New York Times Editorial, "Israel Sees Critics as Enemies": More Obsessive Israel Bashing

Tweet

In an April 28, 2017 editorial entitled "Israel Sees Critics as Enemies," The New York Times begins by observing:

"The refusal of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to receive the German foreign minister because of a meeting the German held with a veterans’ peace group is not in itself a major incident in Israeli-German relations. Germany’s history alone ensures it will remain Israel’s staunch supporter. What is troubling, rather, is Mr. Netanyahu’s increasingly illiberal pattern of treating critics of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands — domestic and foreign — as enemies.

The flash point in this case was a meeting Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, held with some nongovernmental groups while on a visit to Israel. One of these groups, called Breaking the Silence, is particularly reviled among right-wing Israelis because it gathers anonymous testimonies from Israeli soldiers about their service in occupied territories, often highlighting hardships imposed on the Palestinians. So Mr. Netanyahu canceled his meeting with Mr. Gabriel, proclaiming that he would not welcome diplomats who met with organizations that, he said, 'slander' Israeli soldiers."

Got it: Breaking the Silence is an Israeli "veterans' peace group." After all, according to the Times editorial, "Breaking the Silence has support from former high-ranking Israeli military officers." Unfortunately, it's not so simple...

As reported by Israel Hayom in a January 17, 2017 newsletter entitled "Breaking the Silence: Shooting soldiers is not terrorism":

"According to a Channel 20 report, [Breaking the Silence's] public relations coordinator, Nadav Weiman, told activists, 'If you shoot at soldiers, you are trying to kill soldiers. You are not a terrorist.'

Weiman made the statements to two activists for right-wing organization Ad Kan who were posing as radical leftists to penetrate Breaking the Silence.

'If there is another country that is conquering your country, the area where you live, you are allowed to use violent means to fight the conquering entity, only ... against soldiers and police officers, but if you stab a soldier at a checkpoint, that is not a terrorist attack,' Weiman said."

As reported by The Algemeiner in a June 15, 2016 article entitled "Newly Released Footage Reveals Controversial Whistle-Blower Breaking the Silence Telling Tourists That Israeli Settlers Poisoned Palestinian Wells":

"A newly released video reveals a co-founder of the NGO Breaking the Silence (BtS) telling tourists that Israeli settlers poisoned Palestinian wells, the Hebrew news site nrg reported on Tuesday.

According to the report, the clip was filmed by an undercover member of the right-wing 'Ad Kan' group, which seeks to expose activities of left-wing Israeli organizations which receive foreign funding.

In the video, which was filmed less than two years ago, Yehuda Shaul can be heard addressing a group of foreign visitors to the southern Hebron Hills in Judea (the West Bank). Speaking in English, he tells the visitors that residents of the Palestinian village of Susiya had only recently returned to their homes after being forced to leave several years earlier, when settlers poisoned their drinking water supply system."

Poisoned wells? Yeah, right.

And also as reported by The Algemeiner in a January 1, 2016 article entitled "How Breaking the Silence Lost Israel’s Trust":

"Breaking the Silence (BtS), which has been controversial for more than 10 years, gained real notoriety following the 2009 Gaza War. BtS — knowingly or unknowingly — questioned Israel’s inherent right to self-defense, and supported efforts to prosecute Israeli officials and soldiers (because allegations published by BtS resonated internationally and were used as ammunition by those siding against Israel). It also emerged at the time that several BtS funders conditioned their donations on obtaining minimum numbers of incriminating “testimonies” against the Israeli army from former soldiers. For instance, a document obtained by NGO Monitor from the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits shows similar demands from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the Dutch church-based aid organization ICCO (primarily funded by the Dutch government), and Oxfam Great Britain (funded by the British government).

Israelis quickly recognized that these so-called testimonies were serving a political objective, one that increasingly was seen as helping defame and demonize Israeli soldiers. In the left-wing daily Haaretz, Amos Harel wrote: “Breaking the Silence…has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classified as a ‘human rights organization.’”"

Claiming that Breaking the Silence is "is particularly reviled among right-wing Israelis," the Times editorial concludes:

"Israel’s vibrant democracy has always been one of its great strengths, and it is in open and democratic debate — and not in a threatening “with us or against us” posture — that issues as critical to Israel’s future as the occupation must be discussed."

However, as observed by Yair Lapid, chairman of the centrist Israeli political party Yesh Atid in December 2015:

"Criticism is constructive for our society, but there is a significant difference between criticism and defaming IDF officers and soldiers abroad. That is not criticism; that is undermining the foundations of the state. Organizations like Breaking the Silence have crossed the red line between criticism and subversion."

