Arab media: It's Israel, stupid!

The cartoons appear in the SECTION labeled "Anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim World."

The headline is actually, "The U.S. Presidential Candidates: Cartoons in the Arab Media."

The text labels the four themes as:

* "The close relationship between America and Israel and/or the Jews;" * "The influence of the Jewish lobby on American decision makers;" * "Jewish control of the Western media and economics;" * The American administration's unwavering desire to satisfy Israel and American Jews."

Did you actually read the text, or just jump to the comics?

Now, I agree that anti-Isreal, anti-Zionist and anti-AIPAC sentiments are not actually anti-semitism. But the ADL does not limit its work to anti-semitism, extending it to other groups and to Israel.

I ask you, Mr. Ely, where would you have had them post these cartoons? They put them in their Anti-Semitism section, in their Arab/Muslim world subsection (and not the US or International subsections). If you disagree with where they posted them, suggest something else. If you think that they should not have posted them at all, say so.

But complaining about a headline that was not actually a headline? Please!

Mr. Ely, OK, we've now posted virtually the entire text. Clearly done in the context of criticism. Woo-hoo fair use! More seriously, though... I still disagree with your reading. They have been monitoring the Arab and Muslim media looking for anti-semitism, right? This report stems from, or is part of that that effort. We can agree on that, right? Where we disagree is whether the ADL is labelling them anti-semetic. Moreover, the fact that similar cartoons/themes have appeared in the western media does not in any way insulate them from such a charge. There's some anti-semitism here, too. I think that the four themes that they list -- quoted in my first comment -- make it clear what they think the cartoons depict. Are those anti-semetic themes? Well, the first three are likely things that American Jews and the "Jewish Lobby" would be proud to say, even already say. So, the first three might not be anti-semetic. The fourth is a criticism of the "American administration," not of jews. Through an anti-semetic lens, they are negatives. But thought a zionist lens, they are positives. In my view, that makes the themes themselves neutral, though the cartoons are not. So, does the ADL say that they are anti-semetic? Well, it comes down to their use of the word "bigoted," I think. Take that word out, and I don't see the arguement. But the word IS there. So, I have to address that, or concede the point. I would say that their phrase "perverse, bigoted and age-old conspiracy theories" means "perverse conspiracy theories, bigoted conspiracy theories and age-old conspiracy theories." But I do not think that it means that all examples display all three characteristics. Looking at the cartoon reprinted on their site, I'd say that some do, however. Syria's and Bahrain's, for example. The big question that I have is what the Star of David means in the Arab world. Is it a symbol of the state of Israel? Is it a symbol of all jews? Or is it both? That is, do they conflate all jews with Israel? If they do, I ask both of us, does that make the cartoons more anti-semetic?

Sen. Barack Obama isn't quite sure how he feels about the lopsided situation between Israel and Palestine. Less than two weeks after Obama gloated to AIPAC about his love for Israel, he unexpectedly admitted the truth while campaigning in Iowa recently. "[N]obody is suffering more than the Palestinian people..." said Obama, "the Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart..." The truth hurts indeed, and Obama has been feeling the wrath of the pro-Israel activists since his statement last week.

Nonetheless, Obama shouldn't be trusted on the issue. While Rep. Dennis Kucinich hired avid pro-Palestine advocate Noura Erakat to sit on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Obama has been backpedaling – assuring AIPAC and others that he is unwavering in his support for Israel's continued bullying of Iran and occupation of Palestine.

"[Iran] is a genuine threat" to the United States and Israel, expressed Obama at a forum sponsored by AIPAC on March 12 in Washington D.C., only one day after his lucid remarks in Iowa. At the event Obama also reiterated that he would not rule out the use of force in disarming Iran, a position shared by the other leading Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Earlier this month on March 2, Obama spoke at an AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago where he clearly laid out his full stance on Israel, promising he would not alter the U.S./Israeli relationship. "[W]e must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs," he said. "This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."

So while Obama admits that Palestinians suffer more than Israelis, he still won't do a damn thing to balance out the asymmetrical relationship. In fact, Obama has made it clear that U.S. taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for Israel's ever-growing arsenal of weapons and missiles if he is indeed elected president in 2008.

In Obama's March 2 speech, he even had the audacity to declare that "we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end."

If Obama is truly interested in invoking U.N. Resolutions to prop up his case for a military assault on Iran, we may as well note the some 65 Resolutions the senator has blatantly ignored that condemn Israel's actions – past and present – including Resolution 242 which calls for the withdraw of "Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" during the Six-Day War of 1967.

Sen. Obama, despite his acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering, has little to offer those who recognize that lasting peace in the Middle East will only begin when the U.S. radically alters its relationship with Israel. Continued funding of Israel's illegal occupation won't end the violence – it'll only continue it.

???????
??????? ?????
??????? ?????
??????? ?????
??????? ???????
??????? ?????
??????? ????????
??????? ?????
??????? ?????
??????? ??????
??????? ????????
?????
???
??? ?????
?????
??????
?????? ??????
???? ????????
????? ???????
????
???? ??