The Brothers of Judea

The Great Move

2010-08-08T13:23:00.001-04:00

Well, the time has come for us to bid this blog behind and move on to bigger and better things. If you have come looking for "The Brothers of Judea" you should know that we are now at a blog named: Huffington Post Monitor and are located at this address: http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/

All of our old information and posts (user profiles, blogger responses) are also located at the news site.

Hopefully we will see you all there! Email us if you have any other questions.

Jewish Power Struggle!

2010-08-08T10:15:00.000-04:00

Did you know that there's a power struggle between the ADL and AIPAC for control of America? I never would have known that if it weren't for the well informed HPers speaking truth to power!

The original link.

The Past Is Past....Except When It's Not

2010-08-08T10:00:00.008-04:00

I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to reference the expression, "Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it" on a blog. The only thing that it is more common to argue about between Zionists and anti-Zionists than current events is the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of the things that I find so amazing, though, is anti-Zionist hypocrisy on the subject of the past.

This hypocrisy most clearly takes a very simple form: Misdeeds of Israel's enemies in the past are not happening now, times have changed, the situation is different, so Israel just needs to get over it. But on the other hand, the actions of Israel from decade or even millennia ago (seriously) are continually dredged up and aired out in every single thread.

Here are two examples from this thread if you don't believe me. The first poster thinks it's totally natural that the Lebanese should be skittish around Israel because of Israel's invasions of Lebanon twenty years ago and four years ago. Meanwhile, the second poster completely dismisses the genocidal invasion of Israel by five Arab armies as a "deflection."

It strikes me as very hypocritical for anti-Zionists to expect Israel to simply "get over" the past (including the Holocaust) but not expect the same from their enemies. How many times are the AZs going to wave the bloody shirt of the Nakba while out of the other side of their mouths complain that the Jews play up the Holocaust too much? Nor, I think, would they be particularly receptive if I were to point out that Cast Lead and the flotilla raid all happened in "the past" as well, and it's time that they all moved on from it.

I personally think that the history of both peoples (right or wrong) affects the conflict to this day and neither actions should be dismissed as "off topic" or a deflection, as long as the poster referencing it explains how it is related to the current discussion. Honestly, this conflict is not that long and there are many people who still remember everything that has happened since the beginning. It might be pretty easy for bbsnews to forget about that time Israel almost got wiped off the planet, but it's harder for Israel to do so.

Say what you will about the Zionists on the HP, but at least they are not hypocrites in this way.

Jews Support "Ground Zero Mosque," Haters Come Out

2010-08-08T09:45:00.000-04:00

In the week or so since Matt and I wrote our thoughts about the supposed "Ground Zero Mosque," both of our opinions have changed. I'm not going to speak for Matt but I was convinced that there is no good reason to punish Muslims who have nothing to do with the attacks no matter what the reason.

Anyway, the HP published a story about Jewish groups supporting the Cordoba Center. As you might expect there was a little bit of Muslim-bashing but also some Jew-bashing, including the old "no Jews died in 9/11" conspiracy theory. Here's what I found:

Sharmine Narwani's Moussa Interview (Part 1)

2010-08-08T09:30:00.000-04:00

Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani has written a very, very long interview with Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who might potentially become President of Egypt. In sum the article was about how they both thought the current peace process wasn't working and Mr. Moussa had some ideas of what to do instead. To be honest the interview is too long to analyze completely but I did want to indicate an exchange here that is very telling about Ms. Narwani's point of view:

S: We both know that today there can be no Palestinian state or peace solution based on a land-for-peace formula because the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since talks started in Madrid nineteen years ago have quintupled. Right?

A: Yes, yes, right.

S: While Likud has been yelling about building settlements, Labor has stealthily built them - it has made no difference which Israeli political party is in power. There's no land-for-peace formula, yet still to this day, we're talking about King Abdullah's peace plan, the Arab League's Initiative. Why such hypocricy? Why did the Arab League waste so much time until this very minute defending these initiatives and pushing the Palestinians to sit at this table?

