OBAMA Unleashes Media Matters to Attack Israel and Praise Goldstone Report

Media Matters is President Obama's Media watchdog. Its role is to attack public figures, talking heads, politicians, bloggers, just about anybody who says anything bad about the President or his policies. Now Rather than concentrating on the counter-attack the group is going directly against Israel, once again showing Obama's true colors regarding the Jewish State.

As anti-Israel attackers tend to do, Obama uses a Jew to lead the charge against the Jewish State, in this case its MJ Rosenberg, Jewish-Lobby conspiracy theorist, bully with a keyboard, self-proclaimed violator of national security.

To be honest I have only crossed paths with Rosenberg's writing twice before, in the matter of Chas Freeman President Obama's pick for NIC Chairman who was a tool for both the Saudi and Chinese government and in the matter of Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC who was wrongly charged with espionage (the charges were dropped this year). In both cases, Rosenberg’s strategy has been is to attack people personally, throw around the “N” word (neo-con), twist words around (including mine) and accuse those of us who have differ from his point of view as hell-bent to run the foreign policy of the United States of America.

Now Obama is sending a "hired Jew" (MJ Rosenberg) and Media Matters to do his dirty work against Israel.

This week there was new evidence that mainstream progressives are confronting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After years of silence on the issue, progressives are coming around to understanding that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just a "Jewish" or "Muslim" issue but one that affects all Americans.

It was reported on Wednesday that Israel Policy Forum, where I worked for a decade before coming to Media Matters Action Network, is moving into the Center for American Progress, the progressive think-tank.

Center for American Progress is run by John Podesta, the head of Obama's transition team. A major source of funding for the organization is self-proclaimed Nazi Sympathizer George Soros.

Israel Policy Forum was established in 1993 at the behest of then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin because he did not trust the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to support his efforts at achieving peace with the Palestinians. He had a particular aversion to Steve Rosen, AIPAC's director of policy, who was (and is) an ultra-hawk and actually had the clout to thwart Rabin in Washington. (Not anymore. Rosen was indicted under the Espionage Act - charges were later dropped - and AIPAC fired him).

Another Fabrication, it is true that Rabin, helped to start the group. But it was Bill Clinton administration who tried to unsuccessfully tried to sidetrack AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations using the Israel Policy Forum. When Israeli Politician, Yossi Beilin, tried to help American Israel Public with downsizing AIPAC and the Conference of Pres., PM Rabin and Mr. Barak quickly put an end to that.

Two other points that Rosenberg conveniently forgets. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is the last Israeli leader who did not support a Palestinian State. In fact, a few weeks before he was assassinated, he laid out his vision, no Palestinian State, No division of Jerusalem, no return to 1967 borders (read the speech here).


The other point is that he is correct Rosen was wrongly accused, which means only it is MJ Rosenberg himself who has been proved to have made any sort of violation of US Security.

In any case, Rabin directed his American friends to support IPF, which promoted the peace process even during the dark years of the Bush administration when the United States gave Israel a blank check (literally and figuratively) to do whatever it wanted whenever it wanted.

If by blank check MJ Rosenberg means that George Bush is the only President in United States history that considered an attack killing dozens of Jewish civilians as terrorism, I can't disagree. Carter appeased terrorism against Jews, so did George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton. So did George W. Bush, at least until 9/11/01 when he began to understand what Israel was facing. Under Obama, America has returned to its Anti-Israel Stance.

IPF's alliance with CAP follows my move from IPF to Media Matters Action, which is dedicated to combating the influence of the organized right by rebutting their myths with facts. Like CAP, Media Matters Action wants to move the Israeli-Palestinian issue from a corner of the political universe to its center.

But wait MJ, You haven't used any facts yet, when are they coming? Here is your fact? Those Jews control foreign policy right?

Traditionally, American liberals and progressives have looked the other way on Israel-Palestine out of fear of antagonizing the status quo lobby (not just AIPAC, but other organizations associated with it). Liberals and progressives, who are outspoken about alleged crimes committed by the US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, rush to the unquestioning defense of Israel's conduct in the West Bank, Lebanon, Gaza or anywhere else.

I was right....what do I win?

For instance, just last month, Congress passed a resolution on war crimes in Gaza.

Did Congress condemn Israel for its disproportionate use of force (1400 Palestinians killed including 320 children vs. 13 Israelis)?

