Good-Bye, Yellow Brick Road

This whole situation, Egyptian unrest and our response, show many of the chasms that separate us as people, as Americans.

The so-called right wing, with the exception of Beck, is correct in their assessment of the situation and its ramifications for Israel and our relationship with Egypt.

Liberals are almost unanimously wrong.

They typically say, "The Muslim Brotherhood is moderate.

They aren't popular.

They only get 20 % of the vote."

They talk about Islamaphobia.

I heard a gentleman, I believe he was with the State Dept. at one time,

basically parroting the Arab's complaints about Israel being the cause of 350 million peoples problems .

And he ended by saying something like, "that's what you hear in the Arab streets."

He said it approvingly, like the Arabs streets was a great place to gain wisdom and  truth.

He also said that of all the Arab countries Egypt hated Israelis and Jews the most.

In the film clip a "peaceful demonstrator" waved a sign with a blow up photo of Mubararek, with a Magen David on his forehead.

Not all liberals believe the benevolent Arab bit, but those that do drive me almost crazy.

Conversly, right wingers, who are uncannily accurate on the Arab and Islamists subject,

drive me crazy with their almost moronic social ideas and misunderstanding of the purpose of government and community.

There are people like Alan Dershowitz, who is liberal and very pro-Israel.

But most people, at least those that call themselves liberals or progressive or conservative, follow their group's agenda as their party's leader's delineate it. 

I foresee tough times ahead.

And possibly massive American military requirements,

if, as appears likely, the Islamists gain power.

As for whether Obama made a policy error in his handling of Mubarak,

I've seen Republican leaders that have said they think he did the right thing,

Specifically, Majority Leader John Boehner, and Sen. McCain.

If he was advised that Mubarak was finished, that he was in fact, going to be forced to leave, Obama may have decided to begin on a positive note with the "new guys".

We do have a history of disputes and disagreements over the years with Mubarak.

It is known that the Mubarak regime was vehemently antisemitic, or, they would say, "Anti-Zionist."

He didn't deal fairly with the U.S. or Israelis or Jews.

An acquaintance of his said, "Mubarak is no Saddam Hussein."

That's probably the best thing you can say about Mubarak.

However, the threat of a radical Islamist takeover of this most important symbol of the Arab world, is very real, and we may have to be united to fight it successfully.

Remember what happened the last time. 

Flash: Egyptian 'Moderate Democratic' Leader Negotiating Coalition Government With Islamists

By Barry Rubin As I've been warning, Muhammed al-Baradei, seen as the leading "moderate, pro-democratic" leader in Egypt is negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood to form a national unity government.  That doesn't mean the negotiations will succeed but it gives a clear glimpse of what a post-Mubarak regime Egypt would mean. As one shrewd analyst remarks, "al-Baradei being put in power by the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively like the 'moderate' Miqati being put in power [as prime minister] in Lebanon by Hizballah.  What matters is that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizballah are calling the shots." If you believe that al-Baradei, with no real political experience or any organized movement behind him, can dominate the Muslim Brotherhood, I have a bridge over the Nile I'll sell you. But it's even worse than that. It has been well-known in Egypt that much of al-Baradei's presidential campaign has been run by the Brotherhood. He's certainly not their puppet but to a considerable extent he is their pawn. And for those of you who think that the Muslim Brotherhood is really a moderate group, here is one example of its rhetoric from Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt's parliament, who proves that you don't have to be moderate to run in elections: "From my point of view, Bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi [the leaders of al-Qaida who staged the September 11 attacks and massive killings in Iraq] are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists....[On the other hand,] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!" And here's Muhammad Badi, the Brotherhood's leader: "Resistance is the only solution....[Today the United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance-and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this]." Let's assume that al-Baradei became Egypt's president. The Muslim Brotherhood might get key ministries such as education and social welfare, transforming large sectors of Egyptian society, putting thousands of their supporters into key positions, and consolidating power for the next step. They would also infiltrate and recruit pro-Islamist officers in the army. What effect would such a coalition have on Egypt's policy toward the United States and Israel? Would U.S. economic aid and military sales continue to such a regime? One of the new government's first steps would be to end all sanctions to the Gaza Strip, allowing weapons and terrorists to flow there freely. This development shows precisely why the existing regime should be preserved--without Mubarak and with some reforms--rather than overthrown. There should be no more illusions about what's happening in Egypt. If the Brotherhood is so weak, why is it the proposed partner in the next government? The key factor now is the army, which al-Baradei--with no good prospects of it happening--hopes to win over. Will the army support Mubarak, get rid of him and preserve the regime, or remain passive and watch as a revolution happens?

400 Rabbis Protest Glenn Beck Attacks on Jews and Holocaust Survivors

Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, a child survivor of the Holocaust, described Beck's attack on George Soros as "not only offensive, but horrific, over-the-top, and out-of-line". Commentary magazine said that "Beck's denunciation of him [Soros] is marred by ignorance and offensive innuendo." Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, called Mr Beck's accusations "monstrous". Rev Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, called them "beyond repugnant". And Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust Studies at Emory University, says Beck is using traditional antisemitic imagery.


(Reuters)

Four hundred rabbis will publish a letter tomorrow (NZT) calling on Fox News to sanction host Glenn Beck for repeated use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery and for airing attacks on World War Two survivor George Soros.

In an open letter to Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corp, which owns Fox, the rabbis also demand an apology from Fox News chief Roger Ailes for characterising Beck's Jewish critics as nothing more than "left-wing rabbis".

