy." I guess most critics of the movie aren't willing to always see their fellow Jews in a bad light the way Shasha does. Taking the above paragraph on its own, it really sounds like Mr. Shasha is drawing conclusions about these movies from their trailers, or maybe from their plot summaries. He might want to consider actually watching them sometime.

We're going to take half a step away from pop culture for a second and get into some modern Jewish philosophy. At this point Shasha begins to rely on the words of others to make his argument. Very wise. That being said, I'm just going to quote his summaries in the interests of saving space. Here we go:
The paradox inherent in Zionism is the way in which it creates the "New Jew" by rejecting what it perceives to be the "Old Jew." In both cases, the understanding of what it means to be Jewish is based on a completely Eurocentric model; the decrepit Diaspora Jew is seen in terms of the Shtetl Jew who is isolated from the general world, while the ideal Israeli Jew -- typified by the Zohan and by the vengeful Jews of the Tarantino fantasy world -- is seen as an uber-Gentile.
I'd be curious to know what exactly Shasha means by "uber-Gentile" but he doesn't explain. Anyway, I'll freely admit that one of the things that Israel did when it first started to be formed was to change what you might call "the image of the Jew." The most notable historical example of this was Ari Ben Canaan (played by Paul Newman) in Exodus, from which Zohan and Basterds would seem to follow. Canaan was beautiful, strong, resourceful, brave and (yes) violent as well. This did not fit with the image of the Jews that most people had the time, including Jews themselves. But image does not need to reflect reality. After all, there were brave and strong Jews throughout history, including the World War 2 era.

Exodus (and the image of the Jew that it contained) inspired American Jews and contributed to the emerging pride that they had in Israel and their fellow Jews who lived there. At this point I feel I should talk about the role that violence plays in these forms of media. These three movies all feature characters who are men (and women) of violence, in contrast with the old image of the Jew. Shasha bemoans the new image of the Jews fighters, because in his mind Jews should be seen as peaceful. He will go on to say that Zionism (and the love affair that American Jews have with it) is destroying souls with it's irreparable ties to violence and the "image" of violence.

But here is something for Shasha to consider: Drama is built around conflict. There are two kinds of conflicts that are common in fiction: Love and death. Most dramas are built around conflict either of the romantic kind or of the violent kind. They aren't all war related, movies like 12 Angry Men have a suspect's life at stake. To Kill a Mockingbird is another movie based around a trial. How does this apply to our Jewish movies? Let's take a look:
-Exodus: Paul Newman is a Jewish fighter. He does fight and kill Arabs (as well as his fellow Jews). But he also wins the heart of Kitty, pretty decisively too I might add.
-Zohan: Adam Sandler's character spends more time seducing women of all age categories than he does throwing punches or holding weapons.
-Basterds: Shoshana (unlike the men) is an object of desire for the German sniper, and she is also the only character to be in a relationship in the movie. She also moves the plot forward.

What am I getting at here? That in a narrative, violence (and sexual prowess) equals power. And power equals strength and independence. Characters who kill and fight and win are those who are in control and are strong. Characters who seduce other and fight for true love are those we sympathize with and respect. They make us stand up and cheer. That is what was changing in Jewish life, Mr. Shasha, both in Israel and America. Jews were starting to stand up for themselves and take control of their own lives.

He is right, the image of the Jew did. Before the formation of Israel, Jews were seen as weak and powerless. They were villains or sidekicks....usually villains. Now they are seen as people who can be the heroes, and are just as good as anybody else. That is what it means when Zohan kicks somebody in the face: Not that Jews love fighting, but that Jews aren't going to be bullied any more, both on the world stage and in America.

Perhaps Mr. Shasha would prefer the image of the "Old Jew." And it's true: It's a lot easier to be a victim. You don't need to agonize over whether you are doing the right thing by taking a life to protect yourself and your family. But Jews were powerless victims for centuries, and it did them no good at all. In fact they were hated more then then they are now that they are strong. Mr. Shasha may want to consider that before he writes his columns bemoaning Jewish strength, Jewish success and Jewish pride. Because that is what Israel symbolizes in the minds of many American Jews. It is really so difficult for him to believe that that is why they love it?

Anti-Zionists and J Street

Those who read other pro-Israel blogs might have come to the conclusion that the new "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization J Street is a terrible creation that must be destroyed. And indeed, there is much to criticize: Solomonia has written about how J Street is more than willing to divide Jerusalem, and other pro-Israel bloggers have criticized them as well. Most prominent among J Street's critics would be Alan Dershowitz, who wrote recently about how he no longer considers them to be pro-Israel, because they continued to push General Patreaus' comments after he had set the record straight. That last article was also posted on the Huffington Post.

