You people - christian and jewish zionists have decieved American and the American taxpayer to send over 150billion in aid to Israel and now they disrespect our President - your a traitor.

Very nice. This is, of course, mild, compared to some of the virulently hateful anti-Semitic comments I receive.

Since when has disagreeing with the President been considered disrespectful? I’ve always believed that a vigorous and open political debate is the hallmark of a free society. Also, since when is disagreeing with the President the equivalent of being a traitor? That may have been the case in the old Soviet Union and it may still be in Cuba today, but not in the United States.

Then let’s look at what this person had to say. Israel receives less than $3 billion a year in US aid, $2.4 billion of which is military aid, not $150 billion. President Obama’s 2010 budget calls for $2.8 billion in aid to Israel. According to the Congressional Research Service total aid to Israel, from the creation of the state in 1948 until 2007 was $101 billion. In other words, his number is from fantasy land, not the real world. He or she also neglects to mention that a large portion of aid is in the form of loan guarantees which Israel repays with interest.

What does the United States get for that aid? First there is almost completely unrestricted access to Israeli intelligence, the best there is in the Middle East. Second is the access to Israeli technology which is used extensively by the U.S. military. Third is the guaranteed availability of an entire (admittedly small) country as a base if ever the United States military wanted to use it. The U.S. also has been able to veto technology sales it doesn’t like. The Clinton administration encouraged Israeli technology sales to China, including some military technology. When President Bush decided that Israel should make no further sales the Israeli government complied despite the loss of billions in revenue.

“You people”, all us awful Jewish and Christian Zionists, are a majority of the American people, and a solid majority at that. According to recent polls 80% of Americans see Israel as an ally and nearly two thirds say they support Israel. Meanwhile President Obama’s latest approval rating is at 48% according to the latest Rasmussen Reports number. Maybe the majority of Americans are really “traitors” too.

Nobody has fooled the American people. The American people have made choices and the government has acted on them precisely because support for Israel is in the American interest. It’s a pity some people are so blinded by their prejudices that they make up numbers and throw around accusations without bothering about little things like facts.

Pesach is also about the food! Really good homemade matzo ball soup is to die for.  I’ve also have some Israeli chocolate this year and some triple dipped bittersweet chocolate covered matzoh.

I’ll be back during Hol Hamoed with more to say.  I’m sorry I haven’t been able to post as frequently as I’d like.  I’m also going to see if I can contact some of the old Blogs of Zion writers and get them to post occasionally again. With Israel under unprecedented pressure and so much misinformation out there we need more Zionist voices giving the other side of the story.

With the exception of a seven year period in the sixth century when the Persians restored Jewish sovereignty, the Jewish people were denied a homeland from 70 C.E. until 1948. During that time the Jewish people suffered pogroms, expulsions, mass murder, persecution, and assorted other forms of denial of basic human rights. Throughout that time the Jewish people prayed for one thing consistently: “Next year in Jerusalem.” It’s part of the Passover seder, the ceremonial feast, which the world’s Jewish population will celebrate in two weeks time.

Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, is a Zionist prayer in song, a prayer for a Jewish home in the land of Zion and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is stressed and is in the refrain, the only part of the anthem which is repeated. Here is a translation of the lyrics:

As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul still yearns,
And onward, towards the ends of the east,
An eye still gazes toward Zion;

Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

These words, taken from a poem and set to music in 1888, are the essence of Zionism. More, they are the essence of Jewish national and cultural identity.

In recent days some have said that Prime Minister Netanyahu, and indeed the nation of Israel as a whole, will eventually have to make a choice between concessions which amount to surrendering sovereignty over much of Jerusalem or the friendship between Israel and the United States. Actually, that is no choice at all. Jews simply will not surrender sovereignty over Jerusalem. Those, particularly in the United States, who argue that we should include Jews who have somehow become divorced from their traditions, culture, their very identity as Jews. If we have to say goodbye to those people and say goodbye to support from the White House then that is what we will do.

Notice that I have made this argument without even once referring to Jewish and Christian religious beliefs. Of course it is religion which makes Jerusalem holy to Jews, just as Mecca is holy to Muslims and the Vatican is holy to Catholics. These beliefs, which the majority of Americans happen to share, are also being challenged by the White House. That has never been a recipe for much political support.

During Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence my father fought to lift the siege of Jerusalem. To him a Jewish state and the city of Jerusalem was worth fighting for. I can’t say my views are any different. Israel survived against what seemed like impossible odds without any American help then. If need be it will do so again.

