Randy's Corner Deli Library

06 June 2008

I, Antichrist?

This is why Christian Evangelicals' support for Jews and Israel is so suspect. J Street, listen up. AIPAC, too. RS

I, Antichrist?

I'm Jewish. I'm male. I'm alive. By Jerry Falwell's standards, that puts me on the short-list of candidates.

By Jeffrey Goldberg





Posted Friday, Nov. 5, 1999, at 3:30 AM ET

Early one shiny autumn morning, I got in my car and drove to Lynchburg, Va., in order to find out whether or not I am the Antichrist. You know: the Beast, the Worthless Shepherd, the Little Horn, the Abomination, the linchpin of the Diabolical Trinity. That Antichrist.

I had my suspicions. Nowhere on my body could I find the mark of the Beast--666--but I do have a freckle that's shaped like Bermuda. And though I have never been seized by a desire to lead the armies of Satan in a final, bloody confrontation with the forces of God on the plain of Armageddon, I do suffer from aggravated dyspepsia, as well as chronic malaise, conditions that I'm sure afflict the Antichrist.

The surest suspicion I had about my pivotal role in Christian eschatology grew from the fact that I am Jewish, male, and alive. These are the qualifications for the job of Antichrist as specified by Lynchburg's most famous preacher, Jerry Falwell, in a speech he made earlier this year.

I was actually going to see the Rev. Falwell on a different matter, the future of Jerusalem, but I thought I might just slip this question--the one about me maybe being the Antichrist--into the stream of the interview. Falwell, I guessed, wouldn't be happy to discuss his views on the identity of the Antichrist--he had apologized for the remark but took quite a load of grief for it anyway.

As it turned out, though, Falwell was eager to talk about the Antichrist. And, as it also turned out, he didn't really feel bad for saying what he said. In fact, he was more convinced than ever that the Antichrist is a Jew who walks among us.

Let me pause for a moment to give three concise reasons why I'm so curious about the identity of the Antichrist:

1) I think I speak for all the approximately 4.5 million adult male Jews in the world when I say that we get a little antsy when Christians start looking at us like we're the devil. This is on account of Christian behavior over the past 2,000 years, by which I mean blood libels and pogroms and inquisitions, those sorts of things.

2) I've always been possessed by the delusional notion that I am to play a major role in world history, so why not a role in the End of Days? And I don't mean the Schwarzenegger movie.

3) Now that we stand on the lip of the millennium, much of the evangelical Christian world is in the grip of Armageddon fever, and, according to the evangelical interpretation of the books of Daniel and Revelation, the Antichrist will make his appearance before Christ makes his, and his is looking kinda imminent. The Antichrist, in this reading, will be a world leader who strikes a peace deal with Israel, only to betray the Jewish state and make war on it, until Jesus comes to the rescue. The thankful Jews, those who are still alive, will then become Christians and live happily ever after. These beliefs, held by tens of millions of Christians are, journalistically speaking, worthy of note.

The day before my visit with the Rev. Falwell, I had just finished reading a novelistic treatment of these events, Assassins, which is subtitled Assignment: Jerusalem, Target: Antichrist. Assassins is the sixth book in the "Left Behind" series, "left behind" referring to those unfortunate nonevangelical Christians who are not taken up to heaven in the Rapture--the opening act in God's end days plan--and are forced to contend with the Antichrist's evil reign on Earth. The "Left Behind" series, co-written by Tim LaHaye, the prominent right-wing screwball and husband of Beverly LaHaye, the even more prominent right-wing screwball, and Jerry B. Jenkins, who, his biography states, is the author of 130 books, which is a lot of books for one guy to write, is a phenomenon. Ten million copies of the series have sold already--hundreds in my local PriceClub alone. "Left Behind" is the Harry Potter of the Armageddon set.

The notable thing for me about the "Left Behind" series--beside the fact that few in the secular media have noticed that millions of Americans are busy reading books warning about the imminence of one-world government, mass death, and the return of the Messiah, is that all the Jewish characters are Christian. LaHaye and Jenkins are both active participants in the absurd and feverish campaign by some evangelical Christians to redefine Judaism in a way that allows for belief in Jesus.

Jews (and again, I feel comfortable speaking for all of us here) find this sort of Christian imperialism just a wee bit offensive. Just imagine if Jews began an official campaign calling Muhammad irrelevant to Islam--can you imagine the fatwas that would produce?

But evangelical leaders, who are, in my experience, uniformly kind and generous in their personal relations, can also be terribly obnoxious in their relations with Jews.

There is only one road to salvation for Jews, and that road runs through Jesus, LaHaye told me. To his credit, though, LaHaye doesn't believe that the Antichrist will be Jewish. He will be a European gentile, who will kill lots of Jews. "The Jews will be forced to accept the idolatry of the Antichrist or be beheaded," he said. This will take place during the seven-year Tribulation.

Jewish suffering, though, is divinely ordained. Even though the Antichrist will not be Jewish, Jews are still capable of great evil and have often been punished for their evil, LaHaye explained. "Some of the greatest evil in the history of the world was concocted in the Jewish mind," LaHaye told me, for reasons that aren't entirely clear--he knew what the name "Goldberg" generally signifies. "Sigmund Freud, Marx, these were Jewish minds that were infected with atheism."

I asked LaHaye to tell me more about the Jewish mind.





"The Jewish brain also has the capacity for great good," he explained. "God gave the Jews great intelligence. He didn't give them great size or physical power--you don't see too many Jews in the NFL--but he gave them great minds."

Of all the evangelical leaders I have interviewed, LaHaye is capable of some of the most anti-Semitic utterances, which is troublesome, because he is also the most popular author in the evangelical world.

The Rev. Falwell is smoother than LaHaye. He acknowledges "where the sensitivity comes from," though he shows no understanding of the role the myth of the Antichrist played in the history of anti-Semitism, and he refuses to back away from his opinion that somewhere in Great Neck or West L.A. or Shaker Heights is living Satan's agent.

"In my opinion," he told me, "the Antichrist will be a counterfeit of the true Christ, which means that he will be male and Jewish, since Jesus was male and Jewish."

I asked him if he understood that such statements strip Jews of their humanity, which is the first step anti-Semites take before they kill them. He responded, "All the Jewish people we do business with on a daily basis, not one has ever got upset over this." It is not Jews who picked this most recent fight, he said, it is supporters of President Clinton.

"Billy Graham made the same statement a dozen times last year, but there was no comment about that," Falwell said. "But Billy Graham was not calling for the resignation of the president." Falwell, you'll recall, is no fan of Clinton's; he has even peddled a video accusing the president of murder.

Falwell is right: Evangelical preachers are constantly accusing the Jews of harboring the Antichrist.

I asked Falwell if he knew the actual identity of the Antichrist. No, he said. "People might say, it's a certain person, it's Henry Kissinger, like that, but the Lord does not let us know that."

So there's a chance, then, that I'm the Antichrist?

Falwell chuckled a condescending chuckle. "It's almost amusing, that question. Of course not. I know that you're not."

Why?

"The Antichrist will be a world leader, he'll have supernatural powers," he said.

He got me there--I have no supernatural powers. I can't even drive a stick shift.

I pressed him further on the identity of the Antichrist, but Falwell wouldn't play. "We'll know the Antichrist when he arrives," he said.

Most evangelical leaders, in fact, refuse to publicly guess the name of the Antichrist--though, as Falwell suggests, Kissinger is a perennial favorite, at least among those evangelicals who believe the Antichrist will be Jewish. For most of their history, Christian leaders had been content to ascribe the characteristics of the Antichrist to the Jewish people as a whole. "Ever since the 2nd century CE, the very beginning of the Antichrist legend, Christians have associated Jews with everything unholy," Andrew Gow, who teaches Christian history at the University of Alberta, told me. In the minds of early Christian leaders, the church was the new Israel; God's covenant with the Jews was obsolete. Therefore, the Jews who remained on Earth were there to serve devilish purposes, Gow explained.

There are plenty of evangelical thinkers who differ with Falwell, who believe, like LaHaye, that the Antichrist will be a gentile who rises out of Europe. "The Antichrist is supposed to make a peace treaty with Israel," Ed Hindson, the author of Is the Antichrist Alive and Well?, explained. "Why would a Jew make a peace treaty with a Jewish state?"

Hindson suggested that Satan will make the Antichrist the leader of the European Union--the revived Roman Empire, eternal enemy of Israel--though Hindson disputed one popular idea advocated by Monte Judah, an Oklahoma-based prophecy-teacher, that Prince Charles is the Antichrist.

"There's no way Prince Charles is the Antichrist," Hindson said. "Satan can do better than that."

In his book, Hindson runs through a list of potential candidates. Bill Clinton is there, of course, as well as Saddam Hussein and Ronald Wilson Reagan (six letters in each of his three names. Get it?).

Of course, none of these men are gay.

"It says in the Bible that the Antichrist will have 'no regard for women,' and so many evangelicals interpret that to mean that he will be a homosexual," Hindson said, though he added that he's not entirely convinced.

This idea--the Antichrist as gay--strikes a chord with many evangelicals, just as the idea that the Antichrist is Jewish strikes a chord.

I gradually came to see how far-fetched it was to think that I might be the Antichrist. I'm not gay, I'm not famous, I wouldn't know a euro if I found one in my wallet.

Then it struck me: Barry Diller is the Antichrist.

There's no way to know for sure. But if you wake up one morning to read that Barry Diller is the head of the European Union (and that David Geffen is his deputy), well, remember where you read it first.