The letter will appear as an advertisement in the News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal tomorrow for which the rabbis spent more than $100,000, a spokesman said.

In the letter, the rabbis cited "unacceptable attacks" by Beck against Soros, a billionaire financier who grew up in Nazi-occupied Hungary and is a frequent target of conservative commentators.

"And George Soros used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off," Beck said in November.

"Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps. And I am certainly not saying that George Soros enjoyed that, even had a choice. I mean, he's 14 years old. He was surviving. So I'm not making a judgement. That's between him and God."

Advertisement

Beck, according to the rabbis, has made "literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterising people with whom he disagrees," compares American leaders he does not like to Nazis and has said putting the "common good" first leads to "death camps".

"In the charged political climate in the current civic debate, much is tolerated, and much is ignored or dismissed," the letter said.

"But you diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organisation you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks, and it is not only 'left-wing rabbis' who think so."

Why doesn't FOX News focus the same vitriol they target George Soros with towards Pope Ratzinger who was an actual Nazi youth? Funny irony, that.

The following is the full text of a letter published by Jewish Funds for Justice, appearing also as a full-page advertisement in the News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal, addressed to Rupert Murdoch, on the occasion of UN Holocaust remembrance day:

Dear Mr Murdoch

We are rabbis of diverse political views. As part of our work we are devoted to preserving the memory of the Shoah, and to passing its lessons on to our future generations and to all humankind. All of us have vigorously defended the Holocaust's legacy. We have worked to encourage the responsible invocation of its symbols as a powerful lesson for the future.

We were therefore deeply offended by Roger Ailes' recent statement attributing the outrage over Glenn Beck's use of Holocaust and Nazi images to "leftwing rabbis who basically don't think that anybody can ever use the word, Holocaust, on the air."

In the charged political climate in the current civic debate, much is tolerated, and much is ignored or dismissed. But you diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organization you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks, and it is not only "leftwing rabbis" who think so.

Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, a child survivor of the Holocaust, described Beck's attack on George Soros as "not only offensive, but horrific, over-the-top, and out-of-line". Commentary magazine said that "Beck's denunciation of him [Soros] is marred by ignorance and offensive innuendo." Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, called Mr Beck's accusations "monstrous". Rev Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, called them "beyond repugnant". And Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust Studies at Emory University, says Beck is using traditional antisemitic imagery.

"I haven't heard anything like this on television or radio – and I've been following this kind of stuff," Lipstadt said. "I've been in the sewers of antisemitism and Holocaust denial more often than I've wanted."

We share a belief that the Holocaust, of course, can and should be discussed appropriately in the media. But that is not what we have seen atFox News. It is not appropriate to accuse a 14-year-old Jew hiding with a Christian family in Nazi-occupied Hungary of sending his people to death camps. It is not appropriate to call executives of another news agency "Nazis". And it is not appropriate to make literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterising people with whom you disagree.

It is because this issue has a profound impact on each of us, our families and our communities that we are calling on Fox News to meet the standard it has set for itself: "to exercise the ultimate sensitivity when referencing the Holocaust".

We respectfully request that Glenn Beck be sanctioned by Fox News for his completely unacceptable attacks on a survivor of the Holocaust and Roger Ailes apologise for his dismissive remarks about rabbis' sensitivity to how the Holocaust is used on the air.

Lead supporters (organisational affiliation listed for purposes of identification only):

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, Vice President, American Jewish University, Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies
Rabbi Dan Ehrenkrantz, President, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College
Rabbi Daniel Nevins, Dean, Jewish Theological Seminary Rabbinical School
Rabbi Yael Ridberg, President, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
Rabbi Ellen Weinberg Dreyfus, President, Central Conference of American Rabbis
Rabbi Steven Wernick, Executive Vice President, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President, Union for Reform Judaism

Bachman's Latest Gaffe

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the de facto  leader of the "Tea Party" Movement, has
once again stunned people with one of her pearls of wisdom.
According to Bachmann, who will likely give a fact-less Tea Party rebuttal to tonight’s State of the Union, the United States was founded on a platform of racial and ethnic tolerance, and the founding fathers were the ones responsible for ending slavery.
To think, all these years our history books have been teaching it all wrong.
Raw Story reports: Speaking at an event sponsored by Iowans For Tax Relief, Bachmann hailed the “different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions” of the early European settlers in America, adding that the “color of their skin” or “language” or “economic status” didn’t preclude them from seeking happiness.
She continued to talk about our founding fathers who worked to end slavery once and for all. “But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,” Bachmann added, claiming “men like John Quincy Adams… would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
We don’t know how they taught history when Bachmann was in school but the folks at HyperVocal learned a bit of a different story.
Slavery was very popular in the United States long after the country’s founding in 1776, largely because of a compromise between the founding fathers that established African-Americans as three-fifths of a person. Several of them, including Thomas Jefferson, even owned slaves.
Despite Bachmann’s assessment that our forefathers were the ones to end slavery, it was not ended until 1865 (89 years after our country was founded) when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. It was that amendment that expressly forbade slavery.
Although he cannot be credited with the eradication of slavery — that was more Abraham Lincoln’s legacy — John Quincy Adams was known to be a strong opponent of slavery. Perhaps, this is where Rep. Bachmann became confused. Adams was a founding father and a National Republican, and we all know how much politicians love giving credit to their own party.
POSTED JANUARY 25TH 1:30PM
>