Israel Makes Jews Look Bad

There has been much focus on Israel lately, then again, Israel is always in the global spotlight. This time Israel has been put in the crosshairs for a seeming slide into the dark ages. The focus point this time on Israel's backwards society is its treatment of women. It started a few weeks ago when we heard that women weren't allowed to sing at an event on an Israeli army base due to religious soldier's being opposed to it. Next we heard of a women that was harassed when trying to get on a bus that served the religious public and tried to sit in the front, a practice strongly rejected by the vast majority of Israelis. At this point we heard no less than Hilary Clinton compare Israel to the racist south. The media took up the cue and did an investigative piece about a little girl that was called a whore and spit on, on her way to school because religious fanatics claimed she wasn't dressed modestly enough (a religious girl at that). At which points Israelis started to get up and protest the religious coercion creeping into their society.

Yes, all of these events are concerning. No, none of these events are new. Ask any Jewish American that's studied six months in Israel and they'll tell you that the ultra-orthodox are at times violent in their protest of girls and boys praying together at the Western wall. They probably also know that in Mea She'arim, the ultra-orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem, there are signs instructing men to walk on one side of the street, women on another.

And yes, the ultra-orthodox community is growing five times faster in Israel than the secular community. Being subsidized by secular tax payers (most ultra-orthodox don't work, they study), they have on average 7 kids per family. And yet today, this segment of the community still only represents 10% of the population, and most of which only want to be left alone. And the extreme ultra-orthodox, those being aggressive in their insults, assaulting little girls for not being "modest enough," are only a tiny minority of that 10%.

And yet, these circumstances, which have sadly always been a part of Israel to some degree, have become yet the latest weapons against the Jewish state, and yet another factor shaming mainstream Judaism into silence, if not converting them into Israel's latest public critics. As can be seen in the understandable expression of frustration of a Jewish educator friend of mine exclaimed in alarm on his Facebook page, "How long before they start comparing Halakhah with Sharia law? How long after that does Judaism get stereotyped as just another extremist, fundamentalist whacked out cult?

Hint: Many have always believed Judaism is extremist and fundamentalist. Not based on any fact, but on ignorance, a hatred for Judaism, and a desire to deligitimze Israel.

Is Criticism of Israel Valid?

I'd say that's a stupid question, but as we all know there are no stupid questions. All criticism of Israel is valid. Whether by Jews, non-Jews, Israelis or non Israelis. However, we're talking about much more than just criticizing Israel. We're talking about the obsessive focus on Israel's imperfections, in a vacuum, on a global scale.

How Israel has become an Embarrassment to Jews

Through a combination of factors, Israel has today been transformed for many into a belligerent state, a pariah state, and international war criminal. And while indeed Israel has its imperfections and makes its shares of mistakes, one has to ask how as thousands are being slaughtered in its neighboring country Syria, Israel still receives just as much if not more criticism as the Syrian government. While the reason driving the criticism of Syria is the massacring of its own people in the streets. The criticism of Israel is due to the actions of a few fanatics in its population. And the question has to be asked how is it that these two issues are treated as equivalent? Whether by the media reporting on the stories, or the Obama Administration, who no less warned Israel resembles Iran.

The Major Factors that Led to Israel's Becoming the World's Favorite Pariah State

While most people will list any litany of sins they usually attribute to Israel, such s building in the West Bank, invading Gaza, etc., the fact of the matter is all of these issues are symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself. For example, Israel wouldn't be in the West Bank today if the Arabs didn't attack Israel in 1973. Additionally, in spite of recent UN resolutions, Israel's construction in the West Bank isn't illegal. For UN resolution 242 which determines that final borders will be decided between the parties, so really Israeli construction can't be deemed illegal, and is in reality is a bargaining chip meant to put pressure on the Palestinians. It is also one that President Obama has tried to take away from the Israelis.

But I'm not going to discuss Israel's actions that people attribute to making it the rogue nation of the world, I'm going to discuss the various conditions that have led to Israel being portrayed as such, in the world consciousness.

The Internet – the Great Democratizer

The first and most important development in the last decade that has led to Israel being demonized is undoubtedly the Internet. With 1 billion Muslims in the world, the majority arguably haters of Israel (not to mention hundreds of millions of others hostile to Israel), and their ability to express their hatred for Israel, this creates a huge amount of voices that dominate the discussion across internet. Whether it be with Facebook pages, hostile news media from Arab nations in English, or Twitter, the greatest projector of voices, the dominating discourse when it comes to Israel is undoubtedly negative.

The News Media

There are a number of factors regarding the news media that encourage it not only to "report" on Israel, but report it in a way that only focuses on certain aspects about Israel and its society. Some might argue, those that suggest that Israel is "bad."

The Imbalance of Only Reporting on Israeli Warts

News on Israel is almost always negative, and almost always lacking context. This undoubtedly results in providing a very negative impression to readership. As proof to this, an interesting experiment was conducted called "Bad News About the Netherlands" project. In it the author wanted "to demonstrate that media coverage can degrade a country's image by using selective news without context," and some would argue, fabulously succeeded.

The Business Model – Being Paid to Write for the Arab Press

The business model of some news providers, such as Associated Press, results in inherently biased reporting against Israel. In the case of the Associated Press, who is one of the two largest providers of news stories to the rest of news outlets around the world, the AP was hired by a conglomerate of Arab countries to prepare content for their audience. This reporting is of course inherently biased against Israel. From there, much of this content is recycled by AP who use this news to use for its Western outlets. A description by an insider of this process can be found in an article published by Little Green Footballs titled How much does it cost to Buy Global News.

The Business Model – Providing the Goods

Of course, the news media, like anything else, is a business whose objective is to make money. It can be asserted that one of the major audiences is the Arab and Muslim world who, as we noted above, want to read about the evils of Israeli society. This is separate from the previous point in that the news media in this situation is not producing negative news by Israel because they are being paid directly to do so, but because in the end it leads indirectly satisfying a large portion of their readership.

Jew Baiting – for Clicks

And it's not only the Arab and Muslim public that likes to read bad things about Israel. Rest assured, put up an article discussing whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, quoting anonymous Palestinians of Israeli massacres during Israeli military actions to stop missles, or anything else portraying Israel in a bad light and you'll get plenty of clicks. And while readers may click to read the article, they continue clicking to view the racist mudslinging that exemplifies the comments section of any article on mainstream websites that discusses anything about Israel. A sure way to increase your click-through-rate is to bash Israel, its as simple as that.

If it Bleeds it Leads

A well known maxim in the news media, "If it Bleeds it Leads" is yet another driver for traffic. This can be better illustrated in terms of photo journalism. While once upon a time any news media outlet worth its weight wouldn't publish bloody photos of suicide bombings or children shredded by shrapnel, with the democratization of the Internet and readers having access to the Arab media outlets who will publish pretty much anything, other more mainstream outlets realized they were losing valuable traffic and so lowered their standards, and begun publishing the bloody photos themselves

And you can be sure that with the hunger for news reporters for Palestinian blood to sell their news, the Palestinians are more than happy to oblige them. Quite often the news media is even complicit with the Palestinians in creating the winning photo, as can be seen with an incident in Silwan when a group of photographers eagerly awaited as Palestinian children attacked an Israeli car, leading to the children getting run over, as can be seen in this video. Take note of the at least half dozen photographers who come out of the woodwork and were standing on the sidelines while children put themselves in danger.