OYBAMA! 'PIN'UP DEM WOOS JEWS

OK -- here goes: I don't usually post or comment on what's printed in tabloids, of which the NY Post is one. BUT -- when I started to feel a little curious as to the "backtracking" of Obama's statement on Wednesday June 4 about "undivided Jerusalem", I wanted to know what the real positions are and have been of both the US and Israel. And the Post acknowledeges Mr. Obama's "backtracking" -- but notably, does not - repeat does not -- hang him out to dry, as they usually do. Instead, they look at what Bill Clinton did and what the Israeli position is on the future of Israel. And Mr. Obama's clarification is OK - he would be silly to say or promise what even the Israelis have already conceded under both the Clinton and Bush regimes. In the end, the real issue is at the end of this article -- what the crazy hater-Arabs will do to prevent any kind of peace. Peace would make them and their hate-mongering irrelevant.

Randy Shiner



OYBAMA! 'PIN'UP DEM WOOS JEWS
ISRAEL FLAG ON LAPEL, HE HAILS JERUSALEM
By ANDY SOLTIS, Post Wire Services
BARACK STAR OF DAVID: Barack Obama sports a US/Israel flag pin in DC yesterday after addressing a pro-Israel group and saying, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."Obama: I'm An Ally To IsraelPresumptive nominee Barack Obama tries to woo Jewish voters with speech.
June 5, 2008 --

Barack Obama, wearing a pin bearing the Israeli and American flags, kicked off his general election campaign yesterday with an impassioned appeal for Jewish votes that promised Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel.

PHOTO GALLERY: Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama

COMPLETE ELECTION 2008 COVERAGE

His declaration - which immediately outraged the Palestinians - goes beyond longstanding neutral American policy, which holds that the future of Jerusalem must be agreed upon in negotiations.

Obama, in a major address the day after he clinched the Democratic nomination, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper.

"But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders," he added.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Mahmoud Abbas, the US-backed Palestinian president who is currently trying to negotiate the future of Jerusalem, expressed outrage at Obama's stance.

"This statement is totally rejected," he said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told al-Jazeera that Obama "was giving ammunition to extremists across the region."

The United States has long called for the creation of a Palestinian state, whose capital would be determined in negotiations with Israel.

The Palestinian Authority has claimed all of Jerusalem. But in negotiations it demanded instead that east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, be returned to them so it can be their capital.

The Israelis tentatively accepted that divided capitals idea as far back as the Camp David negotiations led by President Bill Clinton in 2000, and repeated their willingness when peace talks revived last year, according to diplomatic reports.

Obama took pains yesterday to reassure his audience, a powerful lobbying group known as AIPAC, that he wouldn't pressure Israel into dangerous concessions.

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is nonnegotiable," the Illinois senator said.

Obama, who has been criticized for sometimes not wearing an American-flag pin, wore a pin of both Old Glory and the Star of David on his lapel. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also addressed the Washington convention, did not.

The future of Jerusalem as Israel's capital has always been a "motherhood" issue for US presidential candidates seeking Jewish votes.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

But he repeatedly rejected the move after he was elected. When Clinton spoke, as president, to AIPAC in 1995, he avoided mention of Jerusalem's future.

Obama is considered vulnerable to Republican inroads among traditionally Democratic Jewish voters, who could make the difference in battleground states like Florida.

Yesterday, he sounded as militant as Israeli hard-liners on issues besides Jerusalem, such as promising $30 billion in military aid to the Jewish state.

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation from the crowd of 7,000.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda's second-in-command urged Palestinians to increase suicide and rocket attacks on Israel in order to end its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

"Step up your martyrdom-seeking operations, and increase your missiles and ambushes, as there is no solution but this," Ayman al-Zawahri said in an Internet recording.

Barack Obama clarified his stance on the future status of Jerusalem -UPDATE 1

As I suspected, the notion of what to do with Jerusalem is going to be left to final status negotiations between the parties, and Obama will support what the parties ultimately agree to.

Randy Shiner


Barack Obama clarified his stance on the future status of Jerusalem.

Published: 06/06/2008


Barack Obama clarified his stance on the future status of Jerusalem.

After telling the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," the presumptive Democratic nominee told CNN on Thursday that that fate of the city would be up to Israel and the Palestinians to discuss.

A campaign adviser also told the Jerusalem Post that the U.S. senator from Illinois would not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of the disputed city.

The clarifications came after Obama's remarks to the AIPAC confab in Washington were met with harsh reaction from the Palestinians.

The Orthodox Union, which hailed Obama's first statement on Jerusalem, said it was "extremely disappointed" by the apparent subsequent shift, according to the New York Post.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), one of Obama's foremost Jewish backers, denied that Obama had shifted on the issue.

"He believes Jerusalem should be an undivided city and must be the capital of a Jewish state of Israel," Wexler said, according to ABC News. "He has also said -- and it's the same position as President Bush, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- that Jerusalem is of course a final-status issue. And Sen. Obama as president would not dictate final-status issues. He will permit the Palestinians and Israel to negotiate, and he would respect any conclusion they reach."

The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False

Does this matter any more? Is perception stronger than reality?

RS



The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False
[Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann, journalist for the Algemeiner Journal. Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.]

"... any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "furthest mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever."



The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.

In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.

The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd — who ruled from 705-715 — reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.

With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.

[ Published: May 11, 2004 ]

Derrie-Air

Newspapers run ads about fake airline Derrie-Air

Jun 6 01:32 PM US/Eastern
By DEBORAH YAO
AP Business Writer


PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Derrie-Air has been exposed. Readers of The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News opened their papers Friday to see ads for a new airline called Derrie-Air, which purportedly charges passengers by the pound.
But the new carrier will never get off the ground. It's a one-day advertising campaign about a fake airline by Philadelphia Media Holdings, the papers' owner, and Gyro ad agency.

In light blue banners throughout the papers—as well as on their Web site, Philly.com—Derrie-Air cheerily trumpets its policy: The more you weigh, the more you pay. The ads direct readers to the Web site http://www.flyderrie-air.com.

Philadelphia Media Holdings spokesman Jay Devine said the goal is to "demonstrate the power of our brands in generating awareness and generating traffic for our advertisers, and put a smile on people's faces."

The company will track traffic to the Derrie-Air site. Devine said there's already buzz about the campaign on online blogs.

Visitors to the airline site learn that Derrie-Air is the world's only carbon-neutral luxury airline, and it justifies its fare policy by saying that it takes more fuel to move heavier objects. The carrier pledges to plant trees to offset every pound of carbon its planes release into the atmosphere.

Derrie-Air's sample rates range from $1.40 per pound to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago to $2.25 per pound to fly from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.

Those who scroll to the bottom of the home page find out the truth behind Derrie-Air.

A disclaimer labels the ad campaign "fictitious" and says it is designed "to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens."

"In other words," it says, "smile, we're pulling your leg."



Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Mere hours after becoming Israel's new ‘best friend’ Obama backtracks on status of Jerusalem

In the spirit of pretending to be balanced about Barack Obama, I present the below article, brought to my attention this morning by a thoughtful patron of the Corner Deli whose suspicions of Mr. Obama and, undoubtedly of all politicians, runs quite deep.

Like I've said in the past, it's going to be Israel that takes care of Israel. If Jerusalem is on the table, it will be because Israel wants it to be, not because Obama or any American is going to force it. But these are nuances that would not have played well to that audience. He should have said nothing about settlements and nothing about Jerusalem, and left it with the general notion that Israel will have US support for whatever the parties want to do. I agree that this does not look good -- on first blush, it isn't. But I am curious: who vetted that speech? It was distributed widely for publication. But the big and realistic picture isn't that bad. And let us not lose the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that nobody is going to force Israel to do anything. Obama's Israel adviser is the former Ambassador to Israel who we have to presume knows the realities of what is and is not likely to happen in reality.

Regardless of this, the old way of doing business is not working and the discussion has to change. If Bush would have adopted a different approach and not forced elections with a terrorist group on the ballot, there's no doubt that Hamas would not be in control of the Gaza Strip. He forced Israel to do things that it didn't want to do, and the weak Israeli government acceded to it. I think that there would be a different response today from Israel given its experience with Gaza and the US' descendancy of its own power in the region.

Randy Shiner





Mere hours after becoming Israel's new ‘best friend’ Obama backtracks on status of Jerusalem

By Binyamin L. Jolkovsky






Original 'misunderstood' statements contradicted campaign policy


www.JewishWorldReview.com | Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barak Obama stood before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee parley Wednesday morning and declared his complete, unqualified support for a Jewish Jerusalem. The Holy City, he said, "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."


The move was an attempt to score points with many in the Jewish and evangelical communities who, given Obama's past political relationships with terrorist sympathizers, racists, and other undesirables, have been weary of how, as president, he would treat the Jewish State.


The rousing applause from the audience, including some of the most powerful politicians in America, was immediate.


Almost as immediate, though, was Hamas' condemnation. Leaders of the terrorist group had previously endorsed Obama as their choice for America's Commander in Chief.


Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said he "totally rejected" Obama's Jerusalem pronouncement.


"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," he added.

IN HIS OWN WORDS

To read Obama's speech in its entirety, please click HERE.


What a difference a day makes.


On Thursday, when queried by CNN, Obama said he was misunderstood.


"Well," Obama explained, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."


Despite telling the AIPCAC conference what it wanted to hear and believe, an undivided Jerusalem was, in fact, never his campaign's position.


Obama's adviser for the Middle East, former Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, in May told the Israeli mass circulation daily, Haaretz, that his campaign considers it "impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."


In the Democratic primaries, 53 percent of Jewish voters chose Hillary Clinton compared to 45% who chose Obama.

