יום רביעי, 11 באפריל 2012

Elder of Ziyon Daily News

Elder of Ziyon Daily News

Link to Elder of Ziyon

MJ Rosenberg is spitting mad - over kosher food at the White House

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 06:33 PM PDT

MJ Rosenberg, the nutty-leftist writer who was recently forced out at Media Matters, now has a blog where he doesn't even bother to self-censor his hate.

For reasons only known to him, he decided that when the White House made one of its many kitchens kosher for the annual Chanukah celebration last year, it was doing it only to pander to American Jewish voters. And he finds the very idea of a kosher White House kitchen to be offensive.

Here's some of his sputtering:
The most ridiculous (and insulting) White House pander came at Hanukkah. This article from the New York Times about how the White House was made kosher for one event has to be read to be believed. Here is an excerpt, enough to cause James Madison to commit suicide if he wasn't dead.

Into the kitchen rushes a Lubavitch SWAT team of three rabbis and an intern. Three men, wearing aprons and industrial-strength rubber gloves, take on the ovens and burners. The fourth, in a suit and a black hat, is Rabbi Levi Shemtov, director of the American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad). He is the supervisor-in-chief.

He takes a long look around. He frowns.

"Who opened the brazier?" he asks, referring to the lidded counter-high vat, like a giant stainless steel pot, used for searing, reducing stock and braising meats. "The rabbi?" he asks, pointing to a colleague.

"No," replies Chef Tommy, as his staff calls him.

"You're kidding me," Rabbi Shemtov says.

They huddle by the brazier. Rabbi Shemtov issues orders. The rabbis spring into action....
Absurd, offensive and utterly unnecessary. The percentage of Jews who require that level of "koshering" is infinitesimal and probably not 5 of them would be eating at the White House that night. Surely, they would not have minded eating a nice packaged kosher meal prepared specially for them rather than put the White House out like that.

But, of course, the White House didn't do it for them. It did it to impress the same imaginary Jews who will decide who to support for president based on such nonsense. My guess is that the number of people who fall into that category is zero.

Spending God knows (!) how much to sterilize the White House is silly and offensive but it does no harm.
Indeed, I am also certain that not a single Jew will vote for Obama based on the kashering of the White House kitchen. In fact, I believe that the Obama campaign knows this as well.

So if everyone knows that it wasn't done to gain any Jewish votes, then Rosenberg's thesis is completely wrong. He just finds the idea "offensive" so he created a fantasy for why it was done.

Is there an alternative reason for the White House to go to such lengths? Of course there is. It is called hospitality. If a Jewish function is being done at one of the most prestigious addresses in the world, the hosts will naturally do everything they can to make it as inclusive as possible. Not that the guests demanded it - no doubt they would have been quite happy with a packaged meal, as Rosenberg says - but it is something that a thoughtful host, with the resources to do so, will automatically want to do. (I would venture to guess that the Chabad rabbi did it for free, by the way. What rabbi wouldn't jump at the opportunity to do something like that?)

There is also another likely historical reason why only kosher food was served to everyone. The first completely kosher White House Chanukah dinner came in 2005 in the Bush administration, after kosher and non-kosher food was accidentally mixed up at 2004's dinner. By choosing to make it all-kosher, the White House is indeed going above and beyond, but it is also ensuring that every guest can feel comfortable.

The menu, for those interested, can be seen here. It included Roulade of Chicken Breast, Pine Nut Herb Crusted Lamb Chops, Homemade Potato with Scallion Pancakes, Dill and Vodka Scottish Smoked Salmon and Homemade Soufganyot. I don't think that the guests who don't keep kosher felt at all slighted at not being served normal White House fare.

At any rate, the Bush and Obama administrations very thoughtfully decided to create an atmosphere of inclusiveness at their Chanukah parties, where no one feels uncomfortable opening up a double-wrapped package of kosher food and leaving aluminum foil all over the table, struggling with plastic silverware to cut overdone beef, while everyone else is eating a gourmet meal. It is an act of kindness, not of politics.

It takes a very special kind of self-hating Jew to consider White House kindness to be "offensive" when the recipients are Jews. (Do you think he is upset that the annual White House Iftar dinners are Halal?)

But that self-hate is par for the course for MJ.

Links and stuff

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 01:32 PM PDT

I put up a blog entry at The Times of Israel with the full 1958 Mike Wallace interview of Abba Eban and the full transcript.

