Palestinian statelessness is an American Jewish achievement

Avraham Burg has urged me not to argue about Zionism but to talk about the future and what everyone can do. Nice. Last week Avraham said in New York that God made man out of polemics. Even nicer. And so today I'm going to argue more about Zionism.
The most elusive part of Avraham's book is that it's exalted, he's doing a vision quest for the Jewish and Israeli future. I love vision quests, and god knows Avrum's a prophet. But no one is going to effect change without talking about real conditions, and those conditions are (per the UN's special rapporteur) the absence of the rights of speech, movement, employment and even the right to life for Palestinians in the West Bank, and their confinement in Gaza under horrifying conditions, blockaded in an open-air prison. Children drinking water contaminated by sewage, and the U.S. is complicit in this brutal confinement, which is known across the Arab world.
Interesting that our little colloquium on Avrum's book includes a couple Israelis, me an anti-Zionist Jew, a leading critic of Israel in John Mearsheimer, but no Arabs. No big surprise. They get very little standing in the U.S.
To talk about this stuff without talking about Zionism is intellectual puffery. Avrum seems to put himself forward as a post-Zionist. Good for him. I want to get there too. But Zionism is a central poltical fact of life right now. It is the most important movement in Jewish life in the last 100 years, more important to Jewish life than Communism. In the early 20th century it enthralled the eastern European Jews who immigrated to the U.S., my ancestors, with its dream of Jewish power--the revolutionary idea that Bernard Avishai talked about the other day here--and it soon enfolded the older German Jews in the U.S. Though when Avishai talks about the revolutionary ideas of the 40s and 50s that have outlived their usefulness, readers must be aware that Avraham Burg's idol, and mine, the great Hannah Arendt, was not on board. She was a frequent critic of Zionism's discriminatory ideas back when. And some Jewish bodies in the U.S. held out too, largely out of concern about the dual-loyalty issue (concerns borne out by the neocons and the Iraq war). As late as '52 Jacob Blaustein the Standard Oil man who headed the American Jewish Committee was angered with David Ben-Gurion over the Law of Return--which allows me to move to Israel tomorrow while a Palestinian who was born in pre-48 Israel and turned out of his property and home has no right to do so.
Zionism won over the entire American Jewish establishment and built the Israel lobby. No discussion of these issues is complete without talking about American Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy. Avrum's book is great because he describes this fact of life openly, frankly. He deserves tremendous credit for breaking a seal that when gentiles broke it, they were castigated: Walt and Mearsheimer, in their groundbreaking paper and book of '06 and '07. And Avrum to his great credit has welcomed Mearsheimer, a brilliant scholar. A commenter on my post the other day was disturbed that I would put the issue of Jewish influence "in play." As if I am calling for pogroms. No: I am trying to talk about the real political conditions that have created a situation in which 4 million Palestinians have no rights. U.S. Jewish leadership bears a great measure of the responsibility for these realities. Blind to Palestinian suffering, that leadership has enforced American government adherence to Israel for 60 years, pushing American Arabists such as former Sec'y of State George Marshall out of the picture. Jewish leadership did this with good old back channels, money, and armtwisting. Even Abba Eban used the words "pressure" and "influence" when describing the ways that wealthy American Jews engaged Truman and JFK. You can look it up on my blog.
Back to the Law of Return and Right of Return. I believe Dan Levy complimented Avrum for his idea that there must be some acknowledgment of the Nakba, the dispossession of 700,000 Palestinians by the yishuv (the prestate community) and the state of Israel in '48. Burg seeks a spiritual reckoning that will precede the negotiation of the right of return of those refugees in the alleged peace process. Levy and Burg are right, and prophetic. I have said so myself: It is essential that Jews recognize this suffering and ethnic cleansing. That Israel recognize it too. As our suffering was acknowledged by the world after the Holocaust.