05 June 2008

On the 40th Anniversary of His Assassination:Robert Kennedy's 1948 Reports from Palestine

On the 40th Anniversary of His Assassination:
Robert Kennedy's 1948 Reports from Palestine
Lenny Ben-David

In April 1948, one month before Israel declared independence, Robert Kennedy, then 22, traveled to Palestine to report on the conflict for the Boston Post. His four dispatches from the scene were published in June 1948. The newspaper closed in 1956, and for decades the reports were virtually forgotten.

"Unfortunately for [the Jews, Jerusalem's water] reservoir is situated in the mountains and it and the whole pipeline are controlled by the Arabs. The British would not let them cut the water off until after May 15th but an Arab told me they would not even do it then. First they would poison it."

The Arab responsible for the blowing up of the Jewish Agency on March 11, 1948, said "that after the explosion, upon reaching the British post which separated the Jewish section from a small neutral zone set up in the middle of Jerusalem, he was questioned by the British officers in charge. He quite freely admitted what he had done and was given immediate passage with the remark, ‘Nice going.'"

"The Jews informed the British government that 600 Iraqi troops were going to cross into Palestine from Trans-Jordan by the Allenby Bridge on a certain date and requested the British to take appropriate action to prevent this passage. The troops crossed unmolested....I saw several thousand non-Palestinian Arab troops in Palestine, including many of the famed British-trained and equipped Arab legionnaires of King Abdullah [of Trans-Jordan]. There were also soldiers from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq."

"The Arabs in command believe that eventually victory must be theirs. It is against all law and nature that this Jewish state should exist. They...promise that if it does become a reality it will never have as neighbors anything but hostile countries, which will continue the fight militarily and economically until victory is achieved."

"The Jews on the other hand believe that in a few more years, if a Jewish state is formed, it will be the only stabilizing factor remaining in the Near and Middle East. The Arab world is made up of many disgruntled factions which would have been at each other's throats long ago if it had not been for the common war against Zionism."

Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, brother of slain U.S. President John F. Kennedy and former U.S. Attorney General, was the leading Democratic candidate for president when he was gunned down at a primary victory celebration in California on June 5, 1968. His Palestinian assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, said he killed Kennedy due to his vocal support for Israel.

In April 1948, one month before Israel declared independence, Robert Kennedy, then 22, traveled to Palestine to report on the conflict for the Boston Post. His four dispatches from the scene were published in June 1948. The newspaper closed in 1956, and for decades the reports were virtually forgotten.

Kennedy arrived in a chaotic and dangerous land on the eve of the British departure. Jewish Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were under Arab siege and regular Arab armies were pouring into the territory. The British authorities were hampering Jews' efforts to defend themselves and were even countenancing Arab attacks against Jews.

Kennedy was liberal in his praise of the Palestinian Jews (only one month later did the name "Israel" and the term "Israelis" come into being). "The Jewish people in Palestine who believe in and have been working toward this national state have become an immensely proud and determined people," Kennedy wrote. "It is already a truly great modern example of the birth of a nation with the primary ingredients of dignity and self-respect."

One of his dispatches was headlined, "Jews Make Up for Lack of Arms with Undying Spirit, Unparalleled Courage." In one of his accounts, Kennedy describes his traveling with Haganah fighters in a convoy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The young reporter was critical of a temporary slippage of the American government's support for Jewish statehood. He feared that the U.S. was shifting towards Britain's negative policies and its aim "to crush" the Zionist cause. "If the American people knew the true facts," Kennedy wrote, "I am certain a more honest and forthright policy would be substituted for the benefit of all."

In his biography Robert Kennedy and His Times, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. reported that during his visit to Palestine, Kennedy wrote to his parents that the Jews he met "are different from any Jews I have ever known or seen." As for the Arabs, he wrote, "I just wish they didn't have that oil." Kennedy's empathy for the Jews of Palestine was all the more remarkable considering his father's antipathy to Jews. As related by Schlesinger, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. opposed the United States entry into the war against Germany, and in the summer of 1942 complained to a friend, "There is a great undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the appointment of so many Jews in high places in Washington."

In the midst of the conflict, young Robert Kennedy expressed an amazing optimism: "The Arabs in command believe that eventually victory must be theirs. It is against all law and nature that this Jewish state should exist....The Jews believe that in a few more years, if a Jewish state is formed, it will be the only stabilizing factor remaining in the Near and Middle East....In many cases Jews and Arabs work side by side in the fields and orange groves outside of Tel Aviv. Perhaps these Jews and Arabs are making a greater contribution to the future peace in Palestine than are those who carry guns."

Photos of Robert F. Kennedy in Palestine in April 1948.
Photo 1. Kennedy outside of the King David Hotel striking a military pose.


Photo 2. Kennedy on King David Street in 1948. Behind him is a British military checkpoint at the intersection of what is today Agron Street.


Photo 3. Kennedy arrives in Lydda Airport.

* * *
Boston Post - June 3, 1948

British Hated by Both Sides Robert Kennedy, Special Writer for Post, Struck by Antipathy Shown by ‘Arabs and Jews'

By Robert Kennedy

Certainly if Arthur Balfour, Britain's foreign minister during the first World War, had realized the conflicting interpretations which were to be placed on his famous "declaration" calling for a homeland for the Jews, he probably would have drawn it with its meaning clearer and saved the world the bloodshed that its double promises have caused. In his attempt to conciliate both Jews and Arabs in a time of distress for the British empire, he conciliated neither.

No great thought was given to it at the time, for Palestine was then a relatively unimportant country. There were then not the great numbers of homeless Jews that we have now and no one believed then that the permission granted for Jewish immigration would lead 30 years later to world turmoil on whether a national home should mean an autonomous national state.

First let us consider the viewpoint of the Arabs in regard to the national homeland promised to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration.

The Arabs by word and deed leave no question in anyone's mind how they feel. They argue that the Balfour Declaration supports their point that no national state was promised, pointing to the clauses in the declaration that says the national home shall be set up subject to the civil rights of the people living in Palestine at this time. In recent years they have pointed to the United Nations charter and the Article dealing with the self-determination of nations. Let us adhere to that, the Arabs say, and let the people, that is the Arabs who are involved, decide the question by the democratic processes. If this policy of participation was truly adhered to they say, then why couldn't there be a partition with "the" partition set aside for the Arab minorities?

The Arabs are most concerned about the great increase in the Jews in Palestine: 80,000 in 1948. The Arabs have always feared this encroachment and maintain that the Jews will never be satisfied with just their section of Palestine, but will gradually move to overpower the rest of the country and will eventually move onto the enormously wealthy oil lands. They are determined that the Jews will never get the toehold that would be necessary for the fulfillment of that policy.

Always Will Attack

They are willing to let the Jews remain as peaceful citizens subject to the rule of the Arab majority just as the Arabs are doing in such great number in Egypt and the Levant states, but they are determined that a separate Jewish state will be attacked and attacked until it is finally cut out like an unhealthy abscess.

The Arabs believe they contributed greatly to making the Allied victory possible in the first World War. At the Paris peace conference they felt that they received nothing comparable to what they were promised for their fight under Lawrence against the Turks. Rather, due to power politics, British and French domination replaced that of the Ottoman empire. The Arab leaders attribute their country's backwardness to these 400 uninterrupted years of subservience to the Ottoman empire.

The Jewish people on the other hand believe that if it were not for the wars and invasions that racked Palestine and which sent them scattered and persecuted throughout the world, Palestine would today be theirs.

It would be theirs just as when Moses led them from Egypt into the Palestinian plains which they point out were unoccupied except for a few Bedouin tribes.

Set Up Laboratories

The [Jews] wish no other country, and in 1903 when Uganda was offered to them as a homeland, they were unanimous in their refusal. The Balfour declaration, when it was made, however, they felt was the answer to their prayers.

Under the supposition that, at the finish of the [British] mandate, this was to be their national state, they went to work. They set up laboratories where world-famous scientists could study and analyze soils and crops. The combination of arduous labor and almost unlimited funds from the United States changed what was once arid desert into flourishing orange groves.

Soils had to be washed of salt, day after day, year after year, before crops could be planted. One can see this work going on in lesser or more advanced stages wherever there are Jewish settlements in Palestine.

From a small village of a few thousand inhabitants, Tel Aviv has grown into a most impressive modern metropolis of over 200,000. They have truly done much with what all agree was very little.

The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs, in the 12 years between 1932 and 1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state. This is the only country in the Near and Middle East where an Arab middle class is in existence.

The Jews point out that they have always taken a passive part in the frequent revolutions that have racked the country, because of the understanding that they would eventually be set free from British mandateship. They wished to do nothing to impair this expected action.
During the second World War they sent numerous volunteer Jewish brigades which fought commendably with the British in Italy. In addition to that, many Palestinian Jews fought as volunteers with Allied troops throughout the world and still others were dropped by parachute into German-held territory as espionage agents. They were perhaps doing no more than their duty, but they did their duty well.

The Jews feel that promise after promise to them has been broken. They can quote freely, for example, from speech after speech of Labor Party leaders in the election campaign prior to the victory of the Labor Party in England, to attest to the fact that one need not even refer back to the controversial Balfour declaration to learn Britain's attitude and promises toward a Jewish state, that was to be one of the first acts of the Labor government if it were put into power. The Jews, remembering this, have rather bitterly named the black bombed out [area] in the Ben Yehuda disaster, "Bevin square." [An Arab car bomb in Jerusalem in February 1948 killed some 50 people.]

It is an unfortunate fact that because there are such well founded arguments on either side, each grows more and more bitter toward the other. Confidence in their right increases in proportion to the hatred and mistrust for the other side for not acknowledging it.

