"Israeli officials have halted the distribution of a booklet published by an American Orthodox Jewish Group and given to Israeli Defense Forces soldiers. The move follows reports of the booklet’s claims that the Pope identified with Hezbollah and that the Vatican took Hezbollah officials on a tour of the Auschwitz concentration camp."

And based on your own article, it would appear that Israel has halted the distribution of this booklet. Sounds pretty reasonable and right.

No, you don't have to be Jewish. To be a Zionist, you just need to accept that the desires of Jews taker priority over the needs of Palestinians. To be a "left Zionist", you also need to be able to justify this belief in a roundabout way, without actually saying it. If you do say it you are a "right-wing" zionist crybaby.

I think you rightly state the distinction between the cartoons (a fact) and the organ harvesting story (an unsubstantiated allegation).

However, I don't think suppressing free speech in either case will achieve the objective. Yes, someone may use that story as pretext to attack a synagogue, but judging such behavior, is that really what set them off? Did they really need an excuse to do something like that?

Israel should have said 'where's your proof?' That's it. Condemning a newspaper is not Israel's job, the U.S's, Jewish organizations or anyone else. Bad Swedish journalism should be dealt with by the Swedish newspaper union or writer's guild or something, I'm sure they have one.

"Robotboy"

MJ: You lower yourself when you engage in name-calling.

So one-tenth of all presidents have been killed by crazies?

Um . . . and what percentage of all Jews have been killed by anti-Semites? Are you ignorant of the history, or do you choose to ignore it? And if you think terrorists in the Middle East are not influenced by the "genteel" anti-Semitism of Europe, that's also ignorance. And if you're not aware that visible Jews in many European communities are frequently attacked by people with Middle-East connections, that's also ignorance.

You should collect a few solid facts before unleashing your airy opinions on your TPM audience.

Actually, what drives me mad is your habit of setting up strawman arguments. It just reinforces my contention that you are a cheap hack who preaches to the converted and is not to be taken seriously by people who are interested in more than just a yelling match.

To be clear: it most certainly does NOT drive me mad to acknowledge the "utter loathsomeness" of the occupation. That's not how I would describe it, but I don't object if others wish to call it that. What DOES drive me mad is the idea that this is the only thing that matters. It is perfectly reasonable to say that the occupation is regrettable, unfortunate or loathsome - whatever adjective you like - and still acknowledge that removing it (a) entails real risks and costs to Israel and (b) is not likely to produce anything like the kind of peace that Israel really wants.

Now if you want to argue that the costs of maintaining the occupation are so high that Israel should just accept the fact that they will incur high costs to remove it and get little or no benefit in terms of true peace, then fine. I'd personally like to see that argument. Or if you want to argue that the costs are less than what most people think and in fact the benefits quite substantial, that would be an interesting argument to hear too.

The problem is that you never acknowledge the costs and you appear to believe that peace is merely a function of withdrawal from the West Bank. You've made the case multiple times why the occupation is bad. I agree. It's bad. But nowhere that I can remember have you ever laid out a case as to why it is SO bad that removing it - at all costs and to the exclusion of other priorities - should be of paramount importance.

It's just so much easier and fun to caricature people as "neocons" or whatever to play to the gallery, isn't it?

Wow, that's quite a scoop. (You should make a separate blog post of it, mho.)

From the Guardian article:

...a promise by the US to adopt a much tougher line with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons programme. The US, along with Britain and France, is planning to push the United Nations security council to expand sanctions to include Iran's oil and gas industry, a move that could cripple its economy....

You know, things seem to be going as planned for Obama, even thouth there were a couple of distracting developments along the way. Take another look at
Obama's June 2008 speech to AIPAC:

....Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran.....

There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Sen. McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage — not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It's a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I'll let him explain, Sen. McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush administration's policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It's time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year's U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.....

You don't like Jews because the IDS harvested your brain. You need to start reading again.

Can you be more stupid?

So first you cry antisemitism, then you follow it by name calling. Are you able to defend your statements with actual arguments? I guess not. But let me give you another chance to display your superior name calling and crybabying skills.

1. Labor zionism, fascism, nazism, and a few other less despicable nationalist movements using socialist language, while distinct, emerged from a common political world with common themes and tropes as analyzed by Zeev Sternhell, in The Founding Myths of Israel.

2. Revisionist Zionism was openly impressed with fascism and speaking a language of blood, race and soil, it was also openly militaristic and violent. Perhaps you should read a bit more about Jabotnisky's concept of racial separation, or brush up your knowledge of important revisionist Zionist figures such as Aba Ahimeir
3. The Nazis in the 30s did not want to exterminate Jews but to eliminate them from Europe, which was also the goal of the Zionist movement.

4. In the early 40s, there were important negotiations between Nazis and labor Zionist activists, discussing the transfer of Jews. in 1933, Haim Arlozorove signed the transfer agreement in Germany. Later Eichmann toured Palestine in 1937 and tried to convince his superiors that Zionists could be useful for the Third Reich. He failed. But had Israel, a state with a powerful army already existed, it is quite possible to imagine a different scenario. Later on plans for shipping Jews out of Europe in collaboration with zionists continued until the Keztzner affair. David Ysraeli, a member of the Stern Gang, wrote to Hiltel:

"The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East."
This is in fact a copy of the similar proposal that Max Nordau made to the British elite in Albert Hall in 1919, to be Britain's "guard over the Suez Canal" and "sentinel over your route to India."

These negotiations and feelers proved abortive under the circumstances, but it suggests that under different circumstances common ground could have been found.

To this links one has to add the successful campaign of the WZO and the leaders of labor Zionism against the US Jewish movement to boycott Nazi Germany.

Given all these meetings, common interests, ideological affinities, and negotiations,
it is not hard to imagine that had a state already existed, the Nazi leadership would have been more seriously considering an alliance with Zionists, and in that case, the latter would have decided who to ally with based on who offered more of a strategic advantage rather than principles. In that case, I don't think it is possible to categorically say that the choice would have been to fight with the allies

Parting with Evil, it's hard to imagine them fighting alongside the Nazis.

It is hard to imagine them, now, in retrospect, based on the course history actually took. But to play with alternative histories seriously, rather than as an adolescent fantasy/propaganda as Rosenberg does, one has to forget the future that hasn't happened yet at the time and evaluate the options people faced in the context of the knowledge and beliefs they had at the time.

evildoer challenges assumptions.

So he's one of them self-hatin' jews from Norm Finklesteinland?

Come on, MJ......

Zionist crybabyism has worked so well for so long, why would the users voluntarily discard it?

There's a surprising lack of interest or knowledge about the true state of Israeli military capacities among the Zionist "disapora" in general. Ditto for the similiar capacities of Israel's "enemies". It's almost as if the true state of affairs is completely irrelevant to those so consumed with her "security".