Well, I didn't just take the petition at face value. I looked, and did a little research to confirm the bias. It's obvious. Unlike the right that just parrot "liberal bias!", I checked it out. I check out their claims, too, and in general, theirs have a LOT less substance then this.

The knee-jerk reactions from the right just pretty much excuse their own transgressions by crying "DAN RATHER!"

I'd like to see Rush step down over one of HIS many factual misdirections.

Let 'em. It all cuts both ways. Like Netflix I try and read at least a few positive AND negative reviews. People will see what they want to see and buy if they want to anyway. If anything a negative review just sells more books to the "target clientelle". Not many lefties will be deterred by one negative review on a web page.

Liberals USED to be against censorship.

It isn't censorship. It's bias. Find another political nonfiction best seller on Amazon that features such a prominent NEGATIVE review on it's home page.

I couldn't.

Asking them to treat it the same as the other books is NOT censorship. It's balance.

Actually, the fact that it's there tends to confirm what Carter says about the pro-Israel viewpoint in the country, and about how institutionalized it really is.

So as Billy pointed out, this is really backfiring on Carter's critics. Rather than proving him wrong, they are strengthening his case. Now there's some irony for you.

Welcome to my world. Lefties have had it all their way in the press that now they expect it all to be like the old Cronkite world. One view, one gatekeeper, all the news he sees fit to tell you.

But it's a new day, and Counterpunch can go sell their own books if they don't like it.

Wow! You're a HA All Star! Nicely done--



Is HAGS where you got your swats?

Weren't spewing enough venom fer'm, eh?

Thankfully you came around and finished a most distinguished scholastic achievement--




Haven't you noticed these nimrods try to break you on minutia whilst engaging in the most outrageous generalizations imaginable? I must say I'm bowled over at times by the sheer audacity--

I'd think you wouldn't approve of bias from anyone.



Cronkite? Now you're really reaching back. That was then, this is Now.



As I said, Goldbergs review on the home page confirms Carter's criticism of the pro-Israel BIAS in America. It's not a political observation, it's a factual one.

Facts aren't bias. They're simply facts.

O! I think his book just moved up another notch on the NYT's bestseller list!

The horror!

Yes, it's amazing. I'm trying to get more atuned to it. Bart is a master of it. I think the fact that most here are hep to the Katz's tricks is why he's spending more time at the Lexus board.

Hooray for now.


If the nuts at Counterpunch have a coronary, don't blame us.

Did y'all juss cuss at me?

Why would the folks at counterpunch have a coronary?

Counterpunch isn't really a leftie sight per se, unless you consider libertarians to be "lefties."

I doubt that they'd agree, at least not the psuedo-libertarians around here.

So upset at not getting their way. Life's a bitch, then you die.

This country has been in the grips of the rightwing-nut, ultra-zealots for so long that anyone to the left of Reagan is a "liberal"--the new left is the old right.

It's rather freakish--but I'm getting a kick out of watching it all unravel--some go quietly, like HAL-9000 from 2001, while others go into full-on blown gasket melt down.

Here ya go Billy, use these for your next attempt...when ya learn to walk, give'em to the beezer.

I only disapprove of hidden bias from journalists who are supposedly just employed to tell us who, what, where and when type facts. I expect bias from them, I just disapprove.




Now we have Couric, same liberal bias.

Well I object to bias in any form. The bias on Amazon is blatent in this case.



Couric? You mean Disney, don't you? What in the heck does that "hairdo" have to do with editorial policy?

I'd wager she has less to do with it then Cronkite does.

You really should write fiction.

2 posts, 5 words, no points. You should write for Marcel Marceau.

what about the kids screaming in the street on the morning of 9/11 whose family is in pieces around him, and getting to their children and grandchildren early.

Keep throwing bombs at them and the problem just persists that much longer.

marines in beirut
WTC '93
USS Cole
Khobar Towers
9/11

I think you should take your diatribes and preaching to Saudi Arabia Iran and Syria, preaching peace as a peace corps missionary.

Oh, so now you're complaining that I am not verbose enough?