So what Ms. Narwani is getting at is that because Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued over the past nineteen years (implying that peace talks have been happening non-stop ever since) therefore the idea of "land for peace" is unattainable and therefore there cannot be a Palestinian state or a two-state solution. Of course this viewpoint is flawed for many reasons and here are some:

Ignores History of Peace Process: Like many anti-Zionists, Ms. Narwani is an expert in history until that history become inconvenient for making her case. Not only does she ignore the violence that the Palestinians have unleashed against Israel while those settlements were being built, but she also ignores the not one but three offers of statehood that Israel offered the Palestinians. All of which were rejected because "they weren't good enough," obviously. In fact according to her the only thing that has happened during the past nineteen years is that settlements have expanded. Then she wonders why "land for peace" doesn't seem to be working? There is no peace, why should Israel give up land?

Ignores Gaza Withdrawal. Ms. Narwani will find support among hardcore Zionists that "land for peace" doesn't work, but not in the way that she hoped to. Israel did withdraw the settlements and troops out of Gaza and now Gaza is more of a danger to Israel than ever before. In other words, Israel did give land to the Palestinians but there was no peace as a result of it. This would seem to indicate that "land for peace" is actually a myth, and that Israel shouldn't bother giving the Palestinians anything until a peace treaty is signed and sealed. But somehow I don't think that was what Ms. Narwani was going for when she said that.

Finally, Ignores Current Status of Settlements: According to Ms. Narwani, because there are a lot of settlers in the West Bank, there can't be a Palestinian state. It's not that I've never seen this viewpoint before, but every time I see it I am stunned that people who endorse this view can be so close-minded about solutions. There are many things that can be done with the settlers before giving up the idea of a two-state solution:
1) Give the 5% to Israel and expel the rest. It won't be easy but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to kill the settlers in the past so it will be easy to get recruits for that mission.
2) Make the settlers Palestinian citizens. If they don't want to be Palestinian citizens they can leave.
3) Offer the settlers incentives to move back home. That "incentive" can be their own life. I for one wouldn't mind.

The trouble, of course, is that all of these solutions involve the Palestinians giving something up for peace, whether it be 100% of the West Bank or a 100% Jew-free Palestine. And based on this interview, asking the Palestinians to make a sacrifice for peace is like a dirty word for Sharmine Narwani and her pals in the Arab League. But we'll discuss that more in the next post.

How Low Can You Go?

2010-08-08T09:00:00.001-04:00

The original link. In the subsequent thread he attempted to back up this statement by citing a link by "Counterpunch."

Comments of the Day

2010-08-08T09:00:00.000-04:00

The original link.

ATTENTION: We're Moving!

2010-08-06T12:45:00.000-04:00

I wanted to let all readers know now that we are going to be changing the name and URL of this blog, starting next Monday. It will change into something along the lines of "Huff Po Watch," which is an attempt to make clearer what this blog is about.

There will be normal updates on Sunday, and the shift will probably occur Sunday night. Be ready to update bookmarks, etc. We'll provide more information when we further decide what's going to happen.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Gaza Blast Edition

2010-08-06T11:41:00.000-04:00

Today there was a massive explosion in Gaza. Eight homes were destroyed! More than fifty people were injured! Why?

"Speaking on the condition of anonymity, camp residents told The Media Line that Hamas was using the house to store weapons. Neighbors said that in the past they had appealed to Hamas to cease their activities in the camp, but were quickly silenced.

“Usually when such explosions occur the armed groups in Gaza announce it’s Israel’s fault,” Hamdi Shaqqura, deputy director for program affairs at the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, told The Media Line.

“But our investigations often find that this is not the case. "

Sure would be nice if the HP or one of it's bloggers wrote about this story. It might actually convince their readership that Hamas operates in and around the civilian population.

Dissecting MJ Rosenberg's Latest Comment

2010-08-06T10:00:00.000-04:00

MJ Rosenberg, in his most recent post, wrote an interesting comment in the talkback section. The context is a post by me asking “Whose Congressional careers has AIPAC ‘destroyed’?”

So let’s dissect this comment for a minute (it has since been deleted because of an abusive comment higher up the chain).

Rosenberg declares that every Congressperson fears AIPAC will fund their defeat, and thus do not say what they really think about the ME. This is an incredibly convenient setup for Rosenberg’s position.

Congresspeople do not support the Palestinian cause to the extent Rosenberg would like them to. Why? It must be because of AIPAC. If any Congressperson supports Israel, it’s only because AIPAC told them to. If any Congressperson supports the Palestinians, they are breaking away from AIPAC and their career is on the line. Is there any other issue in America where this double bind is placed on Israel’s supporters, where they have to prove they support Israel of their own convictions?