Never Searched

When I landed at Lydda Airport I became immediately aware of it. I carried letters of introduction to both Arabs and Jews and at the airport where both sides intermingle it was explained to me by first one and then the other that I was taking a great risk. The Jew said it was all right for me to carry Arab papers in Jewish territory for I wouldn't be molested, but when I entered Arab territory I had better be rid of all letters to Jews for I would immediately be searched and, if they found anything, would be quickly shot. The Arab said exactly the opposite and I found both to be half right, in that I was never searched by either side.

Another fact I became immediately aware of was a basic violent hatred of the British by both sides. I talked to a British army sergeant who had been in Palestine for two years, and he placed the blame with the Palestine Colonial Police. Later I found many to be in agreement. He called them the "underpaid, uneducated dregs of society." They were evidently the most corrupt group of police in the world, firstly because they were so underpaid and, secondly, because when colonial police were sent to their posts the worst of the lot were invariably sent to Palestine.
The Arab bitterness and also fear toward the British had as its starting point the 1936-1938 revolution, which was crushed most ruthlessly by the British.

Increasing Bitterness

Leading Arabs in the higher committee speak in all sincerity of the Indian brought by the British into the country because of the great skill and knowledge that he possessed in being able to torture with fire while leaving no scar tissue. Many claim to have suffered by having their nails pulled out from their fingers and toes and others of having burning matches thrust beneath their nails. I found little evidence that these stories were true.

The Jewish attitude toward the British has been one of increasing bitterness. The Jews have looked upon the British civil administration, which some years ago took over from the army, as most unfriendly and uncooperative and which has therefore led to much mutual distrust. Jews received virtually no financial help for building schools and hospitals in Jewish settlements and the post office which was set up to serve Tel Aviv wasn't suitable for a village of several thousand inhabitants. I was forced to wait well over an hour in line in order to purchase stamps.

When told if they wanted a port they would have to build it themselves, the result was the port of Tel Aviv, which was constructed entirely through Jewish capital and labor. Nevertheless, it is taxed as high as the Arab port of Jaffa, which was built and maintained by funds raised by taxing both Arabs and Jews. These arguments are infinitesimal compared with the larger issues that have swept both sides during the last year, but they are mentioned to show that the hate that exists now is not something newly born and has a substantial background.
* * *

Boston Post - June 4, 1948

Jews Have Fine Fighting Force Make Up for Lack of Arms with Undying Spirit, Unparalleled Courage - Impress World

The Jewish people in Palestine who believe in and have been working toward this national state have become an immensely proud and determined people. It is already a truly great modern example of the birth of a nation with the primary ingredients of dignity and self-respect.

Malca and her family to me are the personification of that determination. She is a young girl of the age of 23 and her husband and four brothers are members of the Haganah. She herself is with the intelligence corps and worked on the average of 15 hours a day, which evidently was not unusual. She had seen and felt much horror and told me the story of a case she had just handled.
A Jewish girl in her teens was picked up by some members of the Haganah on the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and, as she was injured, she was taken to the Hebrew Hospital in Jerusalem.

They believed that she had somehow been separated from a Jewish convoy which had just gone through and which had had a scrap with the Arabs.

She was particularly noticed because of the strange people who were her visitors and by the fact that she insisted on being moved to the English hospital. Malca was sent to question her. She was turned away gruffly by the girl after the girl admitted that she had in reality been in a British tank with a boy friend and wanted nothing to do with the Jews.

The Jewish Agency offered to send the girl out on a farm in order to let her regain her health and give her a new start, but she just demanded her release which they were forced to give her. She continued consorting with the British police despite warnings from the Stern gang.

Brother Shoots Sister

One night the Stern gang followed the tactics of the underground forces in the last war. They shaved all the hair off the girl's head. Two days after Malca told me this story the sequel took place. The girl's brother returned for leave from duty with the Haganah up in Galilee and, finding her in such a state, shot her.

Malca's youngest brother is only 13, but every night he takes up his post as a sentry with the Haganah at a small place outside of Jerusalem.

His mother and father wait up every night until midnight for him and his older brother, 15, to return home. The other two brothers, both younger than Malca, give full time duty with combat troops.

An understanding of the institutions it contains, and of the persons that run these institutions, is most important if one would make up one's mind as to the worth of this "de facto" Jewish state.

I visited and inspected a community farm [kibbutz] through the kindness of a Jew who 40 years ago was in Boston making speeches for my grandfather, John F. Fitzgerald, when he was a candidate for congress. A third of the agricultural population live in such community farms which were set up originally to help newly-arrived refugees who had no money or prospects.

They are in reality self-sustaining States within a State and all the people in common undergo arduous toil and labor and make great sacrifices in order that their children might become heir to a home. An example of this is that when a child is one year old he is placed in a common nursery, with the result that all but the sick and infirm are able to devote their talents to the common cause. They get paid nothing for they need no money. Everything is financed by a group of elected overseers who get their money by selling what the farms produce. In our country we shrink from such tactics but in that country their very lives depend upon them.

The whole thing is done on a volunteer basis and one may leave the farm with his proportionate share of wealth at any time he chooses.

The one we visited was at Givat Brenner and, although no one paid attention to the firing going on in the plain below, one could see all around preparations being undertaken for the coming fight.

I talked to members of the underground organization Irgun. They were responsible for the King David Hotel disaster and told me proudly that they were responsible for blowing up the Cairo-Haifa train which had just taken place with the loss of 50 British soldiers.

Disillusioned

They believed the time had long since passed for the Jewish people to expect anything but treachery and broken promises from the outside world. If they wanted an independent state they would have to fight for it, and before they could even do that, they had to rid the country of foreign troops. They believe unquestionably that if it weren't for their so-called terrorist activities the British would have remained on in their country. Bevin's recent speeches in the House of Commons, they argue, have been ample proof of that. The question, though, in other Jews' minds is whether this compensated for what they have lost in good will by such tactics.

I went to the training camp at Netanya, north of Tel Aviv, where for three weeks and with very little equipment, Jewish youths, trained mostly by former British officers, were attempting to learn the basic tenets of army life. We watch a first-week group attempt an obstacle course, and while maybe the flesh was weak, it emphasized all the more what can be accomplished when the spirit is willing. We watched a graduation class make its final round and they gave the appearance that they might well be whipped into a fighting force before much time has passed.

The security forces and Haganah are far more experienced. After landing at Lydda Airport, I was immediately taken to be questioned and my credentials examined by the Haganah. After being released and going to my hotel in Tel Aviv, I went for a walk around this city of 200,000 inhabitants. I wasn't out for 10 minutes before I was recognized as a foreigner and picked up by the Haganah, blindfolded and once again brought to headquarters for questioning.

I talked to a Haganah soldier who fled from Prague as the Germans were taking over the city and he and his brother, who was killed, fought with the British throughout the war. He received news that his mother and two sisters who he had left in Prague were killed by the Germans and that his home had been completely destroyed.
* * *
Boston Post - June 5, 1948

British Position Hit in Palestine Kennedy Says They Seek to Crush Jewish Cause Because They Are Not in Accord with It

I was in Palestine over Easter week and even then people knew there was absolutely no chance to preserve peace. They just wanted the British out, so that a decision could be reached either way. An early departure of the British has been far more important strategically to the Jews than to the Arabs.

The City of Jerusalem has more Jews than Arabs but the immediate surrounding territory is predominately Arab. Through part of that hilly territory winds the narrow road that leads from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

It is by this road that the Jewish population within Jerusalem must be supplied, but it is fantastically easy for the Arabs to ambush a convoy as it crawls along the difficult pass. On my trip from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem I saw grim realities of the fact and while in Jerusalem the failure and destruction of another Jewish convoy made meat non-existent and lengthened food queues for other items.

The Arabs living in the old city of Jerusalem have kept the age-old habit of procuring their water from the individual cisterns that exist in almost every home. The Jews being more "educated" (an Arab told me that this was their trouble and now the Jews were going to really pay for it) had a central water system installed with pipes bringing fresh hot and cold water. Unfortunately for them, the reservoir is situated in the mountains and it and the whole pipeline are controlled by the Arabs. The British would not let them cut the water off until after May 15th but an Arab told me they would not even do it then. First they would poison it.

Orthodox Community

Within the Old City of Jerusalem there exists a small community of orthodox Jews. They wanted no part of this fight but just wanted to be left alone with their wailing wall. Unfortunately for them, the Arabs are unkindly disposed toward any kind of Jew and their annihilation would now undoubtedly have been a fact had it not been that at the beginning of hostilities the Haganah moved several hundred well-equipped men into their quarter.

This inability to make any long range military maneuvers because of the presence of the British has been a great and almost disastrous handicap to the Jews. If the brief but victorious military engagement on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road had not taken place, the Jewish cause would have suffered such a setback as to be virtually lost. If the Haganah had waited for May 15th and the withdrawal of British troops, there would be few alive in Jerusalem today. Strong units of that body had moved into the hills on either side of that strategic road and repelled Arab counterattacks long enough for several hundred truckloads to make the 40-mile trip into the city, and then, only after threats from the British commander to use force against them, had withdrawn from their positions. As a Jew said to me at the time, "This is our battle of the Atlantic." The maneuvers had to take place and took place despite the British.

Power Supply

The same basic difficulty that exists in relation to the water exists with regard to electric and power supply. Fortunately, an immediate danger is not yet present, but the Arabs have had months of preparations for a maneuver they know their opponents must eventually make.
The Jewish ghetto in the old city of Jerusalem would not have been in such an untenable position if it could have been periodically relieved, or if with a Jewish victory in that area it could have been connected with the main Jewish section in the new city.

The Jews have small settlements or community farms such as Givat Brenner in completely hostile territory. They take pride that, despite the great difficulties, they have not evacuated any of them. From the very tip of Galilee right down to the arid Negev these communities exist with such Jewish names as Zan, Safed, Yehsem, Mishmar Haemak, Ben Sheba, Laza. All have their supply problems. But no great military operation can be undertaken into Arab territory to relieve the increasing Arab pressure.

Need True Facts

In addition to these handicaps that the Jews suffered through the presence of the British, there are many more far-reaching aspects of British administration which unfortunately concern or, rather, involve us in the United States.

Having been out of the United States for more than two months at this time of writing, I notice myself more and more conscious of the great heritage and birthright to which we as United States citizens are heirs and which we have the duty to preserve. A force motivating my writing this paper is that I believe we have failed in this duty or are in great jeopardy of doing so. The failure is due chiefly to our inability to get the true facts of the policy in which we are partners in Palestine.

The British government, in its attitude towards the Jewish population in Palestine, has given ample credence to the suspicion that they are firmly against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

When I was in Cairo shortly after the blowing up of the Jewish Agency [March 11, 1948] I talked to a man who held a high position in the Arab League. He had just returned from Palestine where he had, among other things, interviewed and arranged transportation to Trans-Jordan for the Arab responsible for that Jewish disaster. This Arab told him that after the explosion, upon reaching the British post which separated the Jewish section from a small neutral zone set up in the middle of Jerusalem, he was questioned by the British officers in charge. He quite freely admitted what he had done and was given immediate passage with the remark, "Nice going."

British Markings

Just before I arrived in Palestine there was the notorious story of the foundry outside of Tel Aviv. It was situated in a highly contested area and the British accused the Jews of using it as a sniper post for the Jaffa-Jerusalem road. One day the British moved in, stripping the Jews of all arms and ordered them to clear out within 10 minutes. The British had scarcely departed when a group of armed Arabs moved in, killing or wounding all the occupants. The British government was most abject in its apologies.

I came in contact personally, however, with evidence that demonstrated clearly the British bitterness toward the Jews. I have ridden in Jewish armored car convoys which the British have stopped to inspect for arms. As always, there were members of the Haganah aboard and they quickly broke down their small arms, passing the pieces among the occupants to conceal them so as to prevent confiscation. Satisfied that none existed, the convoy supposedly unarmed was allowed to pass into Arab territory. If the arms had been found and confiscated and the Arabs had attacked, there would have been but a remote chance of survival for any of the occupants. There have been many not as fortunate as we.

British Informants

When I was in Tel Aviv the Jews informed the British government that 600 Iraqi troops were going to cross into Palestine from Trans-Jordan by the Allenby Bridge on a certain date and requested the British to take appropriate action to prevent this passage. The troops crossed unmolested. It is impossible for the British to patrol the whole Palestinian border to prevent illegal crossings but such flagrant violations should certainly have led to some sort of action.
Five weeks ago I saw several thousand non-Palestinian Arab troops in Palestine, including many of the famed British-trained and equipped Arab legionnaires of King Abdullah [of Trans-Jordan]. There were also soldiers from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and they were all proudly pointed out to me by a spokesman of the Arab higher committee. He warned me against walking too extensively through Arab districts as most of the inhabitants there were now foreign troops. Every Arab to whom I talked spoke of thousands of soldiers massed in the "terrible triangle of Nablus-Tulkarem-Jenin" and of hundreds that were pouring in daily.

Oversubscribed

When I was in Lebanon and asked a dean at the American University at Beirut if many students were leaving for the fight in Palestine he shrugged and said, "Not now - the quota has been oversubscribed." When journeying by car from Jerusalem to Amman I passed many truckloads of armed Arabs and even then Jericho was alive with Arab troops. There is no question that it was taken over by the Arabs for an armed camp long before May 15.

Our government first decided that justice was on the Jewish side in their desire for a homeland, and then it reversed its decision temporarily. [Editor's note: In March 1948 the State Department reversed its support for partition and called for a UN trusteeship.] Because of this action I believe we have burdened ourselves with a great responsibility in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world. We fail to live up to that responsibility if we knowingly support the British government who behind the skirts of their official position attempt to crush a cause with which they are not in accord. If the American people knew the true facts, I am certain a more honest and forthright policy would be substituted for the benefit of all.
* * *
Boston Post - June 6, 1948

Communism Not to Get a Foothold Jews Guard against Red Agents in Guise of Refugees - Want No Part of Russian Tyrant

The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise. On the other hand, the Arabs say:

Religious Crusade

"We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise."

The United Nations is scoffed at by both sides and the United States will never be able to regain the position of ascendancy she previously enjoyed with the Arab world. She lost the love of the Arabs when she supported partition. She lost their respect when she reversed that decision [in March 1948]. She lost it irreparably. For days on end Arab commentators drummed into their people that finally the power of the Arab world had been realized.

The Jews are bitter in disappointment. As one Jew said, "Britain let us down for 25 years but you bettered them in a week." The feeling stops at disappointment and there is none of the hatred that exists for the British. They can understand us not wishing to send troops and so become entangled in a war that does not immediately concern us, but they plead only for the right to make this fight themselves. They want arms and frankly admit that if they cannot get them from us they will turn to the East. "What else can we do?" They are fighting for their very lives and must act accordingly.

Won't Accept Communism

That the people might accept communism or that communism could exist in Palestine is fantastically absurd. Communism thrives on static discontent as sin thrives on idleness. With the type of issues and people involved, that state of affairs is nonexistent. I am as certain of that as of my name.

When I was in Tel Aviv, a group of refugees was landed and amongst them the Jewish Agency's "FBI" immediately picked up one of these agents. He was loaded down with money and papers, and all agreed that he must have been sent with the intention that he be captured to mislead the security forces into thinking that all the Russian agents would be as inept as this one and equally easy to capture. Lethargy would set in and it would be then that they would smuggle in their Mata Hari.

Demands Allegiance

Communism demands allegiance to the mother country, Russia, and it is impossible to believe that people would undergo such untold sufferings to replace one tyrant with another. Robert Emmet, the Irish patriot, on trial for his life before a British tribunal stated the principle. When accused of attempting to bring French forces into Ireland to help wrest it from the British, he said why would he, who loved and had been fighting for his homeland, deem it to his country's interests to replace a known tyrant by an unknown one. These people want a homeland of their own. That to them is the sole issue.

Vehemence and hatred between the Jews and Arabs increase daily. But in many cases Jews and Arabs work side by side in the fields and orange groves outside of Tel Aviv. Perhaps these Jews and Arabs are making a greater contribution to the future peace in Palestine than are those who carry guns on both sides.

The Arabs in command believe that eventually victory must be theirs. It is against all law and nature that this Jewish state should exist. They trace expectantly its long boundary and promise that if it does become a reality it will never have as neighbors anything but hostile countries, which will continue the fight militarily and economically until victory is achieved.

Stabilizing Factor

The Jews on the other hand believe that in a few more years, if a Jewish state is formed, it will be the only stabilizing factor remaining in the Near and Middle East. The Arab world is made up of many disgruntled factions which would have been at each other's throats long ago if it had not been for the common war against Zionism. The United States and Great Britain before too long a time might well be looking to a Jewish state to preserve a toehold in that part of the world.
Both sides still hate the British far more deeply than they hate one another. There was a British high commissioner who when attending the opera used to have his car parked directly in front of the main door, a place usually reserved for discharging passengers. An even more unpopular practice was the regulation that at the end of the opera everyone had to remain in their seats until the British high commissioner was out of the opera house and in his car.

But the British have left - and now the issue is to be resolved in a bitter war between Jew and Arab. I do not think the freedom-loving nations of the world can stand by and see "the sweet water of the River Jordan stained red with the blood of Jews and Arabs." The United States through the United Nations must take the lead in bringing about peace in the Holy Land.
* * *
Lenny Ben-David served as deputy chief of mission in Israel's embassy in Washington. He blogs at http://www.lennybendavid.com/

Obama Departs From U.S. Policy on Jerusalem

As I have written, Obama is the perfect messenger to the Arabs that their meshugas and ridiculous demands will not receive a warm welcome simply by virtue of his middle name. If we have to resort to Biblical argumentation that Israel is more important to Judaism than Islam, let us have that discussion, because the Jewish argument is the winner by a longshot. I can't count the number of times that Jerusalem is mentioned in Torah and that it forms the center of Jewish redemptive theology. Islam, on the other hand, places Jerusalem third in importance in the Muslim world - the Dome of the Rock is where Muhammed was alleged to ascend to heaven. But the unquestioned center of Islam is Mecca. The Jewish Mecca is Jerusalem.

Randy Shiner



Obama Departs From U.S. Policy on Jerusalem
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
June 05, 2008

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - In his quest for Jewish votes on Wednesday -- the day after he claimed the Democratic presidential nomination -- Sen. Barak Obama went beyond U.S. policy on the issue of Jerusalem when he said the city would remain the united capital of Israel.

"Let me be clear," Obama told America's largest pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, on Wednesday. "Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he said in comments widely viewed as intended to win the hearts of Jewish voters.

While Israelis applauded such a notion, the Palestinians were not pleased.

"This statement is totally rejected," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted as saying.

"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," Abbas said.

Current U.S. policy maintains that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be decided by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.

Until recently, Israel insisted that Jerusalem would be its undivided capital forever. Palestinians want the eastern part of the city for the capital of a future state.

Israel reunited the city after 19 years as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War and declared the city to be its capital, prompting international embassies to leave the city in protest.