But let us also register the absurdity of the statement. It is 60 years on, and there is no recognition at all of the Nakba by the American Jewish leadership, and I believe Tzipi Livni has also been dismissive of the very idea. Do we want the Serbs to recognize the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars? Yes. Do we want the Turks to recognize the genocide of the Armenians? Of course we do. Are they doing so? Of course not. States with something to lose don't behave like that. But that cannot stop us, as Americans, from doing the right thing and recognizing it. Waiting for the Israelis to in any way acknowledge Palestinian suffering--well, that is their business, and they have done a lousy job of it, and as an American Jew I feel in no way implicated by their abuses. Last week Avrum was on a panel at the New York Public library with American-Israeli historian Omer Bartov when Bartov said, with a twinkle of the eye, Well now the Palestinians have their "Treblinka," too. It was a clear, and nasty, reference to efforts by the Palestinians to claim acknowledgment of dispossession and ethnic cleansing and massacres (not genocide). Avrum said nothing when Bartov made this offensive statement. I imagine the Turks say this stuff about the Armenians, and the Serbs about the Kosovars.
I bring up the Kosovars for a reason. They have a state. Just a few years after the Kosovo Liberation Army participated in terrorist activities across the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo has a state recognized by the U.S. And India and Pakistan, which were partitioned 61 years ago, both have states notwithstanding a lot of ethnic cleansing, political violence and landgrabbing between them. And the Shi'ites and Sunnis are members in good standing of the Iraqi government, in American eyes, notwithstanding the fact that Sunnis did a ton of suicide bombing in the last couple years.
I hope you see where this is going. The U.N. said that the Palestinian Arabs were to have a state on 44 percent of Palestine 60 years ago. Unlike the Kosovars, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Iraqis, they have never had political self-representation, and their percentage of land is shrinking by the day to the point where 22 percent of historical Palestine in two fragments is held out as some great prize. Lately the president of the General Assembly said this failure, to produce a state for the Palestinians, was the greatest failing of the U.N. And Rahm Emanuel and the entire American Jewish establishment have again and again said they don't deserve a state because they are not "true partners." (In the same way that Jimmy Carter shouldn't talk about Palestine because he doesn't know enough). The Palestinians have never been good enough or virtuous enough to deserve the right of self-determination. By this standard, there would be no government in Kosovo, Pakistan, India, or Baghdad.
This leads us back to Zionism and the support for Zionism in the U.S. power structure. And it leads us ultimately to Jewish identity. As Mearsheimer wrote on TPM the other day, responding to Avrum's powerful ideas about the Shoah: owing to the inculcation of the Holocaust in Jewish life, "the result is that Israelis (and most American Jews for that matter) cannot think straight about the world around them. They think that everyone is out to get them, and that the Palestinians are hardly any different than the Nazis... if there was less emphasis on the Holocaust, Israelis would change their thinking about 'others' in fundamental ways." Absolutely true.
The Israel lobby is a historic expression of Jewish power in the U.S. That power comes out of feelings of utter powerlessness brought on by the Holocaust. My family and millions of other American Jews felt that the U.S. had abandoned the Jews in the Holocaust. As a result, the American Jewish community has never fully trusted the U.S. government since. And so it built the Israel lobby and committed the U.S. to support for Israel and to the nullification of basic rights for "others": the Palestinians. The statelessness of the Palestinians is an American Jewish achievement. One of Hitler's bitterest effects, Norman Mailer said, was reducing Jews to the ethnocentric question: Is it good for the Jews? Even as we have become what Avrum rightly describes as the most powerful minority in America.The spiritual/political challenge for American Jews today is to recognize that we have power in the U.S. because of the separation of church and state and the guarantees of liberty for minorities that our great country has established through tremendous ordeals--and meanwhile we rubbish those very liberties in Israel and Palestine for people who are different from us. It is time for the Jewish community to wake up, and for the U.S. to bring American ideals to Israel/Palestine.
I recognize that Jeremy Ben-Ami, Bernard Avishai, Dan Levy, John Mearsheimer, and Avrum Burg have all been playing essential roles in this, essentially prophetic, work, and I'm thankful to them all.




















