Soldier, Jerusalem Bus Stop

12 03 2008

Soldier, Jerusalem Bus Stop

Taking a quick respite from saving civilization.





A Thank You To Israellycool

7 03 2008

Israellycool did us all a great service with his liveblogging over the past 24 hours regarding the Jerusalem massacre, keeping us all informed and a little more sane.

He was, hands down, the best source of information anywhere, quite an accomplishment considering his proximity to the event and how that must affect him personally.

http://Israellycool.com





A Thank You To Yitzhak Dadon

6 03 2008

Be thankful that there are people like Yitzhak Dadon standing ready at the front lines of civilization.

He saved lives today. Who knows how many.

“Yitzhak Dadon, a student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building. “He came out of the library spraying automatic fire … the terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head,” he said.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335730,00.html





An Open Letter to Steven Erlanger, NY Times Libel Spreader

6 03 2008

In today’s piece titled “Picking Up Pieces, Gazans Debate Israeli Incursion”, you — Mr. Steven Erlanger —  include the following astounding passage:

 “Residents say the Israeli soldiers were more anxious than during past incursions, and gruffer. At least four young men said independently that the soldiers used them as human shields. The young men were blindfolded and handcuffed, and then lined up, two or three at a time, in front of an Israeli soldier, they said, who guided them from behind as they moved down this street or entered another building. Sometimes, they said, a soldier used their shoulders as props for his M-16 rifle.”

…Here comes the good stuff (Cue sound of needle abruptly slipping off record, dancing club goers looking peeved, etc.):

The young men — Riad Abed Rabo, 26; his brother, Muhammad, 21; his cousin Majdi, also 21; and Hassan Abu Sabah, 32…”

Ahem.

Mr. Erlanger?

Did it occur to you, prior to relaying this to the world, that there may be something fishy about four men repeating the exact same story “independently”, when two of them were brothers and one of them a cousin?

By “independently”, were you simply implying that they did appear to be separate, sentient beings,  and not one amorphous mass of interconnected body parts with four distinct mouths, yet sharing a brain stem? Because that would make it okay, though it really isn’t necessary, as there’s only like three of those four-mouthed blobs currently existing, and all of them are totally into Alan Dershowitz’s stuff, I hear.

Best,

David    

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/world/middleeast/06gaza.html?_r=1&oref=slogin





An Open Letter to Barack Obama

21 02 2008

Dear Senator Obama:

In the winter of 2004, did you tell Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, to “keep up the good work”? Did you additionally claim to be withholding your actual opinions on Israel, as you believed it would affect your chances in the primary race?

Abunimah claims as such. He writes:

As [Obama] came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”

Best,

David

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/1892  via http://www.philipweiss.org/)





An Open Letter to Samantha Power, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Barack Obama

19 02 2008

Ms. Power:

Your February 18th interview with Salon.com includes the following passage:

“The Bush administration has a long-standing policy that it doesn’t engage with terrorists or dictators. Is there a time when the United States should?

Absolutely. I’m with Barack on this. But it’s not indefinite. Barack’s point is you don’t treat meeting with America as if it’s in and of itself some great reward. It doesn’t buy the other side anything. In fact, today it hurts a lot of people to be in business with the United States. So what you do is you meet in order to achieve things. You meet in order to know your foe, if it’s a foe. You meet in order to get international wind at your back so that America is not seen as the problem — [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is the problem. You meet because you want to stop lumping together the unlike — al-Qaida, Hamas, Iran, Iraq.”

Your response to this question represents perhaps the single element of Obama’s platform that is most abhorrent to many voters who have rejected all possibility of supporting him. I respectfully ask that you elaborate upon what you said here, given the weight this issue holds for many Americans.

A) You mention that an Obama administration would not only be open to engaging with dictators, but also with terrorists. Would you mind naming some of the terrorists you would be advising that Obama meet? Do you wish that he meets with Haniyeh? Bin Laden?

B) You mention that “you meet in order to know your foe, if it’s a foe.” I am not sure what you are saying here – you either wish to 1) meet with terrorists and dictators so as to “know them”, or 2) meet with terrorists and dictators so as to determine if they are, indeed, your foe.

If you intended the former, what is it you wish to know regarding the intents and motives of, say, Hamas and Al Qaeda? Have they not been clear?

If you intended the latter, what information do you need to receive from any terrorist entity or dictator to further determine if it is a foe? If an entity has committed acts of terror, or has established itself as a dictatorship, are you implying that you would advise consideration of the possibility that this entity could be considered a US ally?

C) You mention that “you don’t treat meeting with America as if it’s in and of itself some great reward. It doesn’t buy the other side anything. In fact, today it hurts a lot of people to be in business with the United States.”

Can you name some of the entities which would change their relationship with any other entity based upon their meeting with the US? The only ones I can think of are currently designated terrorist groups or dictatorships. Or are Vladimir Putin.

Are you advising that a President Obama, prior to meeting with a terrorist or dictator, somehow negate the concept that establishing relations with the US is “some great reward”, because the US should be concerned that said terrorist or dictator will lose his or her standing among other terrorists or dictators? Why should this be a concern to the US?

And how, exactly, would you advise President Obama establish that meeting with the US is no “great reward”?

D) You mention that “You meet because you want to stop lumping together the unlike — al-Qaida, Hamas, Iran, Iraq.” Are you implying that you would establish a hierarchy wherein one terrorist or dictatorship is more deserving of a meeting with the US than another? If so, what would be your criteria?

Al-Qaida wishes to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate governed by the Koran. Hamas wishes to annihilate Israel so that they may establish a state governed by the Koran. Iran is a state enforcing brutal human rights abuses, with the goal being a state most closely aligned with the teachings of the Koran. You refer to these entities as the “unlike”.

Why are you looking to examine any possible differences between these terrorist groups and dictatorships, without first examining the similarity of which they scream at the top of their lungs?

Best,

David

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/18/samantha_power/

samantha_power@ksg.harvard.edu





Bizarre Hate Coincidence? UPDATED: All better now! Anti-Semitic comments deleted, Anti-conservative bigotry and rape threat allowed to stay!

11 02 2008

(Scroll down for update) 

My previous post, an open letter to the production team of the announced Howard Zinn film and miniseries, asked whether they were troubled by his endorsement of Valdas Anelauskas’ book.

My post just prior to that linked to some shockingly hateful responses to a pro-Iraq op-ed that appeared in the Oregon Daily Emerald.

Now, a poster calling himself “Valdas Anelauskas” has dropped a despicable anti-Semitic rant… on the very same thread at the Daily Emerald.

So…

We’ve either got a moby, who read my blog and decided to paint the commenters in a wholly undeserved light — which I doubt, as I had, oh, maybe 40 hits last week.

Or…

It was me. It was not.

Or…

It’s Anelauskas himself, and we’ve got some stars aligning over crazytown.

http://www.dailyemerald.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=b4266ac5-467e-4e9d-83cd-58a00a387c1b

UPDATE: 2/14, 2:10p 

The Daily Emerald has deleted the anti-Semitic screed from Valdas Anelauskas.

But they also deleted my comment connecting Valdas Anelauskas to Howard Zinn. Other comments attacking Anelauskas were deleted as well.

Fair, as my comment would not have any context without his bile being present? No, fair would be to post “Comment deleted” in place of Anelauskas’ entry, and to leave other comments as is.

Also — hateful comments directed at the writer of the op-ed, who expressed a conservative point of view? Including one comment threatening rape?

Still there.

I would appreciate any help from others in contacting the Daily Emerald: eglucklich@dailyemerald.com, editor@dailyemerald.com