Next, Rosenberg has an appeal to authority, namely, his own. That’s all well and good for him, but notice how he calls AIPAC, an organization made up entirely of Americans, “a foreign government’s lobby”. Just another dual loyalty accusation, implying AIPAC members are more loyal to Israel than America.

Rosenberg then makes the incredible claim that no member of Congress supports the policies they publicly enunciate. This makes no sense. Congresspeople are, at the most basic level, self serving. They do not vote for policies that have a good chance of losing them an election, no matter how much money they will get. If the American people do not support Israel, the Congress would not either. I have that much faith in American democracy to make that claim.

At the bottom of his comment, Rosenberg admits he left the Hill in 1993, but sarcastically guesses that now, after “Gaza”, people must really love Israel now. I think Rosenberg’s departure in the 1990s is significant to why his opinion of life on the Hill is so jaded, because there are two significant events that might have possibly changed the US-Israel relationship: The Second Intifada and 9/11. The Second Intifada showed the US government (if not the US people) that the Palestinians don’t actually want peace and a two-state solution after all, and 9/11 woke Americans up to the kind of pain, fear and suffering Israelis at that time were dealing with on a daily basis. If there’s any question about whether America and Israel were on the same page, those went away after those two events.

But the basis of Mr. Rosenberg’s argument, the way it always is, is about money. Rosenberg advocates that because AIPAC has lots of money, they can make the Congresspeople do what they want. Let’s put aside the obvious anti-Semitic implications of the statement and look at it from a rational point of view.

Let’s take a look at the statement “Lobby group X pushes their policies through the US Congress without any trouble because of all of their money” outside of the context of AIPAC. Let’s say, for example, Lobby group X is the gun lobby. The gun industry is a multi billion dollar industry. They have a lot more money than AIPAC. By Mr. Rosenberg’s rationale, there should be pro-gun legislation passed through the Congress at a mile a minute. But there aren’t. In fact, there are gun control laws (perhaps not as many as there should be) passed through Congress fairly regularly. How is this possible?

Ditto with the smoking and alcohol lobby. Those industries produce hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and you better believe some of those funds are heading to Congress. But the warning labels on cigarette packs are getting bigger all the time, and the drinking age is still 21.

What can we conclude from these examples? It takes more than money to make a Congressperson support your issue. Money alone will not pass a law. Congresspeople support one side of an issue because, at the most basic level, their constituents either support that side as well, or their constituents don’t care. Seeing as how a poll in February showed American support for Israel is at an all time high, I don’t think it’s the latter case.

It’s really pathetic that Mr. Rosenberg ignores all the evidence and other explanations about why Congresspeople support Israel in favor of a ZOG myth. It’s sad when you can’t accept the fact that your views are not shared with your countrymen, but most of us just get over it.

The Huffington Post and Spies

2010-08-06T09:45:00.001-04:00

Yesterday the Huffington Post decided to give some coverage to Uri Brodsky being deported to Germany, allegedly because he is a Mossad spy.

They appear to have missed some other espionage-related incidents, though, such as a Lebanese general being arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel. There were also three Israeli citizens who are believed to be attempting a plot to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Sounds like there was quite a lot of clandestine operations going on over there. Would be nice if some of them were shared with the HP readership.

Meta Moment of the Day

2010-08-06T09:45:00.000-04:00

HPer Hypocrisy on Display

2010-08-06T09:30:00.000-04:00

I know it feels like we've been picking on this "barefoot" guy a lot lately but I wanted to show another one of his posts:

I'm sure you are all very familiar with the use of human shields, how terrorists fight among the civilian population so that way it is the fault of their enemies that those civilians die and not the terrorists who started the fighting.

When it comes to Hezbollah, though, the back and forth is so hypocritical as to be astonishing. On the one hand, some HPers like the one above will give the impression that Hezbollah is a bunch of guys meeting in a basement planning their next token rocket attack. All the civilians around them are not only unaware of Hezbollah's presence but they have nothing to do with what's going on.

But on the other hand people like Sharmine Narwani will tell us that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and therefore should not be considered a terrorist organization. One little problem, though: How did Hezbollah get to be part of the government? Answer: They were elected. By the people. Assuming of course Lebanon is as democratic as they also claim it is.