He is quite the whiner, isn't he?

Well, there is a happy medium. One post didn't have even a one work comment. Not even a profane one.

What's a one work comment??

One that's better than a comment that doesn't work even once?

Surprises From Gates's 1996 Memoir
Defense Secretary Admires Leaders, Thinkers in Both Parties

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; Page A15

Of all the presidents he worked for, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is particularly supportive of one -- but it isn't, as might be expected, Ronald Reagan, the first President Bush or even Gerald R. Ford.

Rather, in his memoirs, the new Pentagon chief leaps repeatedly to the defense of Jimmy Carter, the sole Democrat for whom he worked, who was often seen as weak on the Soviet Union and taken by surprise when it invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.


Gates's 1996 book, "From the Shadows," is now being combed for insights into the new defense secretary's thinking, how he might run the Pentagon and what he's had to say about his past bosses.

When it comes to Carter, it isn't that Gates, a career Sovietologist who rose to become CIA director, is a closet dove. Rather, he thinks Carter was far tougher on Moscow than is generally recognized.

"I believe the Soviets saw a very different Jimmy Carter than did most Americans by 1980, different and more hostile and threatening," Gates writes. In both conventional weaponry and in the nuclear arena, he argues, Carter would "provide a strong foundation for Ronald Reagan to build upon." By contrast, Gates describes the first president for whom he worked, Richard Nixon, as "by far the most liberal" of the group. (Gates also shows a bit of dovish ankle, revealing that before leaving the CIA to work in the Nixon White House, he marched in a May 1970 antiwar demonstration.)

LP!!! LOOOOOOOK!!!!! A closet Carternista!

Most of all, writes Gates, who was the national intelligence officer for the Soviet Union at the time, Carter's emphasis on human rights cast a spotlight on the Soviets' greatest vulnerability. The rights theme, Gates says, made Carter "the first president during the Cold War to challenge publicly and consistently the legitimacy of Soviet rule at home." In his view, these were "the first steps" toward the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

Gates even defends Carter's handling of Afghanistan, reporting that the president and his advisers reacted far earlier than is generally understood, most notably by authorizing covert aid to Afghan insurgents.

The 604-page book contains a few other hints at how Gates might operate at the Pentagon during the last two years of the Bush administration.

· He might seek to borrow from the proposals and tactics of the administration's opponents. Some of the most effective U.S. officials he has seen, he says, were Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and George P. Shultz, whom he describes as "basically hawks who drew extensively on the ideas and initiatives of the doves."

· He appears more inclined than his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to try to enlist the support of the Pentagon bureaucracy for his policies. Reviewing the record of one CIA director, Adm. Stansfield Turner, he concludes that, "in nearly every case, his failure to build a substantial internal constituency for his changes led to the reversal of his initiatives very quickly after his departure."

· He doesn't make policy disagreements personal. He writes warmly about his former boss Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser under George H.W. Bush (and also under Ford) but has been considered something of a turncoat by the current president for opposing the invasion of Iraq. "I never argued as much with any person," he recalls. "I never got more frustrated at times with any person. But when I became DCI [director of central intelligence] and left the White House, I considered Brent Scowcroft my closest friend in the world."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012201181.html

Surprises from others memoirs................

Jimmy Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust council
Former president also rejected Christian historian because name sounded 'too Jewish'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 25, 2007
11:07 p.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


TEL AVIV – Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the council's chairman, author Elie Weisel, to serve as executive director in 1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, "Too many Jews."

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was initialed by Carter.

Freedman said at the time the board he constructed was about 80-perent Jewish, including many Holocaust survivors.

He said at the behest of the White House he composed another board consisting of more non-Jews. But he said he was "stunned" when Carter's office objected to a non-Jew whose name sounded Jewish.

Freedman said he could not provide the historians name to WND because he did not have the man's permission.

"I got a phone call from our liaison at the White House saying this particular historian whose name sounded Jewish would not do. The liaison said he would not even take the time to present Carter with the possibility of including the historian on the board because he knew Carter would think the name sounded too Jewish. I explained the historian is Presbyterian, but the liaison said it wouldn't matter to Carter."

