J. McCutchen

John Boehner received a standing ovation for his call to support Bush's Iraq War. Olmert yesterday warned against US withdrawal.

Nancy Pelosi, a staunch supporter of Israel, after scattered applause, received boos and catcalls for

Any US military engagement must be judged on three counts--whether it makes our country safer, our military stronger, or the region more stable. The war in Iraq fails on all three scores

Seventy-seven percent of US Jews and 89 % of Jewish Democrats oppose this war.

Who outside right wing Israel does AIPAC represent anyway?
They reportedly receive funds from Israel, why aren't they registered as an agent of a foreign power?

AIPAC represents the American-Israeli attempt to dominate the Middle East. In the process these scum try to brand Jews who oppose their fascistic authoritarian policies as anti-Semitic. It is time to brand these enemies of peace, of humanity, of Jews for the scum they are and for their fascist lineage. As my mother would have put it "hab ihm in d'erd" ("they should drop dead. Sooner than later")

Just to clarify. The AIPAC rah-rah was a few blocks away from my office but I sure wasn't there!

Good piece, Jo-Ann. Unfortunately, the Reform movement's courage on Iraq does not extend to Israel-Palestine. As is typical with most politicians and organizations, bravery is limited to areas where there is no possible cost.

The New York Times today has an interesting short piece reporting from the conference on the difference in receptions:

Clinton and Obama Court Jewish Vote By PATRICK HEALY

There was a leak printed in Haaretz a couple of weeks ago in which "senior Israeli officials" reported that on her recent trip to Israel Condoleeza Rice absolutely forbade Israel to explore peace overtures currently being made by Syria. Many in Israel believe these overtures to be genuine and at least worth looking into, as Syria now desperately fears a U.S. attack. When they asked Condi, her response was "Don't even think about it."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829441.html

Israelis must be shaking their heads now just like the rest of us.

A couple of days ago, I got a letter from the White House in response to a petition I signed about settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It said, "The President has pledged that America will be an active partner of every party that seeks true peace." Obviously, a "true peace" is one that does not interfere with America's war plans.

From the AIPAC news office Ministry of Truth,

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

--
Howard

"Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." Inner Party Member O'Brien, Orwell's 1984

I observe today's surveillance technology is quite in advance of what Orwell had in mind.

bslev says:

The alternative post features the ranting rabbi and his son located by a Times reporter at the AIPAC convention to suggest that there's lots of organized Jewry out there who don't like Obama because he doesn't hate Palestinians. (emphasis mine)

On the contrary, bslev, MJ's remarks regard the reception such sentiments as Obama's may recieve at an AIPAC conference. MJ states very clearly that he is speaking about "the far right in the pro-Israel community," who take objection to Obama's empathy for the Palestinians.

If anyone is suggesting that the participants at an AIPAC conference represent "organized Jewry" it appears to be not MJ, but you.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

"Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." Inner Party Member O'Brien, Orwell's 1984.

If you saw it, do you remember the final scene in the movie
when Edmund O'Brien marches outside and while raising his arm in unison with his shout: "Long LIVE Big Brother, Long LIVE Big Brother"?

Jesus, I saw that movie a thousand years ago but still remember that scene.

Joanne: Thanks for your posting. I think there was more to the reception that Cheney recieved than simply his strong statements on Iraq. He said that there was a contradiction between supporting a withdrawal from Iraq, and at the same time encouraging a tough stance against Iran, and I suspect that was the reason for the cool response to that part of his speech. This is from an article in the Jerusalem Post:

Stressing that he stood before the crowd "as a strong supporter of Israel" and that "Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than George Bush," Cheney declared: "A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East."

...Many US Jewish leaders have moved away from supporting the war or been quiet on the issue. At the same time, AIPAC and the community at large have stepped up efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But in Cheney's speech to AIPAC, a lobbying organization widely regarded as the most powerful on matters of foreign policy, he charged: "It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened, and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened."

