Another (yawn) protest yesterday in DC. The International ANSWER moonbats, Jews Against Zionism, the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation and some families of slain US servicemen were all protesting either the war, Ariel Sharon's visit or some combination of the two.

Orthodox Jews line up outside of the White House.

This is Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta International, aka "Jews United Against Zionism," someone that I would describe as a somewhat "unrealistic" individual. He made his case calmly, without the screaming nuttery of many of his loose associates, but his vision of what needs to take place in the Middle East is nothing short of fantastical. Some of Rabbi Weiss's views:

* The state of "Israel" does not represent the Jewish people.

Fair enough, I'd agree with that.

* The Torah clearly forbids the formation of a State, for the Jewish people, in their time of exile.

I'm not in an educated position to agree or disagree, so I'll defer to the Rabbi. I'd imagine that if this is correct, however, that some folks might have considered the Holocaust a motivation for recalculation.

* The root cause of the endless bloodshed and suffering in the Holy Land is Zionism and the State of Israel.

The extended Jewish history in the Middle East is mindbogglingly complex, but you can certainly argue that prior to the 20th Century, Jews were typically not in a state of war in the Middle East, as they managed periods of co-existence under the rule of the Byzantines, Arabs, Mamluks and Ottomans. And anyone may correct me if there are notable exceptions, but my understanding is that the key to most periods of semi-successful co-existence was a status as a minority under various forms of rule. The more strident emigres and the desire for a state that really began in the first half of the 20th century and solidified in 1948 obviously stirred up the modern violence; but one of the fundamental questions today is whether one believes that the Jews who were living there should have been a subservient minority population under Muslim rule or whether they deserved a state of their own.

Rabbi Weiss obviously doesn't believe this, but I think it's stunningly naive to voice the opinion that all of the modern animus is political; that it isn't at all rooted in a fundamental cultural and religious division that would exist in some form even without the state of Israel. The Arabs grudgingly tolerated the Jews when they had little power; the inevitable differences grew as Jewish numbers and power grew. Such is human nature. This doesn't necessarily make Jewish claims on having a forged homeland any less historically valid than America's current claim on the continental United States.

* The root cause for the continual rise of worldwide anti-Semitism is Zionism and the State of "Israel."

False. Among the root causes are racism, jealousy, silly malice over customs and traditions and the belief that Jews were ultimately responsible for nailing Jesus to a cross. In short, the same instinctive blackness of the human heart that motivates the persecution of any small group of people that are "different." Most anti-semites in Europe, for example, don't hate Jews because of the Israelis; they hate Israelis because they are Jews.

* The Jewish people have been living in Muslim countries, including Palestine, in peace and harmony with their Arab neighbors, until the advent of Zionism.

Not everyone would agree with that, Rabbi.

Rabbi Weiss's solution? Apologize to the Palestinian people for the inequities suffered under Israel, disband the Jewish state and live in peace under Muslim rule.

Let's suspend any skepticism and assume that all of Rabbi Weiss's historical assumptions are correct; that Jews could have lived in the Middle East in peace without the modern advent of Zionism. What would happen to them now if they prostrated themselves at the feet of their newfound Muslim overlords? Does Rabbi Weiss not understand that the political and geographic grievances are irrevocably intertwined with unadulterated and officially-sanctioned racial and religious hatred?

A stance advocating the interests of the Palestinians and condemning Israeli tactics is a defensible position; advocacy of the dissolution of the Jewish state is suicidal fantasy. In this respect, Rabbi Weiss is a sheep begging for slaughter.

Larger image
Central Casting Call: Standing patiently in the wet, cold weather.

The swarm descends.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, aka "the CIA Screamer," speaks about conspiracy theories at a more reasonable decibel-level.

The next group to show up were my Stalinist friends from ANSWER. No matter what the message, it was hard not to be taken with the quiet protest and calm positions of the Orthodox Jews when compared with the howling rhetoric from last Saturday. For some reason, the ANSWER folks were unusually quiet this time. They gathered far away from the Jews, stayed to themselves and seemed a bit sheepish and bewildered by all the men with funny hats and beards; I got the impression that they didn't quite know what to make of them. Whatever the reason, they didn't mingle with their fellow protestors (while I was there) and they released the following statement after the protest:

Today, as Ariel Sharon and George Bush met in the White House, the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, and other organizations held a press conference, rally and civil disobedience action demanding "Free Palestine."

