I was never a fan of Christina Aguilera. Not because I had anything against her, but because I was not into modern American pop music. Maybe I am simply too old for this. But today I became a fan. Click on this picture below to see why.
If I weren’t told that Aguilera’s "Candyman" is based on the "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy", I would have never recognized the melody, even though it is one of my (and my 6-years old daughter’s) favorite Andrews Sisters songs. But then, as the Russian saying goes, a bear must have stepped on my ear when I was little, so no wonder I can’t recognize a tune. Nevertheless, Aguilera’s song is clearly a tribute to the Andrews Sisters, to American Armed Forces and to American resolve against ruthless enemies. Note the big American Flag in the video with "V for Victory" on it. Note also Rosie the Riveter in the video.
And while we are on the subject of the Andrews Sisters, listen to my favorite of their songs. I’d like to think that they recorded this translated into English originally Yiddish song, made popular by the Barry Sisters, in order to piss off the Nazis. But it was recorded before World War 2, so maybe it is just wishful thinking.
This Saturday I got a call from one of my friends from our local San Diego chapter of Protest Warrior. He told me about the impending so called “anti-war” demonstration on President’s Day. I prefer calling it anti-victory demonstration, but that is besides the point.
Jeeni Criscenzo, former candidate for Congress, has organized a protest called “Bring their buddies home“. The leftists dress in black and stand along a road, with names of US soldiers killed in Iraq pinned to their chests. They call it “An Act of Art”. San Diego chapter of Protest Warrior decided to stage a little counter-protest. This morning I went to the corner on Tamarack and Carlsbad Blvd. and started passing little 4″x6″ American Flags. You know, a general expectation is that a stereotypical leftist would hate to hold an American Flag. As it turns out, it is not always the case. In the beginning the leftists just thought that the flags were part of the whole thing, although a couple did refuse to take them outright. After I passed around about a dozen or so flags, Jeeni Criscenzo confronted me. She said that the flags are not part of the demonstration and asked me “to respect her artwork, because the flags are spoiling it” ( I am paraphrasing). My argument that the flags add something good to her message did not persuade her. She was polite and got me to say “OK”. After thinking a bit about what to do next, I just started walking with a bunch of flags in my hand in front of the protesters and giving them to those who asked. Pretty soon I gave away all my flags (about 50). Many protesters wanted to take the flags, but could not because they were too cold or covered with plastic because of the rain. Some of the protesters refused to take the flags, especially after hearing me explain to KUSI that I represented an opposing point of view. But many were happy to take the flags. They were obviously more patriotic than the organizers of the demonstration. I also talked to FOX6 News. The KUSI reporter at least seemed neutral, but the FOX6 guy was likely biased in favor of the anti-victory people. I told him that you can’t cut reinforcements from the troops in battle. I also told them both that I was originally from the former Soviet Union, and I appreciate this country very much, because I have something to compare it to. The FOX6 guy asked me what I thought about WMD not found in Iraq, and I said that Saddam did have them. So, the anti-victory people started shouting: “Where are they?!”, to which I replied that that was a good question that needs to be answered, but Saddam did have them because he did use them. Later I called Roger Hedgecock and told him about my morning because I did not trust the TV news to accurately report on my actions there. Let’s see what part of my 2 interviews will make a cut.
UPDATE at 6:25pm:
The 6 o’clock edition of KUSI news did not show my interview at all. They did show me passing flags and people holding my flags, but it made it look like they were the ones who came up with flags. I don’t want them to hide their defeatist message behind my flags, so I am very disappointed at this time. Let’s see what happens at 10pm.
UPDATE on 2/20/07 at 11:25pm:
KUSI news at 10pm did not show the demonstration at all. The 11pm edition was the same as the 6pm edition. However, FOX6 News did show me passing the flags around and even a small portion of my interview. Here it is.
Additionally, my fellow Protest Warriors pointed out to me one crucial detail that I told them over the phone, but forgot to mention in this post. As I was returning back to my car, I passed by the people whom I gave the flags before Jeeni Criscenzo confronted me. They did not have the flags any longer. Jeeni must have taken the flags away from them or just told them to put the flags away. After all, she could not allow American Flags to “spoil her artwork”. Besides, the flags would represent a dissent from her plan, and the Left can’t tolerate that.