No country in the world maintains an embassy in Jerusalem. The U.S. has two consulates there, but its embassy is in Tel Aviv.

Dr. Eran Lerman, director of Israel/Middle East office of The American Jewish Committee told Cybercast News Service that Obama's speech was good in that it disabused the Palestinians of the notion that all they have to do is wait until the next president takes office and they'll have everything they want "delivered to them on a platter."

They now know that would never happen.

In his speech, Obama also called for the isolation of Hamas -- "unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements." That is in line with current U.S. policy. "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations," he added.

In April, a top Hamas official Ahmed Yousef said that Hamas liked Obama and hoped he would become the next U.S. president. But a Hamas spokesman in Gaza has now retracted that support.

Sami Abu Zuhri was quoted by Reuters as saying that Obama's comments now confirm that there would be "no change in the U.S. administration's foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties support what Zuhri called "the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians."

He said that Hamas does not differentiate between presidential candidates Obama and Arizona Senator John McCain and had no preference as to who wins because "their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us."

Israelis liked it

"Without any doubt it was a great speech. He hit all the right notes," said former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval. "Whoever gave him advice was well acquainted with the issues," he said, from Israel being a Jewish State to Jerusalem to security.

It was good that such a speech was made by a presidential candidate. Even if he loses, he's still an important person, Shoval told Cybercast News Service.

In general, Shoval said, a politician's long-term voting record counts more than campaign speeches.

Shoval said he can't remember any candidate who has not promised to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

In an analysis in Thursday's Jerusalem Post, Herb Keinon wrote that Israelis' "lack of enthusiasm" can be attributed to the fact that he's "an unknown" to Israelis and secondly because there is skepticism about who Obama will surround himself with.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200806/FOR20080605d.html

Death of a Saleswoman How Hillary Clinton lost me—and a generation of young voters

Death of a Saleswoman
How Hillary Clinton lost me—and a generation of young voters.
By Meghan O'Rourke
Updated Thursday, June 5, 2008, at 5:01 PM ET

Meghan O'Rourke joined fellow "XX Factor" bloggers in an online chat with readers about Hillary Clinton's feminist dilemma. See the transcript.

"That bitter cynicism of yours is something you've acquired since you left Radcliffe."

"That cynicism you refer to I acquired the day I discovered little girls were different from little boys!"

—Lloyd Richards to Karen Richards, and vice versa, All About Eve

In the coming days, as Hillary Clinton moves to the sidelines and Barack Obama takes the stage alone, many people will suggest that America just wasn't ready for a female president. This may be true. But we'll never entirely know, because Clinton did not invite us to spend much time contemplating the momentous fact that she was the first female presidential candidate with any chance of occupying that position. Her problem wasn't that she was a feminist. Her problem was that she wasn't feminist enough.

For me, at least, she wasn't—and for many young women my age. Back in the mid-1990s, as a college student, I spent an afternoon on the New Haven Green, adjacent to Yale University, waiting for Hillary Rodham Clinton to speak. There was a huge crowd of mostly young women. I found her impressive, if not entirely galvanizing. She had a girlish voice and soft, wispy bangs, as I recall, and she struck me as a real person—not merely a wife performing the role of first lady. I remember wondering if she might some day run for president. I also remember feeling that it seemed outside the realm of the imagination.

That's no longer the case. When Clinton announced her candidacy in January 2007, she raised hopes and possibilities in the minds of young women across America. But the substance of her presidential run seems far more dismal than I would ever have imagined back in 1995. You can't be a historic first unless you act like one, and Hillary Clinton has not. In the Wellesley commencement speech that made her famous before she got to Yale Law School, she spoke about "searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living." Yet Clinton ran away from the revolutionary aspects of her own candidacy. There's been nothing of the ecstatic in her presidential bid—that mode, instead, has been embodied by Barack Obama. He appealed to voters' desire for liberation and revolution, and on the strength of that appeal won them over.

Clinton didn't trust that the message of revolution embodied in her candidacy could animate American voters, particularly male voters. And she lacked the courage of her young, ecstasy-seeking self. And so she sent the message that gender was not a factor. Presumably, she did this based on the reasonable assumption that it was politically perilous to be a woman. But the paradox is that in taking the safe tack she thought made her more electable, she actually made herself less electable. She presented herself as a hard-bitten Washington insider, running on experience when a lot of American voters, particularly young women, were looking for transformation.

Obama understood this from early on. Contrast their opening bids: Obama skillfully announced his in Springfield, Ill., with a speech that echoed Abraham Lincoln. Clinton, by contrast, announced hers in a risk-averse video recording on her Web site: "I'm in it to win," she said redundantly. As her campaign progressed, she rarely invoked the historic predecessors that made her candidacy possible—Susan B. Anthony, say, or Jeannette Rankin, a pacifist and suffragette who was the first woman to be elected to Congress (and who always had the courage of her convictions, voting against the First World War). To be sure, Clinton did praise Eleanor Roosevelt's "thick skin"—rather the way one nerd praises another's social-avoidance techniques. It was part of acting as if she were a man inoculated against the slings and arrows of sexism.

In this regard, Clinton never really was the first American matriarch. Instead, she may be best remembered as our last patriarch. The more her campaign floundered as Obama offered ecstasy and she didn't, the more masculine and hard-nosed she made herself out to be. Cannily reversing gender roles, she told Obama supporters that if he couldn't "take the heat" he should "get out of the kitchen"—a subtle put-down of her own gender aimed at working-class male voters who wanted reassurance that Clinton was manlier than the girlie men the Democrats had of late been nominating. Her supporters (among them, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana) invoked stories of steelworkers waxing enthusiastic about her "testicular fortitude." While Obama went on rhetorical flights about hope, she compared herself to the hyper-masculine Rocky Balboa—an underdog, to be sure, but a stoic one who keeps getting up. None of this was accidental, even if the source wasn't always Hillary herself. She was "manning up." Over the years, her hair had grown shorter, and her make-up thicker, like a mask. She played the men's game so well that James Carville eventually quipped, "If she gave [Obama] one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

Unfortunately, a man's rules seemed to be politics as usual. There were the researchers who planted fears that Obama had been schooled in a madrasah, the bizarre (for a Democrat) implication that McCain would make a better president than Obama, the appeal to voters' latent racism. It was these types of calculation that lost her many young women's votes. Worse, all this hardball was occasionally interrupted by cynical, strategic cries of sexism. It's indubitable that sexism infected the campaign, and the media's coverage. Of course, there's a double standard when it comes to men and women in politics—"the tyranny of high expectations," as Elizabeth Kolbert puts it in Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, a recent anthology. John McCain can call his wife a "cunt" in the earshot of reporters and get little blowback, yet Clinton can't change her hair without being called untrustworthy. But even last fall Clinton's relationship to sexism seemed schizophrenic: First she did the tough, impervious act, and then she played the dame in distress when a debate didn't go her way. In contrast to Obama's matter-of-fact relationship to race—as a subject that bore serious discussion but was hardly the be-all and end-all of American politics—Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent.

Of course, there's some logic behind Clinton's calculation that running on gender was too politically risky. Race—however profound an issue it is in America—doesn't get in the way of the paradigm that treats ambition and leadership as masculine qualities. Gender does. Obama can still draw on the classic paradigm of leadership; Clinton would have had to create something new. To judge by all kinds of studies of women in private-sector leadership positions, this would have been a fraught battle, strewn with double standards. It's only fair to point out that many of Hillary's attributes—toughness, control, emotional distance—are qualities that are sometimes admired in men but almost never in women. We'll never know whether the traits Clinton displayed in this campaign would have drawn less animus from voters had she actually been a man.

But if ever there were a moment to have ventured that battle, this was it. If she'd run against an establishment candidate like Kerry, being the experienced woman would itself have seemed radical. In the context of Obama's transformative campaign, though, she couldn't afford to become the old-style candidate. As Obama grew more potent, Clinton grew more brittle. She allowed him to set the terms of debate—optimism, church choirs, soul music. Then she responded by tearing him down instead of defining the conversation on her own terms. At the apogee of her campaign's vicious sniping this spring, Clinton seemed to embody a travesty of feminist values—to be a cautionary emblem of what can happen to a gifted young woman embittered by the challenges she's had to face. It was as if she failed entirely to see the revolutionary nature of her achievement.

Last week, I e-mailed a group of young women, asking them what they thought of Hillary Clinton's campaign as it drew to a close. The women I heard from were mostly young, well-educated, upper-middle-class, and white—one of the groups that didn't flock to Hillary in numbers her campaign (and many second-generation feminists) had expected. I got one response over and over: frustration that Clinton hadn't done enough, as a historic "first," to differentiate herself from stodgy, old male Washington politics. But they also felt … ambivalent about their frustration. In that sense, you might say, nothing has changed. Women have always been ambivalent about Hillary. In another sense, though, she had been a candidate of profound change—albeit not in the way that you might think. Her own risk-aversion has given us "something to chew on," as a young film producer told me. And the media's sexism forced twenty- and thirtysomethings to recognize that feminism is not just "our mother's problem," as another young professional phrased it.

As he goes forward, Obama will undoubtedly be compared to Abraham Lincoln. But I always thought Whitman was a more apt predecessor for both candidates. Whitman embodied the ecstatic to which Hillary Clinton, at one time, linked her hopes for a better America. But she didn't make it part of her campaign. Instead, she made fun of Obama's knack for lighting a fire in the hearts of a wide swath of Americans. She preached pragmatism instead of fellow-feeling. And she scolded Obama for being starry-eyed. But her decision to turn away from the ecstatic was a great mistake, as Whitman might have understood. By stripping her campaign of its native appeal, by refusing to portray herself as part of a transcendent feminist narrative, by diluting the dynamic pleasures of mass political response, she let us down. After all, feminism need not be joyless.

