Israeli Consulate Occupied in Boston

But hey, it's not anti-Semitic or anything.

At Future of Capitalism, "Occupy Boston Occupies Israeli Consulate."

Also, at Power Line, "IS DEMOCRATS’ DEMAGOGUERY FUELING ANTI-SEMITISM?"

Israel Navy Intercepts Boats Bound for Gaza

At New York Times, "Israel Intercepts Two Boats Bound for Gaza":

JERUSALEM — The Israeli military said on Friday that it had boarded two small boats that were sailing toward Gaza to challenge Israel’s maritime blockade of the Palestinian coastal enclave. There were no reports of violence or injuries.

The boats, one Canadian and the other Irish, were carrying 27 pro-Palestinian activists, journalists and crew members from nine countries. The military had stated that it would prevent the boats from reaching Gaza, which is ruled by the Islamic militant group Hamas.

The Israeli Navy initially notified the vessels that they were en route to an area under blockade and advised them to turn back, or to sail to a port in Egypt or Israel, the military said in a statement.

Also at Israel Matzav, "Here we go again... Flotilla refuses navy order to turn around; UPDATED WITH VIDEO."

Israel Matzav on Erick Erickson's Anti-Semitic Attack on Jennifer Rubin

Carl in Jerusalem picks up on my second post on Erick Erickson's attack on Jennifer Rubin.

See: "Eric Erickson charges Jennifer Rubin with dual loyalty, then backtracks":

What I want to get to is Erickson's labeling of anyone who advocates for Jonathan Pollard's release as having dual loyalties (yes, that still comes through in his apology) and of automatically not being a conservative. Over the last year, Lawrence Korb (formerly Caspar Weinberger's number 2 at the Defense Department), former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former US Secretary of State George Schultz, and Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree have all come out in favor of releasing Pollard. Of those, to the best of my knowledge, only Mukasey is Jewish and only DeConcini and Ogletree are not Republicans.

Additionally, some 500 American Jewish and Christian leaders called for Pollard's release in a letter to President Obama in January. That letter cites all of the following (some of whom are already listed above) as favoring Pollard's release:

Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Senators Charles Schumer and Arlen Specter, Harvard Law Professors Charles Ogletree and Alan Dershowitz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP, former federal Judge George Leighton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, Pastor John Hagee, and Gary Bauer.

And 39 members of Congress.

Would Erickson accuse all of them of dual loyalty? Are none of them Republican or conservative enough for Erickson? Surely Hagee and Bauer (at least) ought to be. And if that's the case, why is Erickson going after Jennifer with a charge like this and not after any of them?

Pollard committed a crime and he's paid for that crime disproportionately. It's long past time to let him go. Unfortunately, much of the American Jewish community cannot find its voice on this issue precisely because it is intimidated by the type of dual loyalty charges made by Erickson against Jennifer Rubin. But the American Jewish community ought to find its voice.

There's still more at the link, and Erickson's getting beaten up in the comments.

Also, at The Other McCain, "Erickson’s ‘Anti-Semitic Screed’?"

Gilad Shalit Release

Gilad Shalit was released last Tuesday. I posted a couple of times on the Israel/Hamas deal, but I didn't have the chance mid-week to comment on Shalit's homecoming. He looks ghastly. That's what five years of being held hostage does to you. Terrorists terrorize. Not enough to eat. No loved ones to care for and have care for you. It burns inside the think of what in God's name drives these people to such barbarism. But he's home, and that in itself is a blessing, even if there may be more just like him.

I'm reminded after checking over at Melanie Phillips' blog, and she links to a couple of her essays: "The infernal choice," and "Journalism? No, cruelty and propaganda."

Occupy Wall Street and the Jews

The key thing about the rash of anti-Semitism we've seen out of Occupy Wall Street is not that it's shocking, but so mainstream. I'm not shocked at all by it. I write about this stuff all the time. One reason progressives work so hard to shut me down and shut down this blog is because I continually and relentless shine a light of moral approbation on their Jew-hatred. Not enough people do this, in my opinion. People must think that anti-Semitism lingers only in the extreme fringes of the aging millenarian right-wing, the last gasp of a few Nazis. But it's not that. As I've noted numerous times, Jew-hatred is the premiere organizing position of today's progressive-left movement. And while some remind us not to worry too much about Israel, say, since it's more vibrant and economically stronger than its regional enemies, I think there's never a good time be complacent about these things, especially since Jew-hatred seems to gain more mainstream acceptance by the day. The events of the last two months in New York and around the country have shown what it's like when the big media outlets and top political officials pooh-pooh the hate. "First they came…"

A particularly perverse version of such enabling can be seen in Michelle Goldberg's, "One Percent," at the Jewish magazine Tablet. Goldberg keeps stressing how Occupy Wall Street is "anarchist," and hence, there's no way to control or ostracize the "minimal" numbers of anti-Semitic members:

Occupy Wall Street lacks tools for enforcing any sort of discipline, or ostracizing troublemakers. When someone at a Tea Party rally holds a particularly offensive sign, as many have, the movement can denounce them. But there is no one at Occupy Wall Street to do the denouncing.

Somehow Goldberg can write this with a straight face, after she writes earlier in the essay that the organizing model at Zuccotti Park has "has fostered, for the most part, a spirit of volunteerism and cooperation." So which is it? Anarchy or cooperation? If there's cooperation among activists, there's not an "inability to enforce some kind of order." All these idiots have to do is get in the face of the Jew-hating freaks and have them GTFO. What's the problem?

Well, the problem is that Goldberg is a typical progressive Jew who sees the main danger to Jewish life emerging on the right. Sure, Goldberg probably really does cringe at the blatant anti-Semitism. I just think she's too stupid to realize she's attached to the wrong side. Not so for MJ Rosenberg, a Media Matters "fellow" and epitome of Jewish neo-communist extremism. See Rosenberg's piece, "Exploiting anti-Semitism to destroy Occupy Wall Street," at the Jewish Journal:

An ugly old tradition is back: exploiting anti-Semitism to break the backs of popular movements that threaten the power of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. It is being used to undermine the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has conservatives in a state of near panic....

Because utilizing anti-Semitism directly would not succeed in this country today, the reactionary defenders of the economic status quo are using the flip side of the coin: the fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street’s agenda is just opposition to Jews.

There's more at the link, and Rosenberg gets hammered at the comments. He's a really bad act, and his ravings are truly the product of the most perverse neo-communist class-warfare tropes. He turns my stomach.

In any case, the video above is the trailer for "Unmasked: Judeophobia and the Threat to Civilization." Phyllis Chesler references it at her entry, "An Open Letter to the ‘Good Liberal’ Who Ignores Occupy Wall Street’s Jew Hatred." And she notes there:

Unmasked ... shows us the Parisian mobs (leftists and Islamists) crying “Death to the Jews” in 2001. We see and hear angry, hate-choked speeches delivered on American campuses which characterize Israel as a “Nazi, Apartheid” state. We see Israeli soldiers confiscating 50 tons of ship-borne weapons in 2010 — weapons which included rockets with the capacity to attack the Israeli Navy and even more sites in civilian Israel. We see what really happened when armed Turkish mercenaries violated international law and attacked Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara. We are reminded that Israel was condemned for exercising its legal right to self-defense, and that Israel brings all goods and supplies into Gaza after first checking for weapons. The “blockade” of Gaza exists to keep weapons out that are being expressly brought in to exterminate Israelis.

When I ran into anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, I at first believed it could be contained, even resolved, if Israel only Did Something Else.

I was wrong. No matter what else or what more Israel did or could do, it would ever have been enough. Israel’s crime is an essential and existential one. It exists. This is unforgivable. It remains a permanent offense to Arabs and Muslims. In 2000, when Arafat launched his Second Intifada, I knew that Wiesel’s bloody beast was back. In 2003, I published a book about it: The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It.

What I first began writing and talking about nearly a decade ago has here been brought to life, expanded, and dramatically enacted in this film.

Read the whole thing.

Chesler indicates that the war against the Jews is a war of the information battlespace. It's a battle of the minds over the social construction of right and wrong in the contemporary age. If big media silence on the #OWS Jew-hatred is any sign, we've got a lot of work to do.

UPDATE: Linked at PACNW Righty, "Occupy Wall Street and the Jews."

Israelis Divided on Prisoner Swap

At Wall Street Journal, "Most Back the Exchange With Hamas, But Others Petition Court to Halt Move":

TEL AVIV — The initial phase of an Israel-Hamas prisoner swap began on Sunday, as mediators finalized the details of a controversial exchange to free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, held prisoner for five years by Gaza-based militants.