Matt and I haven't really commented much about J Street, suffice to say that many pro-Israel advocates don't like them. Their reasoning for this, in sum, is that J Street claims to know what is best for Israel even if Israel itself doesn't know it. In other words, J Street will push for America to do X, Y and Z even though Israel doesn't want them to, and then claim that they were just acting in Israel's best interests. Contrast this with AIPAC, who want the American-Israel alliance to be strong but also want the two sides to get along. AIPAC usually thinks that America should be listening to Israel, J Street in contrast thinks that Israel should be listening to America. In that sense, they are a valuable counterbalance. On the other hand, it's pretty bold of them to think they know Israel's situation better than the Israelis. That is why, in my opinion, they haven't received a lot of support from mainstream Jews, at least those who are in fact pro-Israel.


But then I got to thinking. Check out some of these comments from notable HP anti-Zionists on a couple of J Street-related threads:
SiberianRat: I enjoy reading your pieces, MJ. AIPAC has such a firm-gripped corruptive influence on our government that I don't know if it can be remedied. I keep hoping that Obama will stand up and do what's right, but I'm certainly not holding my breath. I'll keep supporting J-Street and B'Tselem in (likely naive) hope that this mess might be solved.
lbsaltzman: Breaking AIPAC's power with politicians is the key. I support J Street despite how centrist their views actually are. But in this case it will probably take a centrist group to break the stranglehold of AIPAC on American politics.
Dustintime: Encourage him to stand with JStreet and other inclusive organizations who rightly see that peace and a two-state solution is the proper path for Israel's future--not illegal expansionism under military occupation and ethnic cleansing via apartheid-style policies.
Fireslayer: J-Street is a bit to the right of my rhetorical positions, but they are deeply sincere in wanting peace.
CigarGod: This is why I am a member of JStreet.
Macready: Bravo Jeremy [Ben Ami]. . . keep hitting him hard . . .

Now remember, these are people who never, never say anything positive about Israel or anything  negative about the Palestinians. Even on threads about Israel's aid to Haiti, they still couldn't manage to compliment Israel, instead preferring to accuse Israel of "exploiting" the disaster or talking about side issues. Yet here they are, talking about how much they love J Street? Why do you suppose this is?

Well, the first possibility is that all the conservative Zionists are right: J Street is really an ally of Israel's enemies for the purposing of weakening Israel until it is destroyed. The behavior of the anti-Zionists who push hard for J Street to succeed would seem to indicate this. That being said, there is still a lack of evidence for this belief, which would seem to place it in the realm of conspiracy theory.

Another possibility is that the anti-Zionists like it because it has similar politics to them. J Street wants Israel to freeze settlements? So do they! J Street wants to divide Jerusalem? So do they! So therefore it would make sense that the AZs would support J Street, only to sell them out again when they don't go far enough. Many AZs agree that J Street isn't extreme enough for them, but they support it anyway.

Similar to that, the anti-Zionists might really have an anti-Israel agenda (based on the context of their exclusively negative comments) but they decide to support J Street because it's better than supporting AIPAC. In that sense, they figure that if they appear pro-Israel and support a group that is trying to weaken Israel, it can only work out for the best. This would seem to validate the fears of the conservative Zionists mentioned above, and in my view this makes a lot of sense. Even someone like lbsaltzman who considers Israel itself (not it's policies) to be all manner of terrible things, still supports J Street.

Now I'm not going to pass a judgment on J Street or it's views here, because I think that they have the potential to do a lot of good. But if this is the sort of people that are really pushing for J Street to succeed, shouldn't that tell you something?

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Divestment Update

The Jerusalem Post has covered some news stories from today:

First of all, Colombia has decided to expand their ties with Israel. Foreign Minister Jaime Bermudez said that he was "keen" to establish bilateral ties with Israel across all levels. Apparently part of his decision was by reading the book "Start Up Nation." Who knew?

Second, Google has purchased its first Israeli start up company. Labpixies creates interactive gadgets for websites, and was acquired by Google for about 25 million dollars. 

But remember, the anti-Zionists always tell us that "the world" is moving closer toward isolating Israel. It's going to happen any day now, they say. Keep waiting guys.

Mythbusting: The Myth of the Ten Thousand

If you looked at our Huffington Post Watch for the recent Gilad Shalit thread, you would notice that there were a lot of people using the trademark Palestinian counter argument of "So what? What about XY and Z?" In this case the XY and Z were Palestinian prisoners, aka those in "administrative detention" being held by Israel. Here is one example of a common argument (and myth) that I wanted to focus on:
Hamas holds 1 Israeli soldier in what Israeli claim is a war. Hardly a hostage. . .
Israel holds approximately 10,000 Palestinians including many women and children. . .
Now talk to me about hostages again. . . .10,000 Palestinians against 1 Israeli soldier. Come on. . .
Right. So here we have "the myth of the ten thousand," as I like to call it. According to Nils here, there are ten thousand Palestinians (including women and children) who are just sitting in Israeli jails as we speak. There are many other Huffington Posters who will repeat the myth of the ten thousand in many different places and contexts as well.