Was Press a War ‘Enabler’? 2 Offer a Nod From Inside

Maven's Note: This is reposted from May 30 due to some technical difficulties with the blog format that have been thankfully fixed, I hope. It's worth noting. A free and active, skeptical press is the only thing between us and ferreting out the truth from a government which is, and always has been, in permanent campaign mode -- propaganda, that is. These mea culpas from the press corps are sadly too little, too late. Where was the NYT in 2002 when the drums were pounding for war and the thirst for revenge on anybody overrode considerations of what was good for the country on a long term basis? More concerned with their access to the DOD getting cut off than with figuring out what was really happening and telling the public. And it wasn't just the NYT, but they are an easy target.

Randy Shiner

May 30, 2008

Was Press a War ‘Enabler’? 2 Offer a Nod From Inside

By BRIAN STELTER
In his new memoir, “What Happened,” Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, said the national news media neglected their watchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters “complicit enablers” of the Bush administration’s push for war.

Surprisingly, some prominent journalists have agreed.

Katie Couric, the anchor of “CBS Evening News,” said on Wednesday that she had felt pressure from government officials and corporate executives to cast the war in a positive light.

Speaking on “The Early Show” on CBS, Ms. Couric said the lack of skepticism shown by journalists about the Bush administration’s case for war amounted to “one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.” She also said she sensed pressure from “the corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it.” At the time, Ms. Couric was a host of “Today” on NBC.

Another broadcast journalist also weighed in. Jessica Yellin, who worked for MSNBC in 2003 and now reports for CNN, said on Wednesday that journalists had been “under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation.”

On Thursday, she clarified her comments in a blog post, writing that her producers at MSNBC had wanted their coverage to reflect the patriotic mood of the country.

A spokeswoman for General Electric, which owns NBC and MSNBC through its division NBC Universal, declined to speak about the specifics of the comments but said, “General Electric has never, and will never, interfere in the editorial process at NBC News.”

The opinions of Ms. Couric and Ms. Yellin were hardly universal among journalists. Ms. Couric made her comments in an unusual on-camera tour of network morning programs — along with her two evening news competitors, Brian Williams of “NBC Nightly News” and Charles Gibson of “World News” on ABC — to promote a cancer research telethon.

“I think the questions were asked,” Mr. Gibson, who was a host of “Good Morning America” before the war began, said in response to Ms. Couric. “It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.”

Mr. Williams, who was an anchor on MSNBC at the time, emphasized the climate of “post-9/11 America.” In the early days of the war, he said, he would hear from the Pentagon “the minute they heard us report something they didn’t like.”

For five years, antiwar activists and media critics have claimed that the national news media failed to keep the White House accountable before the invasion. Andrew Heyward, who headed CBS News in 2003, said in an interview on Thursday that the trauma of the Sept. 11 attacks and the ensuing sense of patriotism might have muted press skepticism about the war.

Greg Mitchell, the author of “So Wrong for So Long,” a book about press and presidential failures on the war, argues that some media organizations have yet to come to terms with their role. Even at the fifth anniversary of the war last March, he said, “in the orgy of coverage of what had happened, there was almost no media self-assessment.”

NBC and CBS would not make executives available for interviews on the subject. Jon Banner, the executive producer of “World News” on ABC, said the news media should not be treated as a monolith.

“Were there questions we would have liked to ask?” Mr. Banner said. “Sure, but we were very critical of the administration and paid a significant price for it. It’s absurd and incorrect to lump us all together.”

Iran's Rafsanjani: US trying to "enslave" Iraq with security agreement

Rafsanjani's reference to "the Islamic world" not allowing the US to stay in Iraq is farcical. It is redolent of the "pan-Arabism" once espoused by Gamel Abdul Nasser and which was destroyed in theory and practice after the Israeli clobbering of 5 different Arab armies in 1967. That Saudi Arabia, Sunni Capitol of the world is holding a summit on Islam, Christianity and Judaism should tell you something about Islamic unity. The Sunni hate the Shia and vice-versa. Each has different agendas. The only reason that Iran is at all concerned is that Iraq could be used as a launching pad for military action into Iran, should circumstances warrant. And that is an option that, for diplomatic purposes, like the Queen in a chess game, has to remain on the table to make sure that Iran knows that we, the US and the rest of the world, mean business when we say that we will not allow a nuclear weapon or the systems to deliver one.

Randy Shiner



Iran's Rafsanjani: US trying to "enslave" Iraq with security agreement

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia: One of Iran's most powerful cleric-politicians said Wednesday the United States is trying to "enslave" Iraqis through a long-term security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad, and he vowed the Islamic world would stop the deal.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told a gathering of Muslim figures in the holy city of Mecca that the U.S. "occupation of Iraq represents a danger to all nations of the region" and warned that the security deal would create a "permanent occupation."

The comments were the strongest and most high-level public condemnations of the potential security deal by an Iranian official. Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran, heads two of the country's most powerful clerical governing bodies, the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts.

"The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves before the Americans, if it is sealed. This will not happen. The Iraqi people, the Iraqi government and the Islamic nation will not allow it," Rafsanjani said.

Rafsanjani was speaking at a Saudi-sponsored conference aimed at unifying Muslim voices before an interfaith dialogue that Saudi King Abdullah wants to launch with Christian and Jewish religious figures.

Iran has been critical of the security agreement, largely in private talks with Iraqi officials. The deal, which the Iraqis and Americans hope to finish in mid-summer, would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States, and a parallel agreement would provide a legal basis to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Supporters believe the deal would help assure Iraq's Arab neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, that Iraq's Shiite-led government would not become a satellite of Shiite-dominated Iran as American military role here fades.

But public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Some Iraqi politicians have attacked the deal, especially those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad until a May truce ended seven weeks of fighting.

The agreement is likely to be among the issues discussed this weekend when Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is due to visit Iran — his second trip there in a year.

Ahead of the visit, his party sought to calm worries by insisting that the deal would not allow foreign troops to use Iraq as a ground to invade another country — a clear reference to Iranian fears of a U.S. attack.

04 June 2008

The End of the Beginning - Update 1

It has been announced that on Saturday, Mrs. Clinton will formally cede the nomination to Mr. Obama and endorse him. They will have their "money shot" moment where they raise each others' hands in a show of unity, and from there, Mrs. Clinton will try to figure out a way to glom onto the Obama money machine to attempt to retire what must be a huge amount of debt, including of course the $5 million she loaned to her campaign after Super Tuesday. Would that we all could write ourselves checks for that much money. And have them clear the bank. This is obviously a welcome development, and I truly hope that those of Mrs. Clinton's supporters who may right now be disillusioned with the state of the Democratic party will, in time realize that not only did Mrs. Clinton make history by making a serious run for the Presidency - a first for a woman, a gender that could not even vote until the Constitution was amended for the 19th time, but that even more remarkable, a man of color, who, in the time before 1863 and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, would have been viewed as a piece of real estate, not even as a human being. At least white women, while certainly exploited, were human. We've come a long way, baby.

Randy Shiner

The End of the Beginning

I suppose that after the length of the Democratic primary contest and its coverage here occasionally and on TV so much that I had to turn it off, I would be remiss if I didn't make a comment or seventeen about the endgame now being played out between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Obama garnered the 2118 delegates necessary to capture the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States. He has been talking past Mrs. Clinton for several weeks now, directly at John McCain when it became self-evident that there was no way that she could not mathmatically catch and overtake Mr. Obama's lead in delegates. Tuesday's activity was just in some sense, anticlimactic, with the notable exception of Mrs. Clinton who last night gave a speech that made it appear as if she was trying to play Don Corleone -- "Barack Obama, you need my 18 million votes" -- an offer he supposedly couldn't refuse. But the fact is that her 18 million votes was, since they were won, were, like a new car driven off the dealer's lot, devalued significantly. We do not need to go through the litany of trash that she threw at Mr. Obama during the period after February 5 -super-Tuesday, which, sadly for Mrs. Clinton's strategy, such as it was, decided nothing. The race-baiting, the dragging up of distractions like Jeremiah Wright when it was clear that Mr. Obama did not share the thoughts of his occasionally wacko Reverend. The Bosnia affair that she turned into the first twenty minutes of "Saving Private Ryan"; the "who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 a.m." bit, and the rest of the kitchen sink strategy she pulled out when it became clear that Obama had the coal and money to power his train to victory.

So here we are. This morning, Mr. Obama gave a very good speech to AIPAC, the feared and oft-derided (by anti-Semites and Semites alike) heavy hitter of "the Israel Lobby" whose annual Washington conference was fortuitously scheduled during the end of these historic 2008 Democratic primaries. In a way, I have to admit some jealousy at not being in the audience for that speech, as it was, in effect, Mr. Obama's first major foriegn policy address as the Democratic nominee. He said all the right things in the right tones and made McCain's foriegn policy look like something from the Attila the Hun playbook. He sounded reasonable. Thoughtful. He sounded like the person I have admired and supported since Joe Biden got out of the race. (Secretary of State Biden?) No thoughtful Jew who has Israel's best interests at heart as well as those of their own country -- yours and mine -- the United States of America, has any business voting for McCain. There is simply no excuse for such a wasted vote unless you happen to be a lover of white sheets and fiery crosses. Or the people to whom Mrs. Clinton pandered to: white men who earn less than $50,000 per year and who have not graduated college. I would submit that these people need to realize that race is not a basis upon which to deny Mr. Obama the presidency if you happen to fall within that demographic even if you do like white sheets with holes and wood-working with kerosene. The basis for the vote is WHO HAS THE MONEY AND POWER in this country, and the answer to that question transcends all races and makes it irrelevant to all but the most wicked of bigots or the illogical and unreasonable of which, sadly, there are too many in this country.

