Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Why Does MJ Rosenberg Use Anti-Semitic Buzzwords To Display His Israel Hatred ?

Perhaps when he was a child, MJ Rosenberg's parents beat him with an Israeli flag, or maybe the first time he visited the Holy Land he tripped and got a "boo-boo" on his knee or maybe an Israeli doctor unnecessarily removed his tonsils, just like President Obama said doctors do it all the time . The way he continually blasts Israel there must have been some horrible event in his childhood that caused the intense hatred he has for the Jewish State.

Understand, I am not talking about the fact that Rosenberg disagrees with Israeli policies, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But he presents his disagreement with such vitriol, such twisting of the facts that makes one wonder if a scientist in Israel invented a cure for cancer, would MJ Rosenberg blast that scientist for putting the chemotherapy drug manufactures out of business.

Rosenberg just loves to use anti-Semitic buzz words to show his distaste for the Jewish State, he talks about the "pro-Israel lobby," a nice way to say that the Jews control the government. He complains that you cant write anti-Israel pieces in the media, a nice way to say the Jews control the media, and he likes to substitute the word "neocon" as a nice way to say "those dammed Jews."

This is not to say that MJ is one of those "self hating Jews," honestly I believe it's worse than that. He understands the generally, the progressive left is anti-Israel and the progressive media is his bread and butter. So in order to prove his loyalty to the progressive media he acts with venom toward Israel and stereotypes his own people. Rosenberg is just trying to show his progressive handlers that MJ stands for Malign Jews.
I personally crossed Rosenberg's writing path twice, 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 and Keith Weissman, the former AIPAC staffers who were wrongly charged with espionage (the charges were dropped this year). In both cases, Rosenberg’s strategy was to attack people personally, throw around the “N” word (neocon), twist words around (including mine) and accuse those of us who differ from his point of view as hell-bent to run the foreign policy of the United States of America (Heck, like most husbands, I don't even have a say in running the foreign policy of my household)

The biggest joke was his accusation that the "powerful Israel lobby" was behind the removal of Chas Freeman. Actually it was mostly the work of two people, one of which was me, and I will take a lie detector test if necessary to prove that my control of anything is minimal.

Let me give you some more recent examples of what I am talking about.

In a recent piece he wrote for his primary employer, George Soros Media Matters he claimed that the reason for the Egyptian rebellion is that the Jews have blunted all efforts to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian issue:
If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.

The regime that the Israeli government and its U.S. lobby have depended upon to enforce the status quo is going down. It is not clear when, but it's going to be soon, much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. And you can be sure that any democratic government that takes Mubarak's place is not going to play the role of America's (let alone Israel's) enforcer in the Middle East. ..Of course, no one would even be worried about the peace treaty if the Israelis had agreed to implement the critical second part of the Camp David Accords.
That was the part that would have ended the occupation. But the Israelis chose to ignore it and the lobby and the ever-faithful Congress blocked Carter's efforts to push it through.,
Yes MJ works for George Soros Media Matters and loves Jimmy Carter, if that's not abandoning reason to endear himself the the progressive mainstream I don't know what is. But forgetting about his motivation for a moment, look at what he said, its all Israel's fault and the Jews made Congress roadblock Carter. Did pro-Israel supporters put pressure on Congress during the Carter administration?  Not being involved at the time I couldn't tell you for sure, but I suppose they did. I am also sure that it was no more pressure than other interests groups put on Congress and a hell of a lot less than the influence that groups such as organized labor put on the Obama today, or the pressure that Arab oil nations put on Carter, George HW Bush, and Secretary of State Clinton, whose husband makes about $12,000,000 a year from Arab interests. 

There are hundreds of interest groups roaming the halls of congress and the administration offices every day, each trying to convince government officials to go their way everything from unions and abortion rights to OPEC and pharmaceutical manufactures, Rosenberg's meme of the all-powerful pro-Israel (Jewish) lobbyists is simply a polite way of exploiting horrible stereotypes to argue his cause. Did he ever think that maybe Congress objected to what Carter was doing because, I don't know, it was the right thing to do for America, that even back then Israel was a strong ally who protected Israels interests?

When he talks about Israel being the "roadblock" Rosenberg is twisting the facts using selective memory. Does he really forget that at the end of the Clinton administration and again at the end of the Bush administration, Israel offered the Palestinians a deal that would have given them 98% of what they wanted and both times, first Arafat and then Abbas walked away from the deal?

For Malign Jews Rosenberg, facts are an inconvenient thing. In that same article Rosenberg said:
I am often accused of harping on the lobby's baleful influence. I plead guilty. But it's my obligation because (1) I know from personal experience — 15 years on Capitol Hill and four at AIPAC — how it operates, (2) I know how little it really cares about Israel, and (3) I am free to tell the truth about it. If I worked in the mainstream media or in the U.S. government, I wouldn't be.
How do you like that, according to MJ those Jews control US foreign policy and the run the media. I wonder why he left out the banks and Hollywood? Rosenberg must keep a copy of the handbook for Jewish fear-mongering, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on hand with him at all times because he uses the same stereotypes.

This week Mr. Rosenberg is doubling down on his Jewish stereotypes and Israel bashing with a column in the Huffington Post, which is appropriate as that progressive site happens to be one of the most anti-Semitic hate sites on the internet. Rosenberg begins with:
It has been a week since the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution opposing Israeli settlements. You can't help but wonder if the Obama administration is now having second thoughts.

Forget the policy ramifications of the veto: that it badly damaged America's chances of facilitating negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and that it further alienated the United States from the Arab and Muslim world at a critical moment in history. Lay aside that the veto cut the Israeli peace camp off at the knees while vindicating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policy of never giving an inch to the Palestinians (or to the Americans). And, obviously, don't even think about the hypocrisy of the United States voting against its own long-standing policy on settlements.
Again lets forget for a second, MJ's obvious factual errors like this resolution did not match the Obama administration policy, the fact that Israel offered a 10-month freeze and Abbas still refused to come to the table until that freeze was 9 1/2 months old, or even the fact that it is the Palestinian side, not Israel who refuses to come to the table. Instead lets take a look at his prose
No. Focus instead on the domestic politics because, after all, the U.S. opposed the resolution in order to guard President Obama from attacks by the right wing of the pro-Israel community, that small minority of the community whose mantra is "Bibi, right or wrong."
For some reason the administration believed that vetoing the resolution would appease that crowd. That belief is responsible for over two years of vacillation on the issue of Israeli settlements (the key issue thwarting negotiations).
Ah, so it isn't all the Jews, its only the right wing Jews who push the the other Jews to go their way. This of course is followed up by that same minority arm-twisting  the President and Congress to abandon all reason and support Israel. 

This is the President who lost his majority in the House because he didn't give a rats ass about what the majority of the entire US voting public thought about his health care bill, but he is going to allow his arm to be twisted by a small minority of the Israel Lobby (Jews). Think about that for a second, even if all Jews thought the same way (a physical impossibility--trust me) according the US Census Bureau Jews represent about 2.1% of all Americans. Does he really believe that a small minority (his description) of an interest group representing 2.1% of the population can force the president to act one way, when depending on the poll,  up to 65% of the population couldn't stop him from pushing through Obamacare? Who does he think he is kidding?
But here is what the Obama administration does not understand about the politics.

The "Bibi, right or wrongers" are not Obama supporters and will not be voting for him in the next election. They certainly will not be sending him campaign contributions.
Ah, MJ is channeling former Secretary of State James Baker who once said, "F**K the Jews they won't vote for us anyway!"
Why would they? They did not support Obama in 2008, largely because they did not believe that anyone named Barack Obama could ever share their skewed view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And, as the 2009 Cairo speech demonstrated, he doesn't. He supports Israel but believes -- and he has said this often -- that supporting Israel requires ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state in the occupied territories.
Now he is saying that Jews who oppose Obama do so because of his name, his heritage. We are racists, who knew?

Just before the last Presidential Election, I wrote a series of articles on different topics suggesting to readers why they should not vote for Barack Obama.  One called An Election Plea To Those Who Love Israel, outlined the reasons why Israel supporters should not vote for the man who would become the POTUS. The primary reason was that he assembled himself a list of advisers some of whom had a background of being anti-Israel, the rest had a background of being anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Not once, did I argue that his heritage disallows him to be president. Because of who he surrounded himself with I predicted that an Obama administration may very well overtake the administration of George HW Bush as the most anti-Israel in history (IMHO Bush was worse than Carter). Sadly my prediction may be very well turn out to be true.
Unfortunately, the lobby and a few of his advisers seem to have convinced him that being true to his beliefs will cost him in the 2012 election. Hence the veto.

Obama has the politics wrong. According to the 2010 American Jewish Committee poll (the largest and most respected poll of the Jewish community's political attitudes) 64 percent of Jewish voters favor the dismantling of all or some of Israeli settlements. Obviously, that 64 percent will not be lost to Obama for condemning settlement expansion.

I agree with Mr Rosenberg that the Majority of Jews will vote for Obama in 2012, but it has little to do with his stance on Israel and lots to do with the fact that Jews tend to vote liberal. He will not, however, come anywhere close to the numbers he got in 2008 and that too, has little to do with his stance on Israel.
Since I began to vote for POTUS, the Democratic Party candidate that received the smallest portion of Jewish voters was Jimmy Carter's reelection bid (55%). Here's the little secret that Rosenberg can't get through his biased head. I know it's shocking, but Israel isn't he only reason why Jews vote for a candidate.

For instance, I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 not because of Carter's position on Israel but because he was incompetent, he "lost" Iran and Zimbabwe, and totally destroyed the economy.  Remember those days of 13.5% inflation, 7% unemployment and an economy that can only be described as near death? It was called stagflation. That was the reason Carter tanked in the Jewish community(and just about every other community). 

If I am correct in predicting a similar skew for the Jewish vote in 2012, only a small part of it will be because of his passive aggressive treatment of Israel, the main reason will be because of his destruction of the economy, reckless spending and a naive foreign policy that has alienated most of our closest allies including Britain, France and Germany.
So who might be impressed by the veto? People who will be supporting Romney, Huckabee, Palin or whoever the GOP nominates in 2012.
This appeared in Commentary -- the bible of the neoconservatives -- and was written by its editor, Jonathan S. Tobin. Tobin, although not well known, is a leading voice in the "Israel can do no wrong" chorus.
Well there he goes again, Commentary describes itself as a Jewish publication, but then again, Malign Jews Rosenberg believes that Neoconservatives is a polite way to say "Them Damnned Jews"
COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

If you wanted to call a magazine "The Bible of the Neoconservatives" I would suggest the New Republic, whose famous Editor, Marin Peretz is part of what Rosenberg would call the "Netanyahu right or wrong" group, was one of the first Jewish supporters of Obama. In fact it was Peretz's blessing along with that of former NYC Mayor Ed Koch that convinced some "on the fence Jews" to vote for Obama.

After saying that the Jews run the Congress, Presidency and press and saying that our Presidential selections are based primarily on Israel, MJ changes course by saying
.... President Obama received close to 80 percent of the Jewish vote in the last election and will do just as well next time. There is no chance that the president will lose that support just because he promotes policies that advance U.S. interests by promoting peace. To think otherwise is to suggest that American Jews are something less than Americans. And that is a damnable lie.
Again ignoring his debatable point as to whether Obama's policy is good for America, MJ and I are in total agreement with one point, suggesting that American Jews are something less than Americans is a damnable lie. But suggesting that we are this nefarious cabal whose domination of American foreign policy is only outmatched by our control of the media and our propensity to vote as a block is an even bigger and more damnable lie.

To be honest I wish that Mr Rosenberg had the confidence in his own positions to argue based on facts rather than trying to trash the Jewish people. Who knows he might even draw some people over to his side. That, however, might be impossible, I suspect that if he had the facts to back up his stereotypes he would use them, but in his case, as in the case of many like him, facts are a difficult roadblock to overcome.

No comments: