"Rosenthal, who is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, served as a Health Department regional director under the Clinton administration, and held positions in different left-leaning Jewish organizations. Between 2000 and 2005, Rosenthal was the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; she was also the executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women. In recent years, she has served on the advisory board of the J Street lobby. The president of Americans for Peace Now lauded Obama's appointment of Rosenthal. Even Anti-Defamation League chairman Abraham Foxman came out in support of Rosenthal's appointment. "This appointment signals the continued seriousness of America?s resolve to fight anti-Semitism," Foxman said in a statement. Shortly after the announcement of Rosenthal's nomination, conservative Jewish web sites began to attack her, some of them declaring that Obama appointed an anti-Israeli to fight anti-Semitism." Haaretz ------------------------------------------------ "Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism" Did you know we had one of these? Ah, now we know why senior appointees in the executive branch are mostly flunkies for Israel. pl
"The latest round of heated debate has been over the nomination of Hannah Rosenthal to head the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration.
Whether or not it has anything to do with the creation of this office (I suspect the latter), US anti-Semitic views are at an all-time low, according to a poll taken last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59S37T20091029
The office itself was created under the Bush administration, because God only knows how bad the anti-semetism problem was in 2004. If it was bad at that time, it was only if the term 'Semite' was taken in its original meaning--wherein Arabs are considered to be Semites.
Regarding the ADL, it is no friend of the American people. I just recently found out this little nugget:
In 1993, the District of Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel's policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.
ADL Blinks, Settles Spying Case
http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html
The ADL settled with a cash payment, and without forcing the parties to sign a confidentiality agreement.
Posted by: Roy G | 03 June 2010 at 08:16 AM
"... Hagel spoke about his views on the issue of Israel and the Middle East.
"The United States' support for Israel need not be - nor should it be - an either-or proposition that dictates our relationships with our Arab allies and friends. The U.S. has a long and special relationship with Israel, but it must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships," Hagel said."
Sounds like he puts American interests first as it should be.
Posted by: Fred | 03 June 2010 at 08:23 AM
Please forgive me for going offtopic and making a political pitch, however, it is a salient matter; One of the few American politicians who has spoken out strongly against the Flotilla Massacre is Marcy Winograd, who is in a tough primary fight against none other than 'AIPAC Jane' Harman. It's a close race, and there are a lot of undecideds, so the Flotilla could have a positive effect on changing US politics as soon as next Tuesday, the day of the primary.
I encourage you all to support Ms. Winograd, perhaps with a small donation, since she's not getting regular checks from The Lobby.
http://winogradforcongress.com
Posted by: Roy G | 03 June 2010 at 08:44 AM
The combat I'm not so much worried about, it's the monitoring part.
Posted by: eakens | 03 June 2010 at 09:52 AM
Well Obama has always been free to create or fill these posts that require no confirmation. Looking like the huge build up in WH staff over last 4 decades [and please include all detailees in the count including serving military officers] but they are expensive. Personally I believe that the US should "never forget" but what always fascinates me is the fact that elements in Israel, many of whom grew up in the US including Golda Meir, acted as though someday Israel would not be largely the creation of US policy and guilt and shame over the holocaust and also certain elements of Eurpoean society. Anti-Semitism against Jews will never stop but the reasons are complicated. Recognizing a largely secular pluralist society might ultimately come down on the side of State versus "church" the Jewish homeland did have an attraction for American Jewry. What I find is that American Jews are being put in a pro-Israel or anti-Israel posture by the US government even though many support and are part of that government. The land mass that is the US will probably survive in some form but whether the same can be said for Israel seems to remain open if US support falters. So why not guarantee the 48 borders (only?) and end dual citizenship and end subsidies. But also any Arab or other country that fails to recognize the US recognized STATE of ISRAEL should have economic and military restrictions applied unless after open debate those restrictions are determined to be absolutely necessar for the national security of the US and its economic health. Hey Israel cannot also take the fullest responsibility for its contributions to international organized crime and in particular the activities of its citizens formerly residing in the Soviet Union. Also choose between religion and secular government or bear the consequences of the result of not doing so as being a religiously dominated sparta that is not needed in a world too filled with those whose religions convey the understand that only they are correct in their understanding of faith and continue to ignore reason.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 03 June 2010 at 10:39 AM
WRC
What about Jerusalem? In the UN partition it was to be an international city. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 03 June 2010 at 10:42 AM
I don't think antisemitism will ever go away as long as there are jews OR the bible is around.
I'm from SE Asia and I'd have rarely seen or interacted with a jew. Frankly I have no idea who these chaps are. But I've read stuff about them; some good, some bad literature on them. The usual military, history, spy (By way of deception) and all that nonsense.