If you want to see the difference between real scholarship and a transparent attempt to cover up a lie, see CAMERA.

I noted that the St Helena Chapel of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was banning Egyptian Copts from visiting. Even after that was known, however, more planeloads of Copts came to visit Jerusalem from Egypt.

She's just like Oprah! Just she's a murderer of children.

Yaacov Lozowick made a brief re-entry into the blogging world and then exited again, but you would be remiss not to read what he has to say - including about one of the more notorious "mainstream" anti-semitic websites.

Daniel Pipes on Israeli Arabs, living a paradox.

Where's the outrage over Palestinian censorship?

The Daily Show says that Easter beats Passover hands down.



And I'm wondering what I am doing at work on a nice day in the middle of chol ha-mo'ed. I think it is time to play some hooky.

(h/t Ian, zozosophie, Yerushalimey)

Latin Americans celebrating Easter with "The Burning of the Jews"

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 12:12 PM PDT

From The Times of Israel:
The world is full of charming Easter traditions, but this isn't one of them.

A newspaper in Mexico is detailing Sunday's "burning of the Jews," an annual tradition in Coita, a small town in the state of Chiapas [Mexico.] As part of the custom, locals spend the middle of their Holy Week making Jewish effigies — a reference to Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus before his crucifixion.

The fake Jews are then displayed for three days in different parts of the town, serving as an example of poor conduct.

They're ultimately paraded through the streets on Easter Sunday, with local children assigned to stand in front of them and collect money for flammable materials.

The article notes that the tradition differs in Coita, where locals set fire to the effigies on Easter itself, rather than the day before, as in other towns. The burning is followed by a dance, where locals eat a corn treat made with cocoa. The article says the custom "strengthens" the culture of the Zoque, an indigenous people in southern Mexico who were converted to Catholicism.

The ceremony seems to echo, to some extent, the "Running of the Jew" event depicted in Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 movie "Borat" — a work of fiction.

The Chiapas Herald takes an uncritical view of the ritual, reporting that it "fosters unity and respect" and "purifies the soul."
This is not isolated to only Coita or even Mexico.

I see it mentioned as also occurring annually in Quidbo, Colombia.

Ecuador had a similar time-honored tradition, but this webpage laments that "The [Burning of the Jews] in Guayaquil continued well into the twentieth century until the practice of burning stopped because of European migration, which did not properly appreciate this show of our religious folklore."


Burning crosses is also a treasured piece of folksy tradition, isn't it?

Pat Condell on Israel and the UN

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 10:40 AM PDT

Great stuff:



(h/t Geoffff)

Jews "storm" another holy site

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 09:20 AM PDT

From Palestine News Network:

Under the protection of the Israeli Occupying Force, on Monday 10,000 Jewish Zionists congregated at Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron (al Khalil) to celebrate Jewish passover.

The settlers stormed the mosque after the turned up in many buses, coming from nearby settlements and occupied Jerusalem.

According to sources, due to candles being used in the performance of the Talmudic rituals a small fire broke out causing no harm or damage to the mosque.

Ibrahimi mosque, which is considered as one of the most sacred important sites in Islam, was closed for two days by the occupying forces, in order for the Jewish settlers to celebrate Passover. Additionally they closed the streets leading to the mosque and the areas of Tariq ibn Ziyad and Sahla....Israeli's have claimed at least 60% of the mosque.
Look at those Jews, storming a Muslim holy site and forcing the poor Muslims to suffer!

What the article fails to mention is that for most of the year the Ma'arat HaMachpela is divided; 81% of the building is used by the Islamic Waqf and only 19% by the Jews. For ten days a year Jews are given full access, including part of Passover, and for ten days a year Muslims are given full access. This was all part of the signed agreements between Israel and the PLO.

Before 1929, and between 1948-1967, Jews weren't allowed in the building at all. And even after 1967 there were attacks on Jewish worshipers there, including a grenade attack in 1968 and a massacre of Jews in 1980. Jews are not even allowed to do basic repairs to the site, and recently a tent that protected parts of the "Jewish" section from snow and heat fell apart.

But you won't find out about any of that by reading the mainstream media nor (of course) the Palestinian Arab press.

Fatah and Hamas agree - the goal is to destroy Israel

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 08:08 AM PDT

From Palestinian Media Watch:
A Palestinian Authority minister stated last month that the Palestinians should unite in order to focus on the destruction of Israel.

At an event with the participation of three PA ministers, Minister of Social Affairs Majida Al-Masri called for Palestinian unity and reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas in order "to turn to the struggle for the liberation of Palestine - all of Palestine.'"

Palestinian Media Watch has documented that when the Palestinian Authority uses the expression "all of Palestine," they include all of Israel.

The following is the report on the event in the official PA daily:

"The women of Palestine marked March 8 with a central rally, attended by a group of released female prisoners from the various districts of the West Bank. Participating in the events were Minister for Women's Affairs, Rabiha Dhiab; Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake; Minister of Social Affairs, Majida Al-Masri... and representatives from the territories occupied in 1948 (e.g., Palestinian euphemism for "Israel")...

Al-Masri sharply condemned the Israel Prison Services for its violations against the [hunger striking] prisoner Shalabi... We demand of everyone to push ahead with reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] and to end the state of division, so that we will be able to stand against the occupation, to halt its activities against our prisoners, and to turn to the struggle for the liberation of Palestine - all of Palestine.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 9, 2012]
Which makes Fatah just about as explicit as Hamas in their desire to destroy Israel.

On Saturday, First Deputy Chairman of the [Hamas] Palestinian Legislative Council Ahmad Bahr spoke to a group of internationals who had arrived one of those "Miles of Smiles" convoys that inexplicably manage to easily break the supposed Israeli siege of Gaza every couple of months. He cheerfully told these smiling "human rights activists" that "the Palestinian people will not give up its rights and will continue its resistance and jihad until the liberation of all Palestine."

Of course, none of these peaceful British or South Africans in the audience objected to Hamas' stated goal of a jihad to destroy the Jewish state. None stood up and said that they supported a two-state solution. None came home and wrote an anguished op-ed about how they didn't realize that Hamas really wants to violently replace a democratic state with another Islamist state.

Iran claims to have busted Israeli spy ring

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 07:00 AM PDT

From Reuters:
Iran said on Tuesday it had identified a "major terrorist group" it said was affiliated to its arch-foe Israel and had arrested some of its members, the official IRNA news agency reported, citing a report by the country's Intelligence Ministry.

"Iran's Intelligence Ministry announced it has identified a major terrorist group from the Zionist regime (of Israel) and has arrested some of its protected operational members inside the country," IRNA reported without making clear when the arrests had taken place.

The semi-official Fars news agency said the suspects were arrested "while preparing to carry out terrorist acts", adding that a considerable number of bombs, machine guns, military and communication equipments were seized.

Fars cited the Intelligence Ministry's statement as saying that further information would be announced later.
It seems more likely that they rounded up some dissidents, maybe from MEK, and want to call them Zionists.

Jordan wants to keep Palestinian Syrian refugees out

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 05:39 AM PDT

Al Arab al Yawm reports that Jordan is considering a "buffer zone" for Palestinian Syrians between Jordan and Syria, so as not to accept them into Jordan proper. This buffer zone would be under UN supervision, and it would be used only for Palestinian Arab refugees from Syria.

Jordan has already taken in some 95,000 Syrian refugees into Jordan proper. But it wants to treat the Palestinian Arabs differently.

Jordan's model is, in fact, Syria.  After the fall of Saddam Hussein, Syria did not accept Palestinian refugees fleeing for their lives from Iraq while allowing hundreds of thousands of other Iraqi refugees to enter Syria. In that case, also, a no-mans land was created between Syria and Iraq where the Palestinians - and only Palestinians - were left to fend for themselves, until UNHCR managed to find countries willing to accept them. This process that took years, and even so many Arabs - including Palestinian Arabs themselves - railed against the resettlement of these refugees.

There are an estimated 480,000 Palestinian Arabs in Syria. So far only a handful have sought refuge in Jordan but Jordan wants to keep them out of the country. They are saying that allowing the Palestinian Arabs to enter Jordan proper would set a "dangerous precedent" for Jordan.

Once upon a time, in the 1960s, Jordan claimed that all Palestinian Arabs were Jordanian and that there was no difference between Jordan and Palestine.

This discrimination against Palestinian Arabs is considered normal for Arab states, and no NGOs condemn this blatant disregard for human rights.

The hypocrisy is clear as day.

British artists attack attempt to ban Israeli theatre group

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 03:03 AM PDT

There has been pushback by British artists against the shameful attempt to ban Israel's national theater company from performing The Merchant of Venice.
Howard Jacobson, the Booker Prize-winning author, has accused leading actors and directors of "McCarthyism" in their attempt to block Israel's national theatre company from performing in Britain.

The company, Habima, has been invited to stage a Hebrew version of The Merchant of Venice in London as part of the Globe theatre's World Shakespeare Festival.

The invitation prompted an open letter of protest from 37 figures in the theatre world, including Emma Thompson, the actress, Mike Leigh, the director, and Mark Rylance, former artistic director of the Globe.

They claimed that Habima had a "shameful record" of performing in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. By inviting the company to attend, the letter said, the Globe was "complicit with human rights violations and the illegal colonisation of occupied land".

Jacobson, the Jewish author who won the 2010 Man Booker Prize for The Finkler Question, said artists should never be in favour of censorship.

He described the letter - published in The Guardian - as "Kafkaesque" in its reasoning. "But the laughter dies in our throats. With last week's letter to the Guardian, Mccarthyism came to Britain," Jacobson wrote in a Sunday newspaper.

Jacobson is the latest of several figures from the art world to denounce the letter. Steven Berkoff called it "dangerous rubbish" and Maureen Lipman urged the signatories to "have a debate like mature people" instead of calling for a ban, adding: "I don't notice them trying to ban Israeli inventions which are changing the world."
Jacobson's full letter is good:
If there is one justification for art – for its creation and its performance – it is that art proceeds from and addresses our unaligned humanity. Whoever would go to art with a mind already made up, on any subject, misses what art is for. So to censor it in the name of a political or religious conviction, no matter how sincerely held, is to tear out its very heart.

For artists themselves to do such a thing to art is not only treasonable; it is an act of self-harm. One could almost laugh about it, so Kafkaesque is the reasoning: The Merchant of Venice, acted in Hebrew, a troubling work of great moral complexity (and therefore one that we should welcome every new interpretation of), to be banned not by virtue of itself, but because of where the theatre company performing it had also performed.

But the laughter dies in our throats. With last week's letter to the Guardian, McCarthyism came to Britain. You could hear the minds of people in whom we vest our sense of creative freedom snapping shut. And now we might all be guilty by association: of being in the wrong place or talking to the wrong people or reading the wrong book. Thus does an idée fixe make dangerous fools of the best of us.

Howard Jacobson
Habima's defense of its performing in Ariel is, however, embarrassing. It could have said that it is against censorship and would perform anywhere in the world it wants, but instead its director is crying that Habima has no choice but to perform at such an odious venue as Ariel. Instead of standing up for the rights of artists to perform in places where people want to ban them, and having a consistent position about freedom of expression, its artistic director instead pleads that if they didn't perform there they would lose funding.

Ilan Ronen, Habima's artistic director, said his company was offended by the original letter. "It's a disgrace. We don't see ourselves as collaborators with the Israeli government over its West Bank policy. We don't remember artists boycotting other artists.

"They don't know the true facts about our theatre activity. Somehow, they have been manipulated, they are getting it wrong. It is important to emphasise, we express our political views in many of our projects. But like other theatre companies and dance companies in Israel, we are state-financed, and financially supported to perform all over the country. This is the law. We have no choice. We have to go, otherwise there is no financial support. It is not easy. We have to be pragmatic." Of the 1,500 performances given by the company every year, he said that about "four or five" were in the Ariel settlement in the West Bank. "It is a little bit out of proportion to represent us this way.

"We are supported by the state, but not representing it. We are completely independent, artistically and politically."

He said that company members who asked not to perform were not required to, and they were not pressured or demoted, rather they were protected and consciences were respected. "It is a difficult situation, not ideal," he said, declining to say how many of the company refused to work in the West Bank.

"Artists should create bridges where there is conflict; the issue of Israel and the Palestinians is an area in which European dialogue can be very helpful in creating a better atmosphere. To boycott us prevents any artistic dialogue."
Ronen had a chance to show a consistent position about art, and instead he caved to be more loved by the British haters. His answer, rather than being a call for the independence of art, instead lends more ammunition to Habima's critics.

(h/t Zvi)
פורסם על ידי zoom ב- 0:06

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה

הירשם ל- תגובות לפרסום (Atom)