Israel's prison service gathered 477 Palestinian prisoners at two jails for exit interviews and medical examinations before their release, scheduled for Tuesday, as several private citizens and a group representing victims of terror attacks in Israel submitted petitions against the releases to Israel's Supreme Court. The court has refrained from intervening in similar cases in the past.

Late Saturday, Israel's prison service published the names of the 477 prisoners—many of whom were involved in deadly terror attacks against Israelis over the past decade—starting the clock on a 48-hour period for legal challenges to the release. A total of 1,000 Palestinians are to be exchanged under the deal, which doesn't include Marwan Barghouti, a West Bank militant leader serving five consecutive life sentences after being convicted in Israeli court for masterminding the murder of civilians. The remainder of the 1,000 will be released at a later, unspecified date.

Continue reading.

It's heartrending. People want Gilad to come home. But the deal is going to weaken Israeli security. What a price to pay.

RELATED: At New York Times, "In Israel, Swap Touches Old Wounds." (Via A Soldier's Mother, "A Child's Murderer.")

More Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street

At Astute Bloggers, "Occupy Wall Street organizer has history of anti-semitic writing."

Also, at Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Video shows anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street protests." The video is here: "Hate at Occupy Wall Street."

More, at Israel Today, "Israelis worried by anti-Semitic flavor of 'Occupy Wall St.' protests" (via Memeorandum).

Butcher of Ramallah to Be Released in Israel-Hamas Deal on Gilad Shalit

I've posted the picture before, of Abed el-Aziz Salha, hands covered with blood, screaming out the window after disemboweling two IDF soldiers who took a wrong turn. Dan Friedman has the story, "Two Israelis Will Not be Released From Arab Hands..."

More here: "The Savages of Ramallah."

UPDATE: Legal Insurrection links, "Butcher of Ramallah soon to be free."

Gilad Shalit and the Price Freedom in Israel

More on the Shalit release, from Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post, "A pact signed in Jewish blood":

"The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts."

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "“What happens after the next soldier is kidnapped?”"

Israel and Hamas Agree to Gilad Shalit Release

At NYT, "Israel and Hamas Agree to Swap Prisoners for Soldier."

And at Israel Matzav and Yid With Lid.

Pat Condell: The World Needs to Stop Pretending Palestine is About Justice and Human Rights

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Also from Linkmaster Smith, "Pat Condell Offering Simple, Sad Truth."

Political Scientists Barbara Walter and Andrew Kydd Beclown Themselves with Theory of Palestinian Bargaining

Here's the authors' op-ed from yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "A win-win strategy for the Palestinians." And the key passage of beclownment:

The Palestinians are playing a long-term bargaining game, and any move toward the goal of statehood has to be considered a victory. Statehood will not come immediately, or when a vote is taken in the Security Council. What will happen is that support for it will slowly and surely increase among average citizens around the world. The extreme positions of Israel and the United States — their refusal to pursue real efforts to allow Palestinians to rule themselves and be free of military occupation — will be increasingly revealed, and tolerance for these positions, even among Israelis and Americans, will decline. Going to the Security Council knowing the bid will be publicly and persistently rejected, therefore, is an inspired strategy. Palestinians appear peaceful and reasonable. Israel and the United States do not.

Walter and Kydd are offering a strategic theory, and any theory like this is based on a number of assumptions, like the assumption of actor rationality. As highlighted above, the authors also assume Israeli and American intransigence. But a model is only as good as its assumptions, and the intransigence assumption here is fatally flawed, and hence their larger analysis falls apart. Case in point: Also out yesterday was Charles Krauthammer's column at Washington Post, "Land without peace: Why Abbas went to the U.N." Krauthammer explicitly challenges Walter and Kydd's assumption that Israel and the U.S. "refuse to pursue real efforts" free of military occupation:

While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.

It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.

To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.

Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider...

Keep reading for Krauthammer's examples, from Camp David in 2000 to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert peace deal of 2008.

So think about it: Who's intransigent? It's the Palestinians who are refusing "to pursue real efforts" at self-rule, which would allow themselves to "be free of military occupation." And it's for this reason that the Palestinians have gone to the United Nations. They don't want to negotiate. They've never wanted a final negotiated settlement, because it would mean leaving the Israeli state at the center of the territory to which they claim historical rights.