..."The message," the Jewish leader said, "was, 'Please don't be so quick to flex your muscle and do the politically easy thing, which is to jump on the bandwagon to withdraw from Iraq.'"

He added that national disaffection with the situation in Iraq and the suggestion that a Jewish neoconservative cabal pushed Bush into war has meant that "there's been a pretty widespread stepping away of Jewish organizational support for Iraq."

If backing for the administration's Iraq policy has diminished, organized Jewry's activism on Iran is swiftly picking up steam.

(The article is also interesting for it's coverage of Netanyahu's remarks, btw.)

I might add that from what I can tell, there is indeed a range of opinion in the American Jewish community regarding the wisdom of a war with Iran. But from what I've been reading, the voices who seem to be speaking loudest are the hawkish ones, imho.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

bslev: I didn't say you were defending them, but I just don't understand why you are so troubled about MJ's article. With all due respect, bslev, I truly think you're perceiving hostility toward Jews in general in statements that are really only about the extreme elements, such as the hardliners of AIPAC. I just don't understand this.

I would hope that you'd consider what I've said and rethink your decision.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

J. McCutchen

The headline says it all
From today's San Francisco Chronicle, first page above fold

Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby

Pelosi, throughout her career, has been slavish in her devotion to Israel and its Lobby. Since 77% of US Jews and 89% of Jewish Democrats oppose bush's Iraq War, the question fairly arises - Who other than Israel does this bunch represent?

You know, I'm amazed to find that you're right. I searched, and found that there haven't been any articles in the mainstream press about Hagee.

I did find this statement of his in a recent article in the New York Jewish Week:

[Hagee] predicted a nuclear showdown with Iran and said, “The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching ... rejoice and be exceedingly glad, the best is yet to be,” according to a Wall Street Journal report posted on the CUFI Web site.

And yet, according to another article in the JTA, here is the response to Hagee at AIPAC:

"What we have in common is far greater than the things that have separated us over the years," Hagee said to applause.

"We must stop Iran's nuclear threat, and stop it now, and stand boldly with Israel!" he said to even greater applause.

"Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler!" Even greater applause.

Directly addressing the Iranian president and his wishes for Israel to disappear, Hagee said, "You may well be speaking of your own demise when you talk of passing with a sudden storm!" That brought hoots, cheers and the sound of chairs scratching cement as they were pushed back so listeners could get to their feet.

"There will never be another Holocaust, not on our watch and never again!" Hagee continued.

Hagee counted the perceived enemies of Zion, from Ahmadinejad on down, with allusions to Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer.

Thousands of Jews from Miami to Marin County, from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Ore., shouted as one, "Israel lives! Israel lives! Israel lives!"

The Jewish Week article discusses Hagee at length, and one person interviewed pointed out that Hagee tends to deliver one speech to his evangelical audiences, and another to Jewish ones. I guess so. Very scary.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

What happened to davai?

artappraiser: I wouldn't discount Hagee's influence. He apparently believes that a nuclear showdown in Iran will fulfill Biblical prophecies found in the Book of Esther in the Bible. An article in American Prospect, written last June, had this to say:

...Seated beside Lapin in the ornately gilded Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) studio was Pastor John Hagee, the author of an incendiary new book purporting to show that the Bible predicts a military confrontation with Iran. By then [note: the article is referring to the time of Purim in 2006, about a year ago], Hagee’s book, Jerusalem Countdown, had sold nearly 500,000 copies. It had occupied the No. 1 position on the Wal-Mart inspirational best-seller list, showed up on Wal-Mart’s list of top 10 best sellers for seven weeks, and made the USA Today top 50 best-seller list for six weeks. Hagee, who serves as head pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, hosts his own television program that is seen twice a day on TBN. He argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the release of his book last January, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a lobbying organization intended, he says, to be a Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With CUFI, which Hagee has said will cause a “political earthquake,” the televangelist aims to put the political organizing muscle of the conservative evangelical movement behind his grand plan for a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ. ...For Hagee’s new project, his influence in washington is probably less important than his influence over his audience. With the clout of his listeners, he can serve Bush administration hawks by firing up grass-roots support for a military strike against Iran. TBN has provided several opportunities for Hagee to promote his book on Praise the Lord, several installments of his own program, and a two-day appearance on Benny Hinn’s show. Through the marketing efforts of Strang Communications, which placed national radio advertising spots for Jerusalem Countdown on The Sean Hannity Show, The O’Reilly Factor, and Janet Parshall’s America, Hagee brought his Armageddon message to a wider conservative audience. His end-times theology is nothing new; countless numbers of self-proclaimed prophets of the end of the world have demanded attention since the beginning of time. The difference now is that TBN’s relentless fund raising -- along with advances in digital and satellite broadcasting technology -- has permitted worldwide dissemination of his ominous predictions. Through TBN, other religious and conservative media, and the growing mega-churches, Hagee has turned his Bible-thumping not only into a multi-million dollar business, but into a pro-war movement as well. While pundits and politicians in Washington debate the merits of confrontation with Tehran, Hagee and other evangelical leaders plan to activate hundreds of congregations across the country -- many of which boast tens of thousands of members -- to flood congressional inboxes with e-mails at the touch of a button. The message from the heartland, beyond the ken of elites who cannot quite imagine such a decision, will be to strike Iran before it is too late.

I also need to issue a mea culpa here. I've been referring to "Christian evangelists," in referring to Hagee followers, but the term is inaccurate, as it is too broad. There are many evangelists who do not hold the same views as Hagee. "Christian Zionists" is probably a better term, although I find even that one lacking. The concern I have about Hagee is not his beliefs; although I surely don't agree, I believe he is free to hold them. Instead, what worries me is that he not only is propounding his beliefs, but he is engaging in political action to bring those beliefs into reality. What term could be more effectively applied in making this distinction? I'm not really sure.

There's also an interesting article on Hagee from last August at The Nation. It said that members of his organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has been meeting with members of the administration to lobby them in regards to our policies in the Middle East. They appear to be operating mostly under the radar of the mainstream press, so far.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

I am far less worried over "clop ... clop ... clop... clop ... BANGBANG ...clopclopclopclop" than I am about the Rapturists. Admittedly, I'm trying to get across that the proper translation is the Rupture and they urgently need hernia surgery.

Something I definitely found unnerving was a straightforward contract award for upgrading the airport at Megiddo.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I would prefer to find that you are correct in this matter, artappraiser. But I'm also glad that you've raised the issue, because it's led me to do some more searching, and I've learned more. Did you know, for instance, that Hagee is said to have been instrumental in the formation of the new Christian-oriented Israel Allies Caucus in the House? Or that their increasing negative influence on mideast peace had led the Vatican to issue a statement on them last fall, as noted in this DemocracyNow blurb?:

Vatican, Churches Criticize Christian Zionist Movement
In other news from the region, the Vatican and three churches in Israel have come out against the Christian Zionist movement -- the American evangelicals who have lobbied the US government for aggressive support of Israel’s policies. In a statement called the “Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism”, the four Church groups write: "The Christian Zionist programme provides a world view where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war."

I agree completely that Hagee's organization in no way matches the clout of AIPAC, but it isn't much more than a year old now, and AIPAC has been around for decades. John Hagee Ministries has reportedly spent $8.5 million to bring Soviet Jews to Israel (there are other Christian Zionist organizations who have raised huge amounts as well, and the new residents often illegally settle in the Occupied Palestinian Territories). His new organization, CUFI, is likely to be just as successful, if not more so, in raising funds.

So, as powerful as AIPAC? Not even close...yet. But CUFI appears to be a growing political force that is making peace between the Israelis and Palestinians much harder to achieve, imho.

I also realize that perhaps an earlier post of mine was unclear. I had said that Hagee had not received any mainstream media attention, but had meant that his visit to the AIPAC convention this year had not received any. My apologies for the confusion.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Was it something specific that he said?