And its about to get worse: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/world/middleeast/11israel.html
December 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an insightful, honest and well-reasoned post. On a subject mostly lacking the component - it's a fair appraisal of this unending, unyielding situation. No doubt, you'll be raked over the coals for it.
December 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one addendum to my comment above, and that is to reference this often-cited-never-specified "abandonment by the U.S." charge. Blaming U.S. "abandonment" for the entire support structure Israel enjoys here and abroad - isn't that evasive? Isn't that very much like shirking reponsibility for a phenomenon that has helped oppress an entire people in the Middle East? It's all America's fault. Well... gee... what isn't?
Since this country made war on Nazi Germany, I'm not sure how the censure could have greater. By the time of the Wannsee Conference that hatched the "final solution" in 1942, the two nations were enemies. After that, I'm not what else could have been done... that wasn't done. After all, we were engaged in violent conflict involving millions of soldiers, sailors and airmen on both sides. We could have joined the war sooner, I suppose. This country seems forever held partially reponsible for this monstrous crime on evidence that is never fully proffered, and seems based on second-guessing of conditions that were very likely unclear at the time.
On the other hand, there is a chronic inability of the American Left to engage actions of - say - the American Communist Party after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939. Until the German invasion of the Soviet Union in mid-1941, the American party parroted the line that the war was launched by Britain to prop up its empire - and the Soviets and Nazis rolled throught the first two years of World War II as allies. Any responsibility there? ...Especially since the American party was railing against American involvement in the war, and using its influence in longshoremen's unions to stymie British shipping?
It's difficult to make the leap that neocons and the Israeli Lobby are motivated by a deep distrust of this country - since the case for this country's "deceit" and "betrayal" in World War II is built on such shaky, subjective ground. In a crime as vast as the Holocaust, there is no lack of blame to go around. But where should it begin - or end? After all - that this country didn't do enough in that terrible war would be tough case to make for an American family who'd lost someone in the carnage.
I guess my point is that it's always easier to trace the roots of obvious infamy back to... someone else. Some other society or people. If there are flaws in something we have constructed, it's easier to pin them on a convenient third party. Certainly, in the case of America, there has been no end of that. Especially by the Left.
December 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you are quite wrong on this. The CP's action in 1939 irreversibly split the CP from the broader left. The pinnacle of CPUSA influence was in 1938 and they declined continuously after that. They gained some sympathetic support during the red baiting days, but whatever influence they still had in 1956 was finished off by the Hungarian uprising.
December 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, syvanen, once again, that's a thoroughly subjective call. The CPUSA's influence has waxed and waned over the years, true, but how much reasonance it has maintained among the broader Left is debatable. After all, it yet breathes. And although the balance of American Leftists individually were appalled by the party's slavishness to Moscow, rare was or is any condemnation for the misdirections of this old, flea-bitten war horse.
December 11, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
For one thing, US could have let Jewish refugees from Hitler to enter the country in the 30s, instead of closing down the immigration. Many thousands of lives could have been saved. Have you ever heard of the St. Louis - a ship which carried several hundred German Jewish refugees to the US. They have been denied entry, and had to return back to Europe - to their deaths.
US government didn't pay any attention to the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe till the very end of WWII, despite numerous attempts to prod it to action. There is a lot of sources on this, e.g. a PBS series "America and the Holocaust". US Jewish community is not blameless as well. In that series there is a poignant episode, told by a son of a rabbi from Baltimore (AFAIR, quoting from memory). In his sermon on High Holidays in the 1930s the rabbi said to his congregation: "If you had conscience, immediately after the holidays you would drive to DC and camp on the steps of the Capitol and at the gates of the White House until the quotas for Jewish refugees from Europe would have been lifted. But you will not do that, because you don't want to jeopardize your businesses and New Deal jobs of your children". Immediately after the holidays the synagogue board has convened - and fired the rabbi.
It is memories like this which make Jews all over the world of all political persuasions support Israel as the only reliable safe haven of last resort for any Jew anywhere in the world. Immigration policies of any country in the world can change, but as long as there is a Jewish State, there is an escape route for Jewish people everywhere. If you think this is alarmism now that Hitler is long dead - ask the Jews that escaped to Israel from Iran, Poland, Ethiopia, former USSR long after Hitler's death, if they would have felt safer remaining in their homelands.
December 12, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, anatol, the U.S. was at war with Nazi Germany in World War II. At that point, the only way to rescue Europe's Jews was to defeat militarily Hilter's regime. There was no other means. In that context, I truly can't fathom what you mean by "didn't pay attention".
As far as U.S. and Western action or inaction in the 1930s, it's difficult to judge how anyone could have foreseen a impending atrocity as vast as the Holocaust. The process of industialized slaughter engineered by the Nazis was astonishingly singular and unprecedented, at least in modern times. It didn't spring up overnight; it was a measured process of gradually expanding massacre. In hindsight, the St. Louis should have been allowed to dock - no argument there. But it arrived in the summer of 1939, before the war had begun - and long before the real crimes had begun. Would it have different had the refugees been fleeing - at that moment - the gas and flames? I think it would.
I'm not defending the actions of the United States. They were imperfect, sometimes clumsy and ineffective, often tardy. But it's also easy to look back in harsh judgment at events we did not experience first-hand. I see sparse lobbying, today, to rescue Haitians making the perilous voyage to these shores, and there are few activists packing escape flights in Darfur.
Those are tragedies, too. But in the future, who will we blame for negligently allowing the disasters to agonizingly proceed? There will be no one but ourselves to blame? Correct? How harshly will or children judge us?
December 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosen has a somewhat different take on the SS Louis. Apparently, MOST of those people lived and even lived to thank the US for making arrangements to have them taken in by the UK, I believe.
"Rosen exculpates Roosevelt from the "charge ... of indifference to the fate of the SS St. Louis refugees," emphasizing that two-thirds of its passengers who were returned to Europe survived the war rather than addressing the fate of the more than 250 who perished when Germany conquered Holland, Belgium, and France (443)."
Rosen's is not the only view, but I do believe he's a respected historian.
December 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to phrase two questions here as simply as possible:
1) Do the Palestinians have, either in place or potentially, anything remotely resembling the means (in terms of resource infrastructure) by which the Nazis tried and failed to exterminate European Jews?
2) On the other hand, do the Palestinians have any reason to feel well-disposed towards their Israeli "neighbors" whatever?
Since I know well that the single answer to both is "NO.", their status clearly does not present an existential threat, rather, it presents a chronic and yet not unresolvable problem. A problem that will not be resolved unless and until both sides feel secure in the resolution.
I know, I know, in other news the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Yet this is what facts of life do - they remain in place without regard for out feelings on the matter. What is missing is the good sense to realize that the region is too small for such chronic animosity - the potential flare-points are too numerous and too close.
Do I have the answer? If I did, would I be posting replies in blogs? Let's hope there is enough wisdom in the world to bring this to a peaceful close sooner rather than later. And then let's work to gather that wisdom and pay attention.
December 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you either repost this with all the "prophetic" statements removed, or else justified by describing why and how you sense there's prophecy involved? As it is, it's hard to make out, as an outsider in this discussion, whether you are expressing contempt for all prophets, merely disbelief in them, or are somehow strangely being sincere.
Zionism, of course, is quite separable from any religious claims. Recognition of the achievements of Jewish culture in no way requires attributing those achievements to any of the supposed prophets, now or then. Indeed from some perspectives culture is tainted rather than enhanced by prophecy. It might precisely be the taint of bad prophecy in Palestinian culture that renders it unfit for the modern world, and the essential secularism of Zionism that qualifies it for membership in civilization.
December 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there a disconnect between Israeli secularism and civilization, given the current state of the open air prison camp in Gaza ?
December 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great, tell it like it is piece.
The US relationship with Israel has been problematic almost from the inception of Israel, made worse by AIPACs almost unfettered influence in Executive branch and Congress. Israel has done little to support its relations with the US while the US gives disproportional support in return for nothing. Hell, just turning down the rhetoric from Washington, and a little more well publicized aid to Palestine would return a large peace dividend. Don't hold your breath though.