Anyone who insists that Israel should offer sovereignty as a concession prior to any negotiations for peace, with nothing in return, is asking Israel to surrender. What is the point of a Jewish state if not to maintain Jewish identity and hold on to what is precious to the Jewish people? Anyone who demands such a thing is no friend of Israel or the Jewish people, even if they can claim to be Jewish by birth. Oh, and yes, that includes the Obama Administration and anyone within the administration who insists that Israel not build in Ramat Shlomo or anywhere else in our holy city and capital.

“Jewish cemeteries and synagogues have been repeatedly defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti, and a chapel at another Jewish burial site in Malmö was firebombed last January”

Fredrik Sieradzki of the Jewish Community of Malmö is pessimistic about the future of his community unless there is a “complete change in attitude.” That seems unlikely in Sweden.

While various and sundry media reports claim that the U.K. has the highest level of anti-Semitism in Europe, Sweden cannot be far behind. For example, Sweden’s daily newspaper with the largest circulation, Aftonbladet, reported last August that Israel was murdering young Palestinians and harvesting their organs. The report is yet another piece of blood libel worthy of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. The reaction by the Swedish government, including Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, to Israeli outrage caused a serious rift in relations between the two countries. In a detailed report published last month, Mikael Tossavainen chronicles the events, the subsequent fallout, and the consequences of the Aftonbladet piece.

The diplomatic crisis is, to me, a secondary issue. Much more serious are the impact on public opinion. How many people believed the story? How many used it to further hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism in general? Just last week I reported that an anti-Semitic blogger claimed that Israel’s aid to Haiti after the earthquake last month was a ruse to allow for the harvesting of organs there. Last August Nathalie Rothschild wrote a piece for Spiked Online that started with this premise:

“An article about the IDF stealing organs suggests ancient myths are becoming acceptable again in polite society.”

That certainly seems to be the case in Sweden.

Yossi Klein Halevi, in a September article for Jewish World review makes a point that sums up the situation perfectly:

“Accusations like the Swedish blood libel aren’t just a threat to Israel’s good name, but could become a physical threat to Jews everywhere. The Israeli “crimes” raised by Aftonbladet are precisely the kind of rationale used by terrorists to incite violence against Jews. In the current atmosphere, where the most inconceivable conspiracy theories involving Jews are readily believed by millions in the Muslim world, Aftonbladet’s recklessness is, potentially, an incitement to murder.”

The problem is far more widespread than just the Muslim world. Violent anti-Semitism is becoming a worldwide epidemic.

The former Israeli ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, noted that the Aftonbladet incident is hardly unique, but rather reflects a trend across Sweden and, indeed, all of western Europe.

“In the last two decades, Israel has been indiscriminately attacked by European governments while the European press routinely distorts information coming from the Middle East. The Swedish press has been at the forefront of this trend, and with the article published last week by Aftonbladet it has clearly gone over the bend. About 80 percent of the newspapers there, especially the four national papers in Stockholm and hundreds of papers in the countryside, which set the tone in Sweden, are connected in some way to the Social Democrat movement and the trade unions, both of which are anti-Israel. There is a kind of dictatorship of the Social Democrats over the press in Sweden.

We have to face the facts. Israel cannot keep ignoring the onslaught coming from Europe, especially Western Europe and the EU countries. This demonizing of Israel is a very real threat that must be taken seriously.”

Lets look at the consequences of the demonization of Israel: Jews in Malmö now feel they must flee for their lives. Hatred of Israel is the justification for anti-Semitic attacks across Europe and the Americas as well. I have to conclude that those who routinely claim that constant criticism of Israel doesn’t equate to anti-Semitism are simply ignoring the facts and the consequences of their words.

Anti-Semitism in Europe is now reported to be at the highest level since World War II. The very people who hate Israel make it clear that now, more than ever, a safe, secure Israel is vital to the survival of the Jewish people. It remains a refuge for Jews who are reviled and persecuted the world over.

Here is another CNN story about Israeli rescue efforts. Even some in the Arab media covered the story. Here is what Palestinian-American journalist Ray Hanania had to say:

“200,000 Haitians died in an earthquake. They sent doctors and supplies to help. That is a good thing. Just because we are fighting with Israel doesn’t mean we should sneer at that assistance to people in need. YES, I wish Israel could show the same compassion for Palestinians. But Israel and Haiti are not at war and Israelis and Palestinians (mainly Hamas and the settlers) are.”

