"Jewish Voice for Peace" says to symbolically burn US and Israeli flags on Passover eve

From Jewish Voice for Peace's Facebook page:

Nationalism is chametz, during Passover and always! 

Freedom only for some is never enough. This Passover, at a time when violence against Palestinians by the Israeli state, military and settlers continues to escalate, we gather to demand and dream liberation for everyone.

For anti-Zionist Jews, this holiday can be a challenging time. For some, it can feel impossible to separate our holiday traditions from Zionist propaganda advocating ethnic cleansing and land theft. Many of us feel reluctant to even celebrate the holiday as Zionist terror escalates in Palestine. And many of us may be facing yet another holiday where our beliefs and politics are not welcome.  

This year, bring your whole anti-Zionist self to our virtual seder! Our beloved community is coming together to set the Pesach table for you. Our seder will feature joy and rage and hope from our Havurah, BIJOCSM and student networks, our campaigns, our rabbis, and from JVP members from near and far—all gathered for collective liberation for us all. 

They never seem to have a problem with Palestinian nationalism. I wonder why.

Their latest "Haggadah" is just as twisted in its interpretations of what Passover is about. I looked at a previous version in 2012, which was 28 pages long and included an essay on "pinkwashing." 

Apparently that was way too much for the current TikTok generation that JVP wants to attract, so this new one is a mere 14 pages long, deleting nearly all of Maggid, Hallel and Nirtzah. it doesn't even describe the overstuffed seder plate of the previous editions that included an olive (for Palestinians)  and an orange (for feminists and LGBTQ+.). 

This one still includes the third cup of wine celebrating BDS, though.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

A convenient list of As-A-Jew groups who love to lie

A group of Israel hating groups that have the word "Jewish" or a Hebrew word in their names issued a statement against Israel's attack on Islamic Jihad.

We, member groups of the International Jewish Collective for Justice in Palestine, are filled with sorrow and outrage at Israel’s unprovoked aerial bombardment of the community of Gaza, Palestine. We condemn it and its dishonest rhetoric.

This is not a dispute between two sides. An occupying military is attacking an occupied, blockaded community. Israel called this a ‘pre-emptive’ assault, although it provided no evidence for its just-in-case bombardment of crowded cities. Israel has no legal right to military aggression to bolster a blockade which is, itself, in violation of law. This has nothing to do with Israel’s self-defense. We saw with our eyes that it is occupied Gaza that needs defense, and has the right to defend itself.

Meaning, they support thousands of rockets to Israeli cities.

In three days, Israel killed 44 Palestinians including 15 children, and wounded 350. Scores of Gazan families are homeless and 650 homes were damaged in just the first 24 hours. No Israelis were killed.

 By the time this statement came out, even Palestinians knew quite well that many of the dead came from Islamic Jihad rockets. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights counts 27 dead, because it knows that most of the children killed were killed by the terror groups. And many of those 27 were killed by terrorist rockets as well that PCHR doesn't admit.

Israel chose to attack a besieged community on Tisha B’Av – a day when Jews lament our losses by siege, two thousand years ago. This choice shames the religion that Israel appropriates to launder the image of its settler colonialist project. 

Of course, what would an anti-Israel letter from As-A-Jews be without throwing in a mention of something Jewish? Tisha B'Av is about not hating one's fellow Jew, and this letter is the perfect example of baseless hatred against the vast majority of Jews in the world.

Who is appropriating religion? These groups' entire purpose is to weaponize Judaism to attack the Jewish state. 

So here's the list of the As-A-Jew signatory organizations who are willing to lie and promote antisemitic terror, in the name of a religion that they use only to attack Jews.

Independent Jewish Voices – Canada

Jewish Voice for Just Peace – Ireland

Boycott from Within (Israeli citizens for BDS)

Jews Say No! – US

Jews against the Occupation – Sydney, Australia

Jewish Voice for Labour – UK

Jewish Voice for Peace – US

Independent Australian Jewish Voices – Australia

Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East – Germany

Sh’ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices of Aotearoa New Zealand

Tzedek Collective Sydney – Australia

South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) – South Africa

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Is There Anyone From J-Street Who ISN'T A Co-Founder of If Not Now? (Daled Amos)

Just asking.