December 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be entited "Palestinian Statelessness is a Palestinian achievement".
The Palestinians were offered a state in 1937 by the Peel Commission Plan. They rejected it and turned to violence. They were defeated.
The Palestinians were offered a state in 1947 by the UN Partition Plan. They rejected it and turned to violence. They were defeated.
The Palestinian were offered a state in 2000 by Ehud Barak. They rejected it and turned to violence. They were defeated.
The Palestinians were offered a state in 2008 by Ehud Olmert. They rejected it and turned to violence (particularly by HAMAS). They will be defeated.
Regarding "children drinking water contaminated by sewage"...Phil should be reminded that when Israel came into control of Judea/Samaria/Gaza in 1967 there most of the population was not connected to sewage, fresh water or electricity. Israel gave them all this and brought their health care up to international standards and their life span reached those of people in the countries with the highest levels of health care. Since Israel withdrew from the Palestinian territories and cities there has been regression in these areas. HAMAS is spending immense amounts of money in building up an arsenal of rockets and heavy weaponry. They could do something about the "contaminated water" if they would divert some of those funds in that direction.
The Palestinians have no one to blame for their current predicament than themselves. Sorry, Phil, you will not drag us in the Jewish community into your imaginary world of "Jewish guilt" because we insist on surviving.
December 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD--Your reign of error continues.
1. The Palestinians have always been offered substantially less of Palestine they were actually living in. So being "offered" a terrrible deal is not the same thing as being offered a "just deal."
2. You claim falsely that Barak offered them a state in 2008. What were the borders of that offer? A state without borders is not a state. If you can think of an exception, please enlighten us.
3. Ditto as to Olmert's offer. Please direct us to a diagram of this state that the Palestinians rejected.
And: "The Palestinians have no one to blame for their current predicament than themselves."
You are a mastery of irony.
December 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for proving the point I keep trying to make here. There is nothing that will satisfy the Palestinians except the eradication of Israel. They have never made any counter-proposals to those made by Israel. They simply turn to violence to solve their problems.
December 11, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mythbuster punched a mile-wide hole in your "reasoning" and you think he proved your point? Go upstairs and ask your mother for your meds.
And while we're on the subject of the Palestinians, can you give me, in one declarative sentence, a good reason why any Palestinian ought to wish Israel well after the treatment they've received during and since their expulsion?
December 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually worse than that. He doesn't know what the Palestinians proposals are (remember Barak did not want the offers to be in writing) so YBD assumes they didn't make any. We do know what the Saudi plan is: 1967 borders with an mutual agreement on refugees (i.e., those refugees who aren't going to the West Bank will be staying in Jordan, Lebanon,etc).
No Israeli government will offer that because Abbas would take it in a NY minute. And YBD knows it.
IMHO, the recent events in Hebron have proven that a settlment with the Palestinians will trigger a Jewish civil war. That is the point of the Settler Anger: it is deterence. And Bibi laughs all the way back to the PM's office.
December 11, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
---"The Palestinians were offered a state in 1937 by the Peel Commission Plan. They rejected it and turned to violence. They were defeated."
The Palestinians weren't offered anything by the commission. If you knew the history you would know that the commission was assembled to RECOMMEND a solution to the Palestine problem. Their recommendations included, among many other egregious things, the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from designated Jewish lands. Naturally, the Palestinian leadership rejected the recommendation, but they were never formally offered a state. As for the Jewish Agency, the Twentieth Zionist Congress said: ""that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted, [but wished] to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine".
---"The Palestinians were offered a state in 1947 by the UN Partition Plan. They rejected it and turned to violence. They were defeated."
UN 181 is unbelievably misunderstood. First Jews owned less than 10% of the land and were a minority in Palestine and yet they were offered half of Palestine. No Palestinian in their right mind would agree to that. Moreover, as documented by Benny Morris and many others, "the Jews committed far more atrocities than the Arabs and killed far more civilians and PoWs in deliberate acts of brutality in the course of 1948."
---"The Palestinian were offered a state in 2000 by Ehud Barak. They rejected it and turned to violence. They were defeated."
Again, your history was wrong. First, there was never any formal proposal, there was nothing put in writing, as anyone who read Dennis Ross's book would know. Second, it is important to keep Shlomo Ben-Ami's statement in mind (he was Barak's chief negotiator and Israel foreign minister at the time of Camp David): "If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David." Nevertheless, talks continued into 2001 at Taba where the came close to an agreement until Barak pulled his negotiators out. As for violence, it was not the Palestinians who started in. From September to October of 2000, more than 140 Palestinians had been killed by Israelis. Israelis killed all these Palestinians as they protested against Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif and the utter failure of Oslo to slow down settlement expansion or grant Palestinians any freedom. The first Israeli wasn't killed until November.
---"The Palestinians were offered a state in 2008 by Ehud Olmert. They rejected it and turned to violence (particularly by HAMAS). They will be defeated."
What the hell are you talking about? This is news to Olmert and the Palestinians. It just didn't happen. Since Annapolis conference, Israel has expanded both settlements and roadblocks, no taken them away. They recently announced plans to build in the Jordan Valley. This sure doesn't look like they ready to give Palestinians anything. They officially accept the two-state solution based on the 67 borders and have done so years now:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037258.html
As for the last crap about Gaza, the reason conditions have denigrated as much as they have is because Israel has imposed a blockade on nearly everything. Palestinians actually had one of the most advanced agricultural system in the late 19th-early 20th century. Regardless considering the strict restrictions on movement and the ZERO ability to take control of their own lives, the Palestinians have surpassed expectations. There is now a Palestinian owned pharmaceutical company exporting to Europe. Under occupation, that is quite remarkable. Israel has not given the Palestinians anything in any real sense -- all they have done is occupied and stolen their land.
December 11, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this great post with lots of facts in contrast to YBD's "facts."
December 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, syvanen, once again, that's a thoroughly subjective call. The CPUSA's influence has waxed and waned over the years, true, but how much reasonance it has maintained among the broader Left is debatable. After all, it yet breathes. And although the balance of American Leftists individually were appalled by the party's slavishness to Moscow, rare was or is any condemnation for the misdirections of this old, flea-bitten war horse.
December 11, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good summation Mr. Weiss. I am not familiar with your work and am looking at your blog now.
But I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make in regards to the Serbs and ethnic cleansing of Kosovars. It's a bit off topic but are you of the demonizing the Serbs crowd? Surely you're aware that that conflict had mutual killing and cleansing on all sides and that the US/British (NATO) role in that terrible war was criminal. Are you aligning yourself with the standard narrative of an evil people (Serbs) hell-bent on genocide and ethnic cleansing against a defenseless and innocent people (Bosnian Muslims, Kosovars etc.)?
Without your reading and responding to this I am left guessing. There are about three or four books written on the subject that demolish this view of history. I hope I've misunderstood you. I might be overreacting because of the number of times I've read or heard smart and well informed people discussing a particular subject and then watched in amazement as they suddenly lose their grip on reality and start spouting nonsense that Richard Holbrooke or Madeline Albright couldn't have said better themselves. This evil Serb narrative has burrowed its way deeply into Western consciousness. Clinton's assault on the Balkans was meant to neuter the UN and greased the wheels for Bush's wars. Exaggerating and lying about Serb crimes served a purpose: to expand US/NATO power eastward in the wake of the Wall's collapse.
December 12, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Martin-
You have to understand, Phil is an anti-Zionist, pro-assimilationist Jew. That means he has to take stands in opposition to those that the mainline Jewish community takes. Because Israel is locked into a long-term conflict with a significant part of the Muslim world, he feels he must take the side of those opposing Israel...the Muslims. This means, to him, that all Muslims are in the right, at all times and in all places. Thus, he must take the side of the Kossovors. I recommend that you keep this in mind as you read his blog and especially note the attitudes of many of those who comment towards Israel, the Jewish people and most of all, antisemitism.
December 12, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink