Israeli TV: Israel Harvested Organs from Palestinians

December 21st, 2009 by sleepercell

Israeli forensic pathologists routinely harvested organs from dead Palestinians in the 1990s.

This has long been a claim by Palestinian families, but was dismissed as a mere “anti-Semitic conspiracy” or shrugged off as “Palestinian paranoia”.  To be honest, while the claims seemed credible to me, I was never sure what to think of it.

Now Israeli TV (and CBS News – the online version, anyway, and for now, that is, before the site pulls the AP story after being deluged with thousands of negative complaints from pro-Israeli activists) is reporting that it’s all too true.

Ghastly.  I won’t use the N-word.

Hillary Clinton went to great pains in her autobiography to denounce a fellow Christian lady (Yasser Arafat’s wife) for “repeating the lie” that Israel had poisoned Palestinian water wells.  I don’t know Suha Arafat’s claim was proven – if someone does, let me know – but I remember thinking that such a belief/theory was plausible based on what Palestinians had already suffered at the hands of the Israelis.

In the same way, there are no doubt some political theories held by some black Americans that most whites would consider ludicrous (e.g., the CIA started AIDS as part of a genocidal effort against blacks).  But after, for example, black Americans were deliberately injected with syphilis – as recently as the 1970s – as part of a “medical experiment” by the U.S. Public Health Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_experiment), you can hardly blame them if they get a little suspicious and, by extension, accuse the government of committing other atrocities against blacks.

It is important to understand cultural context and political history without reflexively acceding to every extant outlandish conspiracy theory.  In this case, the Palestinians who swore their loved ones’ organs had been ripped out were vindicated.  I cringe at the thought that this may lead to an increase in sales of The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion.  And yet I maintain hope that the revelation of this horrific practise will inspire those in Palestine and in the solidarity movement to continue their work in the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/20/ap/middleeast/main6001606.shtml

Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

Super Racist Swiss: So THIS is what democracy, freedom of religion, and liberal Western society looks like

November 29th, 2009 by sleepercell

Ban on Building Mosques in Switzerland

60% of Swiss voted yes on a referendum banning the construction of minarets, a key architectural feature on mosques. This is what freedom of religion looks like?

Man, I can’t imagine even for one second the Western media’s reaction if Pakistan or Egypt banned the construction of churches. At least in those backward countries Christians have the right to build houses of worship.

The posters urging Swiss to approve the referendum smack of the worst Nazi caricatures of Jews in the 1930s.  [Anyone know how to add photo files to a wordpress post?  I'm a (perpetual) n00b.]

Why don’t they just ship us all off to an island and torture us in cages?  (Oh wait, Guantanamo….)

U.S. Soldier Testifies That We Are Committing Terrorism Every Day in Afghanistan

July 1st, 2009 by sleepercell

 

“I love my country, and never once while serving [in Afghanistan] did I feel I was protecting America.”

“Almost 100% of the time, we found that suspected terrorists turned out to be innocent civilians.”

Corporal Rick Reyes of the U.S. Marine Corps

We are mass murderers in Afghanistan.  We are killing civilians every day.  We are doing nothing to protect Afghanis or Americans.

Jewish settlers attack Palestinian labourers as Israeli PM rejects settlement freeze

June 1st, 2009 by sleepercell

[Editor's Note:  Some would say the use of the very word "Jew" or "Jewish" itself is anti-Semitic.  It is the Associated Press writer, Steve Weizman, who writes that "Jewish settlers went on a rampage", and it is the leader of a radical Israeli group who says that "Jewish terror cells will be activated".]

crazy part in article below is where they say that U.S. policy of doing nothing to pressure israel to freeze settlement construction is changing under obama.
either one of two things is true: 
1)  they’re dead wrong, and BO is doing nothing, as well (my feeling, since all BO has done is utter a few words about settlements, which clinton and bush did, too)
or,
2)  if israel doesn’t freeze settlements now, that means that they rejected BO (prez of their staunchest ally), or that they convinced BO to change his mind.
either scenario means a big story that the press should report on.
i bet you the (north american) press will report nothing on this.  in ‘02, when bush publicly and firmly demanded israel step down from its re-invasion of the WB, he reversed course a few days later after coming under pressure from AIPAC, et al.  i’ll never forget his absolute reversal and the press’s totally ignoring his 180-degree turnaround.
i also betcha this story won’t stay as a headline on yahoo! news very long.
story (which nowhere mentions that the settlements themselves are illegal under international law, which is kinda crucial in understanding this issue):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
AP, 1 June 2009

JERUSALEM – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is dismissing U.S. calls for a West Bank settlement freeze as unreasonable.