It seems there are various former members of J Street, some who served in leadership positions, who are now involved in If Not Now -- and some of them are apparently founding members.

For example:

Max Berger

o  He is identified as a co-founder of If Not Now in his 'bio' on Haaretz
o  A JTA article notes that before If Not Now, Max Berger worked for J Street as a new media assistant

Yonah Lieberman

o  Yonah Lieberman has a twitter account that identifies him as a co-founder of If Not Now
o  Lieberman was very heavily involved in J Street. According to his LinkedIn page, from January 2010 on he was a member of the National Student Board, the Midwest Regional Co-Chair, and Campus Chapter Chair.

Carinne Luck

o  Times of Israel identifies Carinne Luck as a co-founder of If Not Now.
o  Luck's website notes she was a founding staff member and Vice President for Field and Campaigns at J Street.

Simone Zimmerman

o  Simone Zimmerman identifies herself as a co-founder of If Not Now on her Twitter page.
o  In an article for The Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis writes that Simone Zimmerman was the national president of J Street U’s student board in the 2012-2013 school year

Kara Segal

o  Kara Segal's LinkedIn account lists her as an If Not Now co-founder.
o  She appears in this YouTube video at a 2009 J Street conference.

Emily Mayer

o  Emily Mayer identifies herself as an If Not Now organizer on her Twitter page
o  Daniel Greenfield notes that Emily Mayer was with J Street U at Haverford

Sarah Beth Alcabes

Canary Mission lists Sarah Beth Alcabes as leading an INN disruption, in partnership with Taher Herzallah of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), and also being an activist with J Street U at the University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley) from 2012-2014.

Times of Israel mentions Elianna Fishman, who was "heavily involved with J Street U Dartmouth" and who confirms "I interned for J Street, and helped set up a chapter on campus” before graduating and joining IfNotNow -- to which the article adds

In fact, many of IfNotNow’s leaders are alumni of J Street U.

An article in Haaretz echoes this when it says:

[If Not Now] remains small, attracting several dozen participants, some of whom are leaders of J Street U, the group’s student-organizing arm.

But the question remains: why have these, and other members of J Street, made the switch?

It sure appears as if J-Street is a gateway drug for Jewish students to learn to hate Israel and to be comfortable to criticize Israel "as a Jew." But it might be more than that.

According to a Haaretz article from 2014, Gaza War Pushes Some to the Left of J Street. The logic, according to Haaretz, is that over time, J Street, even back in 2014, was becoming larger and more moderate, with the result that there were the beginnings of a limited exodus that benefited smaller more radical groups. One of those groups was If Not Now, described in the article as "an ad hoc group."

Of course, what the Haaretz article claims is a sign of J Street's moderation can also be seen as the failure in the eyes of some of its members, to become increasingly radical.

A similar theme to Haaretz is taken by Nathan-Kazis in the Forward also in an article from 2014, that in contrast to the more "moderate" tone taken by J Street, some members felt J Street was not doing enough:

Former high-ranking J Street staff members were among the organizers of a July 28 protest in New York City against Israel’s invasion of Gaza. They acted under the name #ifnotnow and made no mention of their former J Street affiliations.

He writes about another protest just a few days earlier, launched by 4 activists that included high-ranking members Carinne Luck who had left J Street in 2012 and Daniel May, director of J Street U from 2010 to 2013 as well as Max Berger.

Other participants in one or both of those #ifnotnow protests included Isaac Luria, J Street’s vice president of communications and new media from 2008 until 2011 and Tamara Shapiro.

Some of that former J Street staff said they were not opposed to J Street’s long-term strategy -- but felt limited by its tactics. Others, like Luck, said they did not share J Street's "patience" with the "Jewish institutional community."