It is somewhat pathetic that even after 9/11, and even after a nearly four-year trial at the Hague disproving “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians in Kosovo (something the late reporter Daniel Pearl uncovered as early as 1999), the Jewish community still insists on being used to promote the agenda of the Albanian lobby that allied us with the al Qaeda-trained Kosovo Liberation Army in 1999.
Bosnia and Kosovo have been part of Islam’s current divide-and-conquer approach. Israeli Colonel Dr. Shaul Shay, author of Islamic Terror and the Balkans, explains the significance of the Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia region that Americans ignore: “In the eyes of the radical Islamic circles, the establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania along the Adriatic Coast, is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century.”
The Balkans also have given Islam its long-sought gateway into Europe, as the Kosovo connection to the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London demonstrate. (According to Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily and German intelligence, the explosives used in both bombings came from Kosovo, and just last week the Greek Kathimerini news service reported that the missile fired on the U.S. embassy in Athens a few weeks ago appears to have come from Kosovo.)
Albanians argue that their fight for Kosovo is not an Islamic movement but a national one. (DioGuardi himself is Christian.) Palestinians, of course, make the same claim. But the big picture is the same: jihad. The day that Kosovo becomes “Kosova” (the Muslims’, nationalists’, dhimmis’ and Mr. DioGuardi’s invented pronunciation) is the day we’ve lost a key battle in the war on terror.
Read it all. I suspected this all to some extent from other articles I read, but this time I also followed the links. Do that too. Then I went to Julia’s blog where she just posted (at that time) her comments on the Salt Lake City shooter. I followed the links there too: this very graphic link and this one. And then I was horrified. Horrified by the strong possibility that our country supported the wrong side in the Yugoslavian wars. Do follow the links that I copied from Julia Gorin’s blog. And note the links provided there. They are not from some cookie sites similar to those denying the Holocaust. The sources referenced there are quite reputable. Plus, there is another reason I tend to believe this new version of events. Remember the Jenin Massacre? The one that never happened? The same people that created that big lie that was fortunately exposed in time are the people talking about the Serb atrocities. Their credibility is clearly suspect. So, how is it possible that we took the wrong side in those wars? I see 3 reasons. First is that the Left is always willing to support the side that is not seen as Western. Thus, in the conflict between between Christian Serbs and Muslim Bosnians the Left automatically took the Bosnian side. The same was true in Kosovo. In the conflict between Serbs and Croats the Serbs were perceived as stronger side. The Left always takes the weaker side, regardless of who is right. Finally, there was a reason from the Right: the Serbs were traditionally supported by the Russians. There must have been some Cold War inertia in play. Plus, Milosevic was a former Communist and genuine thug (according to my former co-workers from Serbia).
But the evidence that we took the wrong side in both Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts is very strong. And that is very tragic. It is now well documented that Al Qaeda is active in both Bosnia and Kosovo. They always insert themselves into conflicts were Muslims are one of the sides, even if the original reason for the conflict is very secular. Just follow the links.
I always thought that Israel will play the role of both Poland and Czechoslovakia in the current world war. It turns out that there is another candidate for the role of Czechoslovakia: Serbia. You see, unlike us, Jews, the Serbs did not suffer the Holocaust. They were being killed by the Nazis and their Bosnian and Croat helpers because they interfered with the extermination of the Jews. You know, like hiding the Jews, fighting the Nazis along with the other Allies. (Note that in the link that I provided the claims about Bosnian Muslims participating in the Holocaust are disputed. Nevertheless, the Bosnian SS division was organized with the help of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Arafat’s uncle). So, Serbs did not suffer through a methodical extermination campaign. Thus, it is easier to demonize them. And now many people would rather keep them demonized, because otherwise it might become necessary to admit an embarrassing and tragic mistake.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on Thursday called for a rejection of new Palestinian textbooks that portray a world without Israel, refer to Jews as “Zionist gangs” and rewrite the Holocaust to ignore atrocities committed against Jews.
“We must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are exposed,” Clinton said in a news conference in Washington, D.C. “These children deserve an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence.”
Clinton, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, called the conference to release a report by Palestinian Media Watch, a Jerusalem-based group that monitors Palestinian media for anti-Israel bias. She said the books “do not give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination.”