Officials say Netanyahu delivered his assessment to a closed parliamentary committee Monday.

The U.S. has demanded that Israel halt all construction in the settlements. Netanyahu says some building must continue to accommodate what he calls “natural growth.”

A meeting participant says Netanyahu testified that Israel cannot “freeze life” in existing settlements. He said “there are reasonable requests and unreasonable requests.”

Another participant says Netanyahu said his job is to protect Israel, even if his decisions are not popular.

The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

NABLUS, West Bank (AP) — Mobs of Jewish settlers went on a rampage in the West Bank Monday, attacking Palestinian laborers and setting fire to agricultural land to protest against an Israeli government crackdown on unauthorized outposts in the territory.

Six Palestinian laborers riding on a minivan were injured when stone-throwing settlers attacked them, the workers said.

The violence comes as the Obama administration is pressuring Israel to honor long-standing pledges to tear down wildcat settlement outposts in the West Bank and to freeze expansion in existing, government-sanctioned settlements.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has balked at the U.S. demand to halt construction in existing settlements and faces stiff resistance within his hard-line government against taking down about two dozen of the outposts. The disagreement has caused a rift between the allies.

It has also put Jewish settlers and their backers in the Israeli government on the defensive.

Monday’s violence was all deep inside the West Bank, where most of the hard-line settlements are located.

It started overnight near the radical settlement of Yizhar, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. About 100 settlers blocked a road to protest against Israel’s recent removal of a handful of tiny, uninhabited outposts. Six settlers were later arrested there.

Before dawn near another radical settlement, Kedumim, stone-throwing settlers ambushed a minivan carrying Palestinian laborers to Israel, the workers said. Six of the 15 Palestinians on board were hurt, including Yahye Sadah, who was hit in the head.

“I was hit in the head by a rock from a distance of 3 meters (10 feet). I ran away. I thought I’d die,” said Sadah, 44, who spoke from a nearby hospital after getting six stitches.

Police said settlers threw rocks and burned tires in the area but that only one man was slightly wounded. The attackers fled and no arrests were made, they said.

A few hours later, settlers torched a wooded hilltop near Nablus and set trees and Palestinian agricultural land on fire near the village of Hawara, local council chief Ali Eid said.

Romel Sweiti, a Hawara resident, said the fires torched nearly 1 acre (0.40 hectares) of land. He said about 50 teenage Israeli settler girls gathered on a main road and blocked traffic as Israeli paramilitary police stood in the background.

Settler activist Daniella Weiss, who lives in the area, said she was unaware of the violence. But she vowed that Jewish residents would resist any attempts to move them, “no matter how harsh the policy of the Israeli government will be against us.”

“The policy of dismantling outposts is an opening phase for withdrawal,” she said. “This will not ensure the future security of the state of Israel.”

Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in the settlements among 2.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank. Another 180,000 live in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim both areas — captured byIsrael in the 1967 Mideast war — as parts of a future independent state.

The U.S. considers the settlements an obstacle to peace, but traditionally has done little on the issue, a policy that appears to be changing under President Barack Obama.

The rampage underscored the difficulties Netanyahu faces.

On one hand, he is wary of picking a fight with the U.S., his most important ally. But settlers have a vocal leadership with many allies inside Netanyahu’s government, constraining his ability to take action.

“Anyone with a basic understanding of this issue could have predicted that as talks of evacuations of illegal constructions begin, Jewish terror cells will rear their heads and set the West Bank on fire,” warned Yesh Din, an anti-settlement watchdog group in Israel.

Netanyahu has dispatched his defense minister, Ehud Barak, to Washington this week in hopes of winning approval to allow at least limited construction to continue in the settlements. But the Obama administration has so far signaled it is not willing to budge.

Let’s Blame Saddam! (We are all innocent.)

