Jewish Validation of Anti-Semitism from Richard Falk and Amira Hass

In March 2008, Richard Falk, who taught at Princeton for 40 years and was known for his radical leftist leanings, was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as a UN Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967." In January 2009, Falk made headlines by accusing Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead and by comparing Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto (http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-human-rights-official-gaza-evokes-memories-of-warsaw-ghetto-1.268743).

In 2010, Falk initiated a blog "in celebration of his 80th birthday" (http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/). Falk, who is Jewish, recently used his blog to disseminate a virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American "cartoon":



In the face of harsh criticism, Falk removed the "cartoon," claiming it was "unintentional" and blamed the posting on his vision, which purportedly prevented him from identifying the yarmulke, replete with a Star of David, on the dog's head:

"Even now I needed a magnifying glass to identify the anti-semitic character of the dog. My vision (at 80) is pretty good, but not good enough. It looked like a helmet to me, and the main visible symbol on the dog was the USA midriff covering."

Falk notes in his blog the "stream of venomous comments" which this cartoon, posted on his blog attracted. Note, however, that this was not the original excuse provided by Falk, who stated (http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2011/07/06/timeline-falks-reaction/):

"Maybe I do not understand the cartoon, and if it offends in this way I have removed it from the blog. It may be in bad taste to an extent I had not earlier appreciated, but I certainly didn't realize it could be viewed as anti-semitic, and still do not realize."

In his blog, Falk puzzles over the "venomous comments" elicited by the posting of this cartoon (http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/a-final-attempt-to-clarify-my-posting-of-the-cartoon/).

Sorry, but I don't buy any of this claptrap. Even it were remotely possible that Falk did not identify the yarmulke and the Star of David, I object to his vile denigration of the United States. Apologies notwithstanding, this explosion of raw sewage from Falk's blog cannot be excused.

Equally horrifying was the declaration by Amira Hass of Haaretz in a July 7, 2011 "opinion" entitled "In dealing with flotilla, Israel is anything but smart" (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-dealing-with-flotilla-israel-is-anything-but-smart-1.371879), in which this reporter, covering the failed Gaza flotilla from Greece, wrote:

"Like an anti-Semitic caricature, Israel has extended its long tentacles around the globe in an effort to stop 10 decades-old ships from sailing to Gaza."

In no less than an Israeli newspaper, Hass would give creedance to the anti-Semitic caricatures of Israel and the Jews as a monster capable of global dominance. See, for example, this 2002 "cartoon" from Al-Ahram, Egypt's most widely read, government owned, daily newspaper:



Hass is also well known for her leftist views, and when reading her recent articles from Greece, it was never clear to me whether she was reporting on, opining on, or participating in the failed flotilla. Clearly, she was infuriated by the refusal of the Greek government to permit the flotilla to embark on its planned journey to Gaza, but there is no excusing the hateful language used to express her rage. Even more remarkable was the willingness of Haaretz to publish this rant and its failure to apologize.

In the past, I took The New York Times to task for publishing an op-ed by Roger Cohen entitled "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html). In an e-mail to the Times, I observed that the title of Cohen's op-ed evoked horrifying Nazi images, portraying Jews as voracious spiders. A senior editor from the Times agreed that the title of the op-ed was inappropriate:

"It was not a good headline, I agree. By the time this column gets to the times website it has already been published in the IHT on paper and online. This is not an excuse. It is an explanation. The headline should have been changes [sic] there."

However, Falk's posting of the anti-Semitic "cartoon" and Hass's outburst are far worse than the title of Cohen's op-ed. The fury of the left, particularly when it relates to Israel, knows no bounds, even from Jews.

Paul Krugman, "What Obama Wants": What Krugman Doesn't Want

Paul Krugman's columns have grown boring. You know before you begin reading that he will again be demanding that the U.S. spend its way out of the recession, and in that respect, his latest New York Times op-ed, "What Obama Wants" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08krugman.html?hp), doesn't "disappoint." What does come as a mild surprise is his growing annoyance with Obama:

"It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it.

. . . .

Almost all the high-profile economists who joined the Obama administration early on have either left or are leaving.

. . . .

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust."

It sounds as if Krugman is calling upon Democrats to resist any compromise that Obama might reach with Republicans concerning the deficit ceiling. I doubt, however, with elections looming, that Obama's fellow Democrats will risk bringing the temple down upon themselves. Better to remain chained to the president's dictates than risk the wrath of the electorate come November 2012.

But why does Krugman remain enslaved to his conviction that it is possible to spend yourself out of the recession when you are overdrawn and risking, some would say, default and economic ruin? Obama has already thrown money at the economy, this year’s budget deficit is projected to reach a record $1.5 trillion, and there is no relief in sight. Krugman's model hasn't worked.