The Evolution of the News Media from Reporting News to Providing Opinion

The nature of the media together with the burgeoning of blogs written by the average Joe has led to a phenomenon in which news outlets peddle opinion as fact. Go to the homepage of any major media website surf around for a while, then think to yourself whether what you've read was "objective reporting," or a subjective opinion. Then go back and check. Most people don't even realize that they're not reading objective reporting, while others don't care. But when objective reporting is replaced by opinion, watch editorial guidelines go down the toilet. Much like recently Palestinian Prime Minister rewrote history in his opinion piece published in none other than the New York Times. He claimed that the war of Israeli independence was really only the Arab states coming in to protect the Palestinians from Israel ethnically cleansing the Arabs from the land; a claim that is clearly disproved by history. Yet the article was published without commentary or correction by the New York Times.

What happens when the "responsible" news media doesn't question claims that are historically inaccurate? People believe it.

Most Readers in the World take what the Read as Fact

For the vast majority of the world who has never been to Israel, and who don't know about the history of Israel and the Arab Israeli conflict, what they read in their local newspaper, or in the New York Times, is fact. So when, like the New York Times published Mahmud Abbas' rewritten history of Israel, without commentary, and without correcting historic facts, the rest of the world sees his incendiary claims as being simple fact. And why not, they don't know any better. Now think about all the points mentioned above, and take this into consideration, and its no surprise that the majority of the world is hostile to Israel, even those that don’t' typically fall into the groups that are usually hostile to Israel, such as Muslims, Arabs, and those in the extreme left wing.

So What Benefit is there to Write Positive Articles about Israel?

So with all of the above taken into consideration about the media and its interests, we have to ask ourselves, honestly, what's the benefit for news outlets to write positive articles on Israel? Human interest stories that make Israelis look good? Or interesting stories outside of the usual pieces on the rich archeological history in Israel, or about Israel being a global hi-tech hub?

There arent' many. Because people aren't interested in reading about how Israel is a bastion of liberal values. How it has a thriving gay and lesbian community, is a patchwork of more Jewish refugees than there were Palestinian refugees. The papers aren't interested in writing about Israeli art, or its rich and varied cuisine. Because these pieces aren't going to draw nearly as much as a bunch of bloody pictures, or articles slamming Israel's maintaining a "concentration camp," in Gaza.

The Natural Discourse Among Israelis

Israeli society is known for its outspoken citizens. It is said that for every Israeli there are two opinions. And the dialog among Israelis is as vehement as it is in the Arab press. Israeli society has a tendency to try and frame itself up against events in other places in the world, and adopt buzz words used by the politicians and the media in other places in the world. Israelis have no problem calling each other Nazis and accusing each other of committing apartheid. Much like in the rest of the world, the worst accusations have become the only means of dialog. And while an honest comparison between Israeli actions and those of, for example, Nazism, clearly show no real similarity, it makes no difference. So if Israelis compare themselves with Nazis, who are others to question them?

The Natural Discourse Among Jews – Worried About Israel's Soul

And its not just Israelis that are outspoken, Jews are historically both outspoken and very self-critical. Call it the Jewish guilt complex. With the ever increasingly extremeness in the international media with which Israel is discussed, and with the great concern inherent in the Jewish community for, as one person put it, "the soul of Israel," the Natural discourse among Jews over the past few years has followed the same path as that in the media.

Meaning that typically when Jews speak about Israel these days, its only in examining its warts. So it's not only Israelis that speak loudly and publicly about its weaknesses, but Jews too. And all of this discourse today takes place in the public sphere. In articles published in both the mainstream media and Jewish journals, available from anywhere in the world via the internet. On twitter, etc. And once again, there seems to be less of a will or desire to speak about the positive aspects of Israel. or to compare Israel's warts with that of other countries.

Supporting Israel means being Right Wing

Even more of a problem is how it has become accepted as fact that if you support Israel you must be a right wing fanatic. Once upon a time some of Israel's biggest supporters were the liberal Jewish community of the United States. Today this community's support of Israel has been silenced. They can't seem to reconcile their liberal values with the accusations that supporting Israel makes them conservative and right wing. They are being shouted down by the discourse, even convinced by it. By the obsessive focus on Israel's warts, and by a complete and utter lack of discussing Israel in any other context.

Israel's Warts are Examined in a Vacuum

Israel's negative qualities are examined in a vacuum. First they are examined without context, without describing why Israel takes the actions they do.

First, for example, they speak about Palestinian children being killed by Israeli missles, and publish bloody photos of dead and injured children, but don't discuss why Israeli missles were launched in the first place (usually to take out a missile launcher), or why children were in the vicinity of Hamas terrorists launching missles into Israeli population center.

Second, they take Israeli actions out of context internally. They discuss the phenomenon of women being made to sit in the back of the bus in Israel, but don't mention that it is only on a great minority of busses, and that most Israelis are staunchly against this practice. People like Hillary Clinton create the impression that it’s a regular event in the majority of busses in Israel, and that the majority of Israelis support it, both of which are wrong.

Third, Israel's actions aren't discussed in the context of the greater world. For example, a tiny minority of Israelis want segregation between men and women, but in the majority of Arab nations repression of Women is a daily fact. Alternatively, they discuss "violent settlers," controlling the Israeli government. Yet don't discuss the Syrian government's massacre of thousands of its citizens, or Egypt's current rulers heavy handed suppression of the Egyptian people, which has been much more deadly than Hosni Mubarak's actions.

The Obama Administration and its Treatment of Israel and the Conflict

Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors that have led to the attacks on Israeli legitimacy in the media and world at large, is President Obama becoming President of the United States. Many people will violently disagree with me, but all of the events over the past couple years conclusively prove this. While claiming himself as one of Israel's greatest supporters and protectors, the facts show otherwise, as can be seen in this blog post I wrote last week. And when the President of the United States repeatedly attacks Israel in the international forum, it impacts the dialog. The media take the President's cues, and those that were anti-Israel in the first place are encouraged by this most crucial supporter. It's sad to say, but the rise of President Obama to office has had probably one of the most significant, and negative impacts on the perception of Israel on the global stage. And has transformed the dialog about Israel from one of its actions, into one of its legitimacy.

So Where's That Historically Critical Examination Jews are Known For? The One's Willing to Fight for what they Believe in?

That seems to be the question. I know a great many of Jews that have spent time in Israel, and themselves know that things portrayed in the media aren't accurate. That while, perhaps the ultra-orthodox community is growing, it is still very far from converting Israel into a new Iran, with all due respect to Hillary Clinton's claim that, once again goes to show the Obama administration uses the media to impact Israel in a negative manner.

But the Jews understandably aren't only worried about Israel, even though they say that's their concern. No, as my friend's Facebook status I mentioned above shows us which stated "How long before they start comparing Halakhah with Sharia law? How long after that does Judaism get stereotyped as just another extremist, fundamentalist whacked out cult? The Jews of the world are also worried about how Judaism, not just Israel, is perceived in the world. And it is clear to them, whether or not they are conscious of it, that the majority of the world conflates Judaism and Israel. And that the way that Israel is portrayed in the press and by our political leaders through the trickle down effect impacts them. Its clear that today Israel has become a polarizing issue. That anybody that dares support Israel publicly is labeled right wing. And for a liberal Jew in America that is simply devastating on a personal level.

And for Israel as a nation, its just as devastating to lose this support.