This just goes to show the multiple levels of hypocrisy among anti-Zionists. When it suits them, Hezbollah and Hamas are not armies numbering in the thousands of members who enjoy widespread support among the people. When it suits them, they are. Say what you will about Israel supporters, but they at least have one worldview and stick with it.

An Anti-Zionist Drops His Guard

2010-08-06T09:00:00.005-04:00

It's always nice when a noted anti-Zionist like MarcEdward finally admits that he has a problem with Jews.

The original link.

Lebanon Shootout Conclusion

2010-08-05T13:11:00.000-04:00

It is beginning to look like all the news surrounding the recent shootout between the IDF and Lebanon's military is winding down. The HP certainly has moved onto other topics for it's world section. I just thought I would note the comment dichtomy:

The original thread, in which we didn't know what exactly happened, accumulated about 1700 comments.
Then the second thread, which seemed to vindicate Israel (and it turned out it did) led to 900 comments, a little more than half.

In both cases the HPers continued to cling to their assumptions that Israel was in fact wrong, either in that they did cross the border (they did!) or that their tree-trimming operation was a 'provocation.' You can also check out the second thread to see a whole lot of off topic Israel bashing and deflections.

I do think this incident was informative because it showed us what happens when the anti-Zionists are confronted with a story (covered by the HP) which showed Israel to clearly be in the right. It is not a pretty picture.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

2010-08-05T10:15:00.000-04:00

Garden variety stuff for the HP:

The original link.

An HPer Reacts to Lebanon Firefight Story

2010-08-05T09:50:00.000-04:00

The original link.

The Left vs. Anti-Semitism

2010-08-05T09:45:00.001-04:00

I found a very interesting pamphlet on the Internet, supposedly distributed by the Olympia co-op after deciding to boycott Israeli products. It's about combating anti-Semitism from a rather far Left perspective. If you check it out you can read them say things like "Jews aren't evil, capitalism is!" and so forth. It's not particularly pro-Israel but provides very extensive information about forms of anti-Semitism and where it comes from. Ultimately a far Left but anti-anti-Semitism writing is not something you find everyday, so I thought I would share it.

HPW User Profile: YellowDay

2010-08-05T09:45:00.000-04:00

If you have been reading Israel-related articles you have probably seen the user YellowDay pop up from time to time. He has more than proven himself to be anti-Semitic at this point, often claiming that "Oliver Stone was right" and so forth. Unfortunately many of his comments were deleted by the time I got to his profile (here is an example) but there were still a few worthy of note. Click below to read them.

YellowDay has been active since June 2010 and has about 80 fans.

Israel To Expel Children Of Migrant Workers
“He's on AIPAC's payroll!”

Israel To Expel Children Of Migrant Workers
“Not racist at all because they are "God's Chosen-Squatters" REMEMBER!!!”

Israel To Expel Children Of Migrant Workers
“Rac ism in the "HOLYLAND" doesn't shock anyone.
Better to leave than have the chosen-squatters come get you and steal your things.”

Israel To Expel Children Of Migrant Workers
“Soon to come Isr ael will start expe lling je ws not converted by ext rem ist orthodox rabbi's.
The conversion bill is just being delayed doesn't mean it going away!
Got to love how "HOLY" the "Holyland" is.
Seems more like ra ci stland to me.”

Moonbats Against Israel
“How je w is h is hollywood!
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,2313474.column
By all the attacks you just proved Oliver RIGHT!!!”

Oliver Stone: 'Jewish Domination Of The Media' Propagates Holocaust Myths
“Exactly. But the zi on ist media completely highjacked the event!”

Israel Boycott Slammed By Jacob Weisberg: 'The Very Idea Is Repellent'
“List of who controls U.S. media
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/”

Israel Boycott Slammed By Jacob Weisberg: 'The Very Idea Is Repellent'
“Yeah Yeah yeah! I'm "ANTI-SEMITIC" and proud!!
I fight for Palestine and human rights!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA”

Israel Boycott Slammed By Jacob Weisberg: 'The Very Idea Is Repellent'
“Million Dollar question for HP readers.
Newsweek is controlled by what religion?
http://www.rense.com/general84/jewsh.htm “

Tea Party Caucus Confusion As Several 'Members' Haven't Confirmed Their Membership (UPDATED)
“She receives too many AI PAC pay checks to be concerned about Americans
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2008/pdfs/nov08pac-charts.pdf”

US Attack On Iran Back On The Table
“U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged but zi onist mass media reported it anyway just like Iraqs forged nuclear WMD sites.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49833
I wonder what crim inal country would forge documents and passports of other countries?
Anyone know the answer?”

