The new Libyan head of the UN Security Council has proven me right, in less than two weeks.

First, the good news:

Meanwhile, the Security Council condemned Katyusha rocket fire from Lebanon that struck Shlomi in northern Israel, according to a report by Army Radio.

Israeli ambassador to the UN Gilad Cohen, who led efforts to get the condemnation passed, was quoted by Army Radio as saying “it’s crucial the Security Council condemn such acts. It was a grave violation of UN resolution 1701 and a threat to world peace and security.”

That’s great. The UN Security Council actually noticed a violation of 1701, although UNIFIL has been turning a blind eye to Hezbullah for well over a year now.

But here’s where the Libyan ambassador proves how fair-minded he intends to be:

For 48 hours, Libyan ambassador Giadalla Ettalhi, sitting head of the UN Security Council, fought efforts to have the condemnation passed, and tried in vain to have it include criticism of Israel Air Force violations of Lebanon airspace, against the wishes of Israel, the U.S., and France.

Uh-huh. That’s what I said would happen.

The magazine co-founded by Gloria Steinem doesn’t seem to like Jews when they’re Israeli Jews. Or at least, that’s the impression they’re giving after rejecting an ad for Israel that the AJC wanted to place.

The magazine has turned down an AJCongress advertisement that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in Israeli public life. The proposed ad (The Ad Ms. Didn’t Want You To See) included a text that merely said, “This is Israel,” under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

“What other conclusion can we reach,” asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, “except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?”

When Director of AJCongress’ Commission for Women’s Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher’s office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is.

I’d be very interested in getting an answer to what “this” is. Because running an ad about three powerful Israeli women saying, “This is Israel,” is an example of women’s empowerment. The magazine ran a cover story on Nancy Pelosi in the winter 2007 magazine, with a headline that seems, well, familiar.

An excerpt:

This Is What a Speaker Looks Like
Nancy Pelosi has finally cracked the marble ceiling of the Capitol. Now what will she do with the unprecedented power she has earned?

Ms. is proud to be the first magazine to feature on its cover Nancy Pelosi, the first woman and first self-identified feminist Speaker of the House. This 2002 Ms. Woman of the Year gives Ms. an exclusive interview in our cover story, “This Is What A Speaker Looks Like,” by Marie Cocco, in which we focus on her substance, rather than her clothes and jewelry.

The headline is parallel to the title of the ad that the AJC wanted to place: “This is Israel.” Click on the link. Look at the ad.

Of course, Ms. Magazine has published many articles about Arab and Islamic women in power.

Mr. Gordon noted that while Israel was apparently too hot to handle, Ms. Magazine did not extend that taboo to Arab and Moslem women. “What is even more amazing is that, while refusing to publish a simple ad praising three very notable women, women who embody the ideal that Ms. Magazine seemingly espouses, Ms. has run a cover article in the Fall 2003 issue on Queen Noor of Jordan, has featured a number of articles on Muslim women, and even ran an article in the Winter 2004 issue entitled, ‘Images of Palestine,’ which discussed the Ramallah Film Festival and gave sympathetic reviews to films concerning ‘the liberation of South Lebanon’ from Israel as well as numerous films which portrayed terrorism as legitimate ‘revolutionary’ activity against Israel and miscast Israel’s activities to counter terrorism as ‘oppressive.’”

And anti-Israel screeds, even at the height of the wave of suicide bombings during the bloody spring of 2002.

Jerusalem Spring 2002–Sharon seems to be our worst nightmare. Since this Intifada erupted, over 1,700 Palestinians and over 400 Israelis have been killed, with some 35,000 Palestinians and 4,000 Israelis wounded.* The terrorist attacks in Israel are horrible, but they have been used by Sharon to carry out deeds far in excess of “destroying the terrorist infrastructure.” The Israeli army deliberately trashed the inside of every Palestinian institution that it did not entirely destroy-schools, charities, health organizations, banks, radio and TV stations, even a puppet theater, [and] all the records of every government ministry. In a few locations, Israeli tanks even rolled over mosques and cemeteries….

(Note that the author glosses over the terrorist attacks, which were sometimes coming at the rate of two and three suicide bombings per day, and immediately attacks Ariel Sharon for sending in the IDF to stop the suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks on Israelis. The rest of the article is devoted to the plight of the Palestinians.)

The pro-Palestinian side of the conflict is well-represented. Ms. Magazine covers women’s international political empowerment. There’s an article about the first women in the U.K. high court, one about Israeli mothers marching for peace, international legal discrimination of women, women who changed the face of politics in Northern Ireland, a Saudi feminist princess, a boatload of stories on peace activists, a female Israeli conscientious objector, and a ton of stories on Iraq.

But Ms. magazine refused to run an ad with three pictures of Israeli women in high positions: A Supreme Court judge, the vice president of the country, and the speaker of the Knesset, Israeli’s parliament. The American Jewish Congress was told this was going to “set off a firestorm.” Really? Portraying powerful women in a Mideast nation is a bad thing?

Apparently, when that nation is Israel, and the magazine is Ms., the answer is: Yes.

Phyllis Chesler has written and spoken about anti-Semitism in the world of feminists.

Like men, women are not necessarily compassionate or even fair towards other women — especially if those other women are identified as “evil racist settlers” and the enemies of a beloved revolution. Feminists are no better but perhaps no worse than other women in this regard.

[...] Many feminists who are quite principled on certain issues (equal pay for equal work, reproductive freedom, gay rights, sexual and domestic violence, childcare, etc.) unthinkingly believe that their critiques of patriarchy and of specific American policies can and must be transformed into a generalized hatred of America — the very country in which they practice their dissent — and transferred to the Middle East. Many feminists are totally blind to their own Jew hatred and are now more obsessed with the occupation of disputed lands in the Middle East than they are with the occupation of women’s bodies worldwide.

It appears she was not wrong.

When I tell people that I am a feminist, I usually have to make the distinction that I am not one of those feminists. Because I am a feminist. I believe in equal rights and equal opportunities for women. I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S., although we have come farther than ever before. I believe that most women are feminists like me. But the ones who run the organizations and the magazines—those women are not my friends. And yes, there are a significant number of anti-Israel Jewish women in those organizations. Shame on them.

As always, when it comes to Israel, there is a double standard. If those women were from any other nation in the world, Ms. Magazine would have been happy to run an ad featuring the three most powerful women in that country. But not if the women are from Israel.

What time is it, folks? That’s right. It’s Israeli Double Standard Time. It occurs every day of the week that ends with a y.

Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, gives pacifism a bad name.

Here’s a roundup of responses.

Shira bat Sarah (who brought this swill to my attention) writes in Family Tradition:

Why no calls from the Ghandis of the world for Arabs to lay down their arms? Why is there the implication that Jews and Israelis should not be allowed to defend themselves? Why do their words imply it is okay to have an open season on Jews?

In Arun Gandhi, disgrace of the third generation Solomonia writes:

Gramps suggested the Jews sacrifice themselves to the Nazis in the hope of exciting the sympathy of the world. Grandson apparently thinks the Jews of today should do the same, but goes further in blaming them for the state of the world. Amazing. Jewish identity doesn’t depend on violence, but Jewish survival does. It’s an inconvenient world.

Blog-o-fascists puts it simply:

Ignorance, bigotry…yes, anti-Semitism…thy name is Gandhi. How much dining out can you do on one famous last name?

Infidel Bloggers Alliance similarly observes Arun Gandhi: fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree:

And to sum it up, let me pose this question:

Gahndi says,”the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife.” So, how exactly does his philosophy differ, in practice, from that of Hitler?

Sometimes a picture says it best, and Force Duo does it with the Photoshop illustrating Gandhi’s grandson, making his gramps proud!

Blogs of Zion writes:

It is apparent that Gandhi’s legacy continues with his grandson Arun. Arun Gandhi ignores the real perpetrators of the “culture of violence” and excuses their behavior by using the Jews, Zionism, and Israel as scapegoats.