Unfortunately, with all the information I've provided above, it becomes clear that trying to defend Israel is a losing battle. All the cards are stacked against us. Yes, call me an isolationist, paranoid Jew, but the world it seems is against us. Perhaps not everyone, but the mechanisms that have developed are contributing to the ongoing and increasing deligitimization of Israel in the global community. And our biggest and most power advocates, the liberal Jews of the world, and America, their voices are being sidelined. Israel's enemies are winning, and without the willingness of these same liberal Jews to examine the "facts" being pushed by the biased press, and without their willingness to openly and vocally go out and do what they do best, question the various assertions and accusations, demand proof, demand that Israel be examined relative to other societies, insist that not all in Israel is evil, there's not much hope.

In Closing

Examining Israeli actions, without context as to why they take them, and without any relation to the way other nations react under similar circumstances, or without relation to the status of other societies in the world, only has the effect of portraying Israel as an evil country, and deligitimizing its existence. Without any accurate relation as to the actual situation of Israeli society. It breeds hatred of Israelis, and results in shaming Jews around the world to the point that they no longer are willing to voice any support what-so-ever, even themselves becoming convinced by the one sided picture being drawn in the media, on the internet, and by the leaders of the world.

But the bottom line is, no matter what efforts are made, Israel will always be portrayed in the mass media based on the parameters discussed above, disconnected from the world, only focusing on its perceived imperfections, and repeatedly vilified by a huge number of people in the cyber world. Its upsetting, it's disturbing, and try as we might, there's not much to change it.

As long as American Jews stand in the sidelines, and are more worried about how Israel is making Jews look, than about the honest portrayal of Israel and its right to defend its citizens and demand fair and equal treatment, it seems, that Israel will continue to make Jews look bad.

Can the Reform Movement Have an Honest Discussion on President Obama's Israel Credentials?

Just a week ago the Reform Jewish Leadership was brought together in a biennial event part of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ). It’s a large event that brings together reform Rabbis from around the country. And its keynote speaker was none other than President Barack Obama, who went on to charm the attendees by making reference to the weekly Parsha (torah portion), and with stories of his daughter’s attending Bat Mitzvahs.

I watched my Facebook page and twitter feed light up with posts from Rabbis I know, expressing excitement to see the President. And President Obama returned the love, basking in the glow of a very warm welcome by a constituency who unquestionably adores him, and who unquestionably accepts his words as fact.

Indeed, President Obama without doubt is a fighter for values held by the Jewish community. He fights for the poor and the down trodden, looking to balance the powers of the rich. He’s on the right side of all of the battles, equal rights and recognition for same sex marriages, pro-choice, a champion of social justice, at least when it comes to America.

And the Rabbis, Jewish Educators, and other leaders of the Reform Jewish community stand firmly behind the President, almost blindingly so. So when President Obama says, like he did at the URJ, that “no U.S. administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours.” It is taken at face value, and accepted without question. Especially when he instructs his audience not to “let anybody else tell you otherwise.“

Who can question the integrity of President Obama and his words?

And that’s what’s just a little concerning. First of all, when has the leadership of the Reform community ever accepted anything without question? If Jews had a prime directive like in Star Trek, it would likely be described as never accepting anything at face value, or without question. Or in other words, to question everything, even those things we accept as fact. Yet with this most driving fundamental truth of Judaism, and regarding the most central issue of Judaism, Israel; when it comes to President Obama and the Reform Jewish leadership, it seems that not only conventional wisdom, but the very basis of our genetic impulses are somehow suppressed.

When President Obama, says that “no administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours,” does that make it inherently true? Judging by the lack of public dialog among the Reform leadership on this issue, it surely seems to be.

Actions of a Pro-Israel President?

Let’s take a look on a few actions of President Obama and his administration and see if his words and deeds match up.

Forcing Israel to Make Unilateral Concessions to the Palestinians

On many occasions, he and members of his administration have uttered words and taken actions which can at least be construed as antagonistic to Israel. For example, for the first time in history an American president robbed Israel of a key bargaining chip, that of Israeli construction, which could be used by Israel to win concessions from the Palestinians. He went further than this. He publicly attacked the Israeli administration for approving the building of homes in the West Bank, and then went on to demand that Israel freeze all construction over the green line.

We can debate President Obama’s reasons for doing so, though the result of this action is indisputable: for the first time in the history of negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, the American leadership created a precondition to negotiations, one in which Israel would be forced to give up a bargaining chip. And indeed, the Palestinian Leadership went on to state that there would be no peace talks until Israel froze all construction in the West Bank.

And still, Israel caved in and froze construction for 10 months.

Labeling Netanyahu as THE Obstacle to Peace When Netanyahu has Made Many Concessions
The Obama administration has publicly and repeatedly portrayed Prime Minister Netanyahu as the obstacle to peace. Even if a basic examination of the situation clearly shows otherwise.

In spite of the Obama Administration’s regular public dressing down of the Israeli Prime Minister, and claims that it is he that doesn’t show a will for peace, Prime Minister Netanyahu was actually the first leader of the Likud to publicly accept the two-state solution, a huge concession that opened the door to negotiations with a Likud government. Then , as noted earlier, after being publicly accosted by the Obama Administration he also agreed to a 10 month building freeze, which the Palestinians let elapse all the while refusing to return to the negotiating table.

And yet publicly, in multiple forums, on numerous occasions, and by numerous representatives of the Obama Administration, it is Prime Minister Netanyahu who has been labeled as the obstacle to peace, not the Palestinians. Does this match up with claims that President Obama is the most pro Israel president in American history?

A Coordinated Attack by Obama Administration Representatives

Most recently, the Obama administration went on an all out assault not only on Israel’s leadership, but on Israeli society in general, with a three pronged attack:

• US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cynically called on Israel to “mend fences” with Egypt and Turkey when it is these states that have led a deterioration in relations, with Turkey belligerently attacking Israel both verbally and physically. He then pressed Israel to “Just get to the damned table” (peace talks with the Palestinians), when in reality, as mentioned above, it’s the Palestinians that refuse to negotiate.
• Hillary Clinton then expressed fear for Israeli democracy, going so far to compare events in Israel to the racist South and the heroic battle of Rosa Parks, while Mrs. Clinton has never publicly expressed such concern for the treatment of women in misogynic countries across the middle east. Can you really compare secular Israelis with ex-slaves of the south?
• The American Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman boldly stated that Muslim hatred of Israel was understandable in the context of the Arab Israeli war, suggesting that hate crimes committed by Muslims against Jews couldn’t really be attributed to Anti-Semitism, and basically pinning them on Israel’s actions. Meaning that if Israel doesn’t "act right," (doing what the Obama administration demands?) then Jews get attacked around the world. How would it come across if hate crimes against Muslim Americans were stated as being an understandable reaction to 9/11 by the Obama administration? Would that be acceptable?

Was it a coincidence that all three of these very central Obama administration figures spun events involving Israel in an ominous manner, at the same time? Does encouraging Israel to succumb to ruthless dictators Israel bashing, attacking Israel’s legitimacy as a democracy, and blaming its actions for attacks on Jews proof that this Administration is doing more for Israeli security than any other?

Can the Reform Movement hold an Honest Debate about President Obama’s Israel Credentials?

