By accepting Speaker Boehner's invitation to address Congress, the Israeli leader has chosen to side with political forces opposed by many US Jews.

—By David Corn

| Tue Jan. 27, 2015 6:00 AM EST


Remy Steinegger /Flickr

It was not so shocking that House Speaker John Boehner would seek to undermine President Barack Obama and his attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to deliver an address to Congress, in which Netanyahu will presumably dump on Obama's efforts. Nor was it so shocking that Netanyahu, who apparently would rather see another war in the Middle East than a deal that allows Iran to maintain a civilian-oriented and internationally monitored nuclear program, agreed to mount this stunt two weeks before the Israeli elections—a close contest in which the hawkish PM is fighting for his political life. Certainly, Netanyahu realized that this audacious move would strain his already-ragged ties with the Obama administration and tick off the president, who will be in office for the next two years and quite able to inconvenience Netanyahu should he hold on to power. (Even Fox News talking heads acknowledged that Boehner's invitation and Netanyahu's acceptance were low blows.) But what was surprising was how willing Netanyahu was to send a harsh message to American Jews: Drop dead.


The clear conclusion is that despite Republican efforts to target Jewish voters and to paint the president as somehow anti-Israel, the Jewish vote is not up for grabs. In fact, there has been a remarkable consistency in the Jewish vote for Congress over the past three elections as measured by GBA surveys, including 66 percent for Democrats in 2010, 69 percent in 2012, and 69 percent in 2014.

And there's this. The poll asked American Jews to cite two issues of importance to them. Only 8 percent mentioned Israel, which put this subject in 10th place, far behind the economy and health care. Another survey conducted earlier in 2014 showed American Jewish voters overwhelmingly supporting Obama and listing the economy and the growing gap between the rich and poor as their top issues. As the New York Times reported, "Concern about Israel or Iran ranked very low, even when respondents were asked for the second most important issue that would determine their vote for president." The paper quoted Robert Jones, head of the Public Religious Research Institute: "We show no slippage in Jewish support for President Obama."

That is not good for Jews in the United States or Israel. Israeli politicians have long counted on Jewish support in the United States—and support from conservative evangelicals. Yet there have been signs that non-Orthodox American Jews are not all that happy with Netanyahu's policies. A 2013 poll found that only 38 percent of American Jews believed that his government was "making a sincere effort to bring about a peace settlement" with the Palestinians. Close to half believed Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank was a bad idea. (Only 17 percent said it helped Israeli security.) That is, Netanyahu's right-wing approach—even if supported by AIPAC and other American Jewish establishment outfits—was not popular with many American Jews.

And now Netanyahu is partnering up with Boehner to kick Obama in the teeth and sabotage one of the president's top diplomatic priorities. He is essentially telling American Jews to get lost: I have no regard for the president you support and no regard for your own political needs and desires

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/netanyahu-boehner-congress-american-jews-get-lost

By Associated Press
January 16, 2015 1:06 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — Top Democrats are defending their appointment of a Muslim congressman to the House Intelligence Committee after protests erupted on social media, warning the move is dangerous.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi this week appointed Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana to the panel, which oversees the government's intelligence departments and activities. Much of the business that comes before the committee is classified.

Anti-Muslim protests erupted on Twitter and other social media with complaints that exposing American secrets to Carson could be dangerous.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the senior Democrat on the panel, called the protests un-American. He said including Muslim Americans in public policy issues is "an essential element in preventing the kind of alienation that has made too many young European Muslims vulnerable to extremism."

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-defend-naming-muslim-house-intelligence-panel-173656959--politics.html

(CNN) By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor

It's not surprising that, in its first issue since the attack, Charlie Hebdo again put Mohammed on the cover. But this time, instead of showing the revered Muslim founder in an unflattering light, the magazine struck a far different tone -- and was received by some Muslims in a far different way.

"My initial thought is that the cover is a near perfect response to the tragedy," said Hussein Rashid, a professor of Islamic thought at Hofstra University in New York. "They are not backing down from the depiction of Mohammed, exercising their free speech rights. At the same time, the message is conciliatory, humble, and will hopefully reduce the anger directed to the Muslim communities of France."

Yahya Adel Ibrahim, an imam in Australia, counseled his 100,000 Facebook followers to follow the example of their prophet, even as they encounter images that many may consider to be offensive."As it is clear that the cartoons are to be published again, Muslims will inevitably be hurt and angered, but our reaction must be a reflection of the teachings of the one we love & are angered for," Ibrahim said. "Enduring patience, tolerance, gentleness and mercy as was the character of our beloved Prophet (peace and Blessings be upon him) is the best and immediate way to respond."

Yasir Qadhi, an American cleric with a wide following, said he's not pleased by any depictions of Mohammed, but it's clear that this Hebdo cover, unlike others, is not meant to offend.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/living/muslims-respond-hebdo/

Inflammatory clickbait, I'm afraid, from a media organization that once tried to rise above Rupert Murdoch and his populist ilk, but now increasingly travels alongside them on the low road - perhaps out of desperation for "page views" to sell its online ads than anything else. It was published to be inflammatory and incite endless comment.

The writer has clearly not visited most of the countries he writes about. I have, several times each, over decades, and can attest that they are the safest countries I have travelled in, and that their citizens could not have been kinder to me. I'd travel to any of them again in a minute. How could anyone in their right mind consider countries such as Iran and Turkey, for example, "unsafe" if they had not been there? Picking out the errors in this article is like shooting stoned fish in a barrel - too easy to be worth my time. This is one reason I travel and chose to live overseas for extended periods - to form opinions based on lived experiences, rather than play games of armchair politics or pontificate on subjects I only know from reading dyspeptic or perfervid articles like this. One example why I'd never trust the Australian media to accurately portray any event in the Middle East was the reporting of the murder of the Australian nurse in December 1996, on the Saudi Arabian compound I lived on, in the week before I was about to fly back to Melbourne for Christmas. I was there, I knew all the facts surrounding the case, all the people involved, and the way the media portrayed the British nurse who was eventually charged with the murder as some kind of a "victim" of the Saudi Arabia legal system was nothing short of scandalous. It was a routine homicide carried out by an amateur, and conviction was based on an incredible wealth of evidence - which many of us saw first hand, including the victim's scratches all over the murderer's arms. The principal detective did a very thorough and professional job, and included photographic evidence. I learnt never to underestimate just how racist our media can be.

On the subject of jihad, it is useful to remember that the West goes on its jihads too, and Australia is never far behind when the call to arms is made. George Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, were framed as missions with religious overtones, smiting and smoking out "evildoers" while spreading liberation in its wake. Countries that refuse to bow to Western hegemony are branded "Axis of Evil". Australia's rush to support the US invasion of Vietnam against the godless Communists was framed with similarly religious soliloquies in order to help manufacture consent. A few decades earlier, the Nazis actually created a new Aryan religion in order to support and justify their wars. Before that, of course, it was the West's mission to colonize lands far beyond its shores and convert the coloured subjects it found there - saving them from themselves.

It's also useful to remember that of the more than 100 million war deaths in the 20th century, less than 2 percent came at the hands of Muslim-majority nations. Most of those dead (the less than 2 percent) came in wars where non-Muslim nations played a significant role—such as the Iran/Iraq War, where the United States and other European countries such as France, Germany and Sweden aided the aggressor Iraq...and the Afghan Civil War, where the Soviet Union was a major military force, the Reagan administration later coaxing the Taliban genie out of the bottle to combat them, showering them with weapons and training. But the author of the article you've shared would imagine that the West had its hands clean in those particular wars. He knows nothing of history or reality, or prefers not to know.

On a final note, the Muslim people I know are just lovely people, full of fun and just want to get on with living a peaceful and productive life. They prefer to see Christians as fellow "People of the Book", meaning we share far more common heritage and values than any imagined differences. We are far more alike in terms of heritage than the West may be with India, China, or African nations, for example. But all this is smoke and mirrors. Fear and division aids those who wish to control us if we exist in a state of ignorance. I'm far more concerned about the immense destruction of overfishing and uncontrolled trawling of our oceans, or the irreversible destruction of the world's old-growth forests, for example, than I am of anything the media would have me scared of...

RIYADH/PARIS — Saudi Arabia condemned Wednesday’s shooting attack on a French satirical magazine.

“...The Kingdom strongly condemns and denounces this cowardly terrorist act that is rejected by true Islamic religion as well as the rest of the religions and beliefs,” the Saudi Press Agency said, citing an official source.

Egypt’s leading Islamic authority, Al-Azhar, also condemned the attack, which killed at least 12 people including two police officers, the worst militant attack on French soil for decades.

Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the Union of French mosques, condemned the “hateful act,” and urged Muslims and Christians “to intensify their actions to give more strength to this dialogue, to make a united front against extremism.”

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150108229902

By
by Joe Parkinson for the Wall Street Journal

Muslim leaders strongly condemned the deadly attack on offices of a French satirical magazine but at the same time, some cautioned that the rise of anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe risked strengthening support for jihadists across the continent.

In the capitals of Muslim nations, government ministers took to the airwaves to voice sympathy and solidarity with France after gunmen killed 12 people in the assault on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a magazine targeted in the past for cartoons that some Muslims found offensive

In Europe and the U.S., Muslim leaders called for tolerance while some mosques stepped up security in case of reprisal attacks. On social media sites Twitter and Facebook, Islamic organizations denounced the violence, with many using the top-trending #CharlieHebdo to express solidarity.

In Cairo, Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said Egypt “stands in France’s corner” in a fight against terrorism that threatens global security and stability. That message was echoed by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and in Iraq, where authorities are waging war against extremist group Islamic State with expanding air and ground support from a U.S.-led international coalition.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas denounced the attack as terrorism in a message to French President François Hollande, and said such “heinous crimes” are condemned by morality and religion.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/muslim-leaders-condemn-attack-warn-on-anti-islamic-sentiment-in-europe-1420654885