Jo-Ann:

In stewing over my final decision to cease posting last night, I realized that I owe you an apology for raising the issues I raised in the comment section to your blog, on issues you've not even been involved with. My sincere apologies. And, MJ, I apologize for not addressing my complaints to you in the comments section on one of your blogs where it belonged.

Sincerely,

Bruce S. Levine

Saliva-spewing (as I saw them) accusations of anti-Semitism is about as specific as I can get. It seemed as tho he was losing focus and being abusive generally.

But these are just my impressions, and this is another reason why people should not be tossed when ignoring them would provide all the relief a reasonable person could require.

It's disappointing, because his posts were very good and he was a civilized and articulate commentator. On the other hand, in the brief time he was here he complained incessantly that the content wasn't up to his personal standards, and sought to encourage a highly censorious and punitive attitude toward speech he disliked.

I don't understand the profound urge so many people seem to feel to control and regulate the posted content on this site. Perhaps mine is a simple-minded and old-fashioned attitude, but whatever happened to the old commitment to free speech? Short of threats of violence, why shouldn't everyone just be free to post whatever the fu** they want? I thought the dominant tradition in America was that the burden is on the listener or viewer "avert one's gaze" from messages and speech of which they disapprove.

There are technical factors, some of which could probably be solved with some reasonable programming in Drupal, and some that would be harder. (Hmmmm...maybe I do need to get the LINUX box here running and look at the Drupal code).

The simpler problem is that when major flamage -- or even serious discussion -- is going on, Drupal keeps narrowing the line width beyond reasonable limits. From my human factors background, it should go no narrower than 40 characters -- perhaps more -- and then start widening up to 72 characters. Narrowing and widening in a systematic way still leaves the sequence of a thread visible.

Since Drupal eventually will widen the line, my guess would be that only a constant needs to be changed in the line display routine.

For the more difficult problem, think of a literal cafe. There may be side conversations going on quietly, and someone can be on stage, say, reading poetry in a reasonable voice.

If someone at a table, however, pulls out a bullhorn to talk to his neighbor, or to the room in general, no one else can converse. There is an analogy in blog software, but not other types, in which there's a tragedy of the commons effect -- drowning out discussion by sheer volume. Sometimes, this is deliberate: were you here when Fr*d D*bbs was raising hell?

If you think about netnews/USENET, most mail readers have significant filtering ability. You can tune out much of the routine crazies and focus on the discussion. Yes, there are people that will deliberately try to get around filters, much as people try to beat antispam.

Free speech in a blog is in a technical medium in which there can be a tragedy of the commons, making conversation difficult to impossible. It's hard to avert one's gaze when the majority of the traffic is composed of things one wants to ignore.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

davai had some posts deleted, and a warning, but as far as I know, has not been banned. Has he said he planned to leave?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

But the content on this site IS thoroughly controlled and regulated! Posting on the home/front page, The Coffee House, Warren Reports, etc. are by invitation only. It is in no way shape or form a free speech free-for-all. It's thoroughly edited! I presume most people come BECAUSE it's edited, they like the editorial mix.

Where is it written, where is the Constitution, that the comments section of a blog that offers them is a free-speech free-for-all and that the rest of a blog shall be edited?

Every comment on Juan Cole's blog is vetted and that produces a great product for the reader.

If you really believe what you say, you would object to the whole setup here and would demand that the front page be gotten rid of and the unedited "reader blog" section should be the entire content of the site.

Do you find the "reader blog" section your favorite part of the site? I don't see any evidence of that glancing at the list of where you comment. You seem to appreciate the editing of "free speech," to take advantage of someone sorting the content for you so that you can easily find quality postings to discuss. Why is that many people feel comments are considered untouchable on a site where most of the content is edited for the readers? How did that happen? It just strikes me as so absurd at times.

