Original articles on Israel and related issues written by Steven Plaut, a professor at an Israeli university.
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
The Left is pathological
Daniel Doron Dec. 18, 2003
Political pathology is to be found at both extremes of the political
spectrum. It was a right-wing fanatic who assassinated a prime minister
and his likes are committing outrages against innocent Arabs in Judea and
Samaria, thus discrediting a Jewish community acting with extreme
restraint in face of Arab terrorism.
However, since the Left has become the dominant force in Israeli politics,
it is the chief carrier of political pathology.
The Left gained its dominance since the early 1920s when the Zionist
organization's immigration policies, funded by Jewish capitalists, favored
young pioneers who were settled in collectivist namely communist
settlements. Ben-Gurion and his comrades were true Bolshevik believers
then. They fashioned Zionism as a spearhead for a Middle East communist
revolution, practicing a violent class struggle against the middle
classes, destroying their economic bases and institutions and becoming the
dominant force in the life of the mandatory Yishuv.
Ben-Gurion and his party became gradually disenchanted with Soviet
communism, but up until the mid-1950s, about 30% of the Israeli electorate
voted for Stalinist parties. This caused Ben-Gurion great anxiety. He
worried about the spread of pro-Stalinist sympathies (which he claimed
destroyed the true Leninism that he upheld) among the highest echelons of
the IDF as well as among intellectuals, academicians, media persons and
artists, who were molding the consciousness of the young.
So he took two politically dangerous steps:
He disbanded the Palmah, the elite unit of the Hagana, because it was
totally dominated by pro-Moscow generals.
And he sacrificed and disbanded one of his own proud creations the
Labor-affiliated school system.
The scions of the Stalinists whom Ben-Gurion fought still dominate life
now in the guise of a post-Zionist New Left in academia, the media and
among intellectuals and artists.
Ben-Gurion considered the pro-Moscow, Stalin-worshiping radical Left
pathological apostates, betrayers of Zionism and Judaism who sought to
convert Jews to the secular faith of Stalinism (several kibbutzim held
Seder ceremonies in which a Haggada was recited that was dedicated to "the
rising sun of humanity, Comrade Joseph Stalin").
THIS IS not the occasion to delve into the etiology of the violent and
destructive nature of the political pathology inflicting utopian movements
from the French Revolution onward. Freud's most original successor,
Wilhelm Reich, analyzed it in his seminal The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
Later works, Theodore Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality and Erich
Fromm's The Fear of Freedom, further elaborated the relationship between
personality disorders and political extremism.
Radical movements seem to attract personalities that seethe with explosive
rage. Their rage is attached to a cause as Dostoevsky so memorably limned
in The Devils giving its destructiveness an appearance of virtue and
legitimacy.
This may explain why, despite their protestations that they defend
freedom, so many leftists actually support the most murderous tyrants
from Stalin to Arafat, and why some liberals give aid and comfort to
aggressive, oppressive and corrupt dictatorships such as the Palestinian
Authority.
Neve Gordon is a prime example of this paradox. Gordon, one of the rabidly
post-Zionist revisionist historians who teaches political science at
Ben-Gurion University. Most of the articles Gordon has published are
devoted to denouncing Israel as a fascist terrorist state.
Gordon would probably claim that he is fighting for the rights of
oppressed Palestinians, but tellingly he devotes most of his energy to
recycling calumnies that subvert Israel's legitimacy. Gordon does not seem
to care for the Palestinians except as instruments of his rage.
He goes beyond the radical-chic support for the PLO given by most Israeli
academic leftists. On a visit to Ramallah he embraced Arafat and
implicitly protected with his body the terrorists hiding in the compound.
Gordon has expressed understanding for terrorism because it is caused by
"injustice." He does not seem to care that the Palestinians are subjected
to the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship so long as they are
nominally "independent."
He was among the signers of the petition before the recent Iraq war
declaring that Israel was planning to perpetrate atrocities and massive
crimes against humanity once the war broke out. He also endorsed boycotts
against Israel.
Had Israel enjoyed an open, pluralistic public debate especially in the
media and the universities one could let the pathological defamers do
their thing. But the public arena in Israel is dominated by politically
correct leftists who silence any opposition.
Like the Islamic fundamentalist parties in countries such as Iran or
Algeria where democratic elections have been exploited to abolish
democracy so does the pathological Left exploit democratic freedoms,
including academic freedom and freedom of speech, in order to defy the
majority will and subvert it from within.
The post-Zionists and neo-Marxists on the Ben-Gurion University faculty,
that Gordon exemplifies, are true believers. They are capable of calling
for a boycott of Israeli universities for alleged crimes against humanity;
they are not promoters of free speech or pluralism.
This is, alas, also true of many other social-science and humanities
departments in Israel where, in the words of the (Meretz!) former minister
of education Amnon Rubinstein "a unison choir" of political correctness
suppresses free debate.
In fact, several attempts have been made by BGU leftists to use the law to
intimidate adversaries and suppress criticism. The most recent, a
frivolous libel suit filed by Neve Gordon against Prof. Steven Plaut of
Haifa University, a stalwart defender of free speech.
Those who support freedom for terrorists cannot stomach any opposition.
They file suits simply to harass critics and intimidate potential
adversaries by causing them great expense and loss of time.
Serious consideration must therefore be given to the protection of
academic freedom and free speech from a pathological Left that is so adept
at abusing them.
The writer is president of The Israel Center for Social and Economic
Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank.
Daniel Doron Dec. 18, 2003
Political pathology is to be found at both extremes of the political
spectrum. It was a right-wing fanatic who assassinated a prime minister
and his likes are committing outrages against innocent Arabs in Judea and
Samaria, thus discrediting a Jewish community acting with extreme
restraint in face of Arab terrorism.
However, since the Left has become the dominant force in Israeli politics,
it is the chief carrier of political pathology.
The Left gained its dominance since the early 1920s when the Zionist
organization's immigration policies, funded by Jewish capitalists, favored
young pioneers who were settled in collectivist namely communist
settlements. Ben-Gurion and his comrades were true Bolshevik believers
then. They fashioned Zionism as a spearhead for a Middle East communist
revolution, practicing a violent class struggle against the middle
classes, destroying their economic bases and institutions and becoming the
dominant force in the life of the mandatory Yishuv.
Ben-Gurion and his party became gradually disenchanted with Soviet
communism, but up until the mid-1950s, about 30% of the Israeli electorate
voted for Stalinist parties. This caused Ben-Gurion great anxiety. He
worried about the spread of pro-Stalinist sympathies (which he claimed
destroyed the true Leninism that he upheld) among the highest echelons of
the IDF as well as among intellectuals, academicians, media persons and
artists, who were molding the consciousness of the young.
So he took two politically dangerous steps:
He disbanded the Palmah, the elite unit of the Hagana, because it was
totally dominated by pro-Moscow generals.
And he sacrificed and disbanded one of his own proud creations the
Labor-affiliated school system.
The scions of the Stalinists whom Ben-Gurion fought still dominate life
now in the guise of a post-Zionist New Left in academia, the media and
among intellectuals and artists.
Ben-Gurion considered the pro-Moscow, Stalin-worshiping radical Left
pathological apostates, betrayers of Zionism and Judaism who sought to
convert Jews to the secular faith of Stalinism (several kibbutzim held
Seder ceremonies in which a Haggada was recited that was