Despite this some have used the IDF efforts in Haiti as an excuse to bash Israel according to an article in Ha’aretz published on January 21. Those who hate Israel accuse the Jewish state of giving aid not out of concern for the suffering in that country, but rather for ulterior motives:

“…for a shocking number of others, the bottom line is simple: Israel, and Israelis, can do no right. In its most extreme there are those who have accused Israel of using the Haiti catastrophe as a new reservoir for harvesting organs.

But even many of those who shun blood libels, have seized on the Haiti mission to bash Israel, revealing in many cases a hatred - and a bigotry - that borders on the visceral.

‘I guess giving Israel credit for good deeds in Haiti,’ wrote reader John Smithson on the widely read Mondoweiss site, ‘is like watching a serial killer or other sociopathic type mow an old woman’s lawn (or some other charitable thing).’

This sort of reaction is not surprising giving the almost daily anti-Israel diatribes found on that website. The Ha’aretz article continues:

“The contention is that Israel sent aid to Haiti on purely cynical motives […] it is nothing short of racism to maintain, in Haiti and in general, that Israelis can do no right.

In his book The Case For Peace, Alan Dershowitz claims that many of the supporters of the Palestinians in the West are “more Palestinian than the Palestinians” and that their hatred of and vitriol towards Israel is far greater than what is found among Palestinian Arabs. This latest round of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred, complete with blood libel which would make the authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion proud, is a prime example. No Israeli deed, no matter how noble, will go unpunished by those who truly hate the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

I know many in the world see the United States as hopelessly biased in Israel’s favor. The British, on the other hand, have not exactly had warm relations with Israel lately and, indeed, the U.K. has been the country with the highest level of anti-Semitism in Europe. Perhaps the testimony of a high ranking British military officer will be a bit more convincing.

Colonel Richard Kemp served as commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. He previously has served as a commander in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia. UN Watch has provided not only video of his October 16, 2009 testimony but also translations into nine languages. Here are some of his most salient points:

“During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

[…]

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.”

I urge everyone to read or watch Col. Kemp’s full testimony and pass it on to anyone who quotes the Goldstone report as some sort of evidence of Israeli war crimes.

A moment of truth is arriving on the Iran Issue. Western countries will have to face up to the fact that there are only really two choices with Iran: one, a military strike, effectively preventing the country from continuing to expand its nuclear capacity; or, secondly, learning to live with such a capacity.”

Up to this point Zakaria was 100% correct in his assessment. The current talks with the Iranian regime have produced no concrete results and based on comments by the Iranian government they never will. I can understand why President Obama wants to give diplomacy every reasonable chance at success. If nothing else it provides the U.S., and perhaps by extension Israel, some diplomatic cover with the rest of the West when the inevitable war with Iran comes.

Zakaria went on to describe some of the consequences of a strike by either the U.S. or Israel on Iran. Once again he was spot on:

Now, I think striking Iran would have the first effect of uniting the country behind the regime. It happens in every country that is attacked from abroad. George W. Bush’s approval ratings on September 10, 2001, were around 40 percent. In one month, after 9/11, they had risen to 93 percent. Iranian dissidents warn that the day after an American attack or an Israeli attack, they would all have to come out in support of the regime.

The political spillover from such an attack in Arab countries would also be large, and the military spillover in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iran still funds militias, would probably take the lives of American and European soldiers. The price of oil would skyrocket, and, at best, such a military strike would delay the Iranian program, not end it, and probably delay it by just a few years.

It’s all true. Indeed, the consequences to both Israel and some Sunni Arab nations, which Iran would likely attack to disrupt oil supplies, would be very high indeed. Let’s also not forget the loss of innocent lives among Iranian civillians. Iran has placed it’s nuclear and missile launching facilities in populated areas. Yes, the cost of a war with Iran will be terrible for all involved and many nations will get dragged in.

The rest of Zakaria’s analysis is seriously flawed. Worse, it seems to reflect and reinforce the thinking of some in the Obama adminstration, which makes it downright dangerous. Zakaria continued:

Is it possible to live with a nuclear Iran? I would argue yes. Living with it is not a passive option. Iran’s behavior will make it possible to maintain, perhaps even expand, sanctions on it. It will strengthen western resolve and, more importantly, make most Arab states ally themselves far more closely with the United States and Europe than ever before. The great strategic threat in the region would no longer be Israel but Iran.

These countries, the Arab countries, would make vigorous efforts to contain Iran’s influence militarily and politically, as would western nations. We could press for more sanctions, inspections of all kinds. And, finally, Israel’s vast nuclear arsenal, 250 nuclear weapons by most accounts, plus that of the United States would act as a deterrent on Iran. It would not use its nuclear weapons because it would clearly trigger an overwhelming response.