Bottom line: This is just one more obsessive attack upon Israel, lacking any objectivity, coming from The New York Times.

New York Times Editorial, "Donald Trump’s Answer to Anti-Semitism? You Don’t Want to Know": Look Who's Talking!

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Donald Trump’s Answer to Anti-Semitism? You Don’t Want to Know," The New York Times derides President Trump's response at a news conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a question concerning "the rise of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States." The Times would have us know:

"For a normal American politician, the moment offered a perfect opportunity for a home run. Condemn the behavior and make a sincere pledge to do everything possible to stop it. There is no question that hate crimes and malicious speech have accelerated since the presidential campaign, with Jews among the prime targets. The Anti-Defamation League says anti-Semitic talk in the United States has reached levels unseen since the 1930s. And there have been bomb threats against Jewish centers across the country."

Got it: The Trump presidential campaign is to blame for the heightened level of anti-Semitic talk in the US, and the Times is innocent of any involvement in the reawakening this horrifying phenomenon. Rubbish!

As Dr. Phyllis Chesler wrote in a July 2014 article entitled "Incitement to Genocide: How NY Times' Coverage and UN Complicity Breed Anti-Semitism":

"The twenty-first century coverage of Israel and Zionism in the paper of record far exceeds its twentieth century pattern of mere dismissal. In the last fourteen years—in the last year-- in article after article, photograph after photograph, and especially when Israel has been under attack, this paper has systematically put forth an Islamist and pro-Hamas agenda with malice aforethought. If not 'malice,' then the level of willful journalistic ignorance and blindness is hard to believe."

New York Times double standards involving Israel? As observed by CAMERA in 2014:

"We found that 6 out of 7 NYT editorials addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. Opinion columns by NYT staff followed the same pattern of condemning Israel: 5 out of 6 were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. As for invited Op-Eds on the topic, 15 out of 20 were negative toward Israel, while only one was positive."

You might also want to have another look at Ron Dermer's December 2011 letter to The New York Times, denouncing perpetual criticism of Israel by the Times:

"I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, 'positive' and 'negative,' with 'negative' meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were 'negative.'"

More evidence of anti-Semitism at the Times? Perhaps you recall New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's declaration:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Then there was Roger Cohen's New York Times op-ed "Obama in Netanyahu's Web," whose title was painfully in keeping with the anti-Semitic tradition of depicting Jews as voracious spiders. As Andrew Rosenthal, who was then editorial page editor of the Times, later acknowledged to me, this "was not a good headline."

In addition, let's not forget the retweet of a message by Nicholas Kristof, referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies" (see: "Nicholas Kristof Retweets "OBAMA Told the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to Drop Dead in Same Month": Is Kristof an Anti-Semite?"). We never received an explanation concerning this abomination from Nick, who soon thereafter took book-writing leave from the Times. Nicholas Kristof and anti-Semitism? You might want to have at look at my article entitled "Nicholas Kristof, Israel, and Double Standards" in The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism.

In this regard, the US Department of State writes (my emphasis in red):

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
  
  
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
  
  
• Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

And as noted today, in an Algemeiner article entitled "New York Times Uses Antisemitic Imagery to Describe Israeli Academy" by Ira Stoll:

"The New York Times has an article about Beit El, a West Bank settlement that has been supported by David Friedman, who is President Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Israel.

'The yeshiva complex is a multitentacled enterprise,' the Times reports.

Tentacles? When the National Rifle Association’s magazine depicted Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York on its cover as an octopus, the Times described it in a headline as 'an Anti-Semitic Symbol,' noting, accurately, that “the image has been used in anti-Semitic propaganda, from the Nazis to the modern Arab world.” Now it is the Times portraying religious Jews in Israel using the same negative imagery."

Finally, let's also not forget the persistent willingness of New York Times "moderators" to permit the publication of vulgar expressions of anti-Semitism (see: "Why Is Antisemitism Permitted in Online Comments "Moderated" by The Times? Open Letter No. 2 to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times").

Bottom line: Left-wing anti-Semitism is no better than right-wing anti-Semitism, and the Times indeed helped lay the groundwork for the current groundswell of anti-Semitism in America.

Tom Hamburger, "How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won": No Mention of Brookings, Indyk, Qatar and Hamas

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won," Tom Hamburger writes:

"The hero of the country’s liberal movement launched a surprise attack Tuesday against Washington’s most revered Democratic-leaning think tanks — and drew blood.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, stepping up her crusade against the power of wealthy interests, accused a Brookings Institution scholar of writing a research paper to benefit his corporate patrons.

Warren’s charge prompted a swift response, with Brookings seeking and receiving the resignation of the economist, Robert Litan, whose report criticized a Warren-backed consumer protection rule targeting the financial services industry."

A pity that Warren was not equally incensed by Qatar's $14.8 million donation to Brookings in 2014, which goes unmentioned by Hamburger. As was reported by The Algemeiner in a September 7, 2014 article entitled "Revealed: Hamas-Backing Qatar, Also Funding Brookings Institute, Home of Former U.S. MidEast Envoy Indyk":

"Questions are emerging over possible conflicts-of-interest after The New York Times highlighted Qatari funding for U.S. think tanks, including the Brookings Institute, employer of former U.S. envoy Martin Indyk, who was directly involved in recent negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

'Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world,' according to The Times.

The report comes just weeks after Israel vociferously voiced objection to Qatar’s funding of its major adversary, terror group Hamas."

And as Lee Smith is quoted in an October 2, 2014 Tablet article entitled "Brookings Responds to Tablet Piece on Qatar Funding":

"The fact that Ambassador Indyk’s employer raised $14.8 million from the same Arab regime that funds Hamas, a mortal enemy of the two parties—Israel and the PA—whose negotiations he was to mediate, should have been enough to tell Secretary of State John Kerry that Dr. Indyk would be, at the least, a questionable choice for the job. This judgment might have been further supported by Mr. Indyk’s strange demeanor in casting Israel, both anonymously in news articles and publicly in hotel bars, as solely responsible for the failure of peace talks.

Why Ambassador Indyk veered so widely from the normal practices of statesmanship is unclear. Perhaps he thought his own behavior to be above reproach, even when others might say it violates commonly accepted norms, and creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest so glaring that it would be legible to a nine-year-old. Or perhaps one of the most influential think tanks taking money from one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism was taken as a sign that the rules of the Washington DC foreign policy influence-peddling game have changed, and become even more gross and venal?"

You will recall that Obama and Kerry sought to impose Qatari and Turkish mediation upon Israel during its conflict with Hamas during the summer of 2014. As reported in a July 30, 2014 Hudson Institute article entitled "John Kerry Has Hamas’ Back: So, Who Has Israel’s?" by Lee Smith:

"'Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas,' Netanyahu told President Obama, according to an Israeli transcript of a recording of the phone call. (A transcript the White House and prime minister’s office now claim is false.) 'It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.' To which Obama snidely responded: 'I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.' When Netanyahu objected to Obama’s high-school mean-girl treatment—'I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks'—the president of the United States simply ignored him: 'The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.'"

Personally, I "believe" that the transcript accurately reflected the content of the conversation, although it involved translation back and forth between English and Hebrew.

Iran: Kerry Misleads Congressman Ted Poe

Tweet

As reported today by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "In Congress, Kerry unsure if Iran wishes to destroy US":

"US Secretary of State John Kerry told a Republican lawmaker on Tuesday he did not know whether Iran sought to destroy the United States.

The exchange, during Kerry’s latest testimony to Congress on the July 14 nuclear accord between world powers and Iran, appeared to catch Kerry off-guard.

'Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that Iran wants to destroy the United States?' Texas Republican Lloyd 'Ted' Poe asked Kerry during the latter’s Tuesday appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 'Is that still their policy, as far as you know?'

Kerry responded: 'I don’t believe they’ve said that. I think they’ve said ‘Death to America,’ in their chants, but I have not seen this specific.'

'Well, I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead,' Poe replied. 'That would seem like that would be their policy. He said that. You don’t think that’s their policy? I’m not mincing words. Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?'

'I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity, but I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us.'"

However, as reported in a May 27, 2014 Algemeiner article entitled "Iran Supreme Leader Vows to Destroy America, Says Promoting Negotiation is Treason" by Joshua Levitt:

"In a speech to parliament, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday vowed to destroy the U.S., which he held responsible for distorting the world’s values and starting indiscriminate wars.

According to semi-official news agency Fars, Khamenei said,'Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.'"

Nice try, John.

Ernesto Londoño, "Israel’s Ludicrous Spoof of Western Journalists": Londoño's Ludicrous Opinion Piece

The New York Times's war against Israel continues.

