The Guardian has an interesting report about how quite a few well-known British Jews are speaking out against their community spokespeople for being unrepresentative of the community's diverse views on Israeli policy:

"We come together in the belief that the broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole," the letter says. Jewish leaders in Britain, it argues "put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people" in conflict with Jewish principles of justice and compassion.

The UK Guardian has an interesting story today about how a Muslim police officer was excused "on moral grounds" from guarding the Israeli embassy in London during the Lebanon war. Since I'm in favour of all kinds of non-violent protests against Israeli government policy, I found it quite amusing.

The fact is that the Israeli embassy in London was probably never under any threat of anything more serious than having a few eggs thrown at it. Had there been any real threat of violence, of course the police are obligated to do whatever they can to prevent it. It's actually reassuring to know that police officers are given this kind of flexibility, even though the Home Office probably won't see it that way.

Jostein Gaarder writes in his essay "God's Chosen People," “We no longer recognize the State of Israel” and continues to employ “we” throughout the piece. But who are “we”? Gaarder tries to manipulate the readers not already with him to include themselves in the “we.” He lists a number of regimes whose members have committed crimes against humanity. He assumes the readers would agree that these regimes could not be supported, so then by the same token one must likewise reject Isreal. Interestingly, he makes allowances for those who might have supported Saddam’s Iraq. He is not that ethically scrupulous if he would allow supporters of the genocide of the Marsh Arabs in his “we.” But ethics are not his point here. It is a heartfelt complaint, to be sure. But his views are so tightly woven with common Christian polemic against Jews that any valid point he may make is lost in the ugliness of this kind of Christian anti-semitism.

Been wondering why the US political system has been so useless at restraining the Israeli military's adventure in Lebanon? The Nation's Ari Berman has a very good story about all the behind-the-scenes work that the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) has been doing to prevent any overt criticism of Israel's bombing.

On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.

What a way to begin a blog.

I've been reading about the attacks on Lebanon for the past couple days now, my reaction going from shock to denial to anger, back to shock, denial and anger about the UN Security Council's refusal to do anything that would resemble them doing their job. I'm deeply worried about friends and family of friends in Lebanon and Palestine, furious at what was probably the U.S.'s call to do nothing while homes are destroyed and people are maimed and killed. The fact that there is nothing that citizens can do, it seems, to help, to protest, is the most infuriating part. There are no petitions to sign, no charities to give to, no protest songs to sing, only dirges to mourn the destruction of the land of cedar and Fairuz.