The bill, known as the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (H.R. 4230), was introduced by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the only Holocaust survivor serving in the Congress, in response to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East. The bill was passed by both Congress and the Senate, and requires the State Department to compile an annual report on anti-Semitism around the world, and establishes an office within the department to focus on the issue.
Now comes the part worth paying special attention to.
The U.S. State Department tried to stall the bill until presure forced it to relent, and CAIR opposed the bill outright, providing a neat parallel to the Arab countries who are opposing a 2004 U.N. resolution condemning anti-semitism (a 2003 resolution was defeated through their efforts).
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about CAIR, and the ingrained nature of hatred in today's Muslim ummah. But if you want more about CAIR's record, here's more.
Back up a sec. What exactly was this bill supposed to accomplish? Make the State Department a little bigger? How is this bill useful in dealing with actual problems of anti-Judaism (like the nastiness in Paris and Germany)?
I could see grounds for opposing this bill on the basis of it being a waste of paper. The Jews seem to be in a pretty secure position these days, esp. compared to the poor bastards in Darfur, who could really use some help.
Rather than waste time getting the fools at State to do anything useful about anti-Judaism in problem areas like Europe, why not encourage the guys at JPFO to set up shop there? The JPFO understands the problem™.
In answer to your first 2 questions:
[1] Put out reports with the offical weight of the U.S. government behind them, not just an advocacy group. This will ensure that they are taken moreseriously by governments AND media in America and in Europe.
[2] Shines a spotlight on the issues that cannot be ignored, effectively creating automated diplomatic incidents if the reports are negative.
Having said that, I agree that the State Dept's understanding of the problem is questionable. One other thing this bill may do is create people in State who do begin to understand by virtue of being forced to look into it day after day.
We'll see.
As a final note, I'll add that CAIR's opposition did not revove around concern for these measures' lack of effectiveness.
Anyone who read this article: An American in London would have no questions about the need for the bill.
>>As a final note, I'll add that CAIR's opposition did not revove around concern for these measures' lack of effectiveness.
For sure.
The USG sure could have done a lot better on the anti-Judaism front over the years. The USG really should have let all the Jews immigrate here who wanted to in the 1930-1955 period. Oddly, both anti-Judaists and Zionists interfered with the efficiency of this process.
Maybe the guys at State could pave the way for a second Jewish evacuation of Europe to the US, should that become necessary.
(And if the Jews in Israel ever get tired of trying to build cities in the desert surrounded by angry Arabs, they should be allowed to move to Texas. We've got plenty of good land, and cheap too, especially since we take payments in cash, not blood.)
T.J... once upon a time, I would have laughed at your proposal to prepare for a European influx. I'm not laughing these days.
Israel is certainly ready to take them, and that function as the non-deniable refuge is of course part of its intended purpose. But I suspect the USA is likely to see its share.
A pity that a Jewish state can only be located in one place by its very nature. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure we could come to an arrangement re: Baja that would make a lot of people happy.
T. J. Madison -
I'm not sure what Jewish immigration to the US from 1930-1955 has to do with the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. And I'm not sure what the JPFO has to do with anything.
It's nice of you to invite Israelis to come live in Texas, I guess, but the world would be a poorer place without their "cities in the desert".
Anyway, I was pleased to see that the petitioners who supported Lantos' bill included artist Will Eisner. Back in the 40s, Eisner (who seems to be determined to live forever, God bless him) created The Spirit, the greatest comic book character of all time.
The Spirit had no super powers, but he had more beautifully-drawn women chasing him than Superman ever dreamed of. And that's what really counts.
>>I'm not sure what Jewish immigration to the US from 1930-1955 has to do with the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.
It's one thing to be "aware" of anti-Judaism. It's quite another to be willing to do something about it. Had the USG opened its borders further in the 30's and 40's many lives would have been saved.
>>And I'm not sure what the JPFO has to do with anything.
The JPFO understands that disarmament is a critical step in orchestrating a genocide. The Jews in Europe weren't a majority, but they sure outnumbered the Gestapo. Properly armed and trained, their resistance might have been more effective. Similarly, anti-Jewish mobs in Europe might be much less of a problem today if the Jews there didn't have to rely on the (marginal, especially in France) police force to protect them.
>>T.J... once upon a time, I would have laughed at your proposal to prepare for a European influx. I'm not laughing these days.
So would I, until Gene Thug briefed me on some of the utter B.S. going on over there. What a mess.
>>but the world would be a poorer place without their "cities in the desert".
I respectfully disagree. While the Jews in Israel possess considerable human capital (as well as their intrinsic value as people), the Zionist enterprise itself strikes me as an inefficient allocation of resources. Israel is dependent on vast sums of USG aid to support its wasteful socialism and defend it from its angry neighbors. Were the Jews to redeploy here their bureaucratic and security overhead would drop dramatically. They could stop fighting over water resources, since it actually rains here.
>>A pity that a Jewish state can only be located in one place by its very nature.
Why not have two or more Jewish states (or more properly, states with mostly Jews in them?) The other state(s) wouldn't be the Promised Land, but surely setting up a new base somewhere would be cheaper and less unpleasant than stealing more worthless desert from the Palestinians. If nothing else, space intensive industries (agriculture, anyone?) could be put in the new state, leaving more room in Israel proper for cities and holy sites. They could also provide an emergency fallback position in case Tel Aviv becomes radioactive for a while.
Five years from now, I think it'll be clear that at least some of the Jews living in Europe have learned that lesson. The rumours of arms caches in places like Antwerp and Paris are too numerous to ignore.
T.J. Madison -
I suspect that it is an inefficient allocation of resources to argue with you, but Israel's agriculture industry is one of the most efficient in the world, with almost 1.5 billion in annual exports (produce and processed foods). Israel, in fact, is western Europe's primary source of fresh produce during the winter months.
Your idea of opening up one or more branch Israels, complete with "holy sites", sounds like something Disney would think of. You don't work for Disney, do you?
For serious anti-semitism we need look no farther than Quebec. I'm not Jewish, but in my 13 years living there the anti-semitism was revolting in both its depth and breadth. More recently it has become quasi-institutionalised, and OLF police removed all kosher foods from stores in the middle of Passover a few years back.
There are 100,000+ orthodox and Hassidi'm in Montreal, and contacts there report that ha-Mossad has been arming and training an anti-pogrom self-defence force in Montreal's Jewish areas.
On a broadly related note, one of my biggest hopes for a second Bush administration is that they would take apart the Department of State from top to bottom and remove the numerous militant arabists, harvard-trained transnationalists, embedded Clinton holdovers, and the like -- all of which block a rational, effective, and lasting denouement of the current mess in the eastern Med.
>> Israel's agriculture industry is one of the most efficient in the world,
Then think of how much more production would be generated if they set up shop in Kansas!
Seriously, if Israel as a whole was so efficient and productive, they'd have no need for billions and billions of dollars in USG subsidies. Either the place isn't economically self-sustaining (in which case maybe it needs to be moved or restructured) or it is self-sustaining (in which case the foreign aid to Israel is even more clearly robbery of US taxpayers.)
[All of this is, of course, triply true for Egypt.]
>>Your idea of opening up one or more branch Israels, complete with "holy sites", sounds like something Disney would think of. You don't work for Disney, do you?
Sadly, no. And the branch Israels couldn't have genuine holy sites, unfortunately. If holy sites could be "moved" surely rational people would have straightened out the MidEast mess long before now.
>>There are 100,000+ orthodox and Hassidi'm in Montreal, and contacts there report that ha-Mossad has been arming and training an anti-pogrom self-defence force in Montreal's Jewish areas.
Excellent! Finally, Mossad is doing something useful for a change. When combined with Mossad's clean hit on that HAMAS leader in Syria a few weeks ago, maybe I should upgrade my opinion of them from "Atrocious" to "Merely Despicable."
TJ:
It isn't. Israel is a socialist country, unfortunately.
Bibi is doing his best to do that (the latter). But he's facing an entrenched bureaucracy, and his is all but a lone voice, politically speaking. Making Israel less socialist would have many benefits, one of which would be they wouldn't need aid from the United States. I think we'd both agree it'd be in the interests of both countries if Israel were not at all reliant on American cash (trade aside, naturally).
TJ:
Hmm. From what I've heard, Israeli involvement is by no means certain.
T.J. Madison -
Either the place isn't economically self-sustaining (in which case maybe it needs to be moved or restructured) or it is self-sustaining (in which case the foreign aid to Israel is even more clearly robbery of US taxpayers.)
The bulk of US aid to Israel is spent in US markets, or on purchases from US firms. Far from robbing the taxpayers, aid to Israel actually funnels money from the public to the private sector. No wonder the left hates it so much.
Considering Israel's strategic importance, US aid to Israel is not only a bargain, but a great benefit to the US. Unlike the money we give to Egypt, which might as well be dumped into the Potomac.
Unfortunately, aid has fostered a dependency which is not so good for Israel, as Netanyahu and others have lately argued. The left doesn't understand the negative effects of welfare dependency (they tend to be freaked out by the very idea) so this is going to take some time to work itself out.
They're mostly loan guarantees. And Israel has never failed to pay up.
Seems like overreaching a bit, no? I mean, the whole world already believes that the US is overrun and controlled by Jews. Is it truly that useful for Jews to make this conspiracy theory more credible? Why not resort to Jewish organizations for this kind of stuff? Tell me why I'm wrong. I fear that the US Jewish establishment has completely lost the sense of reality; life's been too good for too long, the Holocaust business is booming, time to expand... Or has it been yet another neocon'esque brain-fart, something like "freedom fries"? Then it's OK, it'll go away in a week...
"if Israel as a whole was so efficient and productive, they'd have no need for billions and billions of dollars in USG subsidies."
That's illogical. Why? Can it be efficient and productive and still need aid? I don't see why that's impossible by definition...
"Either the place isn't economically self-sustaining ... or it is self-sustaining"
Self-sustaining and efficient/productive are not synonyms by any means. Something can be efficient/productive yet not self-sustaining. I think the benefits of having a close ally in this place is worth the foreign aid that Israel gets several times over.
Warum,
I recognize you grew up in a Marxist dictatorship, but now that you're living in a real civilization you're treading close to the line with this one.
Perhaps you wish to explain your comment re: "the Holocaust business is booming"?
Read Finkelstein (sp?). Not that it's a perfect book, but I doubt I personally could do better. I certainly agree with the premise there, though I'd like to see it it better argued...
(Not sure what's that got to do with Marxist dictatorship, quite honestly... :-) And, come to think of it, that particular Marxist dictatorship I had the misfortune to grow up in had saved many more Jews than "real civilizations" of all kinds had ever tried to.)
Warum: " the Holocaust business is booming ..."
Yeah, in some people's dreams it is.
Now this, boys and girls, is why this Act is long overdue.
Glen,
if this act were proposed in Israel, I'd be all for it. But the US is not a Jewish country. To push this kind of legislation in the US is tactless. And is it really necessary on practical grounds?
There are all kinds of trouble in the world; racism, genocide, and persecution are not an exclusively anti-Jewish thing; different people can suffer, and when they do, they're not any less deserving of help and compassion than Jews.
So, a legislation like that, if attempted in the US, at least shouldn't have been specifically Jewish-orientated. In my opinion, anyways. Something like the yearly human rights report would be more appropriate, 'cause it's not limited to any particular group. There's no Jew, no Greek, remember? At least outside of Israel (and hopefully, when it comes to serious matters like that, inside it too.)
Well, speak of the devil... 'sup, T.J.?
Glen,
The bulk of US aid to Israel is spent in US markets, or on purchases from US firms. Far from robbing the taxpayers, aid to Israel actually funnels money from the public to the private sector. No wonder the left hates it so much.
Pardon my small 'l' libertarianism, but it isn't just the Left that takes issue with this sort of thing.
Robbing the taxpayer to give money to the private sector is still robbing the taxpayer. This is effectively large scale corporate welfare to the military industrial complex.
To the extent that money is fungible, and that US private defense firms donate money to political campaigns (to reelect politicians who then allocate further taxpayer money to foreign military "aid", ie., loans contingent on the money being spent on US military firms), this amounts to a massively vicious circle, with the MIC and political incumbents benefitting, while taxpayers foots the bill (I had a pretty colorful metaphor involving circles and bukkake here previously, but I'll spare you the details). A good economic conservative should be appalled on principle.
Even from a pro-Jewish position (word.), to the extent that military aid to Israel and Egypt (etc., etc.) mitigates the actual costs of dysfunctional socialist programs, limited trade, border disputes, et. al., doesn't it, to a certain extent just prolong the assorted ME conflict(s) by enabling otherwise unsustainable policies?
Gene Thug:
Okay, now I know what "bukkake" is. This thread continues to fill up with disturbing imagery ...
Anyway, a good economic conservative recognizes that Israel's security is vital to US interests. He also recognizes that to claim we are prolonging conflict in the Middle East by supporting Israel is to adopt the mindset of the irresponsible left. A strong Israel is good for stability, and a strong Israel is absolutely necessary if peace is ever to be achieved.
Israel's economic dependence on US aid is a problem which will have to be addressed eventually. (So is federal aid to the District of Columbia, but nobody seems to worry about that.) It is no good grounds for cutting off aid to Israel, except to those who are hostile to Israel or who fail to see Israel's importance to the United States.
Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism are three symptoms of the same disease, and keeping track of all three is vital to future US security - not just a sop to Israel.
>> a good economic conservative recognizes that Israel's security is vital to US interests
Which interests are these, exactly?