March 20th, 2009 by sleepercell

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.  Saddam Hussein is dead.  In life, he made a convenient scapegoat for everything that went wrong in the world.  9/11?  Let’s blame Saddam.  Economy tanking 2000-2002?  Let’s blame Saddam.  Mysterious “Tuck Rule” in 2002 that cheated the Raiders out of a playoff victory?  Let’s blame Saddam.  (I do blame him for that one, actually.)

 

The McClatchy Newspaper Service – on average, a far more credible source than the Associated Press - recently published an article detailing how millions of Iraqis still do not have access to clean drinking water (“Baghdad’s Water Still Undrinkable Six Years After Invasion”, 18 March 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090318/wl_mcclatchy/3191674). 

In a bad month, they report that 90% of the water in Baghdad is undrinkable.  Who gets the blame for this?  Is it the country that destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure (including every waste water purification plant) in 1990, rendering it to “the Middle Ages”, as a U.N. official decried on a visit there in 1991?  Is it the country that repeatedly denied Iraq the ability to refurbish its water purification system, punishing millions of children and other civilians (way to “disarm” Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction)?

Nope and nope.  Saddam Hussein is responsible – not the country that inflicted crimes against humanity, the United States.  As Matthew Schofield writes, “Baghdad’s water network was due to be upgraded in 1984, but Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran instead. Then he invaded Kuwait .”

I see.  So Saddam Hussein is at fault for not upgrading the water network, is that right?

Not according to every expert on the subject, including Professor Joy Gordon of Fairfield University.  As she brilliantly detailed in an expose for Harper’s in November 2002, the U.S. used “security concerns” as a facade for “legitimising mass slaughter” of Iraq’s civilian populace by denying them of the most basic humanitarian goods and tools, including clean drinking water.

This was a deliberate, carefully orchestrated campaign, as you can read here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

As terrible a man as Hussein was, it cannot be denied, as Gordon writes, that under his regime, “the well-being of [Iraqi] society at large improved dramatically.  The social programs and economic development continued, and expanded, even during Iraq’s grueling and costly war with Iran from 1980 to 1988, a war that Saddam Hussein might not have survived without substantial U.S. backing.”

Wait a minute, wait a minute.  You’re telling me that Hussein, monster that he was, actually expanded social programmes and economic development during that “gruelling and costly war with Iran”?  Wow.  Then who, pray tell, destroyed those waste water treatment plants?  Who for over a decade denied Iraq electricity, essential foodstuffs, and the spare parts needed to fix destroyed sewage treatment facilities?

It’s all there in Dr. Gordon’s article.  Don’t take my word for it; do your own indepenent research and draw your own conclusions.

In the aftermath of George W. Bush we are all so quick to congratulate ourselves for finally “getting the Iraq thing right”.  Everyone agrees now, it seems, that invading was wrong, not just tactically, but even morally.  Well, Republicans don’t admit to the moral part.  At least no Republican today pounds his chest and brags that “the world is better off without Saddam”; Chris Hitchens has fallen perplexingly silent on this issue, as well.

We all agree that invading was a catastrophic error, and we are all in agreement that each of us was against invading in 2003.  Each of us was rational-minded and humane, each of us weighed the evidence carefully.  Each of us, in retrospect, marched in demonstrations and held placards in rallies to convince our leaders not to invade.  Each of us was – and is – innocent.

Who ever were those (few) misguided, benighted bad guys who wanted to invade Iraq?  Where did they go?  Those in the media and those among us, where are they now?  They are not us, certainly, because we are all innocent, as we have just established.  We did not vote for George Bush in 2004, a year after he/we invaded Eye-rack.  Only a few crazy people did, and they are not representative of the American people. 

(Only Eye-rackis are responsible for getting the leaders they deserve, remember.  Only brown-skinned people are personally guilty for having bad leaders, as it reflects poorly on their moral composition and their society’s collective character.  Winston Churchill told us as much, and we still carry that ethos with us today.) 

 

I will explore this issue of American collective guilt and memory with regard to Iraq in further detail tomorrow, or very soon, at the latest.  I have a good deal of personal experience with it, and possibly, a good memory to go with it.  But we all remember things perfectly, right?

Where is the Sleeper Cell?

March 20th, 2009 by sleepercell

 ’Tis in your hearts, mate.  ‘Tis in your hearts.

 But seriously, where did the Sleeper Cell go? someone asked today.