That is the narrative. Daniel Greenfield of FrontPageMag.org isn't buying it.

He is cynical of claims that If Not Now was simply born of a break with J Street. In If Not Now, J Street's Latest Anti-Israel Front Group, he writes:

The official narrative is that If Not Now parted ways with J Street because the group was insufficiently opposed to the Jewish State and insufficiently supportive of Hamas. As a practical matter though this is how radical groups have always operated, with a front group that makes efforts to appear moderate while incubating radical organizations within itself that "split off" but still pursue the same agenda.

Despite claims of a split, If Not Now is just pursuing the exact same agenda as J Street U, protesting Jewish charities for supporting Israel, while claiming to be the voice of a new generation.

It's the same scam with a new brand and slightly less of a paper trail.

If Not Now is J Street...

...New organizations are constantly being created and destroyed. But they all share one agenda. The destruction of the Jewish State.

If there is indeed an element of dramatic effect at work here, then this alleged break would be no more authentic than the recent break of Jesse Steshenko, who claimed to have been "a very ardent Zionist" who as a result of his recent J Street trip to Israel became "disgusted" with Israel.

Elder of Ziyon revealed that in fact as recently as 2016 as a member of Junior States of America, a mock Congress, he introduced a resolution calling Israel an apartheid state and demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as defined by the 1949 Armistice -- effectively depriving Israel of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.

Actually, J Street itself has a history of being less than straightforward.

o  It is a group that claims that it is pro-Israel, yet only supports Democrats, going so far as to support candidates it claims support Israel such as Representative Mark Pocan, who anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts

o  J Street was perfectly willing to support Rashida Tlaib, until it withdrew it only because she backed out of support of a 2-state solution

o  Despite denials, J Street not only supported the Goldstone Report - it actively facilitated Goldstone's attempt to defend it

o  Despite their repeated denials to the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 J Street received funding from George Soros.

o  J Street's co-founder Daniel Levy called the creation of Israel ‘an act that was wrong’

Carinne Luck's involvement in If Not Now is another reason for apprehension.

Here is a 2012 video of Luck explaining J Street's job:




The main takeaway from what Luck says:

o  A sizable percentage of J Street is not Jewish
o  J Street responds to  the wishes "the Hill, the (Obama) Administration" which wants J Street to "move Jews"
o  The bulk of J Street resources are dedicated to this
o  There is an uneasiness about those in J Street leadership who are not Jewish who may present themselves as Jews 

This idea of misrepresentation that Carinne Luck shares with the group -- without condemning -- is an issue that arises again with If Not Now, both in terms of questions about its connections with J Street but also in terms of its own claims to represent today's young American Jews.

We have seen there is a failure of J Street to live up to what it claims it does.
Should we be surprised that there are doubts about what If Not Now claims as well?

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

Antisemite David Icke to speak at city-owned theatre in Vancouver for ten hours

From CBC News:

A British conspiracy theorist known for his outlandish ideas about lizard people and "Zionists" controlling the world is set to perform in a Vancouver civic theatre this weekend, provoking outrage from Jewish groups.

David Icke, a former sports broadcaster, is scheduled to give a full-day presentation at the Orpheum Theatre on Saturday. The theatre is operated by the city, and officials have denied requests to cancel the show from groups like B'nai Brith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Aiden Fishman of B'nai Brith Canada described Icke's views as "classic anti-Semitic ideas" and said the booking should never have been allowed.

"It's totally, totally incompatible with the City of Vancouver's role as an open and tolerant multicultural municipality to allow Mr. Icke to speak at a city-owned facility, after we've brought all these concerns to their attention," Fishman told CBC News.

Deep concern from Jewish groups

In an interview Thursday, Icke was furious about the campaign against his show, describing the claims made by Jewish groups as "libellous."

His presentation, according to his website, will cover everything from "reptilians" — shape-shifting alien-human hybrids — to the truth about the moon, which he believes is a hologram projected from Saturn.

