Over the past few months, an anonymous e-mail has been circulating among American Jews disseminating scurrilous charges against Barack Obama. The e-mail claims, among other things, that he is a Manchurian uslim] Candidate who swore his U.S. Senate oath of office on a Koran and who will not uphold the U.S. constitution if elected. Ben Harris' JTA blog features the full text of the hoax e-mail:

Subject: Barack Obama

This is very interesting - please take a few moments and read it.

Who is Barack Obama? Something that should be considered when you make your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts…it is very scary to think of what could lie ahead for us here in our own United States …better heed this and pray about it and share it. We checked this out on ‘snopes.com ‘. It is factual. Check for yourself.

Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii , to Barack Hussein Obama,Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel , Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest [sic] from Wichita, Kansas .

Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii . When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta . He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, ‘He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.’ Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that that he is not a radical.

Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the RADICAL ISLAMIC teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!! Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?……

NOT ME!!!

I'm of two minds as to whether this idiocy deserves a point by point rebuttal. But just in case anyone takes it seriously and visits here, I think I owe it to them to do something like that.

First, Obama was NEVER a Muslim. His biological father was not a practicing Muslim when married to his mother. Second, he divorced his mother two years after Obama was born and returned to Kenya.

Second, Obama's mother's second husband was a Muslim, but a very bad one in the sense that he was known for being a womanizer and all around carouser who loved to drink.

Third, Indonesia is a Muslim nation and all schools are Muslim. But the school he attended was not a madrassa, if such a thing even existed several decades ago when Obama attended. It certainly was NOT a Wahabi school.

Fourth, as a Christian, Obama was sworn into office on a Bible and not a Koran (not that there is anything wrong with any politician who swears an oath of office with a Koran). Snopes notes that this is a mistaken reference to Rep. Keith Ellison, a Black Muslim who DID take his oath of office on a Koran, which is entirely legitimate act.

Finally, when have you ever read an authentic e mail that attempts to prove its bona fides by appealing to Snopes. In fact, Snopes is in the business of uncovering online fakery. The fact that the anonymous e mail invokes Snopes is a dead giveaway. In fact, Snopes of course notes that the e mail IS a fake.

It should not be very hard with some close research to figure out who is behind this campaign. Frankly, I'm surprised that no enterprising investigative journalist has already jumped on this. All you need is a few original copies of the e mails and an examination of the originating IP addresses to figure out who and where they came from.

My money is on someone either directly or indirectly affiliated with the Frontpagemagazine-Campus Watch-ZOA crowd. I've already noted here Daniel Pipes' Frontpagemagazine article published December 26th in which he advances many of these same charges (though in slightly more sophisticated guise). The e mail was probably circulating even before Pipes wrote his article, so it not entirely clear who influenced or stole from whom. But the tone of the email bears every mark of the Jewish far right crowd that circles around these groups. It is also possible that the fraud emanates from even farther-right Kahanist circles.

Happily, Ben Smith of Politico reports that some Jewish leaders have struck back against this madness with a strong statement condemning this smear:

January 15, 2008

An Open Letter to the Jewish Community:

As leaders of the Jewish community, none of whose organizations will endorse or oppose any candidate for President, we feel compelled to speak out against certain rhetoric and tactics in the current campaign that we find particularly abhorrent. Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and who he is as a person.

These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates.

Attempts of this sort to mislead and inflame voters should not be part of our political discourse and should be rebuffed by all who believe in our democracy. Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We urge everyone to make that decision based on the factual records of these candidates, and nothing less.

William Daroff, Vice President, United Jewish Communities
Nathan J. Diament, Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Richard S. Gordon, President, American Jewish Congress
David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Phyllis Snyder, President, National Council of Jewish Women
Hadar Susskind, Washington Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs

What is ironic is that a number of the signatories themselves have been guilty of defaming Muslims and minorities for their so-called anti-Semitic or anti-Israel views. Among these are Foxman, who recently called Obama's minister a "black racist;" and Hier, who pontificated on Iran's alleged anti-Semitism based on a hoax Jewish star law. I guess we should applaud their joining in signing this document to give it added weight. But in the interests of truth, we should note their hypocrisy in doing so.

Obama's website also refutes the charges raised by the e mail.

Bush thinks he's following a two track policy of politically & militarily bolstering our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan. But his political proposals are toothless and all that he will have to show in ten years time when the arms sales are complete is a wholesale escalation in violence partially enabled by the increased weaponry all sides will bring to bear against their enemies.

That's why I welcome Jewish Voice for Peace's campaign against the arms sales. It is unfortunate that other dovish Jewish groups aren't protesting this ill-advised proposal though I can understand that they don't want to appear to be anti-Israeli in opposing the increase in aid to Israel, as this might sit poorly with American Jewish conservatives. But truly, this aid package will only damage the prospects for peace in the Mideast and long-term this will hurt Israel as well as the Arab countries in the region.

Please take a moment and send a message to Washington that you too oppose the arms sales.

[cross-posted to Tikun Olam]

An Israeli and two American-Jewish bloggers (one of them yours truly) created an online petition to be sent to the Israeli Knesset protesting approval, on first reading, of the Jewish National Fund bill which prevents Arab citizens from leasing land owned by the Jewish National Fund. The JNF is a quasi-private charity established to raise funds to support Jewish settlement in Israel. It also administers 13% of all Israel's land.

Several years ago, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the JNF could no longer discriminate against Arabs since such a practice violated the norms of a modern democracy. The Knesset vote is an attempt to end-around the ruling.