Unfortunately, this is again another transparent lie. You can look at B'tselem's website and you will find the actual statistics. There are currently (as of B'tselem's last update) about 237 Palestinians being held in adminstrative detention. Not even close to ten thousand, and if look at the stats on that page some more, you will see that most prisoners in AD are released after no more than a year and a half. It doesn't even say which were arrested for "being peaceful" (thought according to the HPers that would be all of them) and which were not.

Now, admittedly this doesn't include actual prison. B'tselem has stats for them as well, and that includes much more, about six thousand. But again if you look you will see that pretty much all of the six thousand were either convicted in a court of law or are being held until conviction. The number in AD is a fraction of that. Usually, though, when the HPers use the myth of the ten thousand, they are referring to administrative detention, not terrorists who have been convicted.

So I guess the question now is where did the ten thousand number come from? My theory is that since the start of "the occupation" ten thousand Palestinians have passed through the system, and were released again (or not). Regardless, to claim that Israel is holding ten thousand Palestinians "hostage" is simply yet another half-truth.

Holocaust Denial Comment of the Day

Also on the Chomsky thread, it's not very creative but it gets the job done:

HPW: David Harris on McCarthyism

Zach already talked about David Harris' article about the accusations of dual loyalty that are starting to be thrown at Israel supporters. There weren't very many abusive comments, but those that were basically said, "yeah, McCarthyism is bad, but not if the people being accused really are traitors!", which effectively made Mr. Harris' point for him. Read on for the comments we thought were worthy of your attention.




as much as i agree with mr. harris on other topics, lately he seems to see bogeymen everywhere he looks. harris forgets that american freedom of speech works both ways. ms lowey had every right to express her feelings about obama and by the same token americans were also free to express their feelings about her. i thought lowey's letter was a bit zealous.. our president did not criiticize israel as she claims, he was critical of netanyahu's policy in east jerusalem.( as was all of the western world.) is it lowey's rule that an american criticism of an isreali politician's policy is the same as mistreating the land of israel?. if so then mr. harris has mcarthyism turned backward. and what's all this american baiting that seems to be going on by jewish organizations. for instance,, netanyahu's kin folks calling obama anti-semitic, the adl calling general petraeous anti-semitic and dangerous and now the head of ajc saying that americans resort to mccarthyism in dealing with out- spoken jews.. for too long some jewish organizations have gotten away with their own brand of mccarthyism by branding anyone who disagrees with them as anti-semitic. and by the way how did jews corner the market on the expression anti-semitism? aren't palestinians also semitic people.so why do jews call an american who sympathizes with palestinians anti-semitic? all i can say is that some jewish organizations can dish it out but they can't take it.

after 242 was drafted and finalized the USA and Britain both went into this document and CHANGED it for Israels benefit....why....or is it that our Govt are owned and directed by powers other than our own.?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-one-missing-word-sowed-the-seeds-of-catastrophe-1205017.html

happymick
Having Dennis Ross as an official participating in Middle East problems involving Israel, is the same as having Osama Bin Laden in a disucssion group about 9-11.

Is this David harris kidding me, it is obvious that these people like Schumer would never think of israel as a foreign country. To me it appears that his and others feeling toward israel are a deeper sense of loyalty than to America.

that is exactly what I think happymick . . . they have a greater sense of loyalty to israel than to America . . . it shows in so many ways . . the aipac slammed the Goldstone Report . . our loyal senators and congressmen did not read the Goldston Report but fell in line with the aipac policy .. . contemptible

David Rozgonyi
Once again, legitimate criticism and concern over potentially unfair and unproductive policies is met with name-slinging. Question the continued settlement construction? An.ti-Sem.yte! Question whether people in the US are actually placing another country's welfare about the one to whom they swore allegiance to? McCarthy! 

Either come up with a proper retort, or stop calling names. It gets very childish after a while, not to mention ineffective.

NewYorkRob
If Israel has so many companies when can we expect a refund of taxpayer financed $3Billion aid per year? You ass.
[personal attack]

SouthernLeftist
Actualy it's the smell of Americans beginning to wake up (OK, the metaphor gets a little smelly here). Israel's interests arer definitely NOT the same as ours, PERIOD. We've been hypnotised for 60 years into believing that they are, and some of us are beginning to wake. 1) No one with dual citizenship shuld be allowed to hold national office, and 2) People who hold the interests of a foreign power higher than the US' oreally ought to come clean about it.

shadow7
Let's get real, here. No one in the US can get elected to public office without pledging unconditional support to the government of Israel. Not a single word of dissent is permitted. Not a single word of criticism of Israel's policies is ever heard. Check it out. This is not limited to legislators who are Jewish - it's an all encompassing position will never be breached. The Middle East policy of the US is written by AIPAC. That's documented and factual. This is McCarthyism in reverse...not against those who support every move made by the Israeli government, no matter how illegal or immoral - but against anyone who dares to speak out against anything done by the 'only democracy'' in the region that continues an illegal occupation for so many decades. As I said, get real.

