Politics Plus

J Street Project could evolve into a replacement for AIPAC.

This year has seen a dramatic shift in American Jews’ attitudes toward Israel. In January many liberal Jews were shocked by the Gaza war, in which Israel used overwhelming force against a mostly defenseless civilian population unable to flee. Then came the rise to power of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose explicitly anti-Arab platform was at odds with an American Jewish electorate that had just voted 4 to 1 for a minority president. Throw in angry Israelis writing about the "rot in the Diaspora," and it’s little wonder young American Jews feel increasingly indifferent about a country that has been at the center of Jewish identity for four decades.

These stirrings on the American Jewish street will come to a head in late October in Washington with the first national conference of J Street, the reformation Israel lobby. J Street has been around less than two years, but it is summoning liberal–and some not so liberal–Jews from all over the country to "rock the status quo," code for AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

Sure sounds like a velvet revolution in the Jewish community, huh? Not so fast. The changes in attitudes are taking place at the grassroots; by and large, Jewish leaders are standing fast. And as for policymakers, the opening has been slight. There seems little likelihood the conference will bring us any closer to that holy grail of the reformers: the ability of a US president, not to mention Congress, to put real pressure on Israel.

First the good news. There’s no question the Gaza conflict has helped break down the traditional Jewish resistance to criticizing Israel. Gaza was "the worst public relations disaster in Israel’s history," says M.J. Rosenberg, a longtime Washington analyst who reports for Media Matters Action Network. For the first time in a generation, leading American Jews broke with the Jewish state over its conduct. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen said he was "shamed" by Israel’s actions, while Michelle Goldberg wrote in the Guardian that Israel’s killing of hundreds of civilians as reprisal for rocket attacks was "brutal" and probably "futile."

Even devoted friends of Israel Leon Wieseltier and Michael Walzer expressed misgivings about the disproportionate use of force, and if Reform Jewish leaders could not bring themselves to criticize the war, the US left was energized by the horror. Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of Code Pink, threw herself into the cause of Gazan freedom after years of ignoring Israel-Palestine, in part out of deference to her family’s feelings. In The Nation Naomi Klein came out for boycott, divestment and sanctions; later, visiting Ramallah, she apologized to the Palestinians for her "cowardice" in not coming to that position earlier… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Nation>

Change will not come overnight, but I’m thoroughly gratified to see a more appropriate and more representative group for Jewish Americans than AIPAC.  Under the guise of representing American Jews, AIPAC is far more representative of American neocons, like Dead-eye Dick Cheney, and theocons like Paul Hagee.  The most beneficial development I can see for Israel is peace in the middle east.  The policies of the current government of Israel, supported by AIPAC, virtually assure the continuation of the conflict.

It just goes on and on.  Recently Congressional Republicans have signed onto a conspiracy theory that Muslims are trying to take over Congress by becoming Interns.  Rachael Maddow had the story:

Here’s more information about the creator of this hogwash, David Gaubatz.

Let’s take a closer look at the co-author of Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America, just out from WND Books, and now at #16 among all books on Amazon.

That would be David Gaubatz, a former Air Force investigator and Arabic speaker, who dispatched his son Chris to grow a beard and go undercover as a Muslim to obtain an internship at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Gaubatz, who has long warned about the threat of Islamism in the United States, has claimed that he found Saddam’s long-lost WMDs while in Iraq and has labeled Obama "Muslim" and a "self-admitted ‘crack head.’"

The documents Chris took from CAIR are the basis for the new book, which has been seized on by four House Republicans to call for a probe into whether the group planted Muslim "intern spies" on key national security committees.

Keep in mind that Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) actually wrote the foreward for the book, warning that "We Americans must wake up before it is too late!"

Here’s the lowdown on Gaubatz:

• He referred to "our Muslim leader" Barack Obama on his blog last year.
• He has claimed that he personally found sites with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when he was an agent with the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations in 2003. But the Syrians beat us to the punch on excavating the sites, Gaubatz claims, and the U.S. government suppressed the information to avoid the "explosive revelation of their own lethal incompetence."
• Just yesterday he wondered about Congress’ two Muslim representatives, "How much information do we have on Carson and Congressman Keith Ellison?"
• According to Glenn Greenwald, Gaubatz in 2007 was focusing his time on creating "a comprehensive map of every mosque and Islamic school in the U.S" in order to determine which ones were preaching "Islamic law." The Web site that explained that project has since been made private.
• He said in September 2008 on a now scrubbed blog post at www.jihadishere.blogspot.com that: "We are now on the verge of allowing a self admitted ‘crack-head’ to have his finger on every nuclear weapon in America."
• He apparently has a history of faking conversions to Islam as part of his investigations.

Media Matters has a comprehensive roundup here and Greenwald has more here… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

Please don’t think I’m equating ALL Republicans to David Gaubatz.  This guy is lunatic fringe for sure.  Nobody in their right mind would take him seriously.  But I have to ask the question.  Why did a Republican Congresswoman, Sue Myrick, write the forward to his book?  Why are Republicans in Congress presenting his views on the floor of Congress.  GOP hate speech is going to cause more deaths.  Why haven’t GOP leaders come out and condemned this?  I can only come to one conclusion.  The leadership of the GOP, not Republican people, do not care how many die.  They care only about grabbing power, no mater what they have to do, who they have to harm, or who gets killed in the process.  Until that changes, every Republican in office is one Republican too many!

John Ensign is the lone Pentecostal in the US Senate, and his days may be numbered.

The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide, current and former officials said Friday.

“Whenever allegations of improper conduct are brought to the attention of Senate Ethics Committee, we open a preliminary inquiry,” said Natalie Ravitz, a spokeswoman for Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the committee.

The inquiries will most likely examine whether Mr. Ensign, a Nevada Republican, or Douglas Hampton, his one-time administrative assistant, broke the law after Mr. Hampton, immediately upon leaving his Congressional job last year, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office. Mr. Hampton, as a senior aide, was subject to a one-year lobbying ban, lawyers who specialize in ethics law said.

“It is difficult for me to imagine they would not look into it,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a former associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. As a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. Gross has represented Washington officials in ethics investigations.

Mr. Ensign could be legally at risk if he knew that Mr. Hampton was violating the one-year ban, or if he actually directed him to do so, as Mr. Hampton has said, ethics lawyers said… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

This one should be a slam dunk, because more that one source has apparently revealed that Ensign personally set up Hampton’s hiring and subsequently supported positions favorable to Hampton’s new employer.  He did this to cover up his affair and avoid being exposed as a hypocrite who supports enforcing theocratic values on everyone else, while considering himself above having to follow them himself.

Not only is this typical for C Street, but also, it’s symptomatic of the Republican leadership as a whole.  Max Blumenthal explains this in a new book, Republican Gomorrah.  Video Nation has a review.

I think what we’re witnessing here is the final meltdown of the once great Republican Party, that has driven all but most extreme radical right wingers from the party, and that now represents only corporate greed, racism, and the American Taliban.