I would argue that today's economics, shaped by globalization and the real-time immediacy of the Internet, demand flexibility and a new view of the world that is susceptible to adaptation in accordance with developments. In this regard, Krugman probably agrees. In January 2009 he wrote an open letter to Obama in Rolling Stone entitled "What Obama Must Do" (http://www.cfr.org/united-states/rolling-stone-obama-must-do-letter-new-president/p18781), stating:

"Like FDR three-quarters of a century ago, you're taking charge at a moment when all the old certainties have vanished, all the conventional wisdom been proved wrong. We're not living in a world you or anyone else expected to see."

However, I would say that what worked for Roosevelt, i.e. spending, will not work today, and it is time to cast 1930s dogma aside. Technology bars the advent of a new WPA-type program. Moreover, I am also among those who are foolish enough to believe that you can't spend what you don't have and never will have.

Nicholas Kristof's "Taxes and Billionaires": Beyond Kristof's Ken

In the past, Nicholas Kristof has written some incredibly inane material, demonstrating a level of ignorance that does not behoove a national newspaper. One of the stupidest columns he has ever written was "New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html), in which he declared:

"The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

. . . .

Avoid meats that are cooked well-done."

Apparently, Kristof was unaware that our bodies consist of chemicals and that well-done, as opposed to potentially carcinogenic charred or burned, meat prevents the ingestion of dangerous bacteria. In short, there are certain areas where Kristof should never venture.

Well, if you thought "New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer" was dumb, have a look at Kristof's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Taxes and Billionaires" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1&hp). In his new essay, Kristof goes to bat for President Obama and blames U.S. economic woes on the Republicans, who allegedly are looking out for the best interests of the richest 1 percent of Americans, who include - not mentioned by Nicholas - multi-millionairess and House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, California, worth at least $35 million in calendar 2010. Kristof focuses his readers' attention on the carried interest tax loophole:

"Tycoons have bet for years that the public is too stupid or distracted to note that in many cases they’re paying just a 15 percent tax rate.

What’s at stake is the 'carried interest' loophole, and President Obama is pushing to close it. The White House estimates that this would raise $20 billion over a decade. But Congressional Republicans walked out of budget talks rather than discuss raising revenues from measures such as this one.

. . . .

This carried interest loophole benefits managers of financial partnerships such as hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds and real estate funds — who are among the highest-paid people in the world. John Paulson, a hedge fund manager in New York City, made $4.9 billion last year, top of the chart for hedge fund managers, according to AR Magazine, which follows hedge funds. That’s equivalent to the average per capita income of 184,000 Americans, according to my back-of-envelope calculations based on Census Bureau figures."

Don't get me wrong: I favor closing this loophole, but this is not what is going to save the U.S. economy or balance the budget.

Kristof tells us that by closing the carried interest loophole, $20 billion over a decade will be saved. By the same token, perhaps we can say that closing this loophole will save $200 billion over the next century. On the other hand, it could also be stated that closing the loophole will save $2 billion next year. Annual savings of $2 billion? Let's place that in perspective:

• The estimated cost to the U.S. of what is now Obama's senseless war in Afghanistan will reach a record $120 billion in 2011. Why is Kristof not highlighting this fact?

• This year’s budget deficit is projected to reach a record $1.5 trillion. Compare that with a savings of $2 billion.

Now let's look at Kristof's other gem, i.e. $4.9 billion is "equivalent to the average per capita income of 184,000 Americans," according to his "back-of-envelope calculations." Excuse me, but this is unintelligible. Does he mean that $4.9 billion is equal to the average annual per capita income of 184,000 Americans? Or does he mean the combined total annual average per capita income of 184,000 Americans? To which 184,000 Americans is he referring? Sure, I know, he probably means the average per capita annual American income, but he doesn't say any of this.

Perhaps Kristof would be best off not "calculating," and certainly not on the back of envelopes.

However, more to the point, why did Kristof attempt this disastrous economic analysis? With the U.S. economy tanking and little hope in sight, the only way Obama can be reelected is by blaming others for his failure and seeking to ignite class warfare by attacking the rich. Again, I am in favor of eliminating all inequitable loopholes, including those sponsored by Democrats, so as to balance the budget, but if Obama is relying on Kristof's advocacy to be reelected, he's in big trouble.

Hedy Epstein and the Gaza Flotilla: A Final Act of Hypocrisy

Hedy Epstein, soon to be 87, was sent by her family from Nazi Germany to England via the Kindertransport, and thus escaped the "Final Solution," although her parents died at Auschwitz. Over the years, she has sought to make use of her "Holocaust survivor" status in order to bolster her credibility when engaging in anti-Israel activities.