These are just a handful of examples of the Obama Administration’s handling of Israel. And yet with them it becomes clear that the declaration of President Obama claiming that his commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct, and the suggesting that he's "the most pro-Israel president ever" become very suspect. And you can be sure that when the US leads, the world follows. So when the President of the United States expresses contempt for the Israeli leader and a lack of faith in Israeli society, the dark forces of the world rear their ugly head.

And it is for these reasons that this debate needs to take place in the forum of the Reform movement. Between clergy, between leaders, and among parishioners.

The question is, is the leadership of the Reform movement willing or able to have an open, honest debate on President Obama’s policies on Israel, without regard to his credentials as a warrior in the battle for social justice? And based only on the merits, or detriments of his actions involving Israel? Does Israel still hold an important place in the Reform Jewish community? And can the Reform Jewish community be honest, not only about Israel’s warts, which have always been present, but of the problematic approach by President Obama to Israel? And the apparent conflict between what he voices as his support for Israel, but his actions, which show otherwise?

How is it that Israel, a democratic nation with an elected government, equality among its religions and sexes (in spite of the media hype today of problems that have always existed), is constantly singled out Israel for criticism by the Obama administration, while ignoring much worse problems across the Middle East? Why is it that the Obama administration voices concern for Israeli democracy comparing it to the likes of Iran, all the while stifling criticism of the failed elections in Egypt and rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, of Turkey’s belligerence and drive towards Islamic fanaticism, or the failure of the UN to censure Syria for the murder of thousands? Is this what they call politics as usual?

Is the Obama Administration Lying About Israel?

It’s a question that needs to be asked, for its being ignored by the media, and the Jewish community. We have been told by the Obama administration again and again that Israel, and particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu are the reason that there are no negotiations. That it is Prime Minister Netanyahu that refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians. Yet we have never been shown evidence of this. In fact, all evidence shows otherwise.

PM Netanyahu publicly accepted the need for a two state solution, froze construction for 10 months, and repeatedly called on the Palestinians to return to negotiations. So it’s not just lip service as some claim. And the Palestinians have repeatedly and openly refused to return to negotiations. So why is it that the Obama administration openly and repeatedly blames Israel and Netanyahu for the failure to renew negotiations? When in fact, President Obama’s creating a precondition to negotiations is the source, as mentioned earlier in this article?

Is the Obama Administration publicly lying about these facts? If not, then why don’t they make information public to prove their position? And if so, then it’s about time that the Reform Jewish movement begins to digest this fact, and the implications of a sitting American President spinning fiction as fact as regarding Israel, delegitimizing Israel in the global community, and taking the side of the Palestinians in negotiations.

Implications for the Future: What comes after Iran, and US Elections

Over the past few months we have seen a toning down of criticism by the Obama Administration of Israel. And some show of support. And whether it is due to President Obama relearning the same lessons as past presidents (that Israel isn't the source of failure and can't be beaten into submission), or as the result of the approach of the American elections and the dismal approval ratings for President Obama trying to regain Jewish support, is debatable. Even with his approval ratings being as low as they are, there is a good chance that President Obama will be re-elected in the next term.

The international conflict with Iran is also approaching an apex. Up until just a few short weeks ago it looked as if Israel would be left alone to face a nuclear Iran. Though there has been a dramatic turnaround with the American administration looking as if it shall take it upon itself to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program. There is much speculation as to why, and we’ll leave that aside.

However, if the current US Administration takes on Iran and neutralizes its nuclear program, and if President Obama is elected to a second term, it can be assumed that with his victory against Iran, President Obama shall take on the issue of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians with renewed vigor, and more support than ever.

And you can be rest assured that it will be a continuation of the same policy: putting enormous pressure on Israel to make one sided concessions to the Palestinians. For let’s be honest, President Obama sees the Palestinians as the oppressed underdog deserving of their state at any cost. He even promised them a state at any cost, subsequently eliminating any need for them to make concessions themselves.

Leveling the Playing Field?

Furthermore, many people say that the US needs to take the Palestinian’s side to “level the playing field,” and it seems that the President has adopted this policy. Though the Palestinians were part and parcel to the war to annihilate Israel, and lost. What does it say for moral hazard if the losers of belligerent wars are given equal weight in negotiations with the winners? The Palestinians are indeed poor and oppressed. But it’s not because of Israel’s creation; it’s because of Israel’s rejection.

And it’s about time that Jews stop blaming themselves and Israel’s creation for the Palestinians’ plight. More Jews were made refugees than Arabs by Israel’s founding. Yet all Jews found new lives, either in Israel, or other nations. The Arab world has purposely kept the Palestinians refugees, with the assistance of the UN, to be used as a tool against Israel. And it seems that this strategy is bearing fruit. Do the Palestinians deserve to have control of their own destiny? Emphatically yes. Should it fall on Israel to make all concessions to woo the Palestinians to negotiations and create a Palestinian state? Absolutely not.

Ending the conflict isn't about wonderful visions of peaceful coexistence and giving the Palestinians everything they want because it would be nice to make them happy after so much suffering, as much as some seem to think it is. Issues need to be negotiated on based on their merit between the parties, and not forced by the outside because the world sees the Palestinains as the underdog.

Israel has much claim to this land, historically and religiously. There hasn't been a soverign nation in this land since the destruction of the second temple. And while many are loath to admit it, its true, there was never previously a Palestinian people or society. If Israel didn't come into existance, the Palestinains wouldn't exist as people, but as a geographic designation. Those that want to debate this fact can refer to the Palestinain's own leadership's words. March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein that said "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

For the world to make politically correct statements and try to "level the playing field" in place of allowing Israel to negotiate its borders based on merit and actual history is quite saddening.

Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, but not at any price. And this peace must be mutual; the Palestinian leadership must stand behind it. Negotiations must take place between the parties. And President Obama has no right to make concessions in Israel’s name.

It’s time to Open an Honest Dialog about the President

President Obama for some is still the best President, for other’s he’s become the President of default, with no better choice out there. But one thing is clear; the Jewish community must begin to hold a debate on President Obama’s Israel policies. They need to stop taking his word as gospel, they need to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt on Israel because of his domestic policies, they need stop being convinced that the Israeli government is run by right wing fanatics and that supporting Israel makes you a right-winger. That is a lie meant to rob Israel of its support base.

The Jewish community needs to stop avoiding discussing the ramifications of President Obama’s Israel policies, and start doing what they do best. Questioning if, regarding Israel, his words match his deeds. And if not, they need to start to open an honest dialog with the President and the democratic leadership on the subject. Asking why it is that Prime Minister Netanyahu is vilified by the administration, and portrayed as the barrier to peace when it’s the Palestinians that refuse to negotiate? Why does the Obama administration insist on portraying Israel as a nation slipping into the dark ages, while completely ignoring the events of surrounding nations?

Ask why should the American administration “balance the playing field” for the Palestinians as opposed to being an objective third party?

And most important, begin to make it clear that peace will only be made if both sides want it. Israel won’t be forced to make unilateral concession after unilateral concession to make peace, particularly when the other party shows it has no will or desire to do so. If President Obama is elected to a second term, he needs to know that his purposeful misrepresentation of Israel in the international arena needs to stop. The time to take action is now. President Obama needs to be held accountable for his words, and stop misleading the international community with inaccurate statements. He needs to acknowledge that Israel has every right to be an imperfect democracy, without being vilified. Just like the United States.