Freedman said he was "outraged by this absurdity."

"If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant number of board members to be African American. If I was memorializing Native American figures I'd expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the board.

"I do not for a moment consider it inappropriate to build a Holocaust council with a significant majority of the board being Jewish," Freedman stated.

Freedman describes himself as "self-proclaimed liberal." He said he decided to speak out after the release of Carter's latest book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," which some have accused of being biased against Israel.

This would not be the first time Carter's messages on right hand corners of letters generated a Holocaust-related scandal.

Last week, in an interview with the Tovia Singer Show on Israel National Radio, a former U.S. Justice Department official said he received a letter advocating "special consideration" for a confessed Nazi SS officer accused of murdering Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

Neal Sher, who served in the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation, said that in 1987 he received a note from Carter petitioning for re-entry into the U.S. for Martin Bartesch, who had been deported by Sher's office to Austria after it was established he served as an SS officer.

Sher said his office had "extraordinary evidence" Bartesch shot Jews.

Bartesch originally immigrated to the U.S. and lived in Chicago. He later admitted to Sher's office and the court he had voluntarily joined the SS as a teenager and served in its Death's Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp where many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot, starved and worked to death. Bartesch also confessed to having concealed his SS service at concentration camp from U.S. immigration officials.

Sher said the Justice Department obtained a journal kept by the SS and captured by the U.S. Armed Forces listing Bartesch as having shot to death Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner.

Bartesch's daughters, who still lived in the U.S., attempted in 1987 to appeal to politicians to allow the former Nazi officer to enter the country. They wrote a note in which they claimed it was "un-American" to persecute a man for crimes committed when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

Sher said he was shocked when he received the daughter's letter replete with a handwritten note from Carter on the upper right corner stating the former president wanted "special consideration" for the Bartesch family for humanitarian reasons.

The note, containing Carter's signature, was obtained this week by the NY Sun.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jimmy Carter has spent his entire life trying to bring peace to Israel. He's still trying.

Yes mam. A good and decent man.

Talk about miserable failure. But I don't blame him because the Muslim fanatic leaders don't want peace. They can't even have it amongst themselves, much less with an enemy they've sworn to destroy.




I'm sure they said the same about Neville Chamberlain.

Yeah, sure.

You've gone full speed ahead and become a total LP, Horowitz type politico.

I stayed the same. The Dems shifted left. My first vote was for Carter.

You have stayed the same since the old cspan board?

I don't think so. Now you use the same rhetoric that JT and LP use.

If you called me a Saddamite it wouldn't surprise me.

When you make logical posts like this the name calling and ad hominems are sure to follow.

Posted Today, 11:56 AM
You have chosen to ignore all posts from: patheticJT.


I don't miss you at all.

Ask me if I care.............

I'm sure you're crying on the inside.

Me either. Blocks work great.

'Only my opinion please...........






Its killing me chops, I dont know how I will ever get over it.

The True Believers of Appeasement are Saving America reminisce of the 1920's and '30's

It's a good idea. Keeps what is left of their brains from running out when they lean to the side.

Some of US don't have to worry about that particular problem.

The full blown rightwing attack on Jimmy Carter gets even worse. Joseph Farrah's contribution:



"Too many Jews."

That was the comment former President Jimmy Carter scrawled on a memo suggesting prospective members of the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council.

"Too many Jews."

That was the problem Carter saw with the names suggested by Monroe Freedman, executive director of the council, he revealed in a stunning interview with WND's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein this week.

"Too many Jews."

Naturally, Freedman was shocked by the statement – given the Holocaust Memorial Council's job was to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. The Nazi Holocaust took the lives of approximately 6 million Jews during World War II.



"Too many Jews."

"If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant number of board members to be African American," explained Freedman. "If I was memorializing Native American figures, I'd expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the board."

"Too many Jews."

What prompted Freedman, a "self-proclaimed liberal" like Carter, to speak out years later on the comment was the release of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace No Apartheid," which strongly suggests Israel's "intransigence" is responsible for the Middle East conflict.

"Too many Jews."

Ultimately, that's what Carter and others like him believe is the real problem in the Middle East – too many Jews. There are about 7 million Jews living in Israel – nearly 1 million of them refugees from predominantly Muslim Arab lands populated by 300 million non-Jews.

Huh?Carter and others like him?


"Too many Jews."

It is this usually unspoken belief that leads to ethnic cleansing policies like we see completed in the Gaza Strip, from which all Jews have been forcibly removed – barren lands they had settled peaceably and turned into gardens. The same kinds of "no Jews allowed" policies will soon lead to the forcible evacuation of Jews from historically Jewish lands in Judea and Samaria.

Unbelieveable. Now he tries to drag ethnic cleansing into an argument about Jimmy Carter's book. Wow. Is Jimmy going to start with the stars on the Jews chests? Next thing y'all know is Jimmah will turn his peanut farm into a concentration camp.

"Too many Jews."

But, of course, those policies will never be enough for the Jew haters of the world – people like Jimmy Carter and the terrorists he defends in the Palestinian Authority. There will always be "too many Jews" as long as Jews are permitted to live in the Middle East – their historic and enduring homeland.

That is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

"Too many Jews."

Freedman has performed a real service to the world and to America for exposing Jimmy Carter for what he truly is – an anti-Semite, a bigot, a Baptist backslider of the first degree.

Jimmy Carter is no anti-semite, certainly not a bigot and he is a genuinely compassionate Baptist. The more you idiotic SOBs scream and screech about it the better he looks.

"Too many Jews."

Every time you hear or read the name Jimmy Carter from this day forward, I want you to remember those three words he scrawled in his own handwriting on a memo proposing board members for the Holocaust Memorial Council. That's the real Jimmy Carter. He poses as a reasonable, even-handed fellow when promoting his book on C-SPAN. But if you want to know who he really is, just remember those three words – the three words that define growing anti-Semitism in our world today as well as a growing blame-Israel-first attitude.

Every time you read one of these ignorant rightwingers attack Jimmy Crater from this day forward I want you to remeber his actions, his track record and his contribution to peace in the world. The real Jimmy Carter, not this rightwing creation.

"Too many Jews."

That's what Jimmy Carter believes is the problem. That's what Hamas believes is the problem. That's what Hezbollah believes is the problem. That's what Mahmoud Abbas believes is the problem. That's what Syria and Iran believe is the problem. And, of course, that's what Hitler believed was the problem.

Go for broke. Jimmy Carter would like to have more non jews on the Holocast memorial so that makes him a Jew killer, a Jew hater and an anti-semite. Hitler it is. Jimmy Carter wants to eliminate the Jewish race from the face of the planet.


Jesus Christ, these goofballs are just nuts. But if they keep up this sheit they'll be shown for what they are. A bunch of god damned idiots.

"Too many Jews."

How ironic that we would find out the truth about Jimmy Carter because of his meddling in the effort to memorialize Hitler's victims.

"Too many Jews."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53958










Look at this. World Net Daily. They have three stories about Jimmy Carter's book then a story about Anne Frank.

Unbelievable. Rightwingers are the biggest pieces of sheit I've ever seen in my life. Hands down.

BETWEEN THE LINES
'Too many Jews'
Exclusive: Joseph Farah labels Carter 'an anti-Semite, a bigot, a Baptist backslider'
--WND

WND POLL
Counting in his heart
What do you think about Jimmy Carter's 'too many Jews' remark?
--WND

Carter urged Pope John Paul II to speak about Israel
Former president releases 1979 conversation advising pontiff of U.S. Jewish concerns
--Associated Press

Letters from Anne Frank's father discovered
New York archive reveals just how desperately family tried to escape Netherlands
--Der Spiegel, Germany

So here is a piece of one of the other cited WND articles-



First - Carter established the Council and subsequently the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

I think a fair person might conclude that Carter wanted to emphasize that the Holocaust was of concern not just to Jews, but to other faiths and ethnicities as well.