This is not a perfect option. But, in the real world, it seems to me a far more sensible one than a gamble that attacking Iran would solve this problem.

I don’t believe for one moment that the Islamic religious fanatics who run the Iranian regime would be deterred by Israel’s weaponry or any likely retaliation.

Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, often referred to as a “moderate” in the press, called for a nuclear attack on Israel on December 14, 2001. His comments included the following:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

We are all aware of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s repeated calls to destory Israel. For the Iranian leadership this is an ideological and religious imperatives. Against such imperatives conventional deterrence simply does not work.

Zakaria went on to interview three “distinguished experts”, none of whom expressed the idea that Israel may have no choice but to preemptively strike Iran to avoid their own destruction. When PBS’ Newshour With Jim Lehrer has a panel on issues like this they make sure to have all views represented. Even unabashedly left-wing MSNBC has had balanced panels where the idea that Israel may have absolutely no choice but to act if it is to survive has been clearly voiced. Not so on CNN. I couldn’t help but remember a discussion some years ago on CNN hosted by Christiane Amanpour where her idea of differing viewpoints, left and right, meant that she had Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration National Security Advisor, a Democrat, and Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor to President George H. W. Bush, a Republican, as her guests. Both men are notoriously anti-Israel and spent significant parts of the segment complementing each other’s analysis of why everything wrong in the Middle East is Israel’s fault. Zakaria’s guests weren’t so blatant but none disagreed with Zakaria’s analysis.

In his next segment Zakaria went on to interview Judge Richard Goldstone of the infamous Goldstone report, a report widely seen as denying Israel any reasonable right of self-defense.

CNN no longer seems to be engaging in the in-your-face anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks like the August, 2007 two hour “Special Investigations” piece called “G-d’s Jewish Warriors“, also hosted by Christiane Amanpour. They have learned to be slightly more subtle. Still, there is no mistaking the purpose of a program that first presents the awful consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran and then trots out the Goldstone Report, no matter how reasonable and erudite the smiling Mr. Zakaria may seem.

CNN may be willing to gamble the lives of 7.28 million Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, on the belief that the Iranian regime is sane and can be deterred. They may be willing to gamble the lives of my family in Israel. Americans should not be. First, friends don’t ask friends to die in a nuclear holocaust. Second, once Israel is gone, can some attempt to destroy “The Great Satan” be far behind? Didn’t President Ahmedinejad chair a conference on the world without the United States? If deterrence doesn’t work as Mr. Zakaria suggests it would what would the consequences for all of the West be?

We need to remember CNN’s long history of anti-Israel bias and take all their reporting on the Iranian nuclear threat with an appropriately large grain of salt. We need to remember that the CNN agenda will undoubtedly include blaming Israel for any and all consequences of a conflict with Iran.

In case you haven’t following the news the British are increasingly boycotting Israeli goods and services. Major British trade unions have been boycotting Israel since 2007. AISH has published an alarming report about the rise of anti-Semitism, not just anti-Zionism, in the UK and how it is no longer taboo to express hatred and loathing for the Jewish people in Britain. Even the BBC, which has repeatedly stoked the flames of anti-Semitism with its strong anti-Israel bias, reported a record rise in UK anti-Semitism in the first half of this year. In the spring of last year Hebrew University historian Robert S. Wistrich, who was himself educated at Cambridge Univesity stated, ”Britain has become the center for the meeting of anti-Semitic trends in Europe.” The sharp rise in anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic attacks in Britain has been reported every year since 2005.

So.. if the British hate me and my family just because we are Jewish why should I support them, their businesses and their economy? If the British hate Israel, where much of my family lives, with a passion, why on earth would I want to send my hard earned money to that dispicable country? I’d rather buy American or Israeli products. When it comes to products that aren’t made or grown in the U.S. or Israel, like tea, then I’ll support almost anybody else before I’ll support the UK. I’m enjoying a wonderful cup of Blooming apricot flavored black tea from China right now.

Please follow the links I’ve provided and read up on this for yourself. If you’re Jewish, a supporter of Israel, or just plain think that anti-Semitism is as disgusting as any other form of ethnic or religious intolerance or racism, please join me in this boycott.

Here is wishing all Blogs of Zion readers a happy, healthy and sweet new year.