Fein
Hardly. It's just another disingenuous attempt to vilify anyone who criticizes the Israel.

Mcarthism! : The chorus of dismay from the apologists is reaching an apex of absurdity!

Macready
In case you haven't noticed Mr Harris . . israel is not part of the United States . . . it breaks international law with impunity on a daily basis . . . .unfortunately it gets preferential treatment by congress because the aipac has lots of money and many of our senators and congressmen are in their employ . . . israel is a foreign country that does not respect rule of law, it violates the Geneva Convention, the list goes on and on . . what is very contemptible is that some members of Congress are putting the interests of israel above those of the US and above peace in the Middle East . . our congress supports israel by sending millions of US taxpayers dollars to fund israeli citiziens. israel is an apartheid state based on religion and the US is not a country founded on religion . . I think those Senators and Congressmen who have signed an aipac dictated letter saying that Obama has mistreated israel are behaving like people in the pay of a foreign government . . I think they are traitors . . . israel seems intent on one thing only to destroy the Palestinian people by its continued illegal expansion of settlments, etc . . . 

I respect President Obama's continued efforts to bring peace . . . I do not respect the obstructionist attempts by the aipac and the members of Congress who back israel at the expense of their own

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Posted on the Chomsky thread, which is still too long and too much information for me to go through right now...






The "Rothschilds", of course, being the barely disguised code-word for "Jews."

HPW User Profile: Setstein

We've got an bonafide anti-Semite for your perusal today by the name of setstein. I know there are readers of this blog who are skeptical as to its point, so I would ask that you objectively look at this guy's comments and find out for yourself that there are anti-Semites on the HP. Setstein doesn't discriminate only against Jews, though, he also hates Muslims. Read on for his comments.

 Helen Thomas and Open Season on Jews


“There is not and has never been "antisemitism". Noone is specifically against Semites. Antijudaism, however, is widespread and a natural consequence of the hateful nature of Judaism.” 


Helen Thomas and Open Season on Jews

“The world does not need Judaism, rabbi. I suggest you start a project to terminate that revolting ideology for good and that you finish the job. The world will be a better place.”

Robert Gibbs Calls Helen Thomas' Remarks 'Offensive And Reprehensible'


“Another good indication that Christianity was created by Hebrews to pacify and enslave the world.”

Robert Gibbs Calls Helen Thomas' Remarks 'Offensive And Reprehensible'


“1939-40? The ones who really died in great numbers were above all Russians and Germans. How many Hebrews? Noone really knows, as all relevant research about it was either effectively forbidden or monopolized in all the years since. But it is almost incredible what can be achieved with 24/7/365/perpetual partisan "PR"/propaganda.” 


Israel's Actions on the High Seas: Part Justified and Part Chutzpah

 “Americans are so thoroughly brainwashed by their entrenched Zionist influence franchise in your "mainstream media", that whatever poll results you may be referring to are, of course, inevitable. It just makes Americans all the more impotent and pitiful. What is truly sick, is how people like you are proud of the way you are abusing your (2nd....) country for tribal purposes.”



Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister, Focuses On Building State


“It does not matter what the origin of this quote is, in fact noone seems to really know - and some links are deleted..... , since it correctly describes an attitude prevalent among Israelis and Jews around the world. I have heard this said in many ways and in exactly the same spirit in NY, Russia and Israel. It just states obvious, observable and shameful facts.”
[click for context]

Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister, Focuses On Building State

“Google it yourself. Interesting. By the way, the Jewish orgs, including Israel, have a habit of being able to delete references to whatever they like to be unsaid. Never mind. I have heard many Jews, including Israelis say exactly the same with pride and customary hatred.”

Jim Jones Joke About Jewish Storeowner Attacked By Conservatives (VIDEO)

“With Russian oligarchs and greedy investment banks and hedge funds being overwhelmingly Jewish, Jews are complaining about a joke that is only spot on?”


Schumer: Obama's 'Counter-Productive' Israel Policy 'Has To Stop'

“The (mythical) Jews you describe are somehow always in a clear minority and always lose out politically. Always. Many will avoid military service at all cost where they live and yet sign up as volunteers for Israel......”


Schumer: Obama's 'Counter-Productive' Israel Policy 'Has To Stop'

“Schumer is a Jew and can thus at any time become an automatic citizen of Israel. The large majority of Jews have far more allegiance to their tribe and its Israel than to temporary tools like the USA or other cpontries. Time to learn this for good.”


Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner

“She belongs to the Tribe. After key members of said tribe have occupied the Fed, The Treasury, the Senate, the mind of the President, and run US economic policy for their own benefit only, it would be a travesty to choose this supremely unrepresentative person.”


Tripping in Jerusalem: The Biden-Israel "Flap"

“The "rift" between Israel and the US is just a show for the world, as it always is. We are no longer buying this in Europe or anywhere else. The simple fact is that a US president, let alone a Vice President, has exactly zero leverage against Israel. Israel, through US Jewish organisations and their virtual ownership of the US Congress and the mainstream media can humiliate and laugh in the face of any US President as much as they want. The US is a tool, its population powerless at the federal level. Just now, some relative of Netanyahu in Israel, has publicly belittled Obama as a nothing compared to Israel. He is right and that is precisely what needs focus.”


Clinton Slams Israel's Settlement Plans: 'Deeply Negative Signal'

“They own you, folks. They own you totally.”
[click for context, but after reading his other comments there should be little doubt who "they" are]


Israeli Supermarket Ad Parodies Dubai Killing

“Israelis are actually proud of their killings and flaunt it like their jewelry”

Why We Must Put an End to the Debate Over National Identity

“BHL belongs to that tribe, refers to another tireless talker of that same tribe, wants every person, except of his own tribe, which happens to be non-geographically organised, to dissolve his/her own people and country in order to become interchangeable, isolated atoms in a global game. And be sure: BHL is no friend of anyone except himself and his group.”
[BHL = Bernard Henry-Levi]

Man With Axe Attempts Attack On Mohammed Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard

“We will soon enough have to start taking the lives of aggressive Muzlims systematically until they all are gone or, less likely, fundamentally changed.”

Bernanke Approved For 2nd Term As Fed Chairman By Senate Banking Panel

“Avoiding regulations, interest rates low in face of growing bubbles, sharing inside info btw Phed, G0ldman, few hedge funds, Treasury and White House, dropping Lee-man. dither to ensure maximum chaos and uncertainty, propping up AIG to benefit G0ldman, hard-selling falsely packaged junk loans as well as their derivatives to bank executives domestically and abroad, raw materials bubble timed to crash simultaneously with housing bubble, Greeenspan's false image as infallible guru. By sitting on all sides of the table, free of all scrutiny and acting in bad faith, they co-nned Americans.

Selling bad products in upturn, causing huge peak, investing in upturn, timing and shorting deflation of bubbles better than outsiders, extorting Congress to prop up insiders, misinforming public. Once in lifetime sc-am to even outdo the giant manipulative swindle of Russian oligarchs.

Common trait: Juice, Juice, Juice. The benefits have gone to G0ldman, some hedge funds, I$rael and other Juish organisations and all the other insideres, like Bern@nke.

To have named Bern@nke Man of the Year in Time, owned by soulmates of the insiders, is a bit as if one had named Himm1er, had he succeeded Hit1er.

Gigantic sw1ndle, arrogantly half-hearted co-verup, rubbed in by the re4confirmation of B as head of Fe-d. Americans are suffering on a large scale. Revo1t and rid yourselves of this before you all are electronically tagged and imprisoned for speaking out? You simply cannot let these so-cio-pa-ths continue.”

Ben Bernanke: 'TIME' Person Of The Year

“Time is owned by the intimate friends of same people who skrood the American people, who are now ki11ed by poverty and war at an fast pace, with the carefully managed and gigantic wealth transfer to a few people like G0ldman Sax, a few hedge funds, I$rael and Yuish organisations, as well as indirectly to Bern@nke and Grinspan themselves for their crucial roles in the creation and execution. They all need the severest puni$hment.”

Lieberman: Liberal Enthusiasm Convinced Me To Oppose Medicare Buy-In

“Simple, really. That man belongs to that tribe and is thus immune to any law and any social mores. Are US people conned? And how! And by no means only by this individual.”

Noam Chomsky Publishes on the Huffington Post

I am sure that those of you who are acquainted with some of the academics surrounding the Leftist point of view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is familiar with Noam Chomsky, the linguistic turned expert-on-everything. Chomsky writes on a great number of topics, including the Middle East conflict as well as foreign relations of the United States. More than any other academic I am familiar with, he lets his viewpoint influence his writings. And his viewpoint is: People with power (aka the rich) are always wrong, people without power (aka the poor) are always right. This is pretty much the Leftist point of view in a sentence, which is therefore no surprise that Chomsky adopts it. Here is some more info about him, from a critical point of view (I'll admit it).