Joe Sobran has it right - "Anti- Semites are people the Jews hate."

That group may include people who are actually bigoted against Jews as well.

Yes, Space, a fair person might conclude that. But the history of who had board seats and when would argue against it. Case in point. Mr., Professor, Ian Hancock.

How does this tie in? Easy. Although it is less well known to most than the plight of European Jewry under Hitler's reign of terror, the Rom peoples suffered a greatly if not more in that engine of hatred and genocide. They do not refer to that tragic part of their history as a "holocaust" but as The Devouring. It was not until President Clinton approved the list of board members proposed by the Holocaust Council (after intense lobbying), which included Dr Hancock, that any Romani had served on the board. And at that it was not until 1993 that a Romani, Dr Hancock's niece, ever got to participate in the Day of Remembrance ceremonies. And that appointment and participation lasted only as long as Dr Hancock's term, which was not renewed. When queried on this, the President's answer was typical of a politician, "I only get to approve or not approve the list presented me, I do not make individual appointments." Knowing Ian Hancock personally over many years now, I can attest to the above.

Your "fair person", would be disappointed, I think. At least as far as the Council and Museum's operation is concerned.

These days if someone applies the label anti-Semite 99% of the time they mean anti-Jew. That's the definition now. Whatever Semites were in the past doesn't reflect on how the word is used today.



When Farrah says Carter is an anti-Semite he means anti-Jew. I believe the neocons tried to pin that label on General Zinni when he called them out.

This is from TPM Cafe another site I post at. Mr. Rosenberg is Jewish and discussed the problem we non-Jews have being called anti-semites when talking about having a problem with Israeli policies.

Israels Isolation

By M.J. Rosenberg | bio

Getting together with friends who travel in different circles is a good way to get beyond the usual bubble in which most of us live and hear views different from those of our regular crowd.

A few weeks ago about a dozen of us got together to discuss our kids, politics and anything else that came to mind. The people in the room were mostly non-Jews. They are well-educated, upper ncome and split along political lines.


I would not have thought of them as people who have strong feelings about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nor would I expect the subject to come up at all.

Nevertheless, I was asked my opinion of Jimmy Carter's book. I said that I didn't think it broke any new ground and that I disagreed with much of it, but added that I did not think it merited the controversy that surrounds it. Carter is entitled to his views which, considering who he is, are worth hearing.

Well, that opened the floodgates.

It turned out that the others in the room had strong feelings about the Carter book controversy and the prevalent one was "what's the big deal." Some agreed with Carter's thesis. Some didn't. But none thought that it made any sense for the Jewish community to make such a brouhaha over a book simply because it is critical of Israel and has a provocative title.

Not one thought Carter was out of line. They thought the community was out of line for getting "bent out of shape" by a book. "He's a former President. He is entitled to say what he believes about any issue, let alone an issue relating to United States policy," one said as everyone agreed.

This discussion led to a larger one that became very interesting. If this sample of Americans is at all representative, non-Jewish Americans feel very inhibited about talking about Israel out of fear that any criticism will be labeled "anti-Semitism."

One said that the only times he will say what he thinks about what is going on in the Middle East is if "there is a Jewish person in the room who makes the criticism first. Then I am free to chime in so long as the Jewish guy carries the ball."

If there was one position shared by every person in the group it was that the United States should push hard for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. "I'd lock them in a room and not let them out until Palestinians agree to fully accept Israel and Israel guarantees Palestinian rights. I'd do that that not only for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians but to help immunize America against blow-back from that war."

It quickly became obvious that the days when Americans had only warm, sentimental and uncomplicated feelings about Israel are over. Israel is part of the Middle East problem and, as such, it evokes more anxiety than admiration. Contrary to Binyamin Netanyahu's suggestion that 9/11 turned Americans into Israelis, 9/11 made Americans realize that while they sympathize with Israel, they do not want the United States to become Israel.