"If what they say is true, why will I spend 10 hours talking on Saturday and not even mention Jewish people once? They need to explain that," Icke asked.

But in videos of his lectures posted online, he frequently uses another phrase, "Rothschild Zionists." These are the people he suggests are responsible for causing the 2008 financial crisis, staging the 9/11 attacks and generally controlling the world's banking and political systems.

That phrase, according to Fishman, is pretty obvious code for Jewish people.

Icke claims that he is not against Jews at all, but only "Rothschild Zionists".

In this 2010 essay on his site, he says

Ask most people about Zionism and they will say ‘that’s the Jews’, but while this is the impression the Rothschild networks in politics and the media have sought very successfully to ‘sell’ as ‘common knowledge’, it is not true. It represents only a minority of them and many others who are not Jewish.

Yet when he goes through a list of who he considers "Rothschild Zionists" in positions of power, surprise, they all happen to be Jews (with many of them unknown to be Zionists at all.)

So Icke says with a straight face:

[T]he Rothschild Zionists control the mainstream media; Hollywood and the movie industry; governments, not least in the United States; and crucially in the light of current events, they control global finance and commerce....

Nah, nothing to do with Jews.

Hilariously, Icke quoted a 2008 humor column by Joel Stein, about how proud he was that Jews control Hollywood, to prove that "Rothschild Zionists" control Hollywood - but then he lamely says it has nothing to do with Jews:

The Los Angeles Times columnist, Joel Stein (Rothschild Zionist), wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don’t think Jews (Rothschild Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain ‘dumb’:

‘I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! … As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.’

I emphasise again that we are not talking here about ‘the Jews’ owning the media, Hollywood, politics, banking and big business, but a tiny clique answering ultimately to the secret society that I call Rothschild Zionism.

The City of Vancouver is saying that as long as Icke only talks about "Zionists" controlling the world and being responsible for 9/11, then there is no violation of Canadian laws:

 In an email, a spokesperson for the City of Vancouver wrote that it cannot infringe on Icke's freedom of speech without evidence that his presentation will include illegal hate speech.
"The City has explicit requirements in its theater rental agreements that govern the conduct of renters and has confirmed with Mr. Icke and his team their obligation to comply with all Canadian laws relating to the content of their presentation," the email reads.

A simple replacement of the word of "Jews" with "Zionists" in any Nazi text would ensure that they can be read in public in Vancouver without violating hate laws.

Come to think of it, this is exactly how the "pro-Palestinian" crowd thinks, too.

And remember that Alice Walker, the prize-winning novelist of the "anti-Israel" crowd, believes in Icke's theories as well.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

Here are the Jewish American "leaders" who fawned over Abbas

Earlier today I wondered what idiotic Jews were going to a lecture and Q&A with Mahmoud Abbas without challenging him with a single damning question.'

The answer is here:

The dinner, hosted by Center founder and chairman Dan Abraham and Center president Congressman Robert Wexler at the Plaza Hotel, was organized at the request of Abbas.

Abraham, Wexler and Abbas opened the discussion with brief introductory remarks. Abbas then answered questions from the assembled guests. The event lasted one hour and a half.

Guests included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and former US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer; Professor Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University; Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s The Situation Room; Congresswoman Nita Lowey; Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center; Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women; Peter Joseph, president of the Israel Policy Forum; Daniel Lubetsky, founder of OneVoice; Eli Broad, founder of the Broad Foundation; Professor Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize recipient; Abby Joseph Cohen, board member of the Jewish Theological Seminary and other American Jewish community leaders and foreign policy scholars.

These are not American Jewish leaders. They are prominent American Jews who were handpicked to ensure that it would be a swell evening with the Holocaust minimizing, Olympics massacre-funding, terrorist-supporting, human-rights denying, intransigent dictator of the Palestinian Authority.

Instead of asking questions to expose Abbas as the liar and extremist that he is, he was fawned over by these so-called "leaders." Some of their questions are would make anyone cringe:

Alan Dershowitz: If only the people at this table were responsible for making peace I think we would have peace. Virtually everyone here is opposed to Israel’s settlement policy and wishes it would end. …

My question is this – Bill Clinton once said to me in a conversation, the real problems is, dammit Israel is a democracy and the PA is a democracy. Therefore before you make peace both sides have to persuade their constituents. And sometimes good things produce bad results. Let me give you an example. Many of us in this room were very active in bringing a million Soviet Jews to Israel. That was a great thing but it produced an extreme right wing in Israel which made peace more difficult. My question to you is how do you and we together work to persuade the constituencies on both sides that are opposed to the two state solution that it is in their interest to bring about a two state solution. How can we use democracy to help us rather than serve as a barrier to peace?

I could fisk his answer, about how most Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews want a two state solution (it isn't true) like I have fisked his lies dozens of times, but the problem here isn't the answer - the problem is the question. Here we have Alan Dershowitz, who is a wonderful defender of Israel's right to exist, telling the enemy (and yes, Abbas is the enemy) that Israeli democracy is a problem because so many Israelis aren't as bowled over by Abbas as Dershowitz is.

In reality, Russian Jews in particular are attuned to how dictatorships work, what real oppression is, and what anti-semitism is - and they see it all in Abbas' Palestinian Authority. Dershowitz' chutzpah is to say that American Jews know what is best for Israelis and Israelis don't - so he wants to work with a certifiable terror cheerleader to short-circuit Israeli democracy!

Not to mention his absurd characterization of the PA as a democracy. Unreal.

I met Dershowitz, I like Dershowitz, but this is sickening.

And so are practically all of the other sycophantic, deferential questions asked by these prominent liberal Jews.

The problem goes even beyond the wishful thinking I've noted many times before that trump any possibility of an honest ability to weigh the facts. The problem is this: just like Arabs tend to project their own violent history and desires onto Jews in Arabic, liberal Jews want to project their own fervent desire for peace onto any Arab dictator who wears a suit and mouths nice things in English.

It is closer to psychosis than it is to realism.

Right-wing Jews want peace too. Russian Jews want peace. Religious Jews want peace. Likudniks and Naftali Bennett want peace. Practically everyone wants peace - but they are not willing to risk their own families' lives for empty promises. And nothing that the PA has done gives any of them security that real peace is the objective of their Arab neighbors.

The Israeli and Western press is filled with talk about peace, plans for peace, methods to achieve peace, references to peace studies, quotes from so-called experts who work at "peace centers" like the one that hosted this talk.

But the Arabic press essentially never mentions peace.

Their media has lots of talk about justice, and about rights, and about perceived Israeli violations of both. But the yearning for peace that these prominent Jews take for granted is simply not there. It doesn't exist. Nada.

This is the reality. Wishing it away and forcing parties to sign a piece of paper will not change this reality. Right now, the word "normalization" is a dirty word in Egypt, in Jordan and in the PA-controlled territories. Arabs who talk about real peace with Israel are ostracized. I am not exaggerating one bit. Ask Khaled Abu Toameh.

I can barely recall every reading any Arabic op-ed or article that talks about real peace with Israel. (Rarely, there are backhanded compliments of Israeli innovations in science, to contrast it with the Arab world. That's the most complimentary I've ever seen in some nine years of reading Arab media.)

Ignoring these facts is not just stupid, but potentially deadly. I wish, more than anything, that I was wrong. But giving Abbas a free pass does not serve the cause of peace; it only strengthens the fantasy.

Real peace cannot be built on lies and dreams, and it is about time that prominent American Jews woke up to the reality, no matter how unpalatable it might be.

(h/t E ben Abuya)

Read More

The "As-a-Jews" of the New York Times

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times blog:

Something I’ve been meaning to do — and still don’t have the time to do properly — is say something about Peter Beinart’s brave book The Crisis of Zionism.

The truth is that like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world. But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.