Reformed Pastor did a very serious fisking of the whole essay, in No one’s fault tub their own:

Israel puts its faith in its military for an obvious reason: having been invaded by its neighbors on several occasions, been the object of almost daily bombardment for decades, been told by Hamas and others that there is no place in the Holy Land for Jews, seen Israel and Jews demonized on a virtually round-the-clock basis by its enemies, threatened with annihilation repeatedly, and condemned on a regular basis by the United Nations simply for defending itself, Israel knows what fools like Gandhi refuse to recognize, that it can depend only on itself and its own strength if it is to survive.

Backspin provides a short version of the fisking.

Shadow Warriors apply scorn liberally:

This from a guy who doesn’t want to get a real job, and instead finds it more lucrative to go on the lifelong speaking-tour, lecturing everyone else about their moral inferiority to him.

Israelly Cool! observes that the grandson’s feelings are Out in the Open:

Accusing the Jews of wanting the world to feel guilty about the Holocaust. Stating that Jews “repulse” friends. Calling Israel and the Jews the “biggest players” in creating a culture of violence.I’ve got two words for you: anti-Semitism.

Barking Moonbat Warning System demands that we explain this:

Israelites get blown to bits for what, existing, and it’s THEIR fault? I don’t know what’s more of a barf alert on this piece, the content or the source of this crap.

PoliGazette assigns some blame to the Washington Post:

Giving a voice to people who hold different opinions is all fine and dandy, but perhaps American news outlets could make an exception for anti-Semites? I can’t see how drivel like this helps the debate.

Little Green Footballs looks beyond the younger Gandhi’s words to the words of the commenters. What he sees is beyond the pale:

And the reader comments for this repulsive article are absolutely vile; the antisemites crawled out of the woodwork for this one.

Contentions.David Hazony spawns an excellent conversation on the topic of the Gandhis and mindless pacifism. It makes you wonder if Commentary might make Richard Grenier’s “The Gandhi Nobody Knows” available. Powerline provides Grenier’s summary.

Rubicon3 points out one possible consequence of such nonsense:

As if the Israelis wouldn’t have jumped at the chance to be friends with their neighbors, coming off the horror of the Holocaust.Such statements are damaging and do not help the cause of peace. On the contrary, they just encourage Islamic fundamentalist violence.

Gandhi has now issued an apology:

I do not believe and should not have implied that the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people. Indeed, many are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes, by Israel and many other governments.

The ADL has weighed in.

I’d go much further. First of all the original implied nothing. It consisted of clearly stated beliefs. What Dr. Gandhi wrote is that Judaism is too rooted in the past and that the Israeli government in its actions, reflects that. So his response that not all Jews support Israeli actions, does nothing to contradict what he wrote in the first place. What he gives no consideration to - as many critics noted - is that Israel is responding to threats, not arbitrarily attacking innocents.

There is nothing unintentional in Gandhi’s controversial entry. He meant every word. The ADL is wrong to ask him to apologize. He won’t and he can’t because he truly doesn’t believe that there’s anything wrong with what he wrote. He is only concerned with the way his words were (correctly) interpreted.

His morality is just as warped as his grandfather’s.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Ynet recorded another eruption from that submerged victorious groundhog, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah:

According to Nasrallah, Bush views Israel “as a Jewish state, that is, racist…its existence is premised on race. Israel aspires for a racially pure existence.”

Now I am curious: is it the same Hassan Nasrallah that said:

…if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.

and

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

Yep. Notice this.

(And for our Russian - speaking reader(s): nasrallah again…)

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

He hasn’t invited Yasser Arafat to the White House, but you could pretty much substitute any major Clinton speech on Israel and the Palestinians for the speech W. gave yesterday.

In addition to these three tracks, both sides are getting down to the business of negotiating. I called upon both leaders to make sure their teams negotiate seriously, starting right now. I strongly supported the decision of the two leaders to continue their regular summit meetings, because they are the ones who can, and must, and — I am convinced — will lead.

Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert are the weakest leaders in their respective people’s histories, bar none. But then, Bush is one of the weakest leaders we’ve had since Jimmy Carter.

I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Both of these leaders believe that the outcome is in the interest of their peoples and are determined to arrive at a negotiated solution to achieve it.

Yes. Abbas is of the school that thinks in terms of the two-stage Palestinian state. The first stage is the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza. The second stage is the destruction of the Jews on the remaining portions of “Palestine.” If you don’t believe me, try to find a map of “Palestine” on any Palestinian website that shows Israel.

The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.

George W. Bush was the first U.S. President to declare his hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state in a major speech. Now he’s the first U.S. President who, while still in office, decries the Israeli “occupation.” The problem, you see, is Israeli occupation. It isn’t Palestinian terror. And yet, on the day W. gave this speech, more kassams were fired at Israel.

The day before, W. invoked the “right of return,” the phrase that the Palestinians used to co-opt Israel’s Law of Return, and which is code for the destruction of the Jewish character of Israel. The “right of return” is a dealbreaker.

Bush said he was the only US president to articulate a two-state solution. But, he added, “Saying two states really doesn’t have much bearing until borders are defined, right of return issues resolved, Jerusalem is understood, security measures - the common security measures will be in place. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a clear, defined state around which people can rally.”

It’s funny how people constantly talk about the Palestinian refugees, yet no one ever mentions the 700,000 Jews who were driven out of the Arab and Muslim states after 1948. The Iranians brag—and the wire services repeat their propaganda—of having the largest Jewish community in the Middle East. They never seem to mention that the Jewish community of Iran was about three or four times larger in 1979, the year the Islamists took power. Iranian Jews would likely leave Iran today if they could. But they can’t, not without losing all of their property.

Bush, who spoke beneath a portrait of Arafat, also stressed the importance of establishing a contiguous Palestinian state.

Uh-huh. There were no American flags in sight in Ramallah today. But there were plenty of pictures of the biggest mass-murderer of Jews since Hitler.

Although Bush was only a few meters away from Yasser Arafat’s mausoleum, he did not stop at the site - much to the dismay of some PA leaders. But portraits of Arafat were visible almost everywhere in the Mukata.

A source in Abbas’s office said the portraits were intended to deliver a protest against Bush’s refusal to pay respect to the former PA leader.

The source said the PA did not hang US flags in the city to avoid “provoking” residents.

If a U.S. flag “provokes” the Palestinians, they are not our friends. They are not our allies. And Abbas—well, listen to the snake oil salesman:

“We hope the talks [with Israel] would lead to ending the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state in accordance with President Bush’s vision,” he added. “Peace in the world starts from the Holy Land.”

So, peace in Israel is going to stop Muslims in Thailand from beheading schoolchildren? Ya think? It will stop the conflict in Sudan? And the Phillippines? All over the world, jihadis are going to stop what they’re doing because Palestine comes into existence?

I think not.

As for those peaceful Palestinians, well, read on:

Unprecedented security measures forced many here to remain indoors, turning Ramallah into a ghost town.

[...] During the press conference, PA policemen used clubs and tear gas to disperse hundreds of demonstrators who took to the streets to protest against Bush’s visit.

Yep. They totally “deserve” a state. Because they already know how to run one. Well, no, think about it—they do know how to run an Arab state. “Palestine” won’t be much different from any of the others. Corrupt leadership, graft, theft, honor killings, jihadis, oppression of women and non-Muslims—yep, it’ll be just another Arab state in the Middle East. On Israel’s borders.

I think the best thing to come out of this ridiculous trip is that I think neither Bush nor Olmert are strong enough to get anything past their respective governments on the Palestinian state. The minute Olmert gets serious about dividing Jerusalem, the government falls.

We should have known that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The George Bush administration was the worst for Israel since Carter. W. is obviously following in his father’s footsteps. And he’s doing it in a Clintonian way. Genius.

Lair Simon lost Frisky.

My condolences, Lair.