Do read it all and form your own opinion. To me it seems that she is being very rational here. For the record, in no way does it mean that I want her to be President. But whenever a Democrat sounds rational, it gives me hope, even if they are rational for the wrong reasons. In case of Hillary, she might even believe what she is saying. But I don’t think that is the reason why she is saying this. In the last elections 25% of American Jews did vote for Bush. She knows that someone like Giuliani, who is very supportive of Israel and very willing to stand up to Islamo-Fascists, can easily take a large enough percentage of Jewish voters away from the Democratic ticket, which will make it impossible for her to win the Presidency. The younger Jews especially likely to look away from the Democratic Party. Add to it the fact that on the average majority of Americans tend to support Israel, and it becomes understandable why Hillary has to sound sane on this issue. At this point there are 3 front runners on the Democratic side: consistently hard Left Obama, flip-flopping hard Left Edwards and Hillary. Hillary is the most sane of the three. She is a politician hungry for power. Thus, she can be influenced by public opinion. At the same time, she is not going to flip-flop a la Kerry or Edwards: the same public opinion hates that.
Will the next Truman or FDR ever appear on the Democratic side some time in the future?
Well, I am not really breaking any news here. I just wanted to point out that the leftist bias and misinformation are present not only in the presentation of news, but also in entertainment. The case in point is last Tuesday episode of NBC’s “Law and Order: SVU”. The show itself is pretty good, and my wife and I like it. But in this particular episode the leftist bias of the show makers showed its ugly head. The title of the episode was “Loophole”. The premise is that they discover that some evil chemical corporation is using some loophole in the EPA regulations and testing side effects of some pesticides on “poor people, because they don’t matter”. That premise is bad enough. But one of the witnesses/victims is a Hispanic single mother, who is illegal because her Green Card has expired. I have news flash for NBC and anybody who feels sorry for immigrants without understanding the immigration process: the Green Card never expires, unless you leave the country for more than a year or commit a crime! I should know: I had a Green Card for 5 years before applying for US Citizenship and then one more year while my application was being processed. I am very tired of feel-good leftists who feel sorry for immigrants and throw out BS like that. They institute stupid bi-lingual education programs (thankfully, abolished in California) that prevent normal assimilation. Their idiotic misinformation, like this story of expiring Green Card, prevents us from creating an immigration process that makes sense. At this point the borders (both) are wide open, while immigrating legally is very hard. How much sense does that make? And now politicians on both sides of the isle talk about temporary visas. What a stupid idea: creating a large chunk of population that by design is not supposed to become American. We are at war, which means that one of the requirements for living in this country should be loyalty to the good old USA. That should most definitely include immigrants. Thus, only those who intend to become Americans should be given Green Cards. They should also be required to apply for Citizenship after 5 years. Those, who don’t, should be deported.
This is a couple of days old, but I just got time to blog:
WASHINGTON — Hezbollah is presently receiving a “constant stream of armaments” from Syria, Iran and other foreign sources, senior Israeli officials said Tuesday, and the terror group is “preparing for violence” in an increasingly radicalized Middle East.
“They are getting all kinds of rockets, advanced anti-tank missiles, command-and-control systems, training, finance,” an Israeli official said. Asked if the group has fully reconstituted back to where it was before the war in terms of military capability, the official said: “They are certainly on their way.”
The official, a top-ranked officer in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and an accompanying aide briefed a handful of reporters on the condition the officials’ names not be used.
While Hezbollah has been unable to return to, or rebuild, bunkers and other fortifications it was using before the start of last summer’s Israeli-Hezbollah war, the Israeli official said the group maintains an “operational” presence along the Lebanese-Israeli border, and cited as evidence the IDF’s discovery Monday of a “cluster of explosives” near the border on the Lebanese side.
Enabling Hezbollah’s rearmament, the official said, is the “open border” Lebanon shares with Syria, and the lack of “real teeth for enforcement” in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, which established a ceasefire in the Israeli-Hezbollah war last August.
At the same time, and in a similar way, the Israeli military officer said, foreign sources are providing Hamas with anti-tank missiles, high-trajectory rockets and missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and their launchers, explosive devices and automatic rifles.
The official and the aide claimed the IDF has had “no operational activity whatsoever” in Gaza for the last three months, since an informal ceasefire was established between the Palestinians and the Israelis in that area, but that in the same time Hamas fighters have launched more than 100 Qassam rockets across the border aimed at Israeli civilian targets.
As further evidence of the problems originating in Gaza and its porous border with Egypt, the official pointed to the deadly homicide bombing on January 29 in Eilat, the first ever in the southern Israeli resort town, and said IDF officials “know for sure” the bomber came from Gaza.
The official was skeptical about Western plans to shore up the Fatah security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen.