US Attack On Iran Back On The Table
“Exactly! NO MORE WARS FOR IS RAEL or DUAL CITIZENS!! AMERICANS FIRST!”

Carl Levin Wants To Expand Drone Strikes In Pakistan
“No problem. I'm sure you won't see it on cnn abc fox or any other zio.nist media”

Israeli Settlements Helped By U.S. Tax Law: Non-Profit Donations At Odds With U.S. Foreign Policy
“I don't believe in religion or god! Just like an Israel to not know how to have a intelligent
conversation without wanting to insult or start a war..lolo

Israeli Settlements Helped By U.S. Tax Law: Non-Profit Donations At Odds With U.S. Foreign Policy
“Doesn't speak for me either. Time to let the leeches go!”

Israeli Settlements Helped By U.S. Tax Law: Non-Profit Donations At Odds With U.S. Foreign Policy
“Its always funny to see the pro-israel propaganda agents at different web sites because all they know is how to read of a script without any facts or knowledge.
Seems to be a couple here! How much do Israel pay you to spread your pro-zionism propaganda?
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/20/64654.html”

Israeli Settlements Helped By U.S. Tax Law: Non-Profit Donations At Odds With U.S. Foreign Policy
“He's suggested that but I paid and brought zionist congress all started crying he's going against "GOD'S" chosen-squatters plan!! The U.S. congress and government is occupied by too many zionist chistians religious freaks.”

Israeli Settlements Helped By U.S. Tax Law: Non-Profit Donations At Odds With U.S. Foreign Policy
“Insane is more like it!!
Non-jew (gentiles) shouldn't even be supporting the Jewish state according to the Torah because non-jews are animals and not worthy of JEWISH GODLINESS”

Is Criticism Of Israel Anti-Semitic?
“How much are you willing to bet if I use my phone on the "sabbath day" I would be called anti-semitic? You can call it whatever you want too but as long as my U.S. taxpayer money is being sent to a bunch of people who claim to be the invisible man in the sky "chosen-squatters" I have the right to say whatever I want. I would much rather have my money go to the poor U.S. citizens(gentiles) that really need it.
What country after 62 years can't even stand on their own feet without using the holocaust to collect money from around the world. Israel is like the biggest exploiters of their sufferings but yet no one is suppose to speak up when they commit a holocaust on other people. Seeing what the "jewish" state is doing to other people makes me actually think maybe Hitler tried to warn the world. Even Einstein tried to warn us about the forming of a "jewish" state.
If you criticize Obama are you anti-black or anti-america? If you criticize Bush as you anti-white? Lets just face it. The "jewish" government is corrupt and there's nothing holy about that for all the zionist lovers.I think its about time Israel walked on it own feet and stop being the worlds biggest welfare recipient country. (Yes Israel still exploit the U.S., Germany, France, Poland, etc. for money) You can silence some but not everyone.”

Huff-Watch: Is the HP More Anti-Israel than Al-Jazeera

2010-08-05T09:30:00.000-04:00

Our fellow blogger Huff-Watcher has a new article about the recent Israeli airstrike that killed a Hamas leader...we think. Apparently even though the Huffington Post referred to him as a "Hamas leader" every other newspaper including Al-Jazeera called him what he was: A bomb maker.

Why would the HP change the story? You'll have to check out the article to find out.

Comment of the Day

2010-08-05T09:00:00.000-04:00

The original link.

"Most of the Unrest in the World..."

2010-08-05T07:16:00.003-04:00

The original link.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see a particularly large difference between this post and saying "the Jews are responsible for all the world's wars."

After UN Vindication, Some HPers Blame Israel Anyway

2010-08-04T15:02:00.000-04:00

Irrationality is on display again:

Well Butter My Biscuit....

2010-08-04T12:58:00.000-04:00

The HP actually covered the UN defending Israel!

Note the lack of comments despite it's headline status. Check out this paragraph too:

"The Israeli soldier was cutting down the tree – something Israel does occasionally to improve its sight line into Lebanon – when Lebanese forces opened fire. The Lebanese army and a witness said U.N. peacekeepers intervened to ask the Israeli to stop cutting the tree, but Israel refused. UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, has not commented on that."

Oh? What was that about warning shots? Nope!

Guest Post: MJ Rosenberg and the AJC

2010-08-04T10:30:00.004-04:00

Our buddy MJ Rosenberg has written a blog post about the American Jewish Committee's decision to oppose the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", which is now a moot point as the Islamic center has received permission to proceed with construction. Nevertheless, BoJ reader "Ira Von Smackdownberg" has written a response to Rosenberg's blog post.

MJ Rosenberg writes: I have to admire the AJC -- the ADL's twin -- for opposing the Muslim center near Ground Zero but for scoring points by not being as racist about it as ADL.

Reality Check: MJ Rosenberg is being dishonest in his very first sentence. The AJC is not "opposing the Muslim Center." As the article he references states, they simply want to be clear who is funding it and that the views of the people who will run it are not pro-terrorist. That is different from "opposing" it. But MJ Rosenberg never lets accuracy get in the way of his attacks on anyone in the world who cares about Jews or Israel.

MJ Rosenberg writes: Instead of just saying "hell, no" to the mosque, David Harris, the neocon head of the AJC, says "yes, but."

Reality Check: Well, of course. Just about everything in this world has some sort of "but" attached. Doesn't mean that's a bad thing. [Matt: It's also not like they need the AJC's permission to build, Harris was just writing what he would prefer.]

MJ Rosenberg writes: He is all for building the center if it addresses some "concerns." It's like me saying that I will endorse Glenn Beck if he would just address my concerns about his right-wing politics

Reality Check: No, it's not like saying that at all. It's merely saying that they are OK with it as long as a few concerns of theirs are addressed. As long as it isn't funded by terrorists and they don't support terrorists, there aren't any other concerns. Which is perfectly valid. Unless of course you are MJ Rosenberg, in which case everything that any Jewish or pro-Israel organization does is evil and wrong.

MJ Rosenberg writes: Imagine if the American Jewish Committee (and its sister organizations) were held to that standard.

Reality Check: Why would they be? Synagogues aren't breeding ground for terrorists. Most mosques aren't, either. But a couple are [Matt: especially Palestinian ones]. Including some associated with the destruction of the WTC.

MJ Rosenberg writes: AJC's building on 56th Street would have to be unbuilt until AJC condemns the slaughter of 1400 Palestinians in Gaza in 2008-9 (including 432 kids).

Reality Check: No, because when Israel attacked Gaza, it had nothing to do with stuff being preached in a synagogue. It was because Gaza was firing thousands of rockets into Israel, until Israel was forced to respond with a full attack. MJ Rosenberg likely knows this, but because he appears to be totally obesssed with demonizing Israel and anyone who protects or speaks up for Israel, he isn't writing it. Either that or he's just a disgustingly incompetent writer who has no business ever being listened to on this subject.

MJ Rosenberg writes: Also, the AJC would be shut out of its building until it condemns the carpet bombing of Lebanon in 2006, including the use of thousands of cluster bombs still embedded in the earth. The list is pretty endless.

Reality Check: Again, Rosenberg paints a dishonest, inaccurate picture. None of that was because of preachings in synagogues. It was about protecting the country of Israel from attacks from groups who actually do sit around in mosques and rant crazy garbage about "destroying the Zionists."

MJ Rosenberg writes: And, the AJC has never opposed any of these acts of terror.

Reality Check: Israel protecting itself from Gaza rockets is not an act of terror. Israel protecting itself from Hezbollah in Lebanon is not an act of terrorism. Unless you're MJ Rosenberg, in which case if Israel drinks a glass of water, it's an act of terror.

MJ Rosenberg writes: Nonetheless, AJC issues demands that the Cordoba Center, which has never endorsed violence, repudiate terrorism (which it always has).

Reality Check: If the Cordoba Center has always repudiated terrorism, they should have no problem doing it again, right? DUH! It's not a lot to ask. Unless you're MJ Rosenberg, in which case ever questioning any mosque anywhere is an evil thing, whereas always accusing Jewish groups who protect Israel of anything wrong is always the way to go.

Big thanks to Ira for his submission.