Here's the thing. As I see the op-eds, the columnists, the TV sets, I can actually see the stereotypes being confirmed.
The lying, land grabbing, thieving, the wheedling, the excuses, the media control, the conflation in me of israeli versus jew(WTF are "american" jews defending israel; Are they American?). The only thing left, I think is the Merchant of Venice "pound of flesh" bargain in the literal sense.
I marvel(wrong word but it will do) at my own latent ack. of my biases. Wow, they seem to do everything to fit the Middle East stereotypes and confirm things for people who are/were least interested in their affairs.
So, yeah, add few more millions of right thinking people taking a sudden dislike to jews while technically it should be israelis.
As for me, I'm probably an AS. No worries on that front.
Posted by: shanks | 03 June 2010 at 11:40 AM
If I may offer a link to the struggles within the mosaic faith, you might want to check out muzzlewatch. com. Also, Coteret are doing a great job. Spencer Ackerman is another very sane voice. Peter Beinarts new piece that caused quite a stir about where does ADL draw the line vs. the settlers has also been a ray of hope.
As for "anti-semitism", or more precisely "anti-jewism", Ive had some problems going in demonstrations alongside our palestinian and lebanese friends, with the death to the jews chants and all that. There is a clear sense of ethnic hatred in a lot of the ME, including Israel. Wich is understandable, but a problem. (We old football hooligans try to teach them manners, and what are the bad words.) But its a real problem, especially if the turks get all fired up. They have some real hardcore military societies with both religious and nationalist secular elements. And they have a huge diaspora.
Thats the issue where I think the Israelis didnt really count on the backlash. Erdogan forced the release of the prisoners, sent planes before "asking permission", just everybody home now. They even got their dead, nobody else has.
Posted by: Fnord | 03 June 2010 at 11:55 AM
Yes. First thought: Can you say perverse outcome? Second thought: What politician/propagandist/mindfuck artist establish an Office to Monitor and Combat Misogyny [...or Xenophobia...or... Anti-Canadianism...or Anti-Islamism] -- unless they were attempting to provoke it.
Posted by: rjj | 03 June 2010 at 11:57 AM
I have long favored Jerusalem as a truly international city under UN protection.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 03 June 2010 at 12:02 PM
Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney is saying that – ‘Israel bought the executive branch’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNNm2Q82A6w
Cynthia Mckinney a former U.S. Presidential candidate says that Pro-Israel lobbying has bought Congress and the Executive Branch, which is why the U.S. will not take action against Israel.
Posted by: J | 03 June 2010 at 02:38 PM
Awhile back I came across this 1956 letter from Eisenhower to Edward Everett Hazlett, Jr.
Of course, nothing in the region would be so difficult to solve except for the underlying cause of the unrest and dissension that exists there--that is, the Arab-Israel quarrel. This quarrel seems to have no limit in either intensity or in scope. Everybody in the Moslem and Jewish worlds is affected by it. It is so intense that the second any action is taken against one Arab state, by an outsider, all the other Arab and Moslem states seem to regard it as a Jewish plot and react violently. All this complicates the situation enormously.
As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace. We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote. I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn't have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.
Would Eisenhower be accused of anti-semitism today for making such a remark?
Posted by: JT Davis | 03 June 2010 at 03:53 PM
It appears that just about all of our politicians are under the influence of AIPAC. I'm disheartened to say now that my own Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter is now taking AIPAC money, a recent development.
"Change" will not be coming from President Obama and other countries now realize it and will act accordingly, we are no longer the Free World's leader, just another 2nd rater under the sway of an increasingly dangerous nuclear armed small place in the MiddleEast that we have to have a "special" relationship with.
Posted by: BillWade | 03 June 2010 at 04:09 PM
I feel betrayed. I thought I was trying to help defend MY country during my 28 years in service. I am shocked to see that we have apparently been expected and willing to act a a surrogate for Israel. This goes against all the common sense strategic thought and experience in world history to date and bodes ill for our future if it continues.
Posted by: Stanley Henning | 03 June 2010 at 07:21 PM
Here's some sentiment being voice on the web regarding U.S. appointees being screened by the Israel crowd:
"Jews represent only 2% of the US population.
Do officials have to pass a pro-Black screening to serve in the government?
Do officials have to pass a pro-German screening to serve in the government?
Do officials have to pass a pro-French screening to serve in the government?
Do officials have to pass a pro-China screening to serve in the government?
Do officials have to pass a pro-Swedish screening to serve in the government?
How did Israel get veto over the US Government?"
Posted by: J | 03 June 2010 at 08:15 PM
We could do as the Brits did and leave. Then stay completely neutral and let these other countries sort themselves out.
Posted by: par4 | 04 June 2010 at 07:18 AM