“Every meeting we have on this subject always ends in the conclusion, ‘Bolster Abu Mazen, bolster Abu Mazen’ as if that will solve all the problems,” the IDF official said. “He was in power two years ago [before Hamas came to power], wasn’t he?” the official asked. “What did he do then?”
Well, I am glad that a relatively main stream news organization like Fox published this report. But there is nothing new here, at least for me. After all, what else would you expect? The world is asleep once again, while the new Nazis are arming themselves to the teeth. Eventually they will strike, and the world will once again say: “If only we paid attention, if only we stopped them before it was too late”.
I am sorry, I can’t shake this feeling of an impending doom.
The convocation for the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting was delivered today by Shi’ite Imam Husham Al-Husainy, of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan, and it’s amazing what this spiritual leader managed to get away with saying, in front of America’s Democrat leadership:
In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.
LGF also links to the video of this. So, what could be wrong with some imam leading a prayer at the DNC meeting? Aren’t we tolerant and respectful of all religions? Well, the problem is that this is not some imam. For the information on this particular imam we go to Debbie Schlussel (also linked to by LGF):
Meet Husham Al-Husainy. In Iraq, he was an aircraft engineer. But in America, he’s an extremist cleric and disciple of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who enjoys huge mainstream support.
This past summer, Al-Husainy seemed very happy leading almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs.
Later, I watched him very much enjoy himself at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn’s Bint Jebail Cultural Center. He was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. I watched him cheer others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are “diseased.”
Imam Husainy was also in great spirits when he led a number of pro-HAMAS and pro-Arafat rallies in the area. Yes, Shi’ites who hate Sunnis to death in Iraq, love Sunnis in Israel when they’re killing the Jews. In late 2004, he seemed thrilled to lead a rally on the streets of Dearborn, commemorating Arafat’s death. He and his followers held signs featuring enlarged photos of Khomeini at the rally.
Imam Al-Husainy and other Shi’ite leaders in Dearborn are not just followers of Khomeini, they are supporters of Moqtada Al-Sadr and proteges of his late uncle, Imam Mohammed Bakr Al-Sadr–who was murdered by Saddam Hussein. Every year, the Al-Sadr Foundation holds a fundraising banquet in Dearborn. Does any Foundation money go to fund the Mehdi Army?
America’s Shi’ite enemies are not just in Sadr City or Central Beirut and Southern Lebanon. They are in America’s own Little Sadr City–East Dearborn, where they danced on the streets after Saddam Hussein’s execution.
Proving the old adage wrong. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Sometimes, he’s just our enemy. And, unfortunately, he’s living on American soil with permanent citizenship. And a lot of easily-incited followers.
I just have to say this: Debbie Schlussel reminds me of my Canadian cousin: a smart and very opinionated blond Jewish girl (Luba, in case you are reading this, yes, I am talking about you). Just like my cousin, Debbie Schlussel sometimes gets a little too passionate when expressing her opinions. And just like in case of my cousin, Debbie’s opinions have very well thought out rational foundation.
But back to my main point. If this kind of guy gets support from the Democrats, to keep voting for the party that puts this guy forward is clearly suicidal. By the way, this applies not only to Jews, but also to gays and women who want to wear mini-skirts.
I am not going to claim that it hasn’t been said already, but Newt Gingrich has given this testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, 2007:
…America is faced with two very hard paths forward in Iraq.
We can accept defeat and try to rebuild our position in the region while accommodating the painful possibility that these enemies of freedom in Iraq — evil men, vicious murderers, and sadistic inflictors of atrocities will have defeated both the millions of Iraqis who voted for legal self government and the American people and their government.
Alternatively we can insist on defeating the enemies of America and the enemies of the Iraqi people and can develop the strategies and the implementation mechanisms necessary to force victory despite the incompetence of the Iraqi government, the unreliability of Iraqi leaders, and the interference of Syria and Iran on behalf of our enemies.
Both these paths are hard. Both involve great risk. Both have unknowable difficulties and will produce surprise events.
Both will be complicated.
Yet either is preferable to continuing to accept an ineffective American implementation system while relying on the hope that the Iraqi system can be made to work in the next six months.
There are three fundamental weaknesses in the current strategy.