This is the petition text:

We the undersigned express our profound disapproval and sorrow at the Israeli Knesset's recent passage, on first reading, of the Jewish National Fund bill. The bill would prohibit Israel's Arab citizens from leasing land owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and managed by the Israeli Land Authority (which administers 93% of Israel's land). The Israel High Court had earlier ruled that the ILA cannot discriminate against Arabs in leasing such land. This new legislation is an attempt to circumvent that ruling.

We applaud the High Court for putting an end to a discriminatory practice that should never have existed within a democratic state. We also applaud the Israeli MK's, Jewish and Arab that voted against the amendment. If Israel is to be truly democratic, all its citizens must have the right to lease land held in trust by the government of Israel. Israel must not settle for anything less.

We call upon to the Knesset to defeat the amendment when it comes up for its next reading and to embrace values of equality and tolerance for all its citizens.

If you agree with these sentiments I hope you'll consider signing the petition.

The Israeli Knesset yesterday took what most people in the rest of the world would believe to be an obscure little vote on a dreary bill governing land sales. Who cares. Well, those who don't know or care ought to because this vote will go down as one of the more egregious racist votes in the nation's history.

An Israeli Arab brought a case to the Israeli Supreme Court claiming he had been refused the right to buy Israeli land owned by the Jewish National Fund. The high court found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that the State must change its policy and allow any citizen, whether Jewish or not, to buy such land. The attorney general subsequently approved such changes. The bill voted on yesterday is an attempt to do an "end around" the court ruling. It would enshrine in law the racist notion that only Jews should be able to purchase JNF land, while other Israeli citizens should not.

Remember the paeans to Israeli democracy you hear from the lips of the hoch-Zionists: "the only democracy in the Middle East," etc., etc. You can can that now. An ethnocracy maybe, but not a democracy--especially not if this piece of crap passes on its final reading (yesterday's vote was the first reading). Haaretz's editorial today pretty much says it all: A Racist Jewish State:

This bill reflects an abasement of the Zionist enterprise to lows never imagined in the Declaration of Independence. Even though the Jewish National Fund purchased the lands for the Jewish people in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has already been established and these lands must now serve all its citizens.

For those living for tomorrow and not the past, the aim is to create in Israel a healthy, progressive state where the needs of the two peoples should concern the leaders and legislators. The Jewish National Fund's land policy counters the interests of the state and cannot discriminate by law against the minority living in Israel.

What is most pathetic about the vote is that a mere 10 Jewish MKs could muster enough outrage to vote against this travesty of justice. Even Ami Ayalon, the supposed Labor Party paragon of Israeli-Palestinian understanding voted Aye. The final vote was 64-16. I know in the history of the world's greatest legislative folly this is but one example. But for Israel it's truly a golden one.

Speaking of golden, follow my Tikun Olam blog link above to an acerbic cartoon from Haaretz. To get the joke you have to know that the Jewish National Fund (or Kerem Kayemet L'Yisrael) has blue tzedakah (pushke) boxes covered with the Star of David which are known by Jews the world over. The cartoonist has changed the color from Israeli blue to racist yellow (the same color as the star Nazis forced Jews to wear). And instead of an Israeli Star of David there is a Kahanist fist. Nice touch.

Those who know their American history will remember that until the 1950s it was illegal for Asian-Americans to own land in the west. Is this the model that Israel wishes to embrace?? Could you give an Israel-hater a greater gift than this? Could you give a Palestinian or Israeli Arab a stronger confirmation of their impression that Israel is irredeemably racist?? What can you do but scratch your head and say: "Huh?" Whatever were they thinking? Well, you know what they're thinking and it ain't pretty.

There are those of us progressive Zionists who have a different vision of Israel. But days and votes like yesterday's make it really hard to keep what little faith you have left.

Thanks to Magnes Zionist, a terrific new blog by Jerry Haber representing a progressive Orthodox Israeli viewpoint, for first bringing this law to my attention; and to Sol Salbe for providing the Haaretz editorial and cartoon.

This is simply one of the funniest, most frightening, and outrageous exposes of neocon culture I've read in ages: Ship of Fools: Johann Hari Sets Sail with America's Swashbuckling Neocons. An English journalist, on assignment for The New Republic (which must be doing penance here for shilling for Bush's Iraq war), infiltrates a National Review cruise and spends the next few days eviscerating the foibles and delusions of his fellow guests. While I appreciate Johan Hari's wit and courage in taking on this assignment, I also wonder how he could've survived the lunacy without jumping off the ship to ease the pain he had to endure. All I can say is I'm glad it was Hari on that ship and not me.

Here is a taste of what's in store if you follow the above link:

I am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, both chilling and burning, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. "Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she says. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."

I am getting used to these moments – when gentle holiday geniality bleeds into... what? I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change."

I am travelling on a bright white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, a casino – and 500 readers of the National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success". Global warming is not happening. The solitary black person claims, "If the Ku Klux Klan supports equal rights, then God bless them." And I have nowhere to run.

Hari's interviews with fellow tour-guests Norman Podhoretz, Ken Starr and Ward Connerly are priceless and not to be believed.

A little research uncovered that Hari's idea is not new. Eric Alterman first attended the Nation Review cruise in 1997 and wrote an equally withering critique. Bloggers, like journalists, like to be the first to cover a story or come up with a new angle on one; and alas, I discover (after writing this) that Rachel Sklar has already covered this well at The Huffington Post.

...If there is a leak out of my Administration I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law the person will be taken care of.

