When the Israeli Knesset passed a law that would impose penalties on calls to boycott Israel proper or the illegal West Bank settlements, the outcry from much of the American Jewish community came swiftly.

The liberal American Jewish group J Street came down hard in a statement:

J Street condemns the Knesset’s passage yesterday of a law making the call for boycotts of Israel or the West Bank settlements illegal, as a clear and unabashed violation of the fundamental democratic precept of freedom of speech.

This bill is part of a disturbing anti-democratic trend that undermines its purported purpose by giving fodder to Israel’s critics and alienating many of its friends.

The statement served as the latest salvo of the ongoing tensions between the right-wing government in Israel and J Street, which has drawn the ire of the right-wing pro-Israel lobby for criticizing Israeli policies such as settlement expansion. The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. rejected an invitation from J Street to attend its first ever policy conference in 2009, and this summer Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who usually welcomes Diaspora pro-Israel groups, refused to meet with a J Street delegation.

But J Street’s condemnation of the anti-boycott law brought the war of words to a new level. Speaking to the Israeli daily Haaretz, Jonathan Peled, a spokesperson for Israel’s embassy in Washington, compared J Street to the Klu Klux Klan:

I think our approach to J Street was correct. We disagreed on many issues, but we didn’t boycott them. They are a unique example because they are a Jewish organization that calls itself ‘pro-Israeli.’ To bring some extreme example, if the Ku Klux Klan suddenly proclaim themselves pro-Israel, will it mean they are pro-Israel, or does it contradict our own understanding of what pro-Israel means? They are entitled to their views, but it doesn’t mean we want to invite them to our home.

Reached by ThinkProgress for comment, an official in the embassy’s press office passed along a non-apology “clarification” from Peled:

During my personal conversation with Ha’aretz, I was not intending to compare J Street to an extremist or offensive organization.

I regret any misunderstanding. Such a comparison would be clearly inappropriate and unacceptable.

The comments do not reflect the view of the government.

J Street seemed less than thrilled with the non-apology. Director of media relations Jessica Rosenblum gave a terse statement to ThinkProgress, saying, “We appreciate the clarification and take it at face value.”

The embassy spokesperson’s comparison of J Street to the KKK seems especially out of place because, in the same interview, Peled said that Israel welcomes all points of view. “We are interested in a big tent,” he said.

That was Peled’s dodge of a question about whether or not the government welcomed former Fox News personality Glenn Beck’s rally in Israel. Beck, who recently said Netanyahu had “evidence” to prove his conspiracy theories and addressed the Knesset, just moved his rally — which is to be attended by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — away from the Temple Mount because it coincides with a holiday when 40,000 Muslims are expected to be worshiping in Jerusalem. Beck intimated that the Muslims might try to kill him and were looking for any excuse to start “World War III.” So it seems that there’s room for Beck in the Netanyahu government’s “big tent,” but according to Peled, J Street doesn’t appear to be welcome.

Yesterday, Glenn Beck announced he is moving his much-discussed upcoming rally in Jerusalem away from the base of the Temple Mount, one of the most sacred and fraught places in the world, over security concerns. Speaking on his radio show yesterday, Beck said that while he was reluctant to change the location because “it was selected for me” (i.e. by God), the notoriously paranoid and security-conscious talker said his security consultants were insistent the spot is too dangerous.

The threat? Beck was specific — 40,000 Muslims apparently looking for any reason to start “World War III.” Beck said he got word that there would be a Muslim multitude on top of the Temple Mount for a religious holiday and got worried. “When we heard about the 40,000 Muslims that were going to be on the Temple Mount, we knew there was trouble,” Beck said, explaining that even an errant light beam from his stage set up could “start a riot.” “Your back is in their direction, and these people play for keeps,” Beck said his security consultants told him. Watch it:

The former Fox News host said he is still considering other venues for the event, but boasted about its signficance regardless of location in a way only Beck can: It “will be remembered by millions in the world, as a turning point in their own personal life, and in the world.”

And how does the Israeli government feel about hosting an event of such monumental importance? Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, offered tacit support: “We are open to any approach as long as it doesn’t cancel another approach, and respects the laws. We are interested in a big tent.”

Our guest blogger is Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress.

With more than 10.7 million people in desperate need of food assistance across the Horn of Africa, the U.N. is expected to officially declare a famine in parts of Somalia tomorrow. The last time a major famine was declared in the region was 1984-85, when severe drought killed more than 1 million people in Ethiopia.

Pervasive insecurity and cumbersome legal restrictions created to keep U.S. taxpayer dollars from falling into the hands of al-Shabaab, the armed al Qaeda-linked group that controls much of southern Somalia, has made humanitarian access difficult for many aid agencies. As a result, nearly 3 million people throughout southern Somalia are now in need of assistance. In addition, and due in part to the complexities of operating in a terrorist-controlled area, there is a $1 billion funding shortage.

Last week, in a shift that indicates the severity of the humanitarian crisis, al-Shabaab publicly reversed its 2009 ban on international assistance. At a press conference in the embattled Somali capital, a spokesman noted:

“Whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, [if] their intention is only to assist those suffering, [international aid groups] can contact the committee which will give them access to the drought-hit areas. We are standing by to provide any assistance they need if their exact desire is helping the drought affected people. Anyone with no hidden agenda will be assisted…and those who intend to harm our people will be prevented to do so.”

Immediately after the announcement, the U.N. began delivering food and medicine to civilians in al-Shabaab territory. To her credit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent an important signal by pledging to “test the willingness” of al-Shabaab and re-start programs. The crisis, however, is urgent and many obstacles remain.

For their part, many U.S. governement funded humanitarian groups are eager to return to Somalia and restart programs they’ve had to abandon. As for now, however, these groups are stuck in a bit of a catch-22. The restrictions against working in Somalia — whether the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) restrictions or Executive Order 13224 — are still firmly in place.

Given the urgency of the crisis, restarting aid programs will require some quick work by the interagency. The legal obstacles for aid dispersal that are currently in place can be addressed by either removing OFAC restrictions or creating a waiver process that enables relief agencies to apply for exemptions. Both steps will likely encounter bureaucratic hurdles that challenge the Secretary’s stated commitment. So the sooner a path forward can be agreed, the sooner the aid groups can get their programs legally up and running.

“America’s Mayor” Rudy Guiliani spoke at a College Republican-sponsored event at Dartmouth last week and weighed in on the debt ceiling debate, saying that if it does get raised, the U.S. could potentially have “one of the weaker economies in the world.” (Actually dire economic consequences will result if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.) Then, Giuliani — who is reportedly considering another run for president — said that whatever happens, military spending should be left alone because it’s apparently not a big part of the federal budget anyway:

“I think we use our foreign aid budget pretty efficiently,” he said. “There are much more important things to cut.

He also said that defense spending is “not a major part” of the federal government’s budget, only constituting “about four or five percent” of the total.

Military spending actually is a major part of the federal government’s budget. Not only does the Pentagon’s budget make up 20 percent of total spending — not “4 or 5 percent” as Giuliani claimed — but the defense budget represents 50 percent of discretionary spending.

The United States is now spending more on defense than at any time since World War II. Moreover, the Senate Appropriations Committee recently found that the military’s budget increased more as a percentage than all other government expenditures since 2001. Indeed, the Pentagon’s baseline budget has nearly doubled in the last 10 years.

To his credit, Giuliani did tell Dartmouth students that he “would try to get control of defense spending.” But it seems like the first step would be for the former mayor to get the facts on how much the U.S. actually spends.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has been a vocal presence in Washington since its founding in the days following the 9/11 attacks as a self-described “nonpartisan policy institute dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy.” But FDD’s position consistently fell in line with the Bush administration’s militant “war on terror” and policies espoused by Israel’s right wing Likud party. In recent years, FDD has become one of the the premiere DC organizations promoting more aggressive actions against Iran.

FDD’s effectiveness in promoting their hawkish messages is magnified by their access to major media outlets. FDD president Clifford May appears regularly on Fox News as a terrorism expert, and other FDD employees — including Mark Dubowitz, Benjamin Weinthal, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and Michael Ledeen — often appear in the oped pages of major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Given FDD’s prominence in the media and influence that results from it, it’s important to explore sources of the group’s funding. Documents obtained by ThinkProgress offer new insights into who funded the first four years of FDD’s operations.