So notice what we really have: Two fairly prominent political scientists, writing in one of the nation's national newspapers, offering a fancy theory of Middle East bargaining and diplomacy that's based on a theoretical assumption that's a pure lie. And notice further: This example illustrates the power of the global left's campaign of delegitimation against Israel. Statements alleged as fact are shown to be complete fabrications after an elementary review of the historical record. But it goes on and on like this. Modern "progressive" societies buy into a historicism of deceit the exists for the sole purpose of exterminating the Jewish state. And notice one more thing: Walter and Kydd, who I've never met, again show us how often tragically useless is contemporary political science in explaining the world. At a basic level, rigid ideology is a poor foundation for problem solving, since to sustain an ideology requires the erection and perpetuation of myths such as, in this case, Israel's strategic intransigence. By contrast, some basic historical pragmatism shows that in fact the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected peace, having instead opted for violence --- indiscriminate violence, at that --- and war. And when Israel responds it's the one who's rebuked for employing force. I have hard time taking a lot of modern political science seriously precisely because scholars have poisoned their minds with really dishonest ideological presumptions. The idea that Israel is the reason for the failure of peace in the Middle East is false. It's an enormously malicious falsehood. And it's one more tragedy of the political science discipline that scholars rest serious substantive arguments on it.

RELATED: "The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer."

I Missed Jonathan Tobin's Post on John Mearsheimer...

See Tobin's brief essay at Commentary, "Mearsheimer’s Vanishing Veneer of Respectability." This part is excellent:

The author of the book Mearsheimer admires is Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli who not only doubts the truth of the Holocaust but also thinks the Jews persecuted Hitler and Nazi persecution of the Jews was justified. For Atzmon, any expression of Jewish identity is tantamount to racism. He believes Israel is worse than Nazi Germany. His hatred of his own people has even motivated him to claim medieval blood libels might have been true, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion provides historical insights about the Jews.

And:

The Israel Lobby was itself a typical example of anti-Semitic invective in the way it sought to delegitimize Israel’s American supporters and to single them out as sinister forces undermining democracy. But because its authors were two distinguished academics, they were able to cloak their prejudice in more respectable garb. One can only hope Mearsheimer’s endorsement of Atzmon helps to strip away that unjustified veneer of respectability that continues to attach to the authors’ work.

That ties in pretty well with my remarks at "The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer." Both Mearsheimer and Walt are scholars I admired. But in the end my ignorance is inexcusable. I long viewed The Israel Lobby through the lens of pluralist political science, perhaps out of deference for these "two distinguished academics." But it's not looking good for Mearsheimer. Even hardline anti-Zionists are throwing him under the bus. It's devastating, as noted previously.

See also the update from David Bernstein, "John Mearsheimer and Gilad Atzmon Update." And earlier at Israel Matzav, "John Mearsheimer comes out of the closet." (Apparently not all the BDS types have bailed on Atzmon.)

The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer

There's been a recent and very significant development involving Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. A few days ago, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote an entry pointing out that Professor Mearsheimer had written a book blurb for Gilad Atzmon's, The Wandering Who. The title at Goldberg's entry is not subtle: "John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist." I hoped to blog something about it, but being the big birthday weekend, I put it off for a bit. In the meantime, a number of other writers have picked up on the story, and the implications for Mearsheimer are nothing short of devastating. In addition to The Israel Lobby, Professor Mearsheimer is the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, a work of neorealist international relations theory that received general acclaim in the discipline. The book argues that great power politics is tragic, especially for the leading states in the system, since the structure of the realm impels them to seek greater power and act more aggressively, with revisionist aims for international mastery. Since opposing great powers share the same incentives to offense and expansion, states are fated to perpetual conflict. And thus the prospects are dim for international peace.

