A. Loewenstein Online Newsletter

Roll up Zionist freaks; Glenn Beck is in Israel praising lunatics

Posted: 22 Aug 2011

So little comment is required here. If Israel was a serious nation and the global Zionist Diaspora was keen for respectability, they would distance themselves from this settler-embracing extremist who loves Jews because he hopes they’ll convert when the Rapture arrives.
Haaretz:

Some 3,000 people, mostly American Christians, filled the seats at the amphitheater in Caesarea on Sunday night for 90 minutes of a show hosted by Glenn Beck – the first of his much-hyped, and much-discussed, three-night run in Israel.
The evening’s opening act, a dissection of Israel’s significance that felt more like a news channel studio debate than a live show, was followed by video footage of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he vowed that “Jerusalem must never be divided.” This statement won the first of many raucous rounds of applause of the night.
Beck actually spoke relatively little (although he did manage to cry often), giving the floor over instead to his main guests – historian David Barton, Efrat founder Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and author Mike Evans.
All three did pretty much what they were presumably booked for: Barton brought historical gravitas to the words of the Bible; a moist-eyed Evans recounted a traumatic childhood of anti-Semitic taunts from which he was saved by a vision of Christ; and Riskin spoke of Jewish appreciation for the support of the Christian pro-Israel community, and in particular that of Glenn Beck, who, according to Riskin, is a “deeply patriotic American, a true friend of Israel.”
“We are not alone,” Riskin said. “We are Jews and not Christians; you Christians, nevertheless, have the courage to love us in our otherness.
“We are profoundly grateful for your courage to love us and stand with us,” he added.
It all seemed carefully scripted, even down to the screens with lyrics of the Hebrew songs transcribed in English. The determination to stand by Israel and the devotion to the Jewish State was palpable, and oft declared.
Like Woodstock and Glastonbury, the headline name came last, and unlike Riskin et al, Pastor John Hagee got a standing ovation the moment he strode onto the stage. The most vehement of the speakers, he drew an analogy with JFK and his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, when he announced “Ani Yisraeli” (I am an Israeli ). He then coaxed the crowd into repeating his mantra: “I am an Israeli!” they chanted over and over.

New York Jewish Forward:

By supporting the right-wing government in Jerusalem, Beck seems to have found new respect in the eyes of many Jews and Israelis. While in Israel, Beck will be meeting with Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon and a couple of other government ministers, and even with centrist MK Einat Wilf from Ehud Barak’s Atzmaut party.
This is not the kind of support Israel needs. Beck’s religious rhetoric, his radical conservative positions and his fondness for the idea of Armageddon present a real danger to the well-being of Israelis and Palestinians alike, especially given that Beck’s rallies are taking place less then a month before the Palestinian Authority’s United Nations bid. His views support a marginal and extreme political faction within Israel that places that conflict with the Palestinians in a childish “clash of civilization” context and badly injure the years-long Jewish struggle against racism and anti-Semitism.
Beck’s belief, shared by many in evangelical circles, is that Israel is the focal point of a worldwide struggle between good and evil. The Jewish state is at odds with the need to see the conflict as a political problem and thus strive for a peaceful and just solution that would allow Palestinians and Jews to live together. Even scarier is the fact that those who push for this ultimate showdown between good and evil in the holy land live in a faraway country and would not have to face the terrible consequences of their actions.
…
Progressive forces in Israel cannot fight this dangerous alliance on their own. Community leaders in the United States were slow to react to Beck’s vicious attacks on Jewish businessmen, but eventually they did denounce them. Yet when it comes to Israel, these voices are not heard, while conservative Jewish groups like the Zionist Organization of America go so far as to congratulate Beck on his “moral clarity.” In these difficult days, Jewish leaders have a special responsibility to make sure that our politics are not hijacked by the likes of Glenn Beck. Before we all pay a dear price for it, it’s time to make it clear to Beck that his help is not welcome.

Australia’s future is not ignoring human rights in the region

Posted: 22 Aug 2011

My following book review appeared in yesterday’s Sydney Sun Herald newspaper:

There Goes the Neighbourhood
Michael Wesley
(New South Books, $32.95)
Australia’s insecurity in the Asia-Pacific region is legendary. Over decades prime ministers and commentators have urged a close relationship with Washington while remaining open to romance with leading powers such as China to buy security and stability. Wesley challenges this outlook, asking policy makers to take far more seriously countries such as South Korea and the Philippines and recognise that the 21st century has already forced challenges to established doctrine. However, any serious human rights agenda is absent – a blind spot that’s shared by many.

Murdoch is a man of upstanding virtue, says Murdoch man

Posted: 22 Aug 2011

Surely quote of the week:

Mr Murdoch has never asked any journalist to do anything improper.

Unless, of course, by “improper” you mean bomb Muslim countries in the name of “freedom”.

Should we trust tech companies talking about censoring speech?

Posted: 21 Aug 2011

The complete lack of transparency with telecommunication firms deciding with the assistance of government if and when calls or web connections should be stopped or censored is highly disturbing. Who wants a faceless firm making such decisions? From yesterday’s UKObserver:

After the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and this summer’s looting in England, there is no longer any doubt about the speed with which large crowds can be mobilized on to the streets. As flash-mobbing morphs into flash-robbing, the attention of British authorities is turning to the mobile phones and social media that empower everything from benign groups dancing in railway stations to the vandalism of entire high streets.
During the riots, two London MPs called for a BlackBerry Messenger curfew, proposing a 6pm to 6am shutdown of the service being used by gangs to organize looting. It was not implemented but in the aftermath, a review of police powers, including those to intervene in mobile communications, was announced. Theresa May is to meet Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion (Rim) to discuss tighter controls, and the prime minister has warned: “When people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them.”
Companies and politicians are being forced to rethink the extent to which governments or the police should be able interfere with communication networks. This year has seen at least two heavy-handed interventions. The Egyptian government ordered the closure of Vodafone’s network, and those of other operators, during the Tahrir square uprising. Vodafone remained down for 24 hours, and when service resumed the company was strong-armed into sending out pro-government text messages urging demonstrators to stay at home.
In the week of the England riots, the operator of San Francisco’s subway pulled the plug on its own mobile network for three hours, even preventing passengers from making emergency calls. In an echo of the killing that sparked the Tottenham riots, the San Francisco shutdown was designed to prevent a demonstration over the fatal shooting of an unarmed man by a transport policeman. Last year, Vodafone’s partner company in Bahrain complied with restrictions forcing sim card users to register their personal details. More than 400,000 of those who did not were cut off.
While new companies such as Twitter are beginning to work out where they stand on such issues, the mobile phone networks are used to operating under heavy regulation and have well established systems for co-operating with police. O2, for example, has a high-security police liaison team in Slough which employs 30 staff who are constantly in touch with police over anything from missing persons to murders.
“Switching off any network element or any device should be a last resort,” says Mike Short, European technology vice-president for Telefónica, which runs the O2 network. O2′s view, and that of its fellow carriers, can be summed up by its advertising slogan: “We’re better connected.”
There is only one reported case of a UK network being closed by police. During the 7/7 London suicide bombings, O2 phone masts in a 1km square area around Aldgate tube station were disconnected for a number of hours.
…
“We don’t want to be big brother about this,” says Short. “The service is primarily for our customers, if we can help the police under law that is also fine but we don’t want to change our systems just for a few incidents, however great they are.”
He says the industry would welcome guidance in the next Communications Act, for which a green paper is expected by Christmas. In the UK as in most other nations, the government has the right to pull the plug if it sees fit, but mobile phone operators are coming under pressure to promote best practice.
Access, which lobbies for communication freedom, suggests a set of principles that would include only closing networks as a last resort for short periods, ensuring all phones can call emergency services during a shutdown, and refusing to act as a spokesperson for a regime.

Start a war, privatise everything and watch failure arrive like clockwork

Posted: 21 Aug 2011

Project on Government Oversight has the news that will brighten the heart of every pro-war advocate who just wants to make a buck from endless conflict:

A top government contractor’s failure to meet contractual agreements with the U.S. government put the entire mission of the Afghan National Police (ANP) training program at risk, according to a new joint audit by the Inspectors General (IGs) for the Department of State and Department of Defense (DoD).
The purpose of the audit was to review the transition of contract administration for the ANP training program from the Department of State to DoD.
The IGs found that DynCorp, the U.S.-based firm that won the billion-dollar contract to provide training personnel and life support (e.g.: food, lodging, and security services) for the ANP, fielded only about 40 percent of the training personnel it was supposed to bring in. From Al Jazeera:
“Under a $1 billion, two-year contract signed between the Defence Department and DynCorp International in December 2010, the firm was required to have instructors in place within a 120-day deadline.
“Defence officials “reported that the incoming contractor did not have 428 of the 728 required personnel in place within the 120-day transition period,” said the audit.
“The most notable discrepancy was in the number of police mentors that DynCorp was supposed to provide to the Afghan forces.
“The audit said that 213 of the 377 required “Fielded Police Mentors” were not in their positions during the transition period.”
But it wasn’t just DynCorp that the IGs faulted. According to the audit, State and DoD failed to put together a comprehensive plan for the transition. Instead, both Departments developed their own plans independently.
The Departments ended up relying heavily on the contractor’s plans, components of which the IG found to be “not feasible.” Furthermore, the contractor plans did not address inherently governmental tasks, i.e. tasks that only federal employees can perform because they are so intimately tied to the public interest.