In a "Taking Note" blog item entitled "Israel’s Ludicrous Spoof of Western Journalists," Ernesto Londoño, who left The Washington Post in 2014 to join the Times editorial board, today takes his best shot at Israel. Regrettably, poor Ernesto is pitifully far off the mark. Ernesto writes:

"The [Israeli Foreign Ministry] released an animated video depicting a clueless, blonde, American-accented television journalist reporting idiotically from the Gaza Strip as Hamas militants lurked in the background. The spoof echoes a longstanding claim by the Israeli government: that Western journalists reporting from Gaza are often biased against Israel and refrain from criticizing Hamas, the militant group that runs the occupied territory.

The majority of international journalists who report out of Gaza deliver nuanced, measured and indispensable coverage. They often do so at great personal risk. Covering asymmetrical conflicts as deadly as Israel’s campaigns against militants in Gaza, an occupied territory, is among the toughest work journalists do.

Juxtaposing the cartoon against the dispatches of Sherine Tadros, the stellar Sky News Middle East correspondent, or Quentin Sommerville of the B.B.C. makes Israel’s attempt at humor hard to swallow. Remembering the colleagues who have died reporting from Gaza makes it intolerable.

Israeli officials have a long history of unfairly maligning certain Western journalists. But recently, the government has become more aggressive as part of an effort to mend its reputation abroad."

However, as reported by Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab whose knowledge of Gaza and the West Bank dwarfs that of Ernesto, in a Gatestone Institute article entitled "Turning a Blind Eye to Hamas Atrocities":

"The problem is that foreign journalists who manage to cross into the Gaza Strip face many restrictions imposed by the Hamas government. Local facilitators hired by foreign journalists are also under scrutiny by the Hamas government. That is why they are careful not to bring the dirty laundry out by telling the foreign media about things that could reflect negatively on Hamas.

Many of the reports about what is happening in the Gaza Strip are written by journalists who sit in offices in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Their reports are almost always based in what they are told by their local stringers and facilitators. Besides being exposed to intimidation, a large number of these locals are actually affiliated with Hamas and serve as the movement’s unofficial spokesmen.

Some foreign journalists justify their behavior by arguing that they are too scared to report anything that might anger Hamas. They express fear that they would not be able to return to the Gaza Strip if they published such stories."

More to the point, as reported in a July 2014 Algemeiner article entitled "Media Watchdog Asks Why WSJ Reporters Deleted Twitter Photos Implicating Hamas in War Crimes":

"Two reporters in Gaza for The Wall Street Journal have deleted photographs that implicate Hamas in war crimes, namely using the Al Shifa hospital as a military headquarters, and media watchdog CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, on Tuesday asked them why the posts were removed? So far, CAMERA has received no answers from the reporters or from their editors, but the group said the deleted posts might be further evidence of Hamas intimidating journalists."

And in another July 2014 Algemeiner article entitled "Italian Journalist Defies Hamas: ‘Out of Gaza Far From Hamas Retaliation: Misfired Rocket Killed Children in Shati’," we learn:

"Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”

On Twitter, Barbati, Jerusalem Correspondent for Radio Popolare Milano, and a former reporter for Sky Italia, in Beijing, said, “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday [yesterday] in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”

He said, '@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.'"

What about Ernesto's claim, "Remembering the colleagues who have died reporting from Gaza makes it intolerable"? If you follow Ernesto's link, we learn that his "colleagues" were "an Italian videographer and a local Palestinian helping him with arrangements and translation, [who] were killed along with four members of Gaza’s unexploded-ordnance squad as they attempted to defuse what officials described as an Israeli bomb." Why was I expecting a much longer list of persons who died under different circumstances, i.e. during the actual fighting in the summer of 2014?

Concerning false reporting with respect to Israel by The Washington Post, where Ernesto previously worked, and The New York Times, where he is currently employed, Ernesto might want to have a gander at the following:

• "David Ignatius, "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters": A Flagrant Falsehood" (I forced WaPo to correct this opinion piece)
• "Fareed Zakaria, "The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates": Fareed Again Fudges the Facts" (I forced WaPo to correct this opinion piece)
• "Second Open Letter to Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times: Perpetuation of Falsehoods by Your Newspaper's Editorial Page" (false reporting by Jodi Rudoren, which was then repeated in a Thomas Freidman op-ed and a Times editorial)

And we haven't even touched upon the subject of anti-Semitism at The New York Times. If you have the time, Ernesto, you might want to begin by reading "Nicholas Kristof Retweets "OBAMA Told the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to Drop Dead in Same Month": Is Kristof an Anti-Semite?" and "Thomas Friedman, "Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir": Israel Doesn't Need Your Love."

Western reporting with regard to Israel has been far worse than "ludicrous," but thanks for your two cents, Ernesto.

Is The New York Times Anti-Semitic? Absolutely!

In a blog entry earlier this month, I examined a New York Times editorial entitled "Anti-Semitism in the Soccer Stands," condemning anti-Semitic conduct by fans and players during European football matches. After providing evidence of anti-Semitism that has found its way onto the pages of the Times in recent years, I concluded:

"I would suggest to the editorial board of the Times that anti-Semitism in the United States, particularly its 'highbrow' form in the media, can be just as sinister as the baser strains of this disease which exist in the Middle East and Europe. Moreover, American anti-Semitism is far 'closer to home' than the editorial board would care to believe."

We now have more evidence of this despicable tendency of the Times. As reported by The Algemeiner in an article entitled "New York Times Again Blasted for ‘Skewed’ Headline in Coverage of Palestinian Stabbing Attacks":

"Media watchdogs and Jewish groups on Sunday admonished the New York Times for publishing a headline about Palestinian stabbing attacks in Israel which “blur Palestinian culpability” in the incidents.

The 'skewed' headline, 'Israeli Police Officers Kill Two Palestinian Men,' appeared in Sunday’s edition of the prominent newspaper and detailed in the opening paragraph that the two 'Palestinian men were fatally shot by the Israeli police after attacking officers with knives.'

. . . .

In an email to the Algemeiner, one reader alleged that in Sunday’s issue of the Times, another article that appears in print confirms an anti-Israel bias on the part of the “paper of record.”

'Even more interesting is another title in the same edition of the New York Times on an unrelated article: ‘Man, 24, killed by Detective in struggle during arrest’,' said New York native Noam Ohana. 'So, in the New York case we are given a bit of context (there was a struggle) but when a Palestinian tries to butcher police officers/soldiers with a knife it apparently does not require any contextualization in the title.'"

According to the US State Department (my emphasis in red):

"What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
• Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions
DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"

Yes, The New York Times is anti-Semitic.

The State Department Puts Bill Maher's Conspiratorial Theories to Rest: Stephen Walt Invited to Lecture

Do you remember how Bill Maher recently declared, "Based on every statement I’ve heard out of any Republican in the last two years, the Israelis are controlling our government" (see: http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/18/shocking-bill-maher-says-the-israelis-are-controlling-our-government-video/)? Well, the US State Department has put to rest his conspiratorial, anti-Semitic theories.

As reported by Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/israel-lobby-author-addresses-state-department/):

"Stephen Walt, coauthor of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and professor of international affairs at Harvard University, was the featured speaker at the Secretary’s Open Forum on Friday afternoon. His topic: 'Top reasons American foreign policy fails,' according to a copy of the event flyer posted in the hallways of Foggy Bottom.

. . . .

The Secretary’s Open Forum was established in 1967. Speakers are handpicked by a 'chairperson who serves directly under the Secretary of State,' according to the State Department.

. . . .

Jewish human rights group B’nai B’rith International was critical of Walt’s being invited to speak.

'Walt is known for his biased and provocative comments about Israel and its friends and supporters,' B’nai B’rith said in an official statement to the Free Beacon. 'Israel is a close friend and ally of this country and his appearance at this forum is at odds with the long-standing and continuing friendship between the United States and Israel.'

Neither Walt nor the State Department responded to Free Beacon requests for comment."

Not need to worry. During Obama's second term, it's only going to get worse.

Thomas E. Donilon, "Hezbollah Unmasked": Why Did Obama Nominate Hagel to Be Secretary of Defense?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hezbollah Unmasked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/hezbollah-unmasked.html?_r=0), Thomas E. Donilon, national security adviser to President Obama, writes:

"ON FEB. 5, after more than six months of investigations, the Bulgarian government announced that it believed Hezbollah was responsible for the attack last July that killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver and injured dozens more in the resort town of Burgas. This report is significant because a European Union member state, Bulgaria, explicitly pointed a finger at Hezbollah and lifted the veil on the group’s continued terrorist activities. Europe can no longer ignore the threat that this group poses to the Continent and to the world.

. . . .

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the group conducted kidnappings and airplane hijackings, two bombings in Buenos Aires, several in Paris and an attempted bombing in Bangkok. In 1996 it assisted in the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans. Thanks to this bloody record, in 1997 Hezbollah was among the first groups added to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Over the last decade, Hezbollah has worked assiduously to obscure its terrorist pedigree and convince the world that it is interested only in politics, providing social welfare services, and defending Lebanon. But it is an illusion to speak of Hezbollah as a responsible political actor. Hezbollah remains a terrorist organization and a destabilizing force across the Middle East."

Donilon fails to mention Hezbollah's assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the United States, in 2005.

So why does Obama want Chuck Hagel as his secretary of defense? As known to all, in 2006 Hagel refused to sign a letter from the US Senate calling on the EU to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hagel further declared, "The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield."

As a consequence of Hagel's nomination by Obama, anti-Semitism is being freely voiced by America's "progressive" media. In case you missed it, Bill Maher declared several days ago, "Based on every statement I’ve heard out of any Republican over the past two years, the Israelis are controlling our government." The audience applauded. Democratic National Committee vice chair Donna Brazile didn't even lift an eyebrow.

Most American Jews refused to see this coming when they voted overwhelmingly for Obama's re-election. But then, Obama listened to 20 years of anti-Semitic sermons from the Reverend Wright, and this also didn't trouble them in 2008. As Ed Koch recently explained just before his death (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/), American Jews "are always very solicitous of everybody else except their own needs and community." Sad.

Charles Blow, "The Real Obama": Chuck Hagel, "Let the Jews Pay for It"

"Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth."

- President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union Address

Over the course of his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the need to increase federal spending on education, infrastructure and green energy, and he claimed that this would not increase America's deficit "by a single dime." These are all noble objectives, but where in his speech did he explain how he intended to pay for all of this?

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, "The federal government ran up a $293 billion deficit in the first quarter of fiscal 2013." As such, the annual federal budget deficit is well on its way to topping $1 trillion for the fifth-straight year. If you believe that Obama's plans are not going to increase the deficit, you are surely also a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Real Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/blow-the-real-obama.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"Is this the real Barack Obama? I hope so. I like this one.

The president used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to detail a vision of America’s future, and his second term, in which the country is not in perpetual war, government plays an expansive role, Congressional obstruction is named and shamed and he is bold and unapologetically progressive.

This is how politicians who needn’t worry about re-election look: more like themselves."

Blow also doesn't trouble himself with the question of who is going to pay for Obama's "unapologetically progressive" program. The problem is that someone ultimately must pay for it.

Which brings us to Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. As reported by Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/the-saga-of-hagel-and-haifa/):

"Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

'He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,' said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational."

"Let the Jews pay for it"? Is this also indicative of what underlies the "real" Obama?

We have also learned from Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/arab-american-group-wont-release-hagel-tape/) that Republican senators are demanding additional disclosure of material from Hagel:

"Among the requested materials: the full text and details of several speeches Hagel failed to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that have since been uncovered.

Fox News Channel on Tuesday reported on two speeches Hagel failed to disclose as requested, including one given in 2008 to the annual conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is a controversial nonprofit whose conference last year featured speakers prominent in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The 2012 conference also featured an award presentation celebrating an author whose essays include one titled, 'Zionism is a form of racism.'

The ADC also has not disclosed the full video of Hagel’s 2008 speech, while refusing to release its tax records as required by federal law."

According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/hagel-omitted-two-speeches-on-middle-east-from-senate-disclosure-forms/):

"An Obama administration official who has worked with the senator during his confirmation process maintained that Hagel has gone 'above and beyond' the Senate’s requirements, by supplying to the Armed Services Committee whatever evidence he could find – prepared remarks, transcripts and the like – for both formal and 'informal' speeches.

Apprised by Fox News of the two speaking dates from 2008, however, the official appeared not to have heard about them. The aide later responded that Hagel did not disclose these two speaking events because neither were formal speeches. 'It’s simply not true to suggest there was any attempt to hide anything,' the aide told Fox News. 'One event was at an academic institute – Georgetown, a Jesuit university. The other was with an organization that combats discrimination.'"

An "organization that combats discrimination," yet honors a speaker who claims that Zionism is a form of racism? Yeah, right.

By all means, let's review Hagel's speech before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which purportedly is in an "archive" in Maryland and unavailable.

Another video which we are not being permitted to see? Does it remind you of something? It should. You will recall that The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release a video of Obama at a party honoring former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to pursue abortive talks with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program as long advocated by Hagel [the US "shouldn’t even be thinking about options of bombing Iran" (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/10/hagel-in-2008-video-us-shouldnt-even-think-about-bombing-iran-video/)], The Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-buying-spree-raises-concerns-about-major-expansion-of-nuclear-capacity/2013/02/13/2090805c-7537-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html?hpid=z1):

"Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability."