I think the prospects for internal peace are dim for Professor Mearsheimer. By that I mean that while both Mearsheimer and his co-author Stephen Walt have received withering criticism since the publication of "The Israel Lobby" in 2006 (and the full-length book in 2007), this latest controversy is a definitive confirmation of the attacks on Mearsheimer by his critics. As will be seen below, amid these developments, I can't imagine how Mearsheimer will ever live down the allegations of anti-Semitism that have followed him for years -- he will be fated to unsuccessfully fighting these battles for the remainder of his career. Personally, I've always held back on making such allegations. I was late to the debate in the first place, and the full weight of all the writings and responses took me a while to absorb. And frankly, there's hardly any more ugly attacks than to call someone anti-Semitic, especially a scholar whose work could be evaluated on scientific grounds. But I can't any longer make those arguments in good faith. After reading all the commentary on this, it's undeniable that Gilad Atzmon, whose book Mearsheimer blurbed, is a despicable and ugly Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier. What's also particularly disturbing is that Professor Stephen Walt joined the debate to explicitly defend Mearsheimer against the allegations of anti-Semitism. The two together are fighting a rearguard action with virtually no prospects for success. Readers will recall that I've hammered Walt on occasion, for example, when he spoke at the Code Pink convention earlier this year, where the roster of sponsoring organizations was a veritable "one-stop shop for the global left's international solidarity movement." It would be one thing to offer up a controversial theory of Israel as the primary focus of American foreign policy. It's quite another thing to actively join forces with the global left's Israel extermination industry, but that's what Stephen Walt has done. I find that tragic too, since Walt was someone who I studied a great deal in graduate school, and I wrote my dissertation with some of his theories as the starting point. Now the both of them have dug down deep to defend against this backlash, and it's just pathetic. These two eminent scholars have destroyed their reputations by peddling the most base anti-Israel stereotypes that simply can longer be defended on academic grounds. When you traffic with Holocaust deniers --- no, when you champion them --- you've pretty much given up the game.

In any case, Jeffrey Goldberg has been updating his responses to the controversy. See, "Mearsheimer's Endorsement of a Holocaust Revisionist (Cont'd)"; "Giving John Mearsheimer a Chance to Climb Down"; and "A Mearsheimer Falsehood, and Other Reactions to Atzmon."

And from David Bernstein, at Volokh, "A Challenge to John Mearsheimer":

Mearsheimer accuses his critics of suggesting that he must be an anti-Semite, given that he is intellectually in bed, so to speak, with the likes of Gilad Atzmon. Certainly, it’s reasonable to suspect Mearsheimer of anti-Semitism as this point, given that the main alternative explanation, that he is simply a fool who endorses highly polemical books attacking Jews and Israel without reading them closely or knowing anything about the author, has now been rebutted by Mearsheimer himself. But one could also posit Mearsheimer has decided to adopt a “Popular Front Strategy”, willing to accept any anti-Israel allies even from the blatantly anti-Semitic fringe. Regardless, it’s a pathetic fall from grace for Mearsheimer, and it’s disappointing to see that his co-author Walt is enabling him rather than pulling him back from the brink.

Bernstein links to Pejman Yousefzadeh, and here's another from Pejman that's vital: "John Mearsheimer Further Beclowns Self. Film at Eleven."

And here's this from David Rothkopf, "Mearsheimer picks a winner: Finally, a revealing book jacket blurb":

Mearsheimer was given a chance by Walt on this website to "defend" himself against the "smears" of Goldberg. Walt thus associated himself with Mearsheimer's choice to back Atzmon. He also asserted Goldberg was more inclined to make ad hominem attacks than to address the substance of U.S.-Israel relations. This is of course, absurd as, agree with him or not, no one can deny that Goldberg has written extensively on the subject and, to his credit, comparatively little about the two professors.

Mearsheimer's defense is stunningly lame. He begins with an attack on Goldberg. He then quotes the blurb and edges slightly away from the book by saying he doesn't agree with everything in it. He then repeats his admonition that Jews and non-Jews should read the book ... although I can hardly imagine how many Jews will be moved to buy a book on the recommendation of John Mearsheimer.

That said, he goes on to say that he has taught courses about the Holocaust and is therefore not a Holocaust denier. That said, Goldberg never said he was a Holocaust denier. He said he had endorsed one. Goldberg's assertion, based on Atzmon's writings, is that Atzmon has sought to both minimize the event and to explain away its origins as something at least in large part provoked by the Jews. What is this if not revisionism and there is no disputing that by blaming the Jews in part for their fate, Atzmon is, in fact, as accused a full-fledged apologist for Hitler.

Rothkopf's reference is the the post by Mearsheimer at Stephen Walt's blog at Foreign Policy, "Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg's latest smear."

I may be missing a couple of the responses I saw while researching this post, and I'll update if I find anything with added value. That said, this Harry's Place entry is probably the most precise examination of Gilad Atzmon's anti-Semitism: "Mearsheimer and Walt defend antisemite who thinks Hitler will be proved right." (And note that Harry's Place includes examples of Atzmon's anti-Semitism found in The Wandering Who, the very book that Mearsheimer reviewed.)