The documents, which have been combined into one PDF with addresses redacted, offer a comprehensive list of grants, accounting for virtually all of FDD’s funding from 2001 to 2004. They reveal that the Abramson Family Foundation, headed by founder and CEO of U.S. Healthcare Leonard Abramson, offered the largest portion of FDD’s startup funding with a $222,523 grant in 2001. Abramson continued to generously fund FDD with an additional $600,000 in contributions from 2002 to 2004.

Canadians Edgar M. and Charles Bronfman, heirs to the Seagram liquor company fortune, contributed $1,050,000 to FDD between 2001 and 2004. Edgar M. Bronfman served as president of the World Jewish Congress from 1979 to 2007. Charles Bronfman, along with fellow FDD donor Michael Steinhardt cofounded Taglit Birthright which offers free trips to Israel for young Jewish adults. Steinhardt is a hedge fund mogul who contributed $850,000 to FDD from 2001 to 2004.

Other notable donors included: Home Depot cofounder Bernard Marcus who contributed $600,000 between 2001 and 2003; mortgage backed securities pioneer Lewis Ranieri contributed $350,000 between 2002 and 2004; and Ameriquest owner, and Bush administration ambassador to the Netherlands from 2006 to 2008, Roland Arnall contributed $1,802,000 between 2003 and 2004.

Other notable, but less generous, donors included: media mogul and Democratic Party donor Haim Saban, a surprising donor considering FDD’s Republican bent and Clifford May’s former role as an RNC spokesperson; The Israel Project director Jennifer Mizrahi; and Dalck Feith, father of former Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith.

When contacted for comment, May said, “Ms. Mizrahi and Mr. Saban are not current supporters of FDD,” and added that “FDD is fortunate to have hundreds of donors, all kinds of donors, who are interested in defending democratic societies around the world from their sworn enemies.” May said “most of the original group of donors were introduced to me by Jack Kemp, FDD’s founding chairman, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a founding member of FDD’s board of directors.”

Most of the major donors are active philanthropists to “pro-Israel” causes both in the U.S. and internationally. With the disclosure of its donor rolls, it becomes increasingly apparent that FDD’s advocacy of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, its hawkish stance against Iran, and its defense of right-wing Israeli policy is consistent with its donors’ interests in “pro-Israel” advocacy.

While FDD has a 10-year history of engaging in alarmist rhetoric and fear mongering — e.g. in 2002 FDD aired a series of ads conflating Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein — and helped promote the “Bush doctrine” which led to the invasion of Iraq, its donors have, for the most part, hidden behind their anonymous contributions to the organization. The new documents should permit for greater scrutiny of the interests and individuals behind FDD’s hawkish presence in the Washington think tank world.

A new Rasmussen poll out yesterday finds that a plurality of Americans believe the United States can make major cuts in military spending without sacrificing security and nearly 80 percent said the U.S. spends too much protecting allies:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults feel it is possible to significantly reduce military spending without putting the American people at risk. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree and do not believe major defense cuts come without risk. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. [...]

Seventy-nine percent (79%) say the United States spends too much on defending other countries. Only four percent (4%) think America doesn’t spend enough protecting its friends. Thirteen percent (13%) feel these defense expenditures are about right.

While the poll found that nearly half said the U.S. military should withdraw from Europe and Japan, 68 percent said “it is possible to significantly reduce the amount the United States spends defending other countries without putting the American people at risk.”

Also yesterday, Reuters reported that a new study from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments found “the U.S. military has essentially the same size, force structure and capabilities as it did a decade ago but costs 35 percent more.” The Defense Department spent $46 billion over the past 10 years “developing weapons systems that were ultimately never fielded, either due to cost overruns or technical challenges.” Thus, the report found, DOD’s effort to modernize its weapons systems did not result in force modernization.

As the Washington Times reports today, momentum for reducing military spending is increasing. “I think this is the time because of a combination of the deficit and the changing way in which we’re going to deal with threats from groups like al Qaeda,” said CAP’s Larry Korb, who along with Laura Conley and Alex Rothman, recently released a report outlining how the U.S. can cut $400 billion in military spending by 2015.