Yes, the polls show strong support for Israel. But the polls tend to simply ask if Americans are more supportive of the Israelis or the Arabs. Not surprisingly, the Israelis win. But that means very little especially after 9/11. Polls which probe more deeply show that support for Israel, such as there is, is broad but it is not very deep.

This phenomenon can be seen almost every day in "Letters to the Editors" columns. Every time an op-ed about Israel appears, especially if it is critical, there are a slew of letters to the editor. Most support the Israeli position. And almost without exception, they are written by Jews. That vast majority out there which supposedly is so supportive of Israel virtually never chimes in. It's just the usual suspects putting out their robotic rhetoric.

Shmuel Rosner, the estimable Ha’aretz correspondent, noted that it is telling that every significant critic of Carter’s book is Jewish, concluding that Jews are increasingly isolated on matters relating to Israel.

At the Herzliyah conference last week, the most prestigious strategy and policy conference in Israel, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that “Israel must be prepared to lose American support in the coming years, both diplomatically and economically.” His advice to Israel was to “go it alone” (exactly how, he did not say).

Robert Satloff, who runs the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, is so concerned that he advised Israel to look for alliances with Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia while predictably (and incredibly) adding that he doesn’t “buy that Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians” to form that alliance!

In other words, those who are less than enthusiastic about Israel negotiating with the Palestinians are becoming reconciled to an Israel ever more isolated as the occupation goes into its 41st year.

The occupation is defining Israel.

For those of us who care deeply about Israel, this is not good news. There is so much in Israel that Americans would admire if they knew about them. But the occupation obscures much of that, especially when those of us in the pro-Israel community act as if criticizing the occupation is the same as criticizing Israel.

This is not something we American supporters of Israel can easily change. The pro-Israel community here cannot end the occupation there, even if it is eroding American support for the Jewish state. We are not Israelis; Israeli policies are determined by Israelis.

But there are things we can do that will strengthen Israel here in the United States. We can support vigorous US diplomacy to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if US intervention does not succeed (it is the parties, after all, who have to accept any peace deal), Americans want to see our country playing the role of honest broker.

The other thing we can do that will help is to dial back our stridency when Israeli policies are criticized. One thing I am repeatedly asked is "why can't Americans freely debate these issues the way Israelis do?"

Israel's free-wheeling debate on policy issues is one aspect of Israeli life that Americans admire. The attempts to limit debate here (like the woefully misguided insistence that Alan Dershowitz be given equal billing with President Carter at Brandeis) only hurt Israel's image.

And to what end? Ultimately, President Carter went to Brandeis, received a standing ovation from the students and told them that he would make sure that a passage in his book that seems to justify terrorism in certain instances will be removed from future editions. Dershowitz, whose appearance was insisted on by those who thought Brandeis kids could not handle Carter's critique, spoke after Carter left and conceded that Carter's speech was okay. "I wish President Carter and I could work together to bring about peace," he said. "We're not that far apart. We are both pro-Israel and ro-Palestine."


Give Dershowitz credit. He recognizes that these days to be pro-Israel, you have to be pro-Palestine, too.

This is especially true on campus where pro-Israel students are most effective when they support both Israel and ending the occupation.

Those who care about Israel and want Americans of all creeds to care about it too, have to do our part to raise our voices so that Americans do not come to believe that the enforcers of Mideast political orthodoxy represent anything other than a sliver of pro-Israel opinion.

Those who believe they are helping Israel by shouting down any and all opposition to counterproductive Israeli policies are not helping Israel at all. They are simply building resentment within the body politic of the one nation in the world which Israel needs to survive.

Overreacting to criticism is good for organizational fundraising and for getting on Fox News. But that is all its good for. It’s not good for the Jews. And it’s certainly not good for Israel or America.

Jan 26, 2007 -- 11:24 AM EST | Tags: Israel


An extraordinary post by Mr. Rosenbert. Bravo!

Good article.



Methinks Dershowitz could be a future target of the lobby (especially if he keeps calling for economic independence).

Being able to go it alone is good advice. That doesn't mean you have to go it alone, just have plans ready to do so in a pinch.

I doubt Israel is in much of a position to go it alone.