Epstein is among the "activists" seeking to sail on the Audacity of Hope to Gaza. She seemed almost in tears when the Greek coast guard forced her ship back to port, declaring (see video clip, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/04/israel.gaza.flotilla/index.html?hpt=hp_t2):

"I'm hurting. I'm sad. I'm angry. I want to go to Gaza."

Indeed, every effort should be made to allow Hedy to live out her days in Gaza, where children are taught that the Holocaust never happened and that Jews are the children of "pigs and monkeys." Even J Street's Ben-Ami issued a statement denouncing Holocaust denial by Hamas (http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/01/1007583/j-street-blasts-hamas-holocaust-denial):

"J Street unequivocally condemns Holocaust denial by Hamas officials, most recently in an open letter to UNRWA Chief John Ging stating that the group refuses to 'let our children study a lie invented by the Zionists'.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshal remarked to the The New York Times that Hamas needs to be 'part of the solution' but it is difficult to take that seriously while Hamas officials continue to perpetuate and promote Holocaust denial."

Let's all take up a collection and help wheel Hedy into Gaza!

In related news, the Tahrir, the so-called "Canadian" ship participating in the flotilla, was towed back to port in Cyprus, after seeking to disobey orders from the Greek government and head for Gaza. The Tahrir sought to use kayakers to interfere with the Greek coast guard and make their escape. According to an article in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-bound-tahrir-crew-warned-ship-may-be-in-danger-1.371470#article_comments), the drama queens on board the Tahrir are now claiming that their ship is in danger:

"The Tahrir's steering crew said in a statement to Haaretz that Greek supporters holding a vigil on the pier notified the passengers aboard the ship that their safety may be at risk."

Their safety "might be at risk"? True, the ship is now without electricity, and at night they might stub a toe in the darkness.

Also, these valiant graying "activists" are complaining that they can no longer flush the boat's toilets. Maybe this will serve to illustrate to them how Sderot's children have felt, some of whom wet their beds at night rather then risk being caught outside their concrete-walled safe rooms when rockets from Gaza fell.

The absurdity here is that notwithstanding their intentions, these radical leftists have contributed mightily to the standing in Israel of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has made them look like the duplicitous chumps they are.

The Gaza Flotilla: One Reporter for Every Three Radical Leftists

A Haaretz article entitled "Gaza flotilla to set sail Monday despite numerous setbacks" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-to-set-sail-monday-despite-numerous-setbacks-1.371050) has this to say about the American ship, Audacity of Hope, which was forced back to port by the Greek coast guard after leaving Perama without clearance from the Greek authorities:

"The ship was carrying 51 passengers, including five members of the crew and 11 journalists."

Translation: There is one journalist for every three radical leftists on board!

Even more absurd, eight of the aging activists from this ship have started a hunger strike in order to force the Greek government to allow them to sail. No one is hungry in Gaza, but these buffoons are apparently starved for attention and seeking to feed their own vanity and narcissism.

See for yourselves the abhorrent, shell pocked, concentration camp conditions that prevail throughout Gaza, which these "activists" are rabidly protesting:



Did you see any emaciated faces? This would appear to be one of those peculiar instances where you can't have your cake and not eat it, too.

Maureen Dowd's "When a Predator Collides With a Fabricator": Why Was a Polygraph Not Immediately Administered?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When a Predator Collides With a Fabricator" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03dowd.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd not surprisingly chooses to examine the Dominique Strauss-Kahn fiasco, which has destroyed whatever was left of the reputation of the Manhattan D.A.'s office. Dowd writes:

"They [the French] were right about Iraq and America’s rush to war. And they may be right about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and America’s rush to judgment.

. . . .

The upright-looking Vance is not like the scoundrel prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case. He did not ignore evidence that was contrary to the case prosecutors were trying to build. It just took several weeks, after they tried to deny DSK bail and after they indicted him, to do a thorough investigation.

. . . .

When a habitual predator faces off against a habitual liar, the liar will most likely lose, even if it is the rare case when she is telling the truth."

In the past, I worked in law enforcement, and I wonder whether it really should have taken several weeks to do a thorough preliminary investigation.

Although there is an inevitable euphoria working on high profile prosecutions, the bottom line is that this case amounted to a simple he-said, she-said story. What to do given the high stakes involved in this matter and the potential diplomatic fallout if the case should fall? Simple: Ask the alleged victim to undergo a polygraph test for purposes of establishing credibility, not for use as evidence.