Oboler’s report notes that Facebook’s terms regarding hate speech have been repeatedly watered down, most recently in a May, 2009 overhaul. Yet in the latest revision, dated August 28, 2009, there is still a very clear prohibition:

You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

There is an additional prohibition which may well apply:

You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

Dr. Oboler’s report notes previous complaint by a grassroots Jewish organization, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force), who, in turn, noted laws against Holocaust denial:

The JIDF letter went into further detail noting that Holocaust denial is illegal in thirteen countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland. They also pointed out the strictness of laws in Germany, Austria, and Romania and that “any group that denies the occurrence of the Holocaust is violating the laws of these nations.” The JIDF also argued that “German law also outlaws anything associated with Nazism. So any group that has Nazi symbols and such should be taken down.” In additional to national law the JIDF referred to European Union law and specifically Joint action/96/443/JHA,24 which requires countries to make Holocaust denial “punishable as a criminal offence.”

Oboler adds:

Other countries, such as Australia and Canada, which do not specifically prohibit Holocaust denial still prohibit public hate speech. […] Holocaust denial is a special case under international law. It is recognized as hate speech internationally. There are calls from the United Nations down for all efforts to be taken to eliminate Holocaust denial, which is both a serious defamation against the Jewish people and a tool to promote new hate against the Jewish people through conspiracy theories.

The Facebook pages in question do appear to violate the laws of at least 15 nations and the European Union as a whole. Despite clear prohibitions against hate and illegal, misleading or discriminatory activity Facebook continues to allow and indeed defend pages that violate it’s own terms.

The problem goes beyond Holocaust denial motivated by and encouraging anti-Semitism. A May 12 article in Business Week noted:

Facebook has come under attack in the past for hosting anti-Gypsy groups. The site currently contains several groups defending “white pride.”

I don’t think many people would doubt that “white pride” pages on Facebook or elsewhere on the internet are overtly racist. As such they clearly violate the prohibition against “discriminatory” content and yet, much like the Holocaust denial pages, they continue to be hosted on Facebook.

Dr. Oboler also points out that in the United States the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is not absolute:

The first is that U.S. laws governing protected speech do not apply to private spaces such as Facebook. Any concerns Facebook employees or managers have about the first amendment are misplaced, or are being deliberately misused to confuse the public.

In other words, it is up to Facebook to decide what to include and exclude from their privately owned website. The First Amendment doesn’t force Facebook or anyone else to host content they consider objectionable. Another limitation which may apply more to some of the “white pride” content than to Holocaust denial are laws in the U.S. prohibiting incitement to violence. These laws have repeatedly been upheld as Constitutional by the courts. Libel and defamation are also not protected speech in the United States. Despite these facts Facebook has repeatedly defended these pages on the basis of free speech and the First Amendment. Dr. Oboler also believes that the First Amendment can’t be used as a shield against the laws of other nations or international law since the free speech protections do not apply to private space.

Dr. Oboler claims that the issue is a moral and ethical question for Facebook. He also notes that negative publicity, unflattering press, anger in the blogosphere, and all forms of public pressure have failed to motivate Facebook to take action against what is clearly and undeniably hate speech.

While Dr. Oboler’s new report highlights the problem without proposing remedies, he did advocate a specific solution in an op-ed piece published in The Guardian (UK) on July 13:

The internet requires regulation, just as film, television and computer games do. If companies such as Facebook abdicate that responsibility, it suggests government intervention is needed to prevent an internet-powered surge in racial hatred. The spread of racism and hate is not something that can be left to chance or the whims of the private sector. Working against hate, bullying and racism must be part of the price companies pay when they offer an online social environment as their product.

Advocating government mandated censorship of the internet generally brings out the most unusual of political alliances in the United States. It is opposed by everyone from the ACLU on the left to conservative evangelical Christian groups on the right. Censorship is a dangerous and slippery slope. Even is such a law could pass Constitutional muster, which is questionable at best, the same law the Dr. Oboler would use to ban Holocaust denial could be used by to try and ban material that Dr. Oboler would undoubtedly support. Would pro-Palestinian groups try to claim Zionism and support for Israel are hate?  It would open the door to litigation to attempt to apply such a law to limit all sorts of speech that one group or another may find objectionable. That requires the government to spend time and resources defining what is and is not hate, something most Americans simply do not trust government to do.

For now the only alternative is to continue to publicize the issue, something Dr. Oboler has been very effective in doing. As his work to highlight the problems with Google Earth plainly demonstrated, such efforts may take years to be effective. In the end sufficient public outcry, negative publicity, the threat of boycott and legal action using existing laws may be sufficient, in time, to bring about change without creating new and possibly onerous law.

NOTE:  This article was originally published in slightly different form on the O’Reilly Broadcast website.