Anyway, Chomsky has now published a piece on the Middle East conflict in his very first article on the Huffington Post! I'm surprised that they took so long to bring him into their stable. Anyway, the article is too long and I don't have the time to do a whole analysis, but it's Chomsky, you don't even have to read it: Israel is wrong about everything. And it brought out more than a few comments of note. Here is one for example:

















Awesome. Between this and Ahmed Moor's recent works, it seems like the Huffington Post, which already has a reputation as a hard-left clearinghouse, is only playing host to more extreme points of view. Of course, we've known this for a while.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Frequently Asked Questions

Matt and I have been receiving a lot of the same questions through various forms of communication, and I thought that I would take this time to answer some of them. If anyone would like more information, please leave a comment on this post or send us an email at the address in the sidebar. If there are more frequently asked questions, this post will be updated as they come in.

Hey! I keep trying to ask you questions/harass you on the Huffington Post and you don't respond! What's up with that?
-We don't discuss the blog in the Huffington Post talkback sections. If you ask us something about it, we won't respond. If you would like your question answered, leave a comment or send us an email.

Why do you collect abusive comments from the Huffington Post?
-We answered that question here.

No, I mean what's the point? Couldn't I just look them up myself?
-You could, but many users have told us that they find it useful not to have to comb through pages of non abusive comments just for one or two that are. Many "watch" sites exist to serve this purpose. 


Why do you focus on anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel comments? What about other forms of racism or bigotry?
-We answer that question here. As I said there, if anyone would like to guest write and track abusive comments of other form of bigotry, we would love to hear from you. Simply put, we don't have enough time to catch all the anti-Semitism on the Huffington Post, expanding our focus simply is not feasible.

Where do you draw the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism? Aren't you just trying to silence all criticism of Israel?
-We use the European Union's Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. It seems to cover it pretty well. If you think that we track everyone who criticizes Israel, please compare an HPW to the actual Huffington Post thread. There are plenty of comments that are not included. If we tried to claim that every criticism of Israel on the Huffington Post was anti-Semitic we would never stop writing. Quite simply, to say that we are branding all criticism of Israel with that label only indicates that you have not read the blog very long.

Why do you keep a list of user profiles?
-We answered that question here.

Okay...but it still seems kind of McCarthyist to me.
-I can see why you might think that, but again it is a common part of "watch" sites. There are many, many users of the Huffington Post who are strongly critical of Israel but will never be profiled here, because they are not abusive and don't say anti-Semitic (or even borderline) things. That being said, if you really believe that a user has been placed on the list unfairly, send us an email and present your case. We are very open to outside input.

If someone is profiled on this site, does that mean you think he or she is an anti-Semite?
-Not generally. For someone to be profiled they usually have a history of making abusive or racist comments. If we do believe that a user is considered to be anti-Semitic (by us) than that will be written in the top paragraph of the profile page. Here's an example. If it isn't there, we don't think the user is anti-Semitic.

Was it you who just deleted my comment/banned my profile?
-I'm going to say this one: WE ARE NOT MODERATORS. We have no more power in the Huffington Post talkback section than you do. For a comment to be deleted, or for a user to be banned, a moderator must have considered it/him/her to be worthy of removal. Matt and I cannot influence the moderators beyond our role as humble users. If you choose to continue to believe in some kind of Zionist conspiracy theory, though, don't let me stop you.

Zach, what's up with your screenname? Are you saying you're a god?
-It's a reference to the television series Doctor Who. Specifically episode 3.9 "The Family of Blood."

Matt, what's up with your screenname? Are you saying you're a saint?
-It's a reference to Dungeons and Dragons.

How much does Israel/AIPAC/The Jewish Lobby/The Elders of Ziyon pay you to do this?
-We are private individuals who have yet to see a single cent for anything we do on the Huffington Post or here. And we don't intend to start. If you don't believe me, quite frankly, you know what you can do. 

HPW: Hamas' Gilad Shalit Cartoon

The Huffington Post covered the story about Hamas sending Israel a cartoon about Noam Schalit's possible future distress over the death of his son. The thread was fully moderated, and I know that some long-standing comments were removed by the time I came back for the "watch" post. Anyway, there are about 280 comments right now, with more probably to come. Click below for the ones of note. There weren't many.

Jay-DC
it's a shame what happened to Schalit...
actually not really.
A soldier in occupation forces knows damn-well what they're getting into when they put on the uniform of an army that militarily occupies and oppresses another people for the sole purpose of maintaining racial superiority and majority on the land.
Schalit and other soldiers had this coming for them. If Schalit is a 'peaceful' person, then he should've been a conscientous objector, or a 'refusenik' and refuse to serve in brigades that directly occupy the Palestinians.
I feel bad for the 10,000+ Palestinians who are sitting in Israeli prisons for some of the most heinous crimes ever...like crossing Jewish-only roads in the West Bank, being Arab, and not being born of the Jewish faith. These Palestinians are such terrible people!
Why did the Palestinian cross road 334? To get to the other side of his house of course! 
 