First, the strategy relies on the Iraqis somehow magically improving their performance in a very short time period. Yet the argument for staying in Iraq is that it is a vital AMERICAN interest. If we are seeking victory in Iraq because it is vital to America then we need a strategy which will win even if our Iraqi allies are inadequate. We did not rely on the Free French to defeat Nazi Germany. We did not rely on the South Koreans to stop North Korea and China during the Korean War. When it mattered to American vital interests we accepted all the help we could get but we made sure we had enough strength to win on our own if need be.
President Bush has asserted that Iraq is a vital American interest. In January 2007 alone he has said the following things:
But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.
[F]ailure in one part of the world could lead to disaster here at home. It’s important for our citizens to understand that as tempting as it might be, to understand the consequences of leaving before the job is done, radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength. They would be emboldened. It would make it easier to recruit for their cause. They would be in a position to do that which they have said they want to do, which is to topple moderate governments, to spread their radical vision across an important region of the world.
If we were to leave before the job is done, if we were to fail in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have safe havens from which to launch attacks. People would look back at this moment in history and say, what happened to them in America? How come they couldn’t see the threats to a future generation?
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States, extremists and radicals who have stated that they want to topple moderate governments in order to be able to achieve assets necessary to effect their dream of spreading their totalitarian ideology as far and wide as possible.
This is really the calling of our time, that is, to defeat these extremists and radicals, and Iraq is a component part, an important part of laying the foundation for peace.
The inherent contradiction in the administration strategy is simple. If Iraq matters as much as the President says it does (and here I agree with the President on the supreme importance of victory) then the United States must not design and rely on a strategy which relies on the Iraqis to win.
On the other hand if the war is so unimportant that the fate of Iraq can be allowed to rest with the efforts of a new, weak, untested and inexperienced government then why are we risking American lives.
Both propositions cannot be true.
I accept the President’s analysis of the importance of winning in Iraq and therefore I am compelled to propose that his recently announced strategy is inadequate.
The second weakness is that the current strategy debate once again focuses too much on the military and too little on everything that has not been working. The one instrument that has been reasonably competent is the combat element of American military power. That is a very narrow definition and should not be expanded to include the non combat elements of the Department of Defense which also have a lot of difficulties in performing adequately.
The third weakness in the current strategy is its inability to impose war time decision making and accountability in Washington.
The interagency process is hopelessly broken.
Gingrich then lists key steps for victory. I think that they all are important, but I particularly like these:
5. Establish a War Cabinet which will meet once a week to review metrics of implementation and resolve failures and enforce decisions. The President should chair the War Cabinet personally and his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation should prepare the agenda for the weekly review and meeting.
6. Establish three plans: one for achieving victory with the help of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory with the passive acquiescence of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory even if the current Iraqi government is unhappy. The third plan may involve very significant shifts in troops and resources away from Baghdad and a process of allowing the Iraqi central government to fend for itself if it refuses to cooperate.
7. Communicate clearly to Syria and Iran that the United States is determined to win in Iraq and that any further interference (such as the recent reports of sophisticated Iranian explosives being sent to Iraq to target Americans) will lead to direct and aggressive countermeasures.
8. Pour as many intelligence assets into the fight as needed to develop an overwhelming advantage in intelligence preparation of the battlefield.
9. Develop a commander’s capacity to spend money on local activities sufficient to enable every local American commander to have substantial leverage in dealing with local communities.
Read the whole thing. There is some hope.
Pamela of Atlas Shrugs doesn’t know me. I only know her blog, not her personally. But we share more than just political beliefs. We both cannot understand how our fellow Jews can take the side of those who would kill them at the first opportunity. They are like those assimilated German Jews of 1930s that kept insisting that they were really Germans until it was too late. This time Pamela links to this article:
Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor
By PATRICIA COHEN
The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.
Let me stop for a second and note that American Jewish Committee is hardly conservative. But let’s continue:
…In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”
The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.
The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.
Over the telephone, the dinner table and the Internet, people who follow Jewish issues have been buzzing over Mr. Rosenfeld’s article. Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said, “I’m almost in a state of shock” at the verbal assaults directed at liberal Jews.
On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, wrote, “Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism.”
Let me again stop for a second. In this last quote this guy essentially says that desire to defend ourselves fosters anti-Semitism. But let’s read some more:
Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld’s indictment and joined the fray. Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: “Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews.”
Although many of the responses to the essay have referred to its subject as “Jewish anti-Semitism,” Mr. Rosenfeld said in a telephone interview that he was very careful not to use that phrase. But whatever it is called, he said, “I wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is resurgent, Jews thinking the way they’re thinking is feeding into a very nasty cause.”