The Reform Community needs to do some soul searching on why they are willing to fight for everyone’s rights, but Israel’s. And why so many are ready to ignore if not buy into the negative propaganda. Examine Israel’s actions, up against other countries under similar circumstances, against events in the world, and stop doing so in the vacuum of the ideal. And again, stop giving President Obama a free pass when it comes to working with Israel. Accountability is here and now.

The Sad Fact About American Jews - a Rant

This isn't an easy article to write. For of course, I am an American Jew. But over the course of the past couple years I've noticed quite a few concerning trends regarding the community I grew up with. Some may attribute it to my living in Israel, being paranoid, or going "right wing" as they say has happened to the entire Israeli political spectrum, but none-the-less I feel it’s a subject that needs to be addressed. Particularly at this significant time in history with the Arab Israeli conflict and the Palestinians shortly to demand recognition in the United Nations.

What really troubled me and inspired to write this article was a Facebook incident with an old camper of mine. Now he's a great guy, and I hope he doesn't take this personally. But the event is an illustration as to what has happened to American Jewry (even if he is Canadian). There was an incident last week in which a Jewish university student got upset at what a professor said in class and went so far as to accuse this professor of anti-Semitism.

The claim, it seems from the reported account was the student's mistake. The incident was reported in the papers and made headlines, links were posted in Facebook, and everybody condemned the student. And while the incident was regretful, I pointed out that the real concern here should be the fact that students in Universities across the US are complaining about anti-Semitic incidents. Both in class, and on campus. Try Googling "Anti-Semitism on campus" and see the results for yourself. As a matter of fact, it turns out that according to the Department of Education, these students don't have protection under the law on campus because these incidents are defined as religious and not race or national origin based.

And my issue with this problem is that besides the Jewish or Israeli press, nobody ever hears about the incidents. Yet the moment a "Jewish student" appears to cry wolf, its plastered all over the papers, even making it to the Huffington Post. So what's concerning here is that American Jews are more concerned about the fact that a student may have cried wolf, then the fact that Jews are feeling under attack at campuses across the US. And that the media chooses to write about the one incident in which a student may have gone overboard in her accusations, while it has ignored dozens of incidents with real merit. Why is it that the Huffington Post Jew bait for clicks, and the Jewish community doesn't even recognize it as a problem?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, its sad that the Jewish community in the US which is renowned for its liberal values and fighting for the underprivileged and discriminated, not only doesn't raise its voice to support its own children in Universities, it doesn't fight to protect their own interests, and speak up when a real twisting of values and morality is taking place.

And of course, as many of you could have guessed, that leads us to the issue of Israel, the State of the Jews. The single country more maligned in the international media than any other in the world. Constantly and repeatedly being called racist, fascist, Apartheid and whatever demonizing slurs you can think of. I mean, two days ago The Palestinian envoy to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat said "in Washington that the Palestinian Liberation Organization opposes the immediate presence of Jews and gays in an independent Palestinian state." Did you get that? The Palestinian official in Washington said that the Palestinians, who are going to ask for recognition in the UN next week as a state, will refuse to allow Jews and gays as part of that state.

And the best part of it is, that 90% of the world's nations are going to vote to recognize this state, now knowingly, a racist state, in the United Nations when the Palestinians unilaterally tear up every single agreement they've signed with Israel and the international community. And the American Jewish community isn't saying word. That's right, they're more concerned about a single Jewish student who apparently has been made so sensitive to anti-Semitic statements that she accused a professor or anti-Semitism than the fact that next week Israel's once peace partner is going to declare war on Israel in the international courts. For when they get recognized as a state, in ''67 borders' by the international community, it will make every single Israeli living over whatever border they're talking about a violator of international law. And Israel, if it isn't already considered so, will be considered the greatest war criminal since Hitler.

Why? Because the international community doesn't care about Palestinian crimes or political treaties. In fact, yesterday's New York Time, after days of running anti-Israel articles attacking Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for refusing to negotiate (when in fact it’s the Palestinians that are refusing to negotiate), published an article by Israeli journalist Carlos Strenger titled Netanyahu’s Partners, Democracy’s Enemies. And you know what, this same New York Times didn't write a peep about the official representative of the Palestinian people openly admitting, in Washington no less, that the Palestinians want a country free of Jews.

In fact, isn't it interesting how we see a steady stream of anti-Israel articles from Israeli journalists but never, not a single time in the New York Times, or almost anywhere else, see a critical piece by a Palestinian about the Palestinian leadership (or even by a non-Palestinian)? Nope. And don't expect to see articles on the Palestinian habit of voting for non-democratic terrorist organizations. Lest I remind you that the Palestinian people in their first (and only) ever democratic election voted for Hamas, an organization labeled as Terrorist by the international community.

And yet, these same liberal, politically active Jews I grew up with and went to summer camp with are more concerned about being called names when it comes to their own than about politics, morality, and peace. That is, if their saying anything at all. How many of the people I went to Jewish summer camp live in New York ? (quite a few). And how many of them read the New York Times? I'd be interested to know how many of those have called out the NYTimes for their blatantly biased coverage of Israel in the context of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, or the utter and complete lack of critical coverage of the Palestinian government or people.

I mean, next week is not only going to be the Palestinians going to the UN to garner support for their unilateral declaration of a hate state ethnically cleansed of Jews with the support of the international community, the same state they have refused to create, again and again, through negotiations. Next week at the United Nations will also take place a literal orgy of hate known as the Durban conference for Human Rights. And yet everybody knows that the only human rights this conference supports is the human right to hate Israel, and by proxy, Jews.

And yet that doesn't seem to bother many Jews that I know. They're more concerned about how Israel is making them look. They no longer publicly support Israel because it’s a liability. They're ashamed, ashamed to be called "right wing," to be identified as a supporter of "racist Israel." And some of them are actually starting to believe the rhetoric. Israel racist? As compared to what, the US? Iran? The Palestinians? Please. If you actually need to think about it, then you should think hard and long.

And here we come to the sad fact that is the basis for the title of this blogpost. Anybody that has an ounce of critical judgment and honesty and looks at the events in the Middle East. Whether its 1948 and the Arabs refusal to accept partition and create a Palestinian state way back when and launch war against Israel. Whether its regarding the "Freedom Flotilla" whose "Human Rights" activists attacked soldiers with metal rods and knifes, or if it’s the fact that the Palestinians, encouraged by that leader of humanity President Barack Obama who promised the Palestinians a state no matter what, instantly refused to continue on with any pretense of negotiation (all the while both President Obama and the international media continuously and repeatedly blamed Prime Minister Netanyahu for refusing to negotiate), the American Jewish community failed its second most important test in modern history in protecting the Jewish people.

That failure is represented by their inability to stand up and call out the liars, the biased, and those with a political agenda and speak the truth. To challenge their political leaders, their news sources, and their friends when faced with "facts" that are obviously opinions based on a real lack of knowledge and the twisting of history.
And the simple truth of the matter is that the "occupation" is not the result of Israeli intransigence, it is the ongoing, festering symptom of Arab refusal to accept Israel. Which is best exemplified by a Palestinian authority which has now been refusing to negotiate for 18 months, breaking all previous agreements and going for unilateral recognition of a Jew Free state in the UN, with the Kosher stamp of approval by the international community of nations.

For three years I have been fighting a battle, through my blog, through my Facebook page, on twitter. Posting information to try to get those people I know off their satisfied, lazy asses and do something. To speak up. To use their judgment and look past the one sided editorials, to ask themselves why is Israel criticized in a vacuum without any analysis of Palestinian policy or Arab policy for balance. And with the exception of a shining few, I've encountered a big fat failure.