 There is no way you're going to make me take this scam seriously. The only outrage is that The Family Guy didn't think of it first. Geeze, I guess the boys down at Production are buckling under the political pressure. 
 
Did the world forget how Sharon whispered lies about Palestinians in the Phalangist Leader's ear to provoke him to slaughter Palestinians, and later ordered the IDF to surround the Palestinian camps in Lebanon, Sabra and Shatilla, while the Lebanese Phalangists massacred thousands [not] of innocent Palestinians refugees who had nowhere to run to, because the IDF had the place surrounded??? 

Coffin? Coffin? Was there a Miller Lite sticker on the side with a brief blurb that read, "At Schlomo's Mortuary There are No Buried Costs"? 
 
I can't decide which I like better Israeli settlers teaching their children to hate Arabs and attack them every chance they get or Israeli children writing on missiles that killed innocent Lebanese children. A jew talking about tolerance of other religions lol this coming from the "chosen people" is laughable.

lol@lob missiles at innocent civilians, good one in 10 yrs these toy rockets have killed 23 people, the Israelis kill more civilians in 1 min than these toy rockets have killed in 10 yrs.
IDF soldiers are so brave using human shields and bombing schools with white phosphorus, its been proven the IDF can't fight on the ground, the IDF with all the latest modern US equipment got their tails kicked by hezbollah fighters using 80s made Russian equipment. 15,000 IDF soldiers and reservists couldn't beat 3,000 hezbollah fighters.
I will admit one thing the IDF is good at is bombing and killing innocent men, women, and children. 
 
A grand sense of entitlement.
Israel has had Gaza under siege for 3 years, went on a killing spree a year ago, and have since killed more than 90 additional Gazans.
To expect cheerleading for Israel because of this one pathetic gesture - which is an obligation under the Geneva Convention - is gross. Get off the kool-aid and open your eyes. 
 
The Palestinians love their childrens that is why they are resisting the occupation so that their children born and grow in a free world and not in concentration camps. 
 
How is this any different to the Israel PR machine continually squawking about terrorism, suicide bombs and anti-semitism?
The horrendous results of the recent school survey are testimony to the racist indoctrination of children in Israel. You might disagree, but I refuse point-blank to believe Israelis are born racist.
[edited for length]

Apparently the Zionists on this site believe threatening people changes their minds. And other Zionists defend those threats.
Kinda the same stup1d policies as Israel. 

Palestinian Advocacy Organizations

In my travels through the internet yesterday, I came upon this group called the American Task Force On  Palestine. Basically, they are a group that encourages Americans to seek a better relationship with the Palestinians...which is specifically the PA, I suppose? They even have a site called "How to Advocate" with paragraph after paragraph about how people should advocate for the Palestinians and which arguments to use. At first I thought that I might be able to use this as a counter-accusation for the seemingly endless "hasbara" insults.

That turned out to be at a loss, though, because the ATFP is far more moderate than most of the Huffington Post talkbackers. They list their major priorities as 1) freedom for Palestinians 2) security for Israel and 3) enhanced national security for the United States. They even wrote a book against the "one-state solution" I am sure that more than a few HP talkbackers would be very offended by their willingness to accept Israel's existence and that they don't demand "justice" instead of freedom for the Palestinians.

Oh well, I guess there is always "Electronic Intifada." That seems to be more where the HPers are coming from.

Who Review: The Time of Angels

Image Courtesy of The Guardian. How ironic.

The fourth episode of Doctor Who's Season 5 promised the return of one of the most iconic villains of the reboot. Click below to read our thoughts.
Zach:
In sum, this was a very solid episode. The villains and the environment made for great tension that carried all the way through and into the cliffhanger ending. Stephen Moffet's Weeping Angels made for a dangerous but not uber-powerful villain, though guest character River Song was as annoying as she was in her debut episode. 
This episode was the first in this season that opened up the world that this new head writer wants to create. Russell T Davies made sure to create his own stable of characters (Rose, her family, Martha, her family, Donna, her family, Captain Jack Harkness) as well as his own villains (The Ood, Cassandra). The only trouble was that we were often given the impression that Davies liked his characters more than the audience did, and the show as a whole suffered for it. I know a lot of DW's audience really liked Rose, but I didn't really, and she never. Went. Away. Ever. And now I am afraid that Moffet is doing the same thing with River Song. She isn't that likable, Moffet! Mary Sues never are! And the worst part is that since Moffet is just getting going as head writer, it seems likely that River Song will stay around for a long time to come.

The good news is that the rest of the episode came together very well. The Church/soldiers made for an interesting and yet not overbearing part of setting the scene. Matt Smith really came into his own this episode, perhaps because River Song worked as a foil for him. Even what seemed like blatant plot holes (such as the Weeping Angels acting differently) were explained by the end of the episode. Though it still doesn't make sense why they weren't all dead from the moment they entered the cave. I guess the Angels wanted to give them a fighting chance. Also, it was pretty stupid how the first two guys to die were black. That was maybe acceptable around the time of the second Friday the 13th movie.