The USG seems to have been able to occupy a medium-sized nation in the MidEast without using Israel for much in the way of basing or supplies.
The USG is now sitting on top of the oil, and can build as many of its own bases in Iraq as it can afford. That was the plan, right? How was Israel "vital" to this plan?
If Israel is so vital, why does the USG still not have a formal alliance with it?
>>That's illogical. Why? Can it be efficient and productive and still need aid? I don't see why that's impossible by definition...
Because if it was efficient and productive then it would have a net surplus of resources after accounting for all expenses, including military ones. Israel could then be a net source of foreign aid, or it could spend the surplus upgrading its own infrastructure, thereby leading to further surpluses in the future.
Israel has been a net aid sink for a very long time. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on the place. What did all of this expense get me, the US taxpayer? We could have been spending all that money building nuclear reactors or (insert your favorite alternate energy source).
Opportunity cost is important.
Glen,
This thread continues to fill up with disturbing imagery
Sorry 'bout that.
to claim we are prolonging conflict in the Middle East by supporting Israel is to adopt the mindset of the irresponsible left
I think you may be missing my point (certainly the political orientation from which I'm criticizing this policy). We (by which I mean the US Govt.) are propping up a lot of governments, in the middle east and elsewhere, possibly to our and their long-term detriment. By sheilding the populace and governments in these nations from the effects of poor policy through long term aid, we may inadvertently be buying a lot of failure, and the bill on that won't be steep. It's one thing to act as a security guarantor for pro-US democracies against hostile totalitarian nations (both Israel and Taiwan're good examples of the former), and I'm not arguing against that. If the goal is to protect Israel, I'm down with that. I just beleive there may be better ways to do it than spraying the country with a money hose. My point is that long term aid may not be in Israel or the US's best long term interest.
If one beleives that long term welfare dependency is bad for otherwise capable individuals (as well as the societies that fund such folly), it's probably just as bad to foster cultures of dependency for other nations. If this is true in general, as I believe, it's not meant to be a slam at Israel in particular.
Just look at what 50+ years of free US military defense has done to Germany - a pacifist populace, a distressingly low defense budget, lack of political will/popular support to reign in an unsustainable welfare state, etc., bought and paid for with US taxpayer dollars. This may have made plenty of sense during the cold war ("US in, Germany down, Russia out"), but is it a wise investment today?
T.J.'s criticism of the utility of supporting Israel has to be at least 10X more relevant when applied to Egypt, and it's a fair rough comparison. What are American taxpayers getting for their annual billions, other than a steady stream of Egyptian government sanctioned, anti-American propaganda? For that matter, how does a modernized Egyptian army (in a non-democratic nation) benefit Egyptian civilians? A lot of these policies seem like Cold War Realpolitik relics, and point to the seemingly glacial response time of the US federal government when it comes to responding to changes in historical conditions - it seems like it'll take at least a generation to get the State Dept. to 9/12, for example. Anyhow, I hope his clears up any misunderstanding.
Israel is electorally vital to the USG. If it weren't for American pro-Israel sentiment, the US would be 100% behind the Arabs.
>>T.J.'s criticism of the utility of supporting Israel has to be at least 10X more relevant when applied to Egypt, and it's a fair rough comparison.
Damn straight. That's 2 billion a year we could be spending on beer and prostitutes, if nothing else. Whoever is in charge of Egypt policy at State needs to be fired. (Set on fire, that is, to encourage the others.)
>>Israel is electorally vital to the USG. If it weren't for American pro-Israel sentiment, the US would be 100% behind the Arabs.
And this would be a problem for vital US interests how? If Israel was attacked again by the mighty Syrian Army, it would be bad from a humanitarian standpoint, sure. I might even go volunteer to help defend the place if it looked like things were gonna get REAL bad. None of this seems related to "vital US interests."
"T.J.'s criticism of the utility of supporting Israel has to be at least 10X more relevant when applied to Egypt, and it's a fair rough comparison."
Well, here's something we can all agree on. Two billion a year is a lot to pay, in exchange for less than nothing.
TJ Madison:
And this would be a problem for vital US interests how? If Israel was attacked again by the mighty Syrian Army, it would be bad from a humanitarian standpoint, sure. I might even go volunteer to help defend the place if it looked like things were gonna get REAL bad. None of this seems related to "vital US interests."
Israel is an asset to the United States, as a friend, a partner in war (or could be, if Israel weren't the friend everyone is embarrassed to have) and a source of trade and technology. As most Americans agree, defending Israel is a moral imperative.
I'm honestly not sure whether that makes Israel a 'vital U.S. interest', though.
As for conventional threats, look to Egypt before Syria.