--George Bush, September 30, 2003

...The commutation “should demonstrate to the American people how corrupt this administration is.” He suggested that its goal was to prevent Mr. Libby from telling all he knew about White House actions, particularly in the planning for war.

“By his action, the president has guaranteed that Mr. Libby has no incentive to begin telling the truth,” Mr. Wilson said.

--New York Times

Little could the American people imagine in 2003 when George Bush said he would "take care" of the leaker what this would actually mean in 2007. What a travesty. Alexander's Archive wittily calls this Bush's version of amnesty. And how right Joe Wilson is in talking about this decision as an indication of the political corruption at the heart of this Administration. Not corruption involving money. But corruption of the values, ideals and principles of constitutional law. Of course, Bush has the RIGHT to commute anyone's sentence. That's not what I meant by corrupting the constitution. I mean that he has subverted the rule of law and the principle that no one is above it.

So we see that in Guantanamo there are human beings who are, according to Bush, not subject to conventional American justice but rather to George Bush's version of rough extra-constitutional justice. Conversely, we see there are Bush apparachiks who will always be protected from the application of justice to their crimes. As Pat Fitzgerald so aptly said today:

“It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals.”

I find this Bush statement not only laughable but infuriating:

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”

First, it's ludicrous to say he respects the jury's verdict since he's just shat on it. Second, here's a guy with no law degree and an attorney general as shoddy as they come and they're making a considered judgment that a federal judge's sentence is "excessive?" Who's kiddin' who here? Libby's damn lucky Fitzgerald didn't actually charge him with the leak and prosecute him under much more severe terms had he been found guilty. 'Excessive' my ass.

Here's what I hope: that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton when they win the White House immediately appoint Pat Fitzgerald attorney general. Then we'll really know what it means to be a nation ruled by laws and not by whim or ideology.

In discussing the commutation with my wife, she made a terrific point. Bush, by his action, has essentially decided to write off the presidency for the Republican party. He's said to his party's candidates: "I could give a shit about you. Apres moi--le deluge." Oops, that was French. Of course, he would never say that. But you get my drift.

What shocks me is that Giuliani and Romney have endorsed Bush's action. I guess they don't think it's going to play too badly with the American electorate come 2008. I'm hoping they're sorely mistaken. Of course, no single action like this will seal the deal for the Dems in 2008. But I'd sure love to see some campaign commercials in the general election reminding the electorate of Giuliani's support for this schande if he's the Republican candidate. I wonder what McCain is going to do. We all know what the "old" John McCain would've done. The Straight Talker would've said it stinks to high heaven. What will the expedient, pragmatic McCain do?

I recently wrote a post about Lt. Cmdr. Matt Diaz, the patriot who revealed the names of the Guantanamo detainees to a human rights lawyer. He's serving 6 months in the Navy brig for his troubles. As we approach July 4th, it seems ironic the patriots are behind bars and the criminals get their sentences commuted!

Abraham Cahan is turning over in his grave. The trail-blazing founder of the Jewish Daily Forward created one of the first advice columns in American journalism, the Bintel Brief. The Forward editors are turning over the latter day version of the column to Alan Dershowitz (yup, you heard me right). Imagine Dersh as a neocon Ann Landers. I'd laugh at this if it weren't so cruelly and darkly ironic:

Alan Dershowitz is one of the most famous names in the American legal profession, his counsel highly sought after. Now he will be offering his counsel to our readers, as the Forward’s next Bintel Brief guest advice columnist.

In addition to his stellar legal career, the famed Harvard Law professor has distinguished himself as one of America’s leading Jewish activists and most prolific pundits. With such books as “The Vanishing American Jew,” “The Case for Israel” and “The Case for Peace,” he has shaped the Jewish communal conversation.

Are you facing a Jewish dilemma, an ethical conundrum or family difficulties? Could you use some advice related to advocacy or activism? Send your questions for the Bintel Brief to bintelblog at forward dot com.

Check the Forward’s Web site Mondays in July for new installments of the Bintel Brief, featuring Dershowitz dispensing some wise counsel.

His "counsel highly sought after?" A "stellar career?" "America's leading Jewish activist and prolific pundit?" Dershowitz's "wise counsel?" Surely they jest. I especially like the suggestion that readers ask about their 'ethical conundrums.' Does the shaister who suggested that Norman Finkelstein believed his Shoah-survivor mother was a kapo have the right to utter one word about anyone else's "ethical conundrums?"

Back in the day, the original Bintel Brief used to give advice to the love-lorn. It helped Jewish immigrants through the suffering of emigration and taught them to adapt to the New World. It always tried to speak plainly, simply and honestly to common folk. It always tried to make them a little better human beings. What can Alan Dershowitz have to say on that score to latter day Jews?

I'd like to suggest a contest. Perhaps some other progressive bloggers can join in. Let's think of the most damaging advice we can ask Dershowitz involving his own ethically-challenged, demagogic, lying, scummy, baiting, dishonest behavior. It won't get into The Forward. But we can have some fun with it. Readers, I challenge your wit.

Maybe a Lebanese can write in and ask advice about how he can rebuild a life shattered with the help of pro-Israel ideologues like Big D. who justified Israel's decimation of Lebanon. Maybe Norman Finkelstein can ask what to do in the case of a someone whose promotion is derailed by a spiteful, evil colleague.

I should make clear that I genuinely admire The Forward. But this idea has really come a cropper. Any humor we wring out of this is fully deserved.

A coalition of American Jewish peace groups is supporting a newly introduced resolution written by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Richard Lugar (R, IN), S.R. 224, which reaffirms American support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, urges President Bush to appoint a high-level peace negotiator to revive peace talks between the parties, and urges them to embrace the Arab League peace plan.

Americans for Peace Now notes:

The resolution, cosponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Max Baucus (D-MT), Robert Byrd (D-WV), John Sununu (R-NH), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), reaffirms the Senate's commitment to a "true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of 2 states, the State of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, with recognized borders." It also calls on President Bush to "pursue a robust diplomatic effort to engage the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, begin negotiations, and make a 2-state settlement a priority." It calls on the President to "consider appointing a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace who has held cabinet rank or is equally qualified, with extensive knowledge of foreign affairs in general and the Middle East region in particular." The resolution also welcomes the Arab League Peace Initiative and calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to "embrace efforts to achieve peace and refrain from taking any actions that would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations."

If your senators aren't yet co-sponsors please visit the Brit Tzedek site and send them an e mail urging them to do so.

Curious what posture AIPAC will take toward this. They surely can't publicly sabotage it. But privately...? They've got to feel the Arab League plan is pure trash. But as Olmert has made sympathetic noises about it (and not done anything beyond that naturally) can AIPAC publicly trash it?

June 8th was a black day for academic freedom and a black day for free and open debate about issues of concern to the Jewish community like the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a banner day for the intellectual thought police represented by Alan Dershowitz who has triumphed with an intense, fiercely fought and ugly smear campaign entirely devoid of intellectual content. Instead the campaign was fought on overheated rhetoric and twisted arguments. And Dershowitz has won. DePaul has rid itself of the meddlesome professor by denying him tenure.

This statement from DePaul's president beggars belief:

"Over the past several months, there has been considerable outside interest and public debate concerning this decision," Rev. Dennis Holtschneider said. "This attention was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case."

Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact, academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul. It is guaranteed both as an integral part of the University's scholarly and religious heritage, and as an essential condition of effective inquiry and instruction. On a daily basis, DePaul faculty and students explore the most important ideas of our time, including difficult and contentious issues, and they do so in ways that adhere to professional standards of academia and respect the dignity and worth of each individual.

Dershowitz and the pro-Israel hatchet-folk didn't have any impact on the internal campus debate surrounding tenure? Right.

I want to make clear that while I don't agree with Finkelstein's anti-Zionist position, I think he has much to say in his critique of the Jewish community's obsession with the Holocaust as the supposedly defining element of Jewish identity. And as eminent a historian as Raul Hilberg--dean of Holocaust historians, in fact--agrees with me. I urge anyone who cares about intellectual fairness and justice in this case to read the DemocracyNow interview with Hilberg and Avi Shlaim, an Oxford historian. They are not always in full agreement with Finkelstein. They take him to task for the incendiary nature of some of his discourse. But what they say in his support is very strong and very important:

I am impressed by the analytical abilities of Finkelstein. He is, when all is said and done, a highly trained political scientist who was given a PhD degree by a highly prestigious university. This should not be overlooked...

However, leaving aside the question of style -- and here, I agree that it’s not my style either -- the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.

This smug statement by Dershowitz makes me sick:

“It was the right decision, proving that DePaul University is indeed a first-rate university, not as Finkelstein characterized it, ‘a third-rate university.’ Based on objective standards of scholarship, this should not have even been a close case.”

Harvard should be ashamed that it gives academic cover to such a mendacious, overblown bully.

DePaul has made a very serious mistake. It has set a very bad precedent for American universities. Given the worldwide recognition that Finkelstein's academic books and articles have received it is ludicrous to say he has not met the threshold for publishing. And if you want to argue that he's not a nice person or collegial enough or that he has a sharp tongue--well, get in line with the tens of thousands of other tenured professors who share those qualities.

I an incredulous that DePaul would essentially deny a professor tenure claiming (though of course this is a smokescreen reason) that Finkelstein's rhetoric toward his academic peers was overheated. Here's what Peter Kirstein--who has read the dean's memo denying tenure--has to say:

The university’s decision to deny tenure is basically a repetition of the Suchar Memorandum’s charge of inappropriate tone, collegiality and manners. I think this case will continue to be examined by national organisations that exist to protect professors from such arbitrary and egregious display of contempt for controversial research that may offend some but on its merits represent significant and valuable scholarship.

UPDATE: In the president's letter to Finkelstein (pdf file) he quotes this lame passage from the faculty tenure committee which voted 4-3 against granting him a promotion:

...Some may interpret parts of his scholarship as "deliberately hurtful" as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect than to carefully critique or challenge accepted assumptions. Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks in his writings and intellectual debates. These concerns are relevant in the recognition that an academic's reputation is intrinsically tied to the institution of which he or she is affiliated. It was questioned by some whether Dr. Finkelstein effectively contributes to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues.

Then the president continues:

...Reviewers at all levels...commented upon your ad hominem attacks on scholars with whom you disagree...Your unprofessional attacks divert conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration...Your work not only shifts toward advocacy and away from scholarship, but also fails to meet the most basic standards governing scholarly discourse within the academic community.

...Nor can I conclude that your scholarship honors our University's commitment to creating an environment in which all persons engaged in research and learning exercise academic freedom and respect it in others.

Can you imagine this academic jackanape has the chutzpah to accuse Finkelstein of not respecting "academic freedom??" And since when do college faculty NOT engage in ad hominem attacks or even savage debate about subjects on which they are passionate? This is beyond lame.

Kirstein also reports that another DePaul professor who prominently supported Finkelstein was denied tenure. This makes a laughingstock of the DePaul president's statement above.

I am glad that Finkelstein has the right attitude toward this travesty of academic justice and his persecutors:

“As it happens, I was just this past week teaching about Paul Robeson in my political science class. When Robeson was crucified for his beliefs, he said, ‘I will not retreat one-thousandth part of one inch.’ That’s what I say to the thugs and hoodlums who are trying to silence me. They don’t want to talk about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. So they make Norman Finkelstein the issue.”

No doubt, Finkelstein has enough fame that he will publish and earn a living from his books and the lecture circuit and not need an academic appointment. But should he wish to return, one has to wonder what university would hire him and be willing to risk the "hit" it would take from Dershowitz and his academic Brownshirts. There would be a massive campaign to enlist alumni to cancel donations much like Daniel Pipes' blackmail at Brandeis recently. It would get ugly. What faculty department or university president is willing to take on such a burden? DePaul didn't.

Inside Higher Education has one of the better articles on the subject.

For months, I've been following the plans for a possible new progressive alternative to AIPAC being formed within the American Jewish community. I was tremendously excited when George Soros was named as a possible supporter and funder. When he backed out (foolishly in my opinion), I thought the idea was likely dead. But good ideas don't die easily and others have carried on the discussions:

Merger talks are heating up among three leading dovish Israel advocacy groups in a development that proponents hope will produce a new mega-organization with greater political clout and more money to push for a two-state solution.

Leaders of Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are weighing the idea and are expected to reach a decision by the fall. The discussions are being held within each of the groups and between leaders of the three organizations, under the auspices of several Washington-based activists who are promoting the idea of a pro-peace Jewish lobby.

...Some liberal observers are hoping that a new joint entity could emerge as a counter to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that doves have accused of working against efforts to convince the White House to do more to advance Israeli-Palestinian talks. Organizers of the new initiative are publicly dismissing any talk of weakening or competing against Aipac; at the same time, they insist that the goal is to create a new voice for American Jews.

The Forward article notes a bold funding initiative for the new group which is impressive if they can bring it off:

Proponents of the merger aim to raise $10 million — double the combined annual budgets of the three organizations — to help launch the new initiative. Part of the money would come from contributors who already back the three existing groups, but most of the $10 million — if the goal is reached — is expected to come from donors who currently do not give to Jewish organizations or to other pro-Israel groups. Among the potential donors being targeted are Jewish figures in Hollywood, as well as young liberal Jewish philanthropists who currently focus their giving on non-Jewish causes

As a Jewish communal fundraiser, I'd hate to be dubious about such a potentially wonderful venture, but this sounds like the pipe dreams that lots of progressives have about finding funding. The truth is usually that the money comes from those who are committed and I don't see Hollywood Jews or those who don't currently give to Jewish causes as strong prospects. There's a reason why they don't give to Jewish causes (alienation and remoteness) and they're not likely to make an exception for this one.

But hey, prove me wrong. It won't bother me a bit.

One of the sticking points has been the structure of the new entity:

According to sources familiar with the talks, the organizations are being asked to choose between two options: instituting a formal merger that would create a joint pro-peace organization under which the three existing groups would continue to operate, or creating a separate new body that would raise funds independently and provide financial assistance and backing to projects directed by the existing groups.

This is confusing. How do you have a "formal merger" in which the three groups would continue to operate? Unless each of the three groups would focus on a single distinctive area of operation like research, lobbying and outreach, say--but all within one over-arching organization. I'm agnostic on the idea of creating a funding mechanism that would support the three separate groups. It seems a bit cumbersome to have 3 groups fundraising separately and then have a fourth raising money for all of them.

A friend who works for one of the groups gave it a 50/50 chance of ever getting off the ground. I'd say that's still about right. But we need such a new venture. We need a bolder, stronger, better funded voice to combat the hidebound notions of AIPAC. Israel is in desperate straits and needs to hear a voice of encouragement and friendship, but also one of realism and pragamatism from the American Jewish community. Separately, these groups have had much success. But in a joint venture there is much more that could be achieved.

We aren't doing enough. The situation is very bad. It calls for more from us. But can we give it? Do we have it in us?

Americans for Peace Now and the Arab American Institute released a Zogby poll (full results--pdf) of American Jews and Arab Americans which provides some interesting new data on attitudes toward Mideast peace. One of the most important findings is that both groups track very closely on almost every question asked (with a few exceptions). This indicates there are no significant gaps between American Jews or Arabs on questions of war and peace which both hold vital.

The poll also confirms what many of us have known for years--that American Jews diverge strongly from the views of their leaders and the Israeli government when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

90% of American Jews support a "secure, independent" Palestinian state.

88% of Arab Americans support a "secure, independent" state of Israel.

34% of Jews believe that Arab Americans support a secure independent Israel.

60% of Arabs believe that Jews support a secure independent Palestine.

87% of Jews and 94% of Arabs support a negotiated two-state solution.

68% of Jews and 64% of Arabs would be more likely to vote for a Presidential candidate who advocated strong engagement in the Mideast peace process.

20% of Jews and 21% of Arabs found George Bush's policy "effective" in "handling the Arab-Israeli peace process."

73% of Jews and 79% of Arabs feel it is vital to engage in diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear standoff.

21% of Jews and 30% of Arabs feel "optimistic" about Middle East peace.

40% of Jews and 66% of Arabs feel the U.S. should "steer a middle course" between Israel and the Palestinians.

58% of Jews and 59% of Arabs said they would be more likely to support a Presidential candidate who supported peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.

81% of Jews and 84% of Arabs support Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

89% of Jews and 92% of Arabs believe it is important for both communities to work together for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

65% of Jews and 89% of Arabs believe it is imperative to end the Israeli Occupation.

63% of Jews and 77% of Arabs believe in a settlement freeze.

70% of Jews and 82% of Arabs support the Arab League initiative.

80% of both Jews and Arabs agree with the Iraq Study Group report that finding a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is necessary for advancing U.S. Mideast policy goals.

This poll tells us a number of interesting things. It reinforces the absolute divorce between the views of average American Jews and their leadership and the leadership of the State of Israel. AIPAC and other other groups constituting the Israel lobby do not support Syrian-Israel negotiations, are highly suspicious of pursuing a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran, oppose the end of the Occupation, oppose a settlement freeze, and are dubious about the Arab League Initiative.

One somewhat distressing finding was that only 34% of Jews believe that Arabs support a secure Israel, while in fact 88% do. This, of course, indicates the sorry, violent state of affairs in the Middle East today and also the drumbeat of negativity that is inculcated into American Jews by the local Jewish media and the Israel lobby.

A hopeful finding also was that fully 40% of American Jews believe that a "middle course" is the best road for American policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I recall the Republican Jewish Coalition attempting to excoriate the Democrats in the last election because they allegedly are in favor of such a "middle course." Little did the Repubs know that an equal number of American Jews favor a middle course (40% + 1% who favor tilting toward Palestine) to those who favor a tilt toward Israel (44%). Despite the enormous efforts of AIPAC to drive a stridently pro-Israel agenda the effort has failed, at least at the grassroots level.

I hope that the Democratic Presidential candidates will also wake and realize that the majority of American Jews don't want a candidate who will kowtow to AIPAC's hardline, no compromise agenda. The vast majority, in fact, want a candidate who strongly supports a peace process with both the Palestinians and Syrians. You wouldn't know this from everything coming out of the mouths of Clinton, Obama and the rest.

Recently, I wrote here about the tragic conviction of Navy Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz for leaking the names of Guantanamo inmates to a human rights lawyer in 2003. Even though the military later released all the names anyway, Diaz was convicted on the improbable charge of damaging the interests of the U.S. by revealing the names. He was sentenced to six months in prison. All for doing what any decent American should've done. All for standing up for traditional American values of freedom, decency, fairness and the rule of law.

Diaz' niece saw my post at TPMCafe and wrote me a nice note thanking me. Then Bryan White, one of my readers, asked me if he could contact Diaz to thank him for his bravery:

Poor bastard! They've got the wrong guy in jail. He's been locked up for obeying the law.

...I'm sending him a letter telling him I admire him and that I wish him the best. See if he needs anything or just feels like corresponding. Show solidarity. I support the guy and want to be sure he knows it. Millions of people support him. I just hope he doesn't come out of this bitter or hateful...

Matt agreed to recieve mail from Bryan and the former's niece graciously provided his military address. I was thinking that if others of my readers would like to do this I could pass on your names to his niece and ask her permission to provide Matt's postal address.

But you can't have Matt's e mail address because the Navy denies him e-mail privileges. You also can't send Matt copied pages from any media (including the internet). You can only send him newspapers or magazines that are pre-approved. The idea that a man who gave 18 yrs of his life as a Navy lawyer is locked up as a common criminal & prevented even from using e mail is so repugnant as to be beyond belief. This man is a patriot & deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not 6 months in solitary. What is the Navy afraid of--that he will communicate some secret code to yet another human rights lawyer and give away the keys to the kingdom?

Matt Diaz is an American patriot. The military brass and CIA officers running Gitmo and their enablers back in DC are the criminals who deserve six months in the brig for ignoring our Constitution. Matt should be giving lessons in habeus corpus and due process to senators like Lindsay Graham and John McCain who essentially "legalized Gitmo."

Since the end of the Lebanon war last summer, things have been relatively quiet between Israel and the Palestinians. It allowed some of us to hope that perhaps this lull would allow both sides to make progress toward final status negotiations. But as usual, the pessimists have been borne out. It only takes a week, a hail of Qassams and Hamas trouncing Fatah forces in the streets of Gaza for the entire delicate facade of the ceasefire to come tumbling down.

A few days ago the Cabinet gave the green light to the IDF to resume targeted assassinations (don't you just love the "precision" in that term, as if the IDF always hits its "target" and never kills innocent civilians in the process) against Palestinian militants. But publicly at least, those to be attacked were supposed to be members of Hamas' military wing:

The security cabinet on Sunday authorized the IDF to intensify air attacks on the Gaza Strip and targeted assassinations of senior Hamas activists. Government sources in Jerusalem said the cabinet decision called for assassinations of leaders of the military wing of Hamas, not the political wing.

With today's results of the first serious strike we can see how laughable that claim was. The home of the leader of Hamas' parliamentary faction, not a member of the military wing, was attacked by air and eight members of his family were killed:

The Israel Air Forces last night bombed the house of Hamas parliamentarian Khalil al-Haya in Gaza. He was slightly injured in the attack, but eight others including seven members of his family were killed, and 13 people were wounded.

He had just finished discussing a ceasefire proposal with Egyptian officials when his home was bombed:

Several family members and Hamas activists had apparently gathered in the yard of the home when the IAF struck, a little after 9 A.M. Al-Haya, who was lightly injured in attack, had just finished discussing a cease-fire with a Fatah leader at the Egyptian Embassy in the Gaza Strip...

Al-Haya, a former spokesman for the Hamas parliamentary faction in Gaza, is responsible for negotiations with Fatah and Hamas' future membership in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Haaretz mentions that its cabinet source declared that al-Haya's name was not on any list of those targeted for assassination. So how did he get attacked? Is it any wonder that no one with any sense of balance can believe a word coming from the IDF and intelligence agencies?

The toll of the dead:

Seven of the dead are members of the al-Haya family: Nimr al-Haya, 60; Abd al-Hamid al-Haya, 35; Bakhr al-Haya, 26; Ibrahim al-Haya, 23; Ala al-Haya, 22; Jihad al-Haya, 17; and Mohammed al-Haya, 16. The eighth man is Samakj Farauna, 27, a Hamas activist.

The IAF is killing old men and teenagers. Bravo! This is just more of that superb IDF execution which brought you last summer's Lebanon war in which the IAF seemed better at hitting civilians than hitting actual Hezbollah fighters.

Here is the IDF's "justification" for the bombing:

An Israeli Army spokeswoman, Capt. Noa Meir, said that according to the army’s initial findings, the army “identified and hit a five-member terrorist cell based on prior intelligence — they were the target of the attack.”

Does this sound like a "terror cell" to you?

Officials at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City said that the dead included seven members of Mr. Hayya’s family, including three of his brothers, and a neighbor. Mr. Hayya, 44, who arrived at the hospital surrounded by supporters shortly after the attack, said his brothers were “part of the Palestinian people” and had nothing to do with politics.

What was this? It was the Shin Bet and IDF saying (and pardon my langugage but I'm pissed) fuck the military wing--we're going after you guys where you live and we'll kill all of you if we have to. They deliberately picked a senior legislative leader to say: "we don't make any distinction between military or political. You're all scum in our book." This is yet another example of an Israeli war crime. You don't deliberately target civilian political leaders. Did this man have "blood on his hands?" Had he participated in a terrorist bombing? I don't hear the IDF making that claim. Nor can they reasonably do so. Unfortunately, the killing of innocent civilians who happen to be al-Haya's sons and other relatives is the price to be paid for the IDF sending a message to Hamas that there will be hell to pay unless they call off the current bloodbath in which they are devastating Fatah forces in Gaza. Why do the innocent have to die to make such a point??

And here is the much vaunted "brilliance" of Israeli military intelligence at work (here quoting from Jonathan Fighel, an Israeli intelligence analyst):

Israel should “hit the Palestinians in a different dimension, to restore deterrence.” Israel, he said, had other options such as cutting off electricity and water supplies to Gaza and killing high-ranking Hamas members, “including ministers,"...said Fighel, a colonel in the reserves who follows Palestinian movements at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya.

"Restore deterrence?" How would killing al-Haya have done that? More likely it would've speeded up the process of getting IDF officers into the dock at the Hague. And how will cutting off water to a million Palestinians "restore deterence?" I swear, sometimes I think these people are living on another planet than the one the rest of us inhabit. Are they for real? Do they really find these bankrupt ideas in the least credible? Woe unto Israel if this is the best its best minds can produce.

Why Do Babies Have to Die?

Gideon Levy writes another one of his heartbreaking profiles of Gaza suffering in today's Haaretz. This story concerns an IDF patrol that nightly invades a Palestinian refugee camp to shoot up the place. Snipers on a roof targeted the home of a Palestinian family when the mother arose to comfort her sleeping babies in the next room who were frightened by the firing:

Last Wednesday was an ordinary day in the Katouni household. The father [Rifat] went to work, the kids went to school, and in the evening everyone went to bed - the parents in their bedroom and the three children in their room in the third-floor apartment. Shortly after two in the morning, Maha [Katouni, the mother] was startled awake by the loud sounds of gunfire from the street. She didn't even manage to turn on the light when she got up to run to the kids' room next door, to reassure her three little boys and keep them from getting scared. The gunfire was very heavy. The window of her room was open and her bed was close to the window.

Maha got out of bed, took one step, and then the bullet struck her in the lower back. She fell onto the nightstand...Soldiers from the Nahal patrol battalion were standing on the roofs of the surrounding buildings. "Wherever we are sent - to there we go," the poet Yaakov Orland once wrote in "The Nahal Anthem," sung by the Nahal entertainment troupe, which also sang "The Song of Peace."

Rifat rushed to call an ambulance. The children, who had awakened, were hysterical, especially the youngest, 3-year-old Jad, at the sight of the blood trickling from the front and back of their pregnant mother, who lay wounded on the floor. The bullet had struck her from behind, passed through the fetus' head and the mother's intestines and exited through the abdomen...

One of her brothers somehow managed to cross the line of fire and get to her house; he tried to stanch the gaping wound in her stomach with a towel. Her husband, Rifat, was paralyzed with shock. Umm Ibrahim says that her son, who tended to Maha, could see through the hole in her abdomen that the fetus had been wounded in the head and was dead...

The hospital staff, so inured to suffering by all the previous deaths and wounds it has tended to, still manages to stir a sense of outrage at this latest travesty brought to you by the Israeli Occupation:

Memorial posters decorate the walls of the Rafidiya government hospital in Nablus, covering earlier posters of countless young people who have been killed. But this poster is like nothing we have seen before: a fetus covered in its own blood, its tiny head blown up by the bullet that struck its mother, and the caption - "Who gave you the right to steal his life?"

...The anesthesiologist, Dr. Iyad Salim, a resident of nearby Hawara, roams the hospital corridors. On his cell phone camera is a video of the operation and the removal of the fetus. So close to being a fully developed baby, with a bullet wound to the head. The memorial poster shows the fetus bleeding from the head. The image is unbearable.

We always tend to lose sight of the real people who suffer in conflicts such as this. What were their hopes and dreams? Lest we forget, this family had similar emotions for the new life they were about to bring into the world:

They were going to call him Daoud, after an uncle, and also after a resident of the camp who was killed. At home they had everything ready: new clothes, diapers and a crib passed down from his older brothers. Daoud was buried in the camp cemetery. Only a few close family members attended the funeral of the unborn baby.

At press time, no response had been received from the IDF Spokesperson's Office.

And what could they say that would mean anything and not make an even greater travesty??

The idea that Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz will do six months in the brig for committing the brave and even noble deed of leaking the names of all Guantanamo detainees to human rights lawyers is profoundly distressing:

A military jury recommended Friday that a Navy lawyer be discharged and imprisoned for six months for sending a human rights attorney the names of 550 Guantanamo Bay detainees.

...Diaz was convicted Thursday of communicating secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees that could be used to injure the United States and three other charges of leaking information to an unauthorized person.

...After the first day of his trial Monday, Diaz had told The Dallas Morning News he felt sending the list -- which was inside an unmarked Valentine's Day card -- was the right decision because of how the detainees were being treated.

...In early 2005, as he was concluding a six-month tour of duty as a legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Diaz sent an anonymous note to a New York civil liberties group containing the detainees' names.

...''I had observed the stonewalling, the obstacles we continued to place in the way of the attorneys,'' Diaz told the newspaper. ''I knew my time was limited. ... I had to do something.''

I regret that Diaz, facing the full brunt of military justice bearing down on him seems to have decided that folding his tail between his legs and begging for mercy was advisable under the circumstances. And who really can blame him?

Diaz, who could have received up to 14 years in prison, gave emotional testimony during the sentencing hearing, apologizing for his actions.

''The prosecutors were right: I'm a meticulous man. I should have done better. It was extremely irrational for me to do what I did,'' Diaz said.

...Diaz said he now believes it was ''cowardly'' to release the names and other identifying information in that manner.

Read the Morning News story. It's devastating and includes this jaw-dropping quotation from Diaz (remember he served 18 years as a Navy lawyer):

I think a good case could be made for allegations of war crimes, policies that were war crimes," he said.

Matthew Diaz is an American hero. He should not spend a day in jail. Patrick Leahy should call him to testify before the Judiciary Committee so he can tell the nation why his conscience impelled him to do what he did. And if his lawyers or family read this, please tell us more about him, his case, and what else we can do to support him.

In the Hamas video clip issued by Memri, a Mickey Mouse lookalike asks a young girl what she will do "for the sake of al-Aqsa". Apparently trying to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says "I'll shoot".

The child says: "I'm going to draw a picture."

Memri's translation ignores this remark and instead quotes the child (wrongly) as saying: "I'll shoot."

Pressed further by the mouse - "What are we going to do?" - the girl replies in Arabic: "Bidna nqawim." The normal translation of this would be "We're going to [or want to] resist" but Memri's translation puts a more aggressive spin on it: "We want to fight."

The mouse continues: "What then?"

According to Memri, the child replies: "We will annihilate the Jews."

The sound quality on the clip is not very good, but I have listened to it several times (as have a number of native Arabic speakers) and we can hear no word that might correspond to "annihilate".

What the girl seems to say is: "Bitokhoona al-yahood" - "The Jews will shoot us" or "The Jews are shooting us."

This is followed by further prompting - "We are going to defend al-Aqsa with our souls and blood, or are we not?"

Again, the girl's reply is not very clear, but it's either: "I'll become a martyr" or "We'll become martyrs."

In the context of the conversation, and in line with normal Arab-Islamic usage, martyrdom could simply mean being killed by the Israelis' shooting. However, Memri's translation of the sentence - "I will commit martyrdom" turns it into a deliberate act on the girl's part, and Colonel Carmon has since claimed that it refers to suicide bombers.

When I read about this story first at Matt Yglesias' blog I wrote a doubting comment at his blog as soon as I noticed his source was Palestinian Media Watch. If you write about the Mideast conflict as long as I have you tend to know which sources are immediately credible and which are only credible if independently verified. And MEMRI is one that I never credit unless verified by a more reliable, and less tendentious source.

If I knew to keep my distance why could not AP, CNN and other publications have invested in the time it would take to ask Arabic speakers to vet MEMRI's translation? Now, they wouldn't have egg on their face. Of course, the problem is the damage is now done. MEMRI's story, though false, has circulated deeply and widely. No amount of clarification from the Brian Whittakers of the world can correct the false impression planted by the anti-Arab propagandists.

On a final note, I completely agree with Brian that it is unpardonable for Hamas to place children in the position they did in questioning the girl on this show. Using children for political purposes is despicable and worthy of condemnation. But if we're going to condemn this program, let's do so based on accurate, credible information and not based on someone's fever dream of Arab anti-Semitism and annihilationsim.

I also note that the AP provided a translation of a speech by the Mickey Mouse character which should also be questioned:

“You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists,” the character squeaked on a recent episode. “We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers.”

Which is summarized thusly:

Hamas militants have suspended a television program that featured a Mickey Mouse look-alike urging Palestinian children to fight Israel and work for global Islamic domination

AP doesn't say where this translation comes from: MEMRI? Their own independent sources? Remember what The Who used to warn us? "We won't be fooled again." Let the media beware and verify MEMRI stories and translations before running with them.

A big hat tip to Sol Salbe.

[cross-posted to Tikun Olam]