The "real" Obama? I think I prefer the "unreal" Obama. And yes, I have a sinking feeling that ultimately the Jews will "pay for it."

Joe Nocera, "The Ed Koch Show": Not Afraid to Say What He Believed

"He took office at a time when New York was in fiscal crisis, and helped his city achieve economic renewal, expand affordable housing, and extend opportunity to more of its people.

In public office and beyond, his energy, force of personality, and commitment to causes ranging from civic issues to the security of the state of Israel always informed and enlivened the public discourse.

Michelle and I send our thoughts and prayers to Ed’s loved ones, and to the city that survives him."

- President Obama on the passing of Ed Koch


"Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel. It comes a little earlier than I thought it would."

- Ed Koch on Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/)

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Ed Koch Show" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/opinion/nocera-the-ed-koch-show.html?_r=0), Joe Nocera observes that Ed Koch was a complicated man, driven by the need for adulation:

"What was most striking about 'Koch,' however, was the extent to which, for Hizzoner, it was always about, well, Ed Koch. He needlessly picks fights, calling people 'schmucks' and 'idiots' when they disagreed with him. He takes actions designed to win him praise in the media. One of his former aides recalls him saying, after reading the paper, that nothing of note had happened that day. What he meant was that he wasn’t mentioned. 'How’m I doin’?' wasn’t just a trademark phrase; it was an expression of a deep psychological need. On the other hand, if that is what drove him to spend $5 billion on new housing, who can complain?

. . . .

New York’s three greatest mayors were also three of its great egotists. It’s no accident."

My goodness, an egotist in politics! It just so happens, I've known more than a few.

But what set Koch apart from Chuck Schumer, for example, was his willingness to say what he believed. Notwithstanding his support for Obama's re-election, Koch did not hesitate to express his true feelings last month concerning Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense.

Is there another Democrat out there possessing the integrity to object to Hagel's appointment? Not Schumer. Which brings me to Genesis 18:20-32:

"Then the Lord said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor′rah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know.'

So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the Lord. Then Abraham drew near, and said, 'Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” And the Lord said, 'If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.' Abraham answered, 'Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Wilt thou destroy the whole city for lack of five?' And he said, 'I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.' Again he spoke to him, and said, 'Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.' He answered, 'I will not do it, if I find thirty there.' He said, 'Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.' Then he said, 'Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there. He answered, 'For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.'"

Ed Koch is gone, and now we are again in need of 10 righteous Democrats. From the looks of it, they're not going to be easy to find.

Ed Koch Dies: Opposed Hagel Nomination

New York City's colorful former mayor, Ed Koch, passed away today. Less than a month ago, Koch made known his objections to Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense and admitted that Obama is no friend of Israel (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/):

"In an interview with The Algemeiner, former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat who supported President Obama’s recent re-election, expressed disappointment with the President’s decision to nominate former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

'Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when he would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,' said Koch, adding, 'it comes a little earlier than I thought it would.'

'It’s very disappointing, I believe he will ultimately regret it,' Koch said, 'and it undoubtedly will reduce support for him in the Jewish community, but I don’t think he (the President) worries about that now that the election is over.'"

Koch, who supported Obama's re-election, had the integrity to express his outrage. A pity that New York Senator Chuck Schumer, unlike Koch, has chosen political expediency instead and is backing Hagel's outrageous candidacy.

David Brooks, "Why Hagel Was Picked": Anti-Semitism?

Is Chuck Hagel anti-Semitic? I don't know. I've never met the man, and although I am disturbed by his reference to the "Jewish lobby" and his response to efforts to keep the USO open in Haifa, i.e. "Let the Jews pay for it" (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mr-hagel-and-jews_693993.html), I am far more troubled by his complacency toward Iran, which regularly calls for the extermination of Israel; by his call for talks with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis; and by his refusal to sign a Senate letter calling upon the EU to brand Hezbollah, which was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 American soldiers, as a terrorist organization. Among those backing Hagel's nomination is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who called on Obama to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran.