I followed the davai thing, but I didn't see many of the deleted comments before they were deleted. From the evidence I saw, it looked to me like if I were Andrew, I might not have handled it the way he did. But I'm not Andrew, and I don't want to be, and I don't want to start my own site, either. I am a user looking for a quality discussion site (like a user of a newspaper or magazine or TV show or movie) where I don't have to sort through a huge mass of free speech free-for-all. So I appreciate Andrew paying attention to comments and if he makes a wrong choice once in a while, so what? If I had my druthers, those who comment on the front page items would be edited as heavily as the contributors themselves, and everyone who wanted a free speech free for all would head over to the "Reader Blog" section. This might even solve the problem of contributors not staying very long and draw new and even better contributors.

P.S. to Andrew: feel free to delete one of my comments at any time. I am a guest here. My ego can handle it. It would not be the end of the world for me. I feel capable of learning the standards of this site and I am sure that you would give me another chance to shape up to the standards of the site before banning.

Lally-

Hate to go too much on this here, off topic--apologies to those who hate that--but I thought your thoughtful response required more than a rating.

Perhaps explicit warnings of behavior deemed unacceptable; with concrete examples given, would help the community to understand the what and why of management's red lines.

Neither one resembles this site.

Are the submissions by Front Pager's edited for content?....

If you want to read my rants on these meta issues ad nauseum, as well as those of many other forum meta junkies, you can find more in the Cafe Management section.

P.S. I loved the anecdote about the huffing & puffing, I recognize it well from a long stint as a moderator on a forum. The fun part is when a group of free speechers get so mad about the oppression of supposed censoring Nazis and they all run off to start their own site and it inevitably fails and they come back to the old site. (Not trying to say that is what is going on here with the davai comments, BTW, it doesn't appear to be that pyschotic role playing thingie. :-))

artappraiser. Sorry for the delay in replying to you.

I think this thread has passed it's sell-by date so going OT a bit is probably OK. As an OT abuser (Howard makes me do it!) , I'm not too concerned at this point.

I have follwed the conversations about ratings, etc in the Discussion tables and was glad to see Andrew begin to moderate with the public warning ...it's a start and it's a tough job, I wish him luck. The other site had mods selected by the manager who would issue warnings; but only he could excise offenders. It actually worked fairly well despite the highly partisan nature of conversations on the site.

BTW, I never imagined that davai was/is a psychotic troll. I've had experience with the real thing in which the poster was highly intelligent, tech saavy and absolutely obsessed with the community that kept banning him. He would return with new nic, ISP and persona so often that it became a game to track him. So much so that the same benighted site manager eventually threatened to ban community members who accused newbies of being the latest manifestation of B..... This took place over several years and for all I know B.... is still there and everyone has just thrown up their hands and said ok as long as he behaves himself......

B.... was permanently banned for disclosing realife ID's of his "enemies" and publishing details. There was another regular poster (very, very well-connected in DC neocon circles) who did the same thing in another forum to someone she "met" in the original one. In that case the person outted was put in danger and had to flee the country as he was employed by part of the elite anti-government opposition linked to the energy sector. She's still a member of the original community despite being almost universally loathed and seems to have "special status".

IMO, there here has only been one troll on this site who needed to be purged and he didn't approach the viciousness of the others I mentioned. That guy was obviously commiting suicide-by-banning and was successful in his attempt.

Thinking more about the editing of the Front Pagers, I had to chuckle in remembering the not-so-distant past in which it seemed that a group of them were carrying on in the same manner as posters do in comment sections. In that case, they were starting threads in order to conduct debates. I remember wishing they would just get a room with the appropriate tab....

I'm not a big fan of the ratings system and have yet to use it. Although it's helpful to have more detailed "instructions" on how it's meant to be employed, it seems to me that folks will continue to apply their own standards despite a clearer set of rules. So far, I have to admit that were I participating, I would also be doing so according my own rules and would primarily be uprating zeros and am contemplating offering to trade my uprating services for "5s" in order to keep up my GPA . Not exactly good faith and bound to be frowned upon as highly unserious; don't you think? I had better not......nevermind.

re your huffing and puffing experience, the earlier forum I mentioned apparently had a very similiar group meltdown except in that case, the relocated huffers didn't attempt to return as from what I pieced together later, the scene got really ugly and they were banned permanently.