 This was the reply:

 It’s not so much whether I blog at TI, but whether I blog at all.  Maybe three or four times in the last four months I’ve thought of posting a short comment or entry, but I feel like “everyone’s watching” so I have to get my ducks in a row first, you know what I mean?

 
Take yesterday, when I read an article from the Associated Press about how Iraqis still don’t have clean drinking water, and the AP journo went out of his way to implicate Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran 30 years ago as the cause of this.  WTF?  Everyone knows the waste water purification system was deliberately destroyed by the U.S. in 1990 and the parts needed to fix it were repeatedly denied to Iraq by US and UK vetoes in the UN Security Council.  A brilliant article written by a philosophy prof in Harper’s Nov 2002 issue explained this in some detail.
 
But I don’t have that article with me, so I’m just making an oblique reference to something without all the billion hyperlinks that bloggers are so fond of.  Do people still read Harper’s, or “traditional” magazines as such?  Am I too old and fuddy-duddyish in this warp-speed world for your TI readers?
 
Dunno why I awoke today and wondered what I’m doing with my life.  Being a doctor is tremendously unfulfilling.  I wish there were a quest or a mission with lofty goals I could pursue.  Who’s with me?
=====
So that was the reply.  Perhaps I should have established some rapport with my audience, built up some street cred before posting such an intimately paranoid comment like this.  (Even my first post in the heady days of November 2008 was eerily paranoid and self-conscious.)
Sleeper Cell is going to resume his nap now.  G’night.

Obama’s story could only happen in America (right?)

November 19th, 2008 by sleepercell

Smashing our self-congratulatory American exceptionalism to pieces:

Steve Weissman of Slate explores the orgiastic myth creation that Obama, the son of a foreigner, a man with an exotic-sounding name, could only be elected in America.  All those other countries in the world are dark, evil, and backward; they are unable to elect someone who does not look or sound like themselves.  Our electing Obama proves, once and for all, that Americans are the most enlightened people on earth.

Right?

Weissman mentions among his many examples that of Alberto Fujimori, the ethnically Japanese president of Peru, but neglects to mention the recent rash of South American countries – OK, at least two:  Ecuador and Argentina – to elect Arabs as heads of state.

In fact, Argentina’s recent president, Carlos Menem, was well-known to be a Muslim.  Argentina’s constitution (until very recently) forbade anyone from becoming president unless s/he was a Catholic, so Menem made a very public conversion, then won election and later re-election to his nation’s highest post.

Let’s face it:  if Obama were a Mozzlim who recently converted to Christianity, there is no way he would have been elected.

Even after Menem’s conversion, his wife and children remained Muslims, and this was well-known to the public.  Once again:  if Michelle Obama were a Muslim and raised her children as Muslims, Obama would never even have come near winning the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency.

Only in America?  I think not.

 http://www.slate.com/id/2204822

Bill a possible liability for Hill as she seeks Secy of State post?

November 15th, 2008 by sleepercell

 

People always wondered why Hillary Clinton would stay married to a man who was supposedly cheating on her every chance he got – even with ugly chicks and dumb chicks.  The usual reply is that it’s all about power.  Staying married to Bill means staying married to power, to money, to fame.  Hillary parlayed an otherwise mediocre legal career and undistinguished public life into a Senatorship from a state she’s not from, and has never lived in, and nearly into becoming President of these United States.

But now, reports Sharon Theimer of the Associated Press, Bill’s extensive foreign (double) dealings as ex-prez could nix her chances of being named Secratary of State by Our Great Leader (aka Barack Obama).

What gives?  For starters, Bill has hobnobbed with and taken cashola from many of the leaders Hillary has repeatedly blasted for being human rights violators.  For another, the UAE paid Bill as a consultant for how to deal with the Dubai Ports World mess in 2006 that Hillary helped create. 

(Remember how vociferous she was in destroying that deal?  She was the lead jingoistic cheerleader in the Senate’s deafening xenophobic cry to force Dubay and Dubya to cancel the deal.  And she sickeningly claimed that it had nothing to do with racism against Arabs – it was simply about preventing our [good, American, Christian!] ports from being controlled by foreigner, any foreigners.  Fortunately no one asked her why she was alright with Norway, the UK, and at least four other [good, white, Christian] nations controlling U.S. ports in cush arrangements similar to the one Dubai Ports World was seeking.)

The last paragraph of Ms. Theimer’s article, quoting Bill’s comments on the Palestinians from a March 2006 address to a London audience, is truly priceless.  In expressing the barest of sympathy for the Palis (whose nation he helped destroy), Bil created a scenario which, according to Ms. Theimer, would “make a White House press office rush for damage control.”

Yup, you say something like, “Palestinians are not pure evil,” and immediately the press and 400+ members of Congress are on you like bat dung.  (See Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries, and Hillary herself in 1998, to name but two of quadrillions of examples.)

The article in full is posted below, since I dread link rot.  The final paragraph on the Palis is priceless.

===START ARTICLE===
Husband’s foreign deals may pose issue for Clinton
by Sharon Theimer
Associated Press
11/15/08
 
WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton’s globe-trotting business deals and fundraising for his foundation sometimes put his activities abroad at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and could cause complications if President-elect Barack Obama picks her to be secretary of state.
 
During her own White House campaign, the New York senator criticized China for its crackdown on protesters in Tibet and urged President George W. Bush to skip the Olympics in Beijing. Her campaign was embarrassed by reports that her husband’s foundation had raised money from a Chinese Internet company that posted an online government “Most Wanted” notice seeking information on Tibetan human-rights activists that may have been involved in the demonstrations.
 
Hillary Clinton has campaigned as a champion of workers’ rights. This year, Brazilian labor inspectors found what they called “degrading” living conditions for sugar cane workers employed by an ethanol company in which Bill Clinton invested.
 
In the Senate, Clinton was an outspoken critic of a proposed deal under which a Dubai company planned to buy a British business that helped run six major U.S. ports. The company, DP World, privately sought Bill Clinton’s advice about how to respond to the controversy over the port plan, which later was abandoned.
 
Obama met with Hillary Clinton on Thursday at his headquarters in Chicago, and some Democrats were enthusiastic amid speculation the pair discussed the job of secretary of state. She declined Friday to say anything about the matter, and Obama is understood to be considering other candidates as his top diplomat, including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and retiring Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
Bill Clinton’s fundraising for his presidential library and charitable activities also could pose additional headaches for his wife if he selects her for the job.
 
Since leaving the White House in early 2001, Bill Clinton has raised at least $353 million for the William J. Clinton Foundation, which finances his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., as well as his global anti-AIDS initiative and other charitable efforts.
 
The former president has raised money overseas beyond the Chinese Internet company’s contributions: from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar, The New York Times reported last year.
 
His foundation reaped millions of dollars from Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, and Clinton accompanied Giustra on a 2005 trip to Kazakhstan, whose human-rights record Hillary Clinton had criticized, the newspaper reported. The pair met with Kazakhstan’s president, and within days Giustra’s company landed preliminary agreements giving it rights to buy into uranium projects controlled by a Kazakhstan state-owned enterprise. Clinton said he had nothing to do with the deal.
 
Louis Freeh, the FBI director under the former president, said Clinton sought a library donation from Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah during a discussion of the investigation into the deadly 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers U.S. military dormitory in Saudi Arabia.
Freeh wrote in his book “My FBI” that the FBI was trying to get Abdullah to let the FBI question suspects the Saudi kingdom had in custody and that Clinton failed to pressure Abdullah.
 
Clinton denied Freeh’s account, and has said his business dealings and foundation fundraising pose no political conflicts for his wife. The former president has so far refused to identify donors to his foundation.
 
Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the former president, declined to comment on any potential difficulties that Clinton’s activities could pose for his wife should she become secretary of state or whether the former president would alter any of his fundraising or other activities to avoid potential conflicts.
 
The Clintons have taken in more than $100 million since leaving the White House, thanks in large part to six-figure speaking fees charged by the former president and to his book royalties and partnership with Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund, a Los Angeles-based investment firm founded by a longtime Clinton fundraiser.
 
Bill Clinton has cultivated the image of a senior statesman since leaving the White House and often makes speeches abroad. That role could be diminished if his wife were representing the Obama administration on international issues.
 
In a 6,400-word speech in London in March 2006, the former president laid out his views on a variety of world issues, including the Middle East peace process. Buried in the lengthy address were a few lines that could make a White House press office rush for damage control.
 