Well I'm sick of the fight. I'm sick trying to get people to action, to speak up. Israel isn't just about the Israelis, this is something every Jew should know, but most don't want to admit to themselves. The global economy is facing an abyss; unemployment in the US is continuing to go up, much higher than the authorities care to admit. Things are starting to get ugly. But American Jews, well they're still comfortable, their bellies are full, and luckily they haven't had to experience the hatred, abuse, violence and discrimination their Russian, Iranian, Egyptian and European brothers have had to experience.

A gentleman I work with is the child of Holocaust survivors. He was born immediately after the war in Czech to his father, whose first wife and kids were exterminated in the holocaust, and shortly after they immediately moved to the states. He once told me how he vividly remembers the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And how his parents were hysterical because they were sure they were going to have pogroms against the Jews (as they would have in their native countries before immigrating to the US). At the time he didn't understand their hysterics. Though today he does. And he also understands the need for a strong and Jewish Israel.
Nobody thinks that the US could deteriorate to that level, and maybe that's true, but then again, maybe its not.

I guess I've failed in my task. I've failed in informing those that matter and that could make a difference to use their judgment and move them to action. Those Rabbis and Educators I know out there that have congregations at their fingertips apparently don't think that Durban III taking place in the next couple of weeks, or the Palestinians looking for a state without a peace agreement, and the criminalization of the entire population of Israel is much of a concern of theirs.

They're not interested in challenging the New York Times by demanding balanced reporting, for apparently in their opinion just maybe the Times or HuffPo or every other media outlet out there is right, Israel is a racist state that's been corrupted by the "occupation," damned history and autocratic, fascist Arab regimes. The Palestinians can unilaterally declare their Jew Free state and that's OK, because they deserve it. Heck, if it's "democratic," like in Egypt, their desire and actions to murder Israelis is also OK, just as long as it’s the will of the people. And just as long as by extension, it doesn't reach America.

This is me saying goodbye good people. I've fought my battle and now its time to live my life, without the bitterness of conflict, without the disappointment, realizing that all those things I was taught growing up in summer camp were just a lot of nice songs and pretty slogans, empty of any meaning. I'll probably continue to post links on Facebook to sooth my conscience or get out some frustration, but the rest is now up to you, and I don't hold out much hope.

Are Israel (and the Jews) Guilty of Racism and Incitement against Muslims?

A horrible event happened a couple of weeks ago. More than 76 people, mostly children were massacred by a deranged terrorist. The victims, mostly immigrants, some presumably Muslim, the terrorist, a white Christian male from one of the most peaceful nations on earth. The terrorist in his manifesto quoted many people from the right-wing blogosphere, including many Jews, and spoke about Israel's struggles in the Middle East.

Barely hours had passed after the attack began, when watching the twitter feeds I began seeing people pointing fingers at Israel. And once it was deterimined that he wasn't a terrorist of the Jihad kind, accusations from across the board began accusing Israel's "incitement against Muslims" for leading this nutjob to conduct his evil deed. And of course, this was accompanied by none other than Iran that also accused the Zionists (codeword for Jews, Israelis, and supporters of Israel) of "fueling rightist sentiment" and "fostering" this attack.

And from Iran, it was to be expected. For in their opinion, Israel's existence is the cause of all terror in the world. When an Iranian police officer pulls the trigger and puts a bullet in a female protester's head in Tehran, the Zionists are behind it. When Syria slaughters thousands of innocents in its cities, they always know who the real culprit is; those dastardly Zionists.

But what's really been an eye opener over the past few weeks hasn't been the that the original assumptions regarding the attack in Oslo was conducted by Al Qaida or some other Islamic terrorist organization, for lets be honest, the vast majority of similar attacks, whether in London, Madrid, Paris, Mumbai, Tel Aviv, or Baghdad, were also conducted by similar if not identical organizations. No, the eye opener is that the mainstream Western Media (led by the New York Times as we'll see below) has been openly and willingly pointing the finger to what they call "incitement," not only by Israel, but by Jews. They are openly accusing "Jewish" racism and suggesting it is Jewish hatred that incited a Norwegian man to massacre Muslim and other dark skinned minorities. And THAT is troubling.

And the funny part of it all is that people are pointing fingers at Israel for warning about Islamic Fundamentalists, as if Israel's warnings are what incited the Muslim and Arab nations to wage war against Israeli in 1948, to repeatedly call for Israel's destruction over the past 65 years, to blow up synagogues in Buenos Aires, Istanbul or Tunisia.

And people are absolutely amazed that Israel, and yes some Jews that support Israel, hold animosity towards Islam and the Arab world. I mean, if you lived in Israel and you've been being attacked by Muslim and Arab nations for 65 years, six wars, hundreds of suicide terrorist bombings targeting your children, open calls by these nations for your death and destruction, and all typically in the name of Islam, don't you think you might hold a little bit of animosity towards them too?

Or can it really all be chalked up to racism as Roger Cohen in the New York times claims in his piece titled The Racist Scourge. In this article, he uses his childhood in Apartheid South Africa (hint, Israel, Apartheid, oppressors, racists) to make the connection and illustrate how Jews "seemed to have forgotten that not being a race but a religion had scarcely saved Jews from racist persecution." (Another hint, its Jewish racism that's the source of the world's ills.) I guess he proves his own point, he's Jewish, and a racist, a Jewish racist that hates Jews unless they think like him.

And it goes even further than that. As a matter of fact just a few days earlier the New York Times posted a five page expose` titled The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement in which their primary villain was one, and I quote "David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew." And if that wasn't enough, they posted a large photo this "Hasidic Jew" smack on the top of the homepage. You can see the photo by clicking this link.

The piece went to list a litany of accusations which all boil down to one thing: Mr Yerushalmi (can't miss this guy's religion with that last name), the Hasidic Jew, has conducted "an orchestrated drive..." to cast "Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war." Indeed they even go as far as to bluntly state that this Hasidic Jew exercises a "striking influence over American public discourse." (Hint: attributing to Jews some magic ability to influence government or discourse is typically perceived as anti-Semitism.).

This article plays on so many sterotypes and archetypes it's downright scary.

And of course, once again, nobody bothers to address what role Islam has played in the regular terrorist attacks we've seen conducted by self-declared Islamic organizations in London, Paris, Madrid, the 9/11 attacks, Israel, and much more. Nobody dares to suggest that the very attacks which have targeted innocent civilians in cities around the world executed in the name of Islam, is what has led people to be fearful and hate Muslims. Nope, it seems its blame the Jews, again, this time in the New York Times.

But apparently in the mainstream Western Media, while its perfectly acceptable to accuse an "Hasidic Jew" of orchestrating a drive against Islam and of exercising influence (notice use of the active tense, different than "holding influence as one might possess from earning other's respect, exercising suggests manipulation, putting pressure on, using threats, etc.), it is not acceptable to make the connection between the terrorists and their belief system, one in which they make themselves. Dare to suggest a link between Islam and terrorist attacks made in the name of Islam, and you’re a racist.

One has to wonder, just who's inciting here? The Hasidic Jew, or the New York Times?