However, if we are examining the issue of anti-Semitism, I am more concerned by Obama's stubborn decision to proceed with Hagel's nomination for secretary of defense, notwithstanding his questionable positions, which, according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html), place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him." Anyone skimming readers' comments in response to recent opinion pieces regarding Hagel in US newspapers and journals cannot fail to notice the wave of accusations of "control" and "manipulation" of US foreign policy by AIPAC, "Israel firsters" and "Zionists" that has been unleashed by this nomination. Obama surely must have known that this would be coming.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Hagel Was Picked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/opinion/brooks-why-hagel-was-picked.html?_r=0), David Brooks approaches Hagel's nomination from a different angle. Brooks believes that US health care expenses are "squeezing out all other spending," including programs for children, education and the poor. With respect to the military, Brooks states that "there will have to be a generation of defense cuts that overwhelm anything in recent history." Specifically regarding the Hagel nomination, Brooks postulates:

"Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.

All the charges about Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran are secondary. The real question is, how will he begin this long cutting process?"

Hagel will provide "cover" for future cutting by Obama of the defense budget? Maybe. But my guess is that this symbiosis extends much further and deeper. Hagel represents everything that Obama, a radical wolf in moderate sheep's clothing, could not say during his first term in office, including an underlying hostility to Israel and a desire to avoid confrontation with Iran, even if should it be days away from building its first atomic weapon.

Note that Ed Koch, who supported Obama's re-election, is now admitting that Obama is no friend of Israel (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/):

“Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,” said Koch, adding, “it comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”

Given the storm surrounding Hagel's nomination, it is remarkable how much political capital Obama is willing to spend to make Hagel, a Vietnam war hero with dubious administrative and executive talents, his next secretary of defense.

Chuck Hagel's Nomination As Defense Secretary: A Message of Forgive and Forget from Obama to Khameini

There is a reason why former New York mayor Ed Koch is concerned about the likely nomination by Obama of former senator Chuck Hagel as the next US secretary of defense (see: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/15/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-as-defense-secretary-it-would-be-a-terrible-appointment/). According to Koch:

"Such an appointment would give great comfort to the Arab world that would think that President Obama is seeking to put space between Israel and his administration."

In fact, the nomination of Hagel has little to do with "the Arab world" and everything to do with Iran. The nomination of Hagel, which according to a democratic source quoted by The Algemeiner is "almost a done deal," is a conciliatory message from Obama to Iran's Supreme Leader Khameini, signaling that the US is seeking to avoid confrontation.

Hagel's history:

• In 2000 Hagel was one of four Senators who wouldn't sign a Senate letter supporting Israel.

• In 2004 Hagel wouldn't sign a letter asking Bush to focus upon Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

• In 2006 Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, Iran's surrogate in Lebanon, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American soldiers.

More specifically, with respect to Iran's nuclear development program, J. Dana Stuster examines Hagel's 2008 book, "America: Our Next Chapter" in a December 14, 2012 Foreign Policy article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/14/chuck_hagel_wants_to_be_dwight_eisenhower):

"'Isolating nations is risky,' he writes. 'It turns them inward, and makes their citizens susceptible to the most demagogic fear mongering.' The answer, he says, is engagement. 'Distasteful as we may find that country's rulers, the absence of any formal governmental relations with Iran ensures that we will continue to conduct this delicate international relationship through the press and speeches, as well as through surrogates and third parties, on issues of vital strategic importance to our national interests. Such a course can only result in diplomatic blind spots that will lead to misunderstandings, miscalculation, and, ultimately, conflict.'

So Hagel supports direct negotiations with Iran. He laments the lack of diplomatic ties and toys with the idea of a consulate in Tehran. He also reflects fondly on meetings he had with Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations in New York.

Hagel even flirts with the idea that an Iranian bomb wouldn't be the end of the world. '[T]he genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does. In this imperfect world, sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability (as opposed to stateless terrorist groups) will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior. These governments, however hostile they may be toward us, have some appreciation of the horrific results of a nuclear war and the consequences they would suffer.'"

When it acquires its first nuclear weapon, Iran will "respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior"? And for that reason, the US and Israel should ignore almost daily declarations out of Iran, calling for Israel's annihilation? Given how Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, and oppresses its Baha'i, Kurdish and Sunni minorities, I don't share Hagel's blithe optimism concerning Tehran's future conduct. Neither do the Saudis.

Hagel's nomination by Obama would be an insult to the memory of the 241 US servicemen who died in Beirut. Not only friends of Israel, such as Ed Koch, should be offended and distraught by this gesture to the mullahs.

All this comes as no surprise. In his heart of hearts, Obama is no friend of Israel, and with November out of the way, it's payback time for Netanyahu. Koch should have seen this in the cards.