But it’s only right to say something on behalf of Beinart, who has predictably run into that buzzsaw. As I said, a brave man, and he deserves better.

Also from the New York Times today, an op-ed from Stephen Robert:

How can a people persecuted for so long act so brutally when finally attaining power? Will we continuously see the world as 1938, or can we use the strength of our new power to forgive, while never forgetting the lessons of our past?

I guess he is "brave" too.

Last month, according to the monthly tally from Soccer Dad, the NYT printed 8 more "brave" anti-Israel op-eds, as opposed to 3 that were pro-Israel. Including one from that "brave" man, Peter Beinart.

In the last six months of 2011, the tally was even more lopsided: 39 anti-Israel op-eds, and 8 pro-Israel.

Any way you look at it, the New York Times doesn't seem to have any compunctions about publishing criticisms of Israel. But not only is the Times blatant about its anti-Israel bias, but its writers seem to feel that they are being remarkably bold by parroting the same arguments that have been published there scores of times in the past year.

Criticizing a tiny state surrounded by enemies hell-bent on its long-term destruction might not play in Peoria, but it plays very well in the salons of the Upper East Side. It is a false bravado, one where the people pushing their agendas know quite well that they have a large support group from the most influential ivory tower newspaper in the United States. Seriously, how have any of these critics been hurt by what they have written? They have been criticized to be sure, but they have also been praised. They are getting huge amounts of publicity and selling lots of books, giving lectures across the nation and having their faces plastered all over every Jewish periodical. Is that what NYT liberals consider "bravery" nowadays?

In fact, today's NYT op-ed is utterly boring. Stephen Robert rehashes the exact same arguments we have heard ad nauseum as he demands that Israel somehow overlook the fact that Palestinian Arabs keep demanding that it be destroyed demographically and politically. He is not an expert on Israel - a previous piece that he wrote for The Nation shows that he has gullibly believed outright lies from his Palestinian Arab friends. He has no real credentials, unless you believe heading a major mutual fund group makes one an expert on the Middle East.

So why did the New York Times choose to publish yet another op-ed bashing Israel when it breaks no new ground, makes no new arguments, and is quite tendentious to boot?

Because, like Krugman, the author is another "As-a-Jew." He says he grew up as a Zionist, coming from a family of committed Zionists, complete with experience with pogroms and fundraising for the UJA. He is pretending to be yet another recovering Zionist, someone who knows what is best for Israel far better than the people who live there and actually vote in elections. The only thing that makes his point of view interesting, to the NYT opinion editor, is that Robert is being "brave" by speaking out, as a Jew, just like the scores of other ignorant Jews who have been reading the New York Times' anti-Israel pieces over the years and believe them as the Jewish equivalent of gospel.

This is not bravery.

Bravery is to be an Arab and to criticize the PLO. Bravery is to be a Muslim woman and criticize how Muslims treat women. Bravery is to publicly protest in Syria. Bravery is to risk your life for your opinions.

It is not bravery to risk receiving some angry emails. And as awful as the Likud seems to be when you read these "brave" articles criticizing it, the authors aren't quite scared that the Mossad will come and take them out.

When someone like Krugman calls someone like Peter Beinart "brave" it illustrates how out of touch liberal New York Times "As-a-Jews" are. Their worldview is so skewed that they believe that Netanyahu - a man who accepts a two-state solution, who has all but said that he would throw tens of thousands of Jews out of their homes to make peace  - is somehow a warmonger. Meanwhile, they believe that Mahmoud Abbas, a man who honors the most notorious terrorists and anti-semites, who arrests journalists who criticize him,  and who would rather partner with Hamas terrorists than Israeli Jews, is perfectly reasonable and moderate.

How can such a complete reversal of reality even cross the mind of a sane person?

Well, it can easily happen, if your idea of reality comes from the op-ed pages of the New York Times.

(h/t Daniel)

UPDATE: To Beinart's credit, he doesn't consider himself brave. (h/t Martin Kramer)

Read More