States have duties to protect the lives of their civilians and soldiers, but they must balance this against their duty to minimize incidental loss of civilian lives and civilian property during military operations. That is precisely the reason that international law assesses proportionality from the standpoint of a "reasonable military commander," and the balancing may not be second-guessed in hindsight, based on new information that has come to light. As with the principle of distinction, a showing of intent is required for there to have been any arguable "war crime" based on excessive civilian harm in comparison with military objectives. In other words, the existence of a war crime turns not on the reasonableness of the commander's weighing of military advantage against civilian harm, but on whether he or she knew that the attack would cause clearly disproportionate harm, but proceeded intentionally, notwithstanding this knowledge.

The IDF took extensive steps to weigh the risk of civilian harm against the existence of important military objectives, based on the information available at the time of targeting decisions. On numerous occasions, The IDF's situation analysis frequently led to a decision not to attack legitimate military targets, to avoid the possibility of civilian harm, even though such an attack might not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage

And Rosenberg doesn't even mention the years of Palestinian rocket attack or the videos showing that Hamas was using its people for human shields.

Nope. On the contrary, the House condemned the distinguished Justice Richard Goldstone, who wrote the United Nation's report on Gaza, for daring to criticize Israel's conduct. It called on the Obama administration to do everything it could to suppress the United Nations report! Only 36 representatives voted "no."

Nor are the liberals who voted for the resolution (or the dozens of other one-sided resolutions which pass every year) embarrassed by their votes. They believe that shutting up and going along with the lobby is good politics. As I learned during 20 years on Capitol Hill, Members of Congress think that most liberals and progressives are indifferent to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the ones who do care (often donors) are hawks.

Nor shod they be embarrassed, this space is too small to cover it all but if you truly want to know about the Goldstone Report, this site has hundreds of resources.

That may be changing now. J Street is organizing the majority of the Jewish community which, believe it or not, actually supports negotiations and not the status quo. And Media Matters Action and CAP are going to keep their followers (most of the progressive community) up to date on what is actually going on in Washington.

Another Lie, Most Jews haven't heard of J Street. Those who know of it mistrust it. J-street claims to be pro-Israel, but the next time it takes a stance that matches that of the majority of Israelis it will be the first time. openly campaign against Israel on the grounds that it possesses a superior understanding of what is best for Israelis. Seeded with dollars by self-proclaimed Nazi collaborator George Soros, and given "legitimacy" by President Obama because he agrees with their anti-Israel position, J-Street works to lobby the US Government to pressure Israelis, contrary to their will, to take steps that could have life and death implications.

J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.” Those settlements, adds J Street, have “undermine[d] peace prospects by making Palestinians doubt Israeli motives and commitment.” Why the presence of Jews in Arab lands constitutes an obstacle to peace, while more than a million Arabs live comfortably in Israel, J Street doesn’t explain

During the conflict with Hamas, which was endorsed by all Jewish political parties in the Knesset both right and left, J Street called Israel's "escalation in Gaza would be counterproductive" and was "disproportionate." It also made a moral equivalency argument between the policies of Israel and Hamas, stating they found difficulty in distinguishing "between who is right and who is wrong" and "picking a side." That doesn't sound very pro-Israel.

After all, if liberal and progressive voters know that their beloved senator or representative - who is so progressive on everything else - is an uber-hawk on Israel, the legislator might think twice about being a rubber stamp for the Likud party.

But MJ, when the Gaza war happened, Kadima Party was in power, then as now, the Defense Minister is Ehud Barak from the Labor Party, the Party of Yitzhak Rabin. And by the way Likud PM Binyamin Netanyahu supports the creation of a Palestinian State (unlike Rabin).

I am not criticizing the Republicans or the right in general. Their support for horrific humanitarian disasters like the Gaza war fits in with their hawkish, belligerent worldview view. Accordingly, they aren't hypocrites. That label belongs to the progressives who exempt Israel from standards they apply everywhere else.

Bottom line, supporting the status quo is bad for America and it's bad for Israel. Supporting vigorous US diplomacy to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state not only helps secure Israel, it helps secure our own country from the blowback that could be produced by the fury our policies are creating worldwide.

What MJ Rosenthal is saying is that those standards they apply everywhere else but not Israel is that the rest of the world is allowed to protect its citizens, Israel is not. That is his position, Media Matters position, and the position of the Obama administration which Media Matters speaks for.