This might seem unremarkable, but there were only three organizations at the press conference, with the single Jewish group making up the "other organizations." In addition, there were somewhere around 70 Jews protesting, whereas the total of number of ANSWER and MASSF protesters combined was no more than 15. Do they have something against the Orthodox Jews? Does the affiliation lack the anti-authoritarian "sex appeal" of Muslim solidarity? Are the ANSWER folks anti-semitic? I'm not sure, but I know that the ideologies that they are affiliated with have an opinion on "the Jewish question."

I called ANSWER's information line to clarify why the Jews weren't mentioned, but could not get in touch with a spokesman as of this posting.

Only in America? Cats and dogs.

This gentleman was the next to show up, the Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, the Muslim Chaplain of Howard University and Director of the Outreach Program at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center (now say that three times quickly). He was associated with the MAS Freedom Foundation, and seemed to be an old friend of the Rabbi. I got into a rather lengthy conversation with Imam Abdul-Malik, and found him to be a somewhat eloquent and reasonable spokesman for his cause. His beliefs:

* The Israeli tactics that result in the collateral deaths of civilians are driving the recruitment of extremists.

Whether you agree or disagree on the justice of the matter, this is an arguable point.

* The Israeli government does not embrace moderate Palestinian voices, which prolongs conflict. Also, it is Israel's responsibility to be the mature party in the conflict, because they possess the military power.

Tabling more specific judgement, none of these are completely unreasonable points.

* All violence must be condemned.

Nice to hear you say it, Imam. But why did he describe the recently deceased Sheik Yassin as "a poor parapalegic in a wheelchair," given the man's role in promulgating violence against innocents? He didn't have a really good answer for that one; we'll chalk it up to selective cognition.

* Israel needs to completely withdraw from the occupied territories and complete a two-state solution.

In this view, he was far more moderate than his Jewish contemporary. Abdul-Malik drew an analogy between the Palestinian situation and the civil rights movement in the US, offering up our progress on the matter as a beacon of optimism that could light the way to a solution in the Middle East. He stuck to this position even after I pointed out that the Civil Rights Movement took place in a far less violent society and had popular leaders (on both sides) that stepped up to the plate and advocated peaceful solutions.

In contrast, I put forth the fact that terrorist organization like Hamas and Hizbollah represent the popular voice of the Palestinians, with heavy influence in the Palestinian economy, charitable organizations and educational institutions. At that point he blamed Israel for this radicalization of the Palestinian leadership, and we reached an impasse. It was clear that he believed that Israel could influence the conflict in a positive manner by ceasing aggression, which in turn would theoretically cause the extremists to lose popularity, all debatable positions that I do not agree with.

When I specifically asked him if he advocated the dissolution of Israel (like his Jewish co-protestors), he said that he considered the idea "unrealistic."

I was left with the slightest ray of hope for civil discourse, the idea that that I was dealing with a reasonable, if somewhat deluded and overly optimistic individual. But then ...

(Photograph from the International Answer web site)

... Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of MASFF (the man on the right), began to give his press conference, which included the usual fiery soundbites about the criminal collusion of Bush and Sharon, and the unlawful occupation of Iraq for colonial purposes. It was the usual pathetic, hyperbolic grandstanding. The outrageous rhetoric really tanked most of the positive impression that I might have taken away from my conversation with the Imam. Once again, I was witness to the phenomenon of "moonbat marginalization," and reminded that even the most reasonable voices that are active in the Palestinian movement are still closely affiliated with extremists of varying stripes.

During Bray's statement, he said that he would "try to be arrested, God willing," and he got his wish. I missed the arrest, but I can certainly imagine the look of bored annoyance on the face of the guard that had to pick him up off the prohibited sidewalk in front of the White House.

"How I spent my Spring break: protesting the Zionist Occupation of the Holy Land."

Overall, this protest wasn't very noteworthy, and illustrates that the anti-war and "free Palestine" positions don't have much popular traction. I find it annoying that the two issues are so closely linked, and I know that most Americans that might even advocate a different position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do not think we are after the "oiiiiillll" in Iraq. The 60-70 Jews and one of the three or so Muslims in attendance made civil cases, while the ANSWER moonbats were unusually muted, which was possibly due to confusion; after all, how do you scream about the "Jooooos," when you are in the company of a bunch of ... Jews?

A homeless lady that lives in Lafayette Park. I have the feeling she just draws up signs about whatever cause happens to be on display that day.