Check back for updates. Goldberg and Rothkopf are left-of-center, so Mearsheimer's taking a hit from those closer ideologically than myself. It's fascinating, and sad too, the way the authors of The Israel Lobby have kept digging when the long ago should have just stopped.

Pamela Geller on Sean Hannity's: Israel, the U.N. and War Against the Jews

I haven't had time to post, but Pamela's had a lot going on at Atlas Shrugs:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Rises Out of Arafat's Shadow?

Actually, from what I caught, Abbas' U.N. speech was indistinguishable from anything the PLO's pushed for decades. Worse, in fact, as he spoke of an "apartheid" regime, and that's a meme that's been developing only over the last few years, with the global communist left's BDS campaign. But check Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "With UN bid, Abbas rises out of Arafat's shadow":

RAMALLAH, West Bank — President Mahmoud Abbas received a hero's welcome Sunday from thousands of cheering, flag-waving Palestinians, having made a bid for United Nations recognition that appears destined to fail but has allowed him to finally step out of the shadow of his iconic predecessor Yasser Arafat.

The crowd, many of them holding posters of Abbas, repeatedly chanted his name as he spoke. Abbas was uncharacteristically animated, shaking his hands, waving to the audience and charming the crowd with references to "my brothers and sisters."

Abbas call Friday for the U.N. to recognize Palestinian independence has transformed him in the eyes of many Palestinians from gray bureaucrat to champion of their rights. Though Israel and the United States oppose the move and consider it a step back for long-stalled peace talks, it could help Abbas overcome internal struggles and gain the support he will need to get a deal through one day.

In a brief address outside his headquarters in Ramallah, Abbas told the crowd that a "Palestinian Spring" had been born, similar to the mass demonstrations sweeping the region in what has become known as the Arab Spring.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "The Palestinians mean exactly what they say..."

Palestinians Make Bid for Statehood at United Nations

See New York Times, "Palestinians Request U.N. Status; Powers Press for Talks."

And see Jonathan Tobin, "No Moral Equivalence Between Abbas and Netanyahu."

Prime Minister Benajamin Netanyahu Lays Wreath at National September 11 Memorial

He's a good man.

At CBS News, New York, "Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Bloomberg Visit World Trade Center Memorial."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu United Nations Address, September 23, 2011

At National Post, "Netanyahu chides UN, seeks renewed talks with Abbas":

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, returned to the United Nations’ General Assembly Friday with all the confidence of a former ambassador, who has frequently used the assembly podium as a pulpit.

With a familiarity that almost bordered on contempt, Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s ambassador to the UN in 1984-88, upbraided the General Assembly for even entertaining a Palestinian request for statehood.

“The truth is that Israel wants peace; the truth is that I want peace,” he said, adding, “We cannot achieve peace through UN resolutions.”

Mr. Netanyahu criticized the UN, calling it a “theatre of the absurd.” He noted the Security Council is now headed by Lebanon, whose government is controlled by Hezbollah, an internationally recognized terrorist group.

“It was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland was branded shamefully as racism,” he said.

“And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, wasn’t praised, it was denounced. And it is here, year after year, that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation … more often than all the other nations of the world combined.”

The Israeli leader’s message was as simple as it was blunt: “The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state.”

If that were to happen, “Israel will not be the last state to welcome a Palestinian state into the United Nations,” he said. “We will be the first.”

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Netanyahu at the U.N. – Theater of the Absurd."

United States Walks Out on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Speech at United Nations

At LAT, "At U.N., Iran president again denounces U.S.":

With his now-familiar mix of bombast, politics and theater, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday denounced the United States and its European allies as colonialist "slave masters" intent on wrecking the world economy, prompting dozens of Western diplomats to walk out.

As in previous years, Ahmadinejad used his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the United States and its allies, accusing them of causing centuries of misery. He charged that they were responsible for the suffering caused by slavery, world wars, nuclear attacks and the current global economic turmoil.

As before, his presence also sparked protests outside the U.N. But this time around, his influence seems to be ebbing in Tehran, and his speech was overshadowed by the week's dominant topic, the Palestinian Authority's bid for U.N. recognition.

Ahmadinejad had no comment on the Palestinian issue, keeping instead to his usual themes and invective. He accused Israel of causing "60 years of war," and railed that European nations used the Holocaust "as the excuse to pay ransom or fines to Zionists."