Indeed, it is that demographic that should be most fervently in favor of the change that Mr. Obama presents precisely because they have been sold down the proverbial river for the past 14 years since the "Republican Revolution" started by Newt Gingrich and his ilk following the 1994 midterm Congressional elections. Enough with the divisive distractions that have driven this country into the toilet. Enough. Let us move to a serious discussion of the serious issues that face this country with a man, Obama, who is a serious and thoughtful man who also happens to be a spectacularly brilliant political organizer. For it was, in the end, his masterful organzational and technical skills that denied Mrs. Clinton her perceived birthright as a Clinton.

Which leads me to the end of the Clinton era in this country. Good riddance, finally. Let us not forget that it was Bill Clinton's record that made the 2000 election so close as to throw it to the Supreme Court and thence to George Bush, under whose misleadership the United States and the world, has suffered for the past seven years. If it was true that Bill Clinton was the great politician and leader that, 16 years after the 1992 elections he is portrayed as (not the pedodontia sufferer he was on behalf of his wife - pedodontia: a chronic condition commonly used by me to refer to "foot-in-mouth" disease)then do we attribute the 2000 loss to monkeyshines in Florida? Hanging Chads? Al Gore's inability to move an audience?

What we got was a guy who people liked and wouldn't have minded having a beer with. Well, several truckloads of Shiner Bock (disclosure statement: I am not a member of the ownership of Spoetzl Brewery, the brewers of Shiner Bock, which is, coincidentally located in Shiner, Texas, a town that my late grandfather Mandel Shiner (zt'l) founded in the late 1800s after running out on the Czar's Army, mistaking it for the West Side of Chicago, where he eventually did settle some years later, deciding that the junk business was more profitable more quickly than the beer business) later, we are all hung over from all the beer (and Shiner Bock is quite good) that we have swallowed, some might say waterboarded with, for the past seven years. Indeed, as someone who really should not even drink beer, I am sick with delight that I might not even want to sit down with Barack Obama to have a beer. Frankly, he seems like the sort that would appreciate a good 2000 Bordeaux. But that is another story involving different tastes, bodily orifices and functions.

Last night, Mrs. Clinton in a speech at Baruch College in New York City, which she won quite handily - congratulations -- struck a decidedly combative, some would say obstreporous tone, even as Mr. Obama went over the 2118 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. It was unbelievable that she had actually finished the Kool Aid that Terry McAuliffe, her erstwhile spinmeister, had been mixing and serving for the past month to make it seem like there was actually a chance of her winning. Mr. McAuliffe, whose floral shirt he wore for the Puerto Rico primary should tell you that he really needs a vacation - not even he could not actually believe some of the garbage and lies that had been spewing out of his mouth -- was still in there, shoveling the remains of his and Mrs. Clinton's fantasy at the 24/7 news cycle. It ended up to be a nice vacation to San Juan for the whole Clinton team, even as she "won" there quite handily -- mazal tov again.

Today, as her 18 million voter fantasy was losing air faster than the German zeppelin Hindenberg burned up in New Jersey in 1937, it is widely reported that her own staffers called Congressman Charlie Rangel to arrange what I can only describe as an "intervention" by 23 other Congressmen with Mrs. Clinton to tell her to "get with the program", as the longer she waited to do so, the worse off her position and power (and power is about perception in large measure, let us not forget) would be in the Senate. Yes, her own colleagues had to finally give her the slap in the face that so many of us have wished for her to receive for so long. And almost as instantaneously as it was received, news broke just a little while ago that a meeting has been scheduled for Friday in which she is supposed to announce the "suspension of her campaign" and her "support for Senator Obama".

While those things sound like she's giving up and endorsing Mr. Obama, they do not sound like the words of someone who has albeit fading - faded -- hopes of being Mr. Obama's running mate. They sound like the words of someone who cannot accept reality, either due to her own arrogance, the Kool Aid, the PTSD from her trip to Bosnia in 1996, exhaustion from the long campaign or some combination of all of the foregoing. Whatever the cause, it appears that at least some of her advisors understand the present, and not alternate, reality that Mrs. and Mr. Clinton have been living in for the past six weeks or so and especially the notion that whatever "clout" (a word coined by the unique Mike Royko) she had was as of last night, fleeting, as was her potential to be an effective Senator, nevermind a national candidate.

Where are we now? Mr.McCain delivered a speech last night which was characterized by Amy Holmes, a writer for the uberconservative National Review Online as

creaky, ungracious, and unnecessary. I never understand why politicians don't take the opportunity, when so easily presented, to simply be gracious and hold their fire. Watching McCain, I couldn't help but think of the astonishing contrast Barack's triumphant speech to a massive and adoring crowd will be. It was not a comparison McCain should have invited.



And then, in a stroke of genius worthy of Rube Goldberg, Mr. McCain invited Mr. Obama to a series of "town hall style debates". Now, at first blush, given Mr. McCain's creakiness, this would appear to be inviting the fox (the young, polished and unflappable Mr. Obama) into the chicken coop that is full of old hens and roosters. (again, Mr. McCain, sorry) and that Mr. Obama would have Mr. McCain for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner. And a midnight snack. And a little water at 3:00 a.m.

Not so fast. In such a setting, while Mr. Obama could run rings around Mr. McCain in a rhetorical and policymaking sense, Mr. Obama must absolutely be careful not to make Mr. McCain look bad, or even creaky. Mr. McCain is only there because he, by himself, could not possibly fathom the notion of 17,000 people turning out just to watch him by himself. That is because it would not ever happen. He will be relying on Mr. Obama's star power, not his own. Mr. McCain will be hoping that Mr. Obama says something that makes him, Mr. Obama, look like a smartass, disrespectful or somehow unappreciative of the large amount of support that thinks Mr. McCain is a better choice for President than is Mr. Obama, as difficult as that is for me to contemplate even being possible. But that is the reality, alternate or not. Mr. Obama has everything to gain and everything to lose. Mr. McCain, already judged by his peers as creaky and ungracious, has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Let us not forget the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960, the year I spent mostly as a fetus. Though Mr. Nixon was, with his five o'clock shadow, not meant for television, he almost won that election were it not for some monkeyshines by my own political mentor, Mayor Richard J. Daley, the father of the present King of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, who made sure that he delivered Illinois for Mr. Kennedy. As it is said, those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it, and if Richard Nixon could almost beat John F.Kennedy (he of PT 109 fame in WWII, and the legendary Kennedy clan), then one is forced to the conclusion that the possibility exists that Mr. McCain could do equally as well. All I can say is that I am glad that Mr. Obama learned his political chops in Chicago. He is going to need them.

Now the news will turn to the punditocracy which will begin to chew over who each candidate will pick to be Vice President. The notion of 24/7 speculation - all day and all night -- is enough to make me appreciate that Heroditus wrote his Histories and that Mr. Obama is a fan of Philip Roth. No worries here. I'll sleep better tonight as Mrs. Clinton realizes that Mr. Obama is no human stain. He is the real deal. And he will, at long last, have a chance to show us what someone who thinks about the future can do by learning from, instead of being imprisoned, by the past.

By the way, that bit about my grandfather founding Shiner, Texas was a figment of my fertile imagination. The rest is true.

Randy Shiner

Obama's Speech to AIPAC June 4, 2008 - FULL 37:22

Clip_Summary_Image
Play_Now_Button

Obama's Speech to AIPAC - Partial

02 June 2008

Phil Gramm Enabling Osama's Bankers - Making US and Israel Unsafe from Terror



As McCain gets up in front of AIPAC and beats his chest in front of a lot of people who still think that Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist or, alternatively, a member of the Weather Underground circa 1970, word comes from Washington that McCain's chief economic adviser, Dr. Phil Gramm a former longtime Senator from Texas and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and formerly in the employ of UBS, an enormous Swiss Banking concern, made it easier for terrorists to use US Banks to deal with foriegn banks who do business with terrorists who, for example, want to kill all Americans and of course Jews. And McCain blithely diddles through his non-campaign supported by people who apparently do not care about what or whom they are or were affiliated with directly and how those decisions have affected this country for the worse. Shameless, amoral folks, they are.

Randy Shiner








Countdown: McCain’s Lobbyist Campaign Co-Chair Phil Gramm Creating More Controversy
By: Logan Murphy on Monday, June 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 PM - PDT

Last week we brought you this story about McCain campaign Co-Chair Phil Gramm and his lobbying efforts that put him on the wrong side of the ongoing mortgage foreclosure crisis. Now, it appears Gramm’s association with the aging Republican senator’s campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities — while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government’s ability to track Osama bin Laden’s financial network before 9/11.






Download Play Download Play


In the #3 story on Monday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann talks with The Nation’s Chris Hayes about the stench of lobbyists that continuously plagues John McCain’s campaign and how this and other devastating scandals completely blows his anti-lobbyist, tough-on-terror campaign theme:


Hayes: “…What this reveals is actually a really profound contradiction at the heart of the Republican coalition, the conservative coalition and McCain’s campaign, which is on the one hand, it’s home to the most sort of, chest-beating, self righteous moralists about foreign policy - we can’t talk to Ahmedenajad because he’s an anti-Semite, at the same time it’s a party who’s agenda is run by global conglomerates that pursue dollar and profit with no regard for any kind of sense of morality…”