I like polygraphs and have been tested several times in the past, once, for example, to obtain a job demanding a high security clearance, and once to prove that an alleged leak did not come from my department. The results are only as good as the person administering the test, but if you can get a good examiner, many of your doubts will be put to rest. Sure, there are those special individuals who can "beat" the machine, but I would bet that the complainant in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair is not one of them.

None of this has to do with taking sides or liking or not liking Dominique Strauss-Kahn. This is purely a matter of criminal justice in the U.S., which demands 99.9% certainty, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt, before convicting. I wouldn't want it any other way.

So what happened here, when, as Dowd describes it, a predator collided with a fabricator"? Unfortunately, an unwary system fell victim.

Peter Catapano's "Dead in the Water?": The Mendacity (and Cowardice) of Dopes

In a New York Times "Opinionator" column entitled "Dead in the Water?" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/dead-in-the-water/?hp), Peter Catapano attempts to present the opinions of those favoring and opposing the Gaza flotilla. Needless to say (this is, of course, The New York Times), Catapano provides more space to those in favor of the flotilla (Max Blumenthal, Alice Walker, Juan Cole) than those opposed (Howard Jacobson).

There is no mention by Mr. Catapano or those opposing the flotilla of:

• abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas without Red Cross visits for five years and without a sign of life for almost two years (http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2011/israel-palestine-news-2011-06-23.htm);
• "honor killings" perpetrated against women in Gaza;
• persecution and murder of Christians in Gaza;
• persecution and murder of homosexuals in Gaza;
• incarceration and murder of dissidents in Gaza;
• the thousands of mortar shells, rockets and missiles fired from Gaza at Israeli civilian targets in recent years;
• the repeated attempts by Hamas to smuggle advanced weaponry int Gaza (e.g., the attempt to smuggle ship-to-shore missiles aboard the "Victoria" in March);
• the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel and the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis).

Also no mention by Mr. Catapano or those favoring the flotilla of:

• the two luxury hotels opening in Gaza later this month;
• the gourmet restaurants (e.g., Roots, Carino's) to be found in Gaza;
• the three-story, $2 million wedding hall under construction in Gaza;
• the Mercedes and hot tubs that passed into Gaza last week via Israel;
• the hundreds of BMWs and pickup trucks that have been imported into Gaza in recent months;
• the opening of a second new shopping mall with escalators from Israel next month;
• the abundance and widespread use of cell phones and personal computers throughout Gaza;
• that all 130 engineering firms in Gaza are busy with work;
• that hundreds of new homes are being built;
• that two dozen new schools are about to go up;
• that unemployment has fallen dramatically to 25% according to Hamas's economic minister, Ala al-Rafati (compare with over 21% in Spain);
• that statistics for literacy, live births and longevity are better in Gaza than in Turkey or in most of the surrounding Arab countries;
• that health conditions are far superior to most of the developing world.

In 2010, 18,000 people and their companions passed from Gaza into Israel to receive medical treatment; 80 percent of those who requested treatment in Israel were allowed to enter. Six thousand tons of goods are trucked into Gaza from Israel every day, and as acknowledged by Robert Serry of the UN, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136180).

Among the many hateful statements by Alice Walker which did not find their way into Mr. Catapano's piece:

• "I think Israel is the greatest terrorist in that part of the world. And I think in general, the United States and Israel are great terrorist organizations themselves." (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/23/interview_alice_walker?page=0,1)

• "I gave her [a Palestinian woman] a gift I had brought, and she thanked me. Looking into my eyes she said: May God Protect You From the Jews. When the young Palestinian interpreter told me what she’d said, I responded: It’s too late, I already married one." (http://www.voiceseducation.org/node/744)

Walker has repeatedly compared Israel with Nazi Germany (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=7&x_article=1932):

"I feel that the Israel that many Jews dreamed of having – that one is gone. That's demolished. I think it's time for people to accept that. Because what you have now is something that is so frightening. Israel is as frightening to many of us as Germany used to be."

Moreover, her remarks before the left-leaning congregation of Rabbi Michael Lerner in San Francisco in 2009 during the High Holy Days, were deemed blatantly anti-Semitic by some worshippers, who walked out of her "talk" (http://www.beyttikkun.org/article.php/20090930114030409).

Although there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, there is indeed a humanitarian crisis in Syria, where thousands of persons have been murdered, imprisoned, tortured and forced out of their homes in recent weeks. Yesterday, Assad's security forces killed 24 more civilians (http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast-in-turmoil/report-assad-forces-kill-24-civilians-in-violent-protests-across-syria-1.370806). Why does the flotilla not sail to Syria? Because they know that in Syria they will be arrested, brutalized and thrown into prison.

So much for the idealism of Walker and these would-be freedom fighters, who combine tourism with safe-protest.