One last thing: Moffet! You say the TARDIS noise is because the Doctor leaves the brakes on?! Well, how come the Master's TARDIS makes the same noise in "Logopolis?" That's right. I went there.

Matt:
"The Time of Angels" was a very entertaining episode all the way around, with a decent cliffhanger to make me want to come back and see how it all comes out. We've got our scary villain, we've got our cool scenery, we've got our red-shirts to get killed (and get killed they do), and we've got our super special guest star (more on her later). It's well put together and keeps the plot moving. I didn't even notice that it was getting close to the end of the episode until the "to be continued" line showed up.
In summary, the Doctor and Amy receive a distress call from Dr. River Song and arrive in time to save her from a ship. They all go to the planet and learn that under the planet's surface is a Weeping Angel trapped. The three link up with a group of soldiers who are affiliated with the Church, and they all go after the angel. Turns out, all the statues in the catacombs are Weeping Angels, and they're moving in for the kill when the episode ends, to be resolved in part 2.
The plot is good and the scenes are good. What is not good is Dr. River Song. Do you know how, in comics, when a creator makes a new character and he wants to make the character seem awesome and get everyone to like him, he makes the character able to "beat up" some stronger, more popular character? You can see this with Lobo and new versions of characters like Manhunter and Blue Beetle. Dr. River Song is like that for the Doctor. The Doctor can fly the TARDIS? River Song can fly the TARDIS better! The Doctor has a sonic screwdriver? River Song has a gun that can also open doors! The Doctor helps people? River Song helps people, and she's been in prison! Wow, how bad ass! We all like the Doctor, so we must like you more! River Song is a terrible character and I would be happy if an angel snapped her neck at the beginning of the next episode.
Other than her, I enjoyed this episode and am looking forward to the next one. Not a lot more to say, the review for next episode will look at both together as a complete story arc. 

Ahmed Moor on Senator Schumer

HP blogger Ahmed Moor, who Zach fisked here, has written another article about the recent remarks of US Senator Charles Schumer and a variety of other topics. Like many of the other bloggers who have commented on this issue, Moor takes Schumer's remarks as a sign of the control Zionists have over the US government.

He writes, "The interview offers a fascinating look into the way Senate Zionists manipulate the president's policy in the region." Yes, "Senate Zionists manipulate", or, in reality speak, Senators who support Israel disagree with the President. I keep making this point on the Huffington Post, but I'll make it here again: During the Bush years, disagreeing with the President was considered among the left to be the greatest thing ever and they would become rightly enraged if anyone suggested they were disloyal to America for criticizing the President. But now that Obama is doing what the left agrees with, they are using the hated tactics of the right for their own purposes and don't see the problem.

Moor also rewrites some history and cause and effect with this sentence, "The siege is a direct result of Palestinian elections in 2006 which resulted in the election of Hamas parliamentarians." We should clearly believe Mr. Moor over the Israeli government which has explicitly stated that the siege is caused only by Hamas' violence and aggression. The facts that the siege is being relaxed every day and that the blockade would end if Shalit was returned seemed to have escaped Mr. Moor's description of events.

But worst of all is Mr. Moor's description of the blockade of Gaza as "collective punishment". He links to the Fourth Geneva Convention, but unfortunately for him his link does not state that a blockade constitutes collective punishment. The term "collective punishment" is used for treatment of an occupied population. Wikipedia has an example of when the British government in Mandatory Palestine punished an entire town of Arabs for the crimes of a small group of unknown Arabs, or when they punished an entire town of Jews for the crimes of a small group of unknown Jews. When you actively punish a large group of occupied people for the crimes of a small subset of them, that is considered to be collective punishment. There are a number of reasons why this does not apply to the Gaza situation. First, Gaza is not considered to be occupied, no matter what the UN says. Second, blockades have never in this history of the world been considered to be collective punishment. The British blockade of Germany during WWII is not considered collective punishment and the US embargo of Cuba is not considered collective punishment. Third, Hamas is not "a small subset" of the Gaza population. They are the elected and widely supported government of the Gazans. If they declare war on Israel and Israel takes steps to fight back, the Gazans simply cannot divorce themselves from Hamas and say we are not to blame! Defining the blockade of Gaza is twisting the definition of collective punishment far away from where it was originally intended by the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, in a shocking display of intellectual dishonesty, Mr. Moor brings up General Petraeus' supposed comments in which the general stated US support for Israel was putting US troops in danger, even though the General himself stated that interpretation of his statement was wrong. The Huffington Post even covered it. But I guess old anti-Israel rumors die hard, especially when no one calls you out on it.

Great blog post, Mr. Moor. Full of half-truths, personal attacks, and outright lies.