“The Palestinians are younger and poorer today than they were when we started the peace process in 1993,” he said. “And I have never met a single poor Palestinian anywhere in the world except in the Palestinian territories. Every single Palestinian I know in America is a millionaire or a college professor, and I say that with deep respect, but when there is a conflict, when there is an absence of security, there is always an absence of opportunity.”
===END ARTICLE===

Welcome to the Sleeper Cell, Mr. Obama

November 8th, 2008 by sleepercell

 I suppose I’m the one being welcomed, and not the other way round.  I’m honoured to have been given space on this site to express a few views, however militant or contrarian they may seem to the “average American” (I’m still waiting to meet the average American; I’ll bet he’s extroardinary), or even to “the average American Muslim” (whom I have met).

This is not a new blog, in fact, but a continuation of a less new one found at www.sleepercellayearehcue.blogspot.com.  That one was launched in June 2007 and has drawn a tiny readership from about 30 countries.  That isn’t false modesty:  one person each in 30 countries is a tiny readership.

Enough of the intros, though.  I’m here, I’m blogging, I welcome your input, put-downs, put-offs, putrid assessments.  As the sidebars and other components of the website progress, I’ll give some short biographical info about myself, revealing that I am an American, if average, and that I am interested in “Mozzlim issues” – and perhaps a little over-enamoured of “air-quotes in writing”.  Most other biographical data will be kept strictly confidential, or may even change as is suitable.

Obama wins.  I should probably read what all the other talkislam.info’ers are saying about this, because my initial reactions may be little more than a rehashing of yours, and yours in turn, may be little more than a rehashing of the popular press.  Obama wins, he is Our Great Leader, this is a Turning Point in History, each of us who voted for him (full disclosure:  I did not) is personally responsible for his Great Victory and should now engage not only in Obamania panegyrics but also a frenzy of personal self-congratulation.  Thanks to us (and remember, I’m not one of you), the world is Saved.

Rahm Emanuel?  I won’t make a fuss of his middle name – it is Israel – because no right-thinking person made a fuss of Obama’s.  I will, however, point out that he is a former Israeli citizen, not unlike Martin Indyk, Clinton’s senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council*.  He is also one of the most hawkish members of government, Republican or Democrat.  Perhaps he gets it from his father, a former Irgun terrorist.  Yup, that Irgun, the pre-Israeli Zionist thugs who blew up the King David Hotel and assassinated the British foreign minister, Lord Moyne**.  As Leah Rabin, wife of the late Yitzhak Rabin once said, “We were terrorists until we got what we wanted.”

But I’m getting ahead of myself, and footnoting irresponsibly.  All this information has probably been batted around talkislam.info for some two days now, which is longer than a lifetime in the blogsphere.

Emanuel’s ancestry is not at issue here, either – except as a fun historical footnote to our current tragic times – but his hawkish, hysterical support of invading Iraq illegally in 2003 is.  It’s almost as if in choosing Emanuel Obama is deliberately thumbing his nose at those who accused him of being a peacenik and a liberal (and a Mozzlim).  “I’ll show you what a pragmatic asshole I can be.” 

I’m just stretching my legs out in this first post; this isn’t necessarily who I am.  Give it time.  (“Yeah, well give Obama some time, asshole.  Don’t be so quick to judge!”  Point taken.)  I’m not this angry.  This was supposed to be a post expressing guilt at being unable to share in all the Obama cheer, about being the quiet guy in the corner who doesn’t want to be the party pooper but is unsure about how best to fake it and smile for his friends.  It turned out like this.

 

*Is this right?  Am I confusing Martin Indyk with Dennis Ross?  Indyk only became a U.S. citizen in 1993.  He was born an Australian.  Was he also a dual Israeli citizen, or was that Ross?  Or both?  Perhaps I shouldn’t play so fast and loose with details in this first post.  I’m losing your confidence.

** Lehi.  Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, is the Zionist terrorist outfit that murdered Lord Moyne, not Irgun.  My mistake.  Irgun was headed by Yitzhak Rabin, who later became PM of Israel.  One of the Stern Gang’s leaders was Yitzhak Shamir, who also later became PM of Israel.  I confess, it becomes difficult at times to keep track of all the Zionist terrorists who assassinated foreign dignitaries (Count Bernadotte, anyone?) and later became distinguished prime ministers of Israel; it doesn’t help matters that two of these terrorists are named Yitzhak.