Then we have Germany's Der Spiegel, which in a piece referred to here examined the actions, ideology, and "inspiration" for the attacks in Oslo, and then compared it up against what they call Israel's "right-wing government." If you can't make the connection I'll help you: They're suggesting that Israel's "incitement against Islam and "fascist right-wing" parliament members are both capable of and ready to commit similar atrocities against Palestinians and any others that get in their way. That may seem to some like a stretch, But you can be relatively certain that's what they are suggesting.

So the bottom line? If you buy into the propaganda, it would seem that Israel, with the assistance of Jews, have created an atmosphere of hate and animosity against Muslims. Through the years of warnings about Islam, persevering in actions such as trying to get the UN to condemn nations like Iran and Syria, and in sounding warning bells about Islamic fundamentalism, they have brainwashed a poor white man to murder 76 children with dark skin in what is otherwise the most peaceful nation on the planet.

And indeed, if this incitement continues, more nutjobs will kill other children, and its all because Israel and the Jews have warned about Islam. And has nothing to do with the actions that some belonging to the Islamic faith have done themselves, and openly, in the name of Islam.

But being serious, it might not be politically correct to say it. But neither Israel nor Jews are responsible for the animosity against Islam and Muslims. Israel and Israeli animosity towards the Arab world doesn't come out of racism, it comes from 65 years of bitter conflict and from being hunted by Israel's enemies (typically Muslim and Arab states).

The world has more than enough hatred for foreigners and those that are different from themselves, and some of the Islamic faith have conducted more than enough events in the past few decades to lead people to hate them without Jewish or Israeli incitement. And if you don't think 9/11 led tens of millions of people to hate, or be afraid of Islam, as ignorant as that may be, then you're simply not objectively looking at human nature.

So prominently portraying Jews as purveyors of racism and hatred as the New York Times has done is nothing less than incitement and anti-Semitism. But apparently, in today's world, anti-semitism (or as they call it in some circles anti-zionism) isn't only fashionable, it’s becoming a leading school of thought.

An Open Letter to Rabbi Eric Yoffie

In your piece The Palestinians are at fault, but so what?, you ask a friend of yours "what now," after stating that plainly the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected any agreement or compromise with Israel.

You seem to be at a loss as to how your friend Shmuel, as you call him, rants and raves about how it's unfair how the world treats Israel. And you express your genuine concern for Israel as its international standing deteriorates, concerned about economic sanctions, and even the possibility that the world may in the end demand a one state solution if no real progress towards an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is made.

You seem incredulous that your friend Shmuel feels that the "current situation can go on indefinitely," as you state, and admirably you wring your hands in frustration of the coming tsunami of political, economic, and military pressure that is bound to be applied to Israel with the coming unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

What frustrates you most is that with all of his bemoaning of the current situation, Shmuel has no suggestion, no plan of action, no proposal of what to do. Finally, you end by stating that Israel "needs a plan." Yet you yourself decline to propose one. However, we all know that the only "plan" out there that anybody bothers to suggest is further one-sided Israeli concessions to an already dead horse of a peace process.

We both know that the Palestinians have refused to even negotiate over the past two and half years, as President Obama as slowly attempted to take the situation into his own hands and for all practical purposes negotiate for the Palestinians, all the while making concessions in the name of Israel, which resulted in a culmination of speeches we saw last week, with Prime Minister Netanyahu reclaiming what President Obama attempted to give away in Israel's name.

And sadly, many liberal Jews who feel a tremendous guilt about the occupation, sympathize with President Obama's steps, if not fully support them. Because to them, cause doesn't matter, and justice for Israel doesn't matter, what matters is their sympathy towards a people that have lived under occupation, of one form or another, since before the British. And many of these people believe there needs to be peace, at any price. That the Palestinians need to be liberated from the yolk of occupation, at any price. But most Israelis aren't willing to pay any price, for what we perceive as just another Southern Lebanon, another Gaza, just waiting to happen. And this is our land, our country, where we work, raise our children, and live our lives. And it is us and our politicians that will decide whether we've offered enough, not those that don't live in this land, and in all due respect, not the President of the United States.

Unfortunately Rabbi Yoffie, there are no easy answers, and to the great disappointment of the Israeli left, at this time, there is also no new proposal that the Israelis can make to draw the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. For as Mr. Netanyahu noted in his speech to AIPAC, and to the US congress, the Palestinians have yet to accept a Jewish state. And with President Obama's guarantee of a Palestinian state, and with support from around the world, Mr. Abbas also has no need to sign any agreement or make any concessions.

The plan you are so desperate to find? That wonderful, creativity and ingenuity that the whole world attributes to the Jewish state? Israel has no more to offer in a conflict in which those that we need to make peace with refuse to accept us. And it's not a matter of how much we're willing to give. Everybody has known exactly how much Israel has been willing to give, since Camp David 2 in which Yasser Arafat walked away from Ehud Barak's offer and started the second Intifada.

Though you are indeed correct that we are at a critical time Rabbi Yoffie. One in which the world is looking ominous, even without the problems of Israel and the Middle East conflict. And as you so deftly noted, Israel is going to face many challenges in the coming months. Facebook organized protests with tens of thousands of Arabs trying to infiltrate Israel from all its borders. Hamas getting stronger with Egypt now having opened the Rafiah crossing, the next flotilla scheduled to leave Turkey shortly with more than a dozen boats including the Mavi Marmara, and of course, the coming Palestinian declaration of a state, and subsequent vote in the UN.

Israel, through Prime Minister Netanyahu has told the world what needs to happen for honest, sincere negotiations to take place. First and foremost, we want to know we have a genuine partner for peace. A man like Anwar Sadat, who made it a point to convince the Israeli people that he was looking for a genuine peace. For as Prime Minister Netanyahu so eloquently noted, Israel only gets one chance for real peace.

The time has come Rabbi Yoffie for you and the American Jewish community to decide just where you stand, and if it is on Israel's side, to take a stand. Israel, now more than ever needs the support of the international Jewish community, and particularly that of the American community, to stand up in the face of ongoing delegitimization, and the attempts to force Israel to make non-reciprocated concessions. The plan Rabbi Yoffie, is to take a stand, and demand from the world justice, not just for the Palestinians, who are but a symptom of the greater Arab Israeli conflict, but justice for Israel. It is not to keep throwing Israeli bargaining chips into the bottomless pit of failed negotiations. That is not a plan, that is a desperate act of those that have no plan.

We need your support. We need your Rabbis and your Educators to speak to their congregants. We need organized canvassing to make the Jewish voice heard. For it's been quiet for so long. American Jews want to keep a low profile, and raise their children, and live their lives in peace, just like Israel's Jews want. Only America's Jews have an advantage, they don't have to fight for that right. The American Jewish community was never afraid to make their voice heard. We stood up for the rights of the African Americans in the 60s. So its difficult to understand why they don't stand up now.

If you really believe in the facts as you set them down in your article, then you know that you must stand up for Israel, for you know that for all its flaws and mistakes, Israel's attempts at peace have indeed been genuine, and what has been dishonest are the attacks on Israel's efforts, integrity and intentions.

There is no other time, now is the time to organize, to take a stand, and to tell the world that you support Israel. With a genuine partner Israel will be willing to make compromises. But without one we shall stand against the world, come what may. And if you and your communities remain silent and unsure in this critical time, the world, and Israel's future will be very dark.

Now is the time to speak truth to power, to disprove the propaganda, to take back the debate, to stand up and make your voice heard. Now is the time to make a difference. For you never know when you may get another chance.

The New York Times Propagating Anti-Jewish Sentiment? Time to Boycott?

Well I suppose it was bound to happen. The New York Times has finally done it. They crossed the line into anti-Jewish sentiment, which is really just one step away from Anti-Semitic rhetoric. You're probably saying to yourself "really?" Would the New York Times really shoot themselves in the foot by doing something so impulsive, so stupid? The answer would have to be a resounding yes.

What was it that drew my attention? It was a tag line to an article which read "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support." Unfortunately I didn't have enough foresight to take a screenshot of the homepage when I saw it, with the tagline that appeared in the upper right hand side of the page where links to editorials are usually posted. But that's really just academic, seeing how they have left the article itself intact (if they change it I have downloaded the page and taken screen shots of the article).

The piece, currently titled "The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse" contains the sentence "Pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade." So it's hardly a stretch that some greenhorn online web editor trying to grab attention would state what they did in the tagline for the piece.

But the real kicker is that in a tweet exchange between myself and one Andy Rosenthal, apparently a New York Times editor, perhaps the very one that wrote this editorial, he tries to not so cleverly deny it. While my first tweet may have mistakenly stated that the line Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support was the title. It was not. That line was the tag line that accompanied title. So why would Mr. Rosenthal deny it? Was he just nitpicking? I have a hard time believing his argument is simply semantic.

Indeed, after I posted a tweet that stated @NYTimes publishing editorials with anti-Jewish undertones? Has the time arrived to start a #boycott? #AIPAC2011, I think somebody woke up to the fact that indeed, Houston, they have a problem. In their minds, the problem is probably that some intern web editor posted something that might cause them trouble. What they really don't realize is that this little slip of the tongue was Freudian, for lack of a better word. And that indeed, the very wording indicated a much deeper problem that they are most likely completely unaware of, something I'll examine in more detail shortly.

Indeed, it gives critical insight into the editorial mind behind the New York Times, and the political agenda that drives it. That unspoken guideline by which anybody who wants to write for the New York Times needs to follow, as described by Noam Chomsky in his book Manufacturing Consent. And that guideline is, if I can speculate, that Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support. But why would Washington need to pander to Jews for their support? Unless, oh maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms, but the Times has given me no choice, unless the driving ideology that guides the Times believes that somehow, the Jews have so much power that they control Washington? Now where have we all heard that one?

I think my delicate nuance has provided enough information to direct anybody in the know to the next logical assumption.

Unfortunately, this leads to two issues which need addressing. One is a sad reflection on the state of the New York Times, and the other is a concerning reflection on society in general in its liberal approach to criticizing Jews.

• The sad item is, most likely, the Times doesn't realize just how far off the wall they've gone. Much like Thomas Friedman calling on Palestinians to march on Jerusalem every week as opposed to simply take the same step that Binyamin Netanyahu took, as he noted in his speech, two years ago. Which is to state that they (the Palestinians) will recognize a Jewish state. What Mr. Friedman has suggested is an act that, far from convincing Israel that it would need to make more non-reciprocated concessions and give the Palestinians a state, would cause the Israelis to be even more frightened of the Palestinians, any agreement, and any concessions, and most likely lead to bloodshed. But seeing how Mr. Friedman is adopting the tactics of the dictator Bashar Assad, I think we can write him off as an irrelevant, incapable has been Middle East correspondent.


• The concerning item, is that as we've seen over the past few months, the blurring of lines between anti-Israel rhetoric and blaming Jews, or attributing to them some greater power, or the acceptance of dinner table anti-Semitism, which are all becoming the norm, if not downright fashionable. Whether its CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez, ex White House Press Corps Secretary Helen Thomas, fashion guru John Galliano, Danish Director Lars von Trier at the Cannes Film Festival, or Oliver Stone, there just seems to be a deluge of people from all walks that feel expressing hatred of Jews or attributing to them super human powers in an evil mission to suppress the truth has become, well, every day.

So when borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric reaches the front page of the New York Times website (even if its only for twenty minutes until someone takes note of a poor man's tweet from half way around the world), its about time we stand up and say "enough." Binyamin Netanyahu is invited to congress, gives a fabulous speech which represents the positions of the majority of Israelis, and connects with the representatives of the American people, and the New York Times attributes it to the desire of these same politicians to pander to the Jewish vote, because as the New York Times knows, only the Jews vote in America, isn't that right Mr. Rosenthal?

Why is it that the New York Times can't believe that these representatives were actually representing the beliefs of their constituents, and expressing their own whole hearted agreement with what Mr. Netanyahu said? Heck, I'm sure I could probably troll the hate sites and by this time find hundreds if not thousands of comments to the fact that "the New York Times admits that the American congress bowed to their real leader." Is that what you really meant New York Times?

As many of us that have watched the New York Times over the past couple years have come to understand, the paper is no longer a bastion of objective reporting. No, they have an ideological agenda that matches that of President Obama, in which apparently, the Palesitnians are to be given a state at any cost. That damn the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Baharain, Yemen, and others, (which barely get a token mention every few weeks in the NYTimes) it is the Israelis that are criminals for "occupying" the Palestinians, who I may add have yet to recognize a Jewish state no less agree to partition, which the Arab world rejected in 1947 before there was ever a Palestinian people, just people they called Palestinians relating to the native population without distinction between Jew and Arab.

When the New York Times slides into borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric, even if a large number of its readers and subscribers are themselves Jewish, it would seem to be the time to begin a boycott movement. The owners and editors of the New York Times need to be told that they need to clean up their act. Stop working as a mouthpiece for a political agenda, start writing objective news, and stop taking sides. And most important, wake up to the fact that whether it is an conscious, agenda driven process or an unconscious one, they are sliding further down the hole of that dark art of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and contributing, much like Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Oliver Stone and the others, to a global environment that blames the Jews.

I have not decided how active I am going to pursue this. But in the meantime, I strongly suggest that the New York Times write up a Journalistic Code of Conduct that will help them bring an end to the nasty turn their editorial line has taken, print a front page apology, and show they are taking concrete steps to pull themselves out of the cesspool and back into the world of journalistic integrity (though if they ever manage it they'll probably be pretty lonely there too).

If you find this issue concerning I suggest you join in writing to the editor, informing them you shall terminate visits to their web site and terminate subscription to their services, until they have remedied this most ominous of developments. That you will share the information I have provided above with friends and family, and suggest they do the same.

And with that said, the below is a sample of tweets from my exchange with Mr. Rosenthal.

Immediately after seeing the New York Times homepage with tagline Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support, I posted the following tweet.



I followed this tweet with a number of others including one that asks if the time for boycotting the New York Times.

About 20 minutes later I returned to the NY Times homepage to find the link and tagline gone, even though the link I had posted on my Facebook account still led to the article. I thought, OK, perhaps I had a small victory. And I posted the following Tweet:



Shortly thereafter I was mentioned in the following Tweet:



Me and Mr. Rosenthal had a further exchange where he said "@RichardTelAviv Oh. Yes, that is a sentence in the editorial. It wasn't the title. Was confused. In any case, we didn't remove it.. And finally closed the thread with "@RichardTelAviv We change our homepage all the time, every day. BTW, if you wish to keep up a dialogue, stop the insults. Thanks.

I sent one last tweet saying @andyrNYT Insulting? Moi? I'm not the 1 that said "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support." Being Jewish I find that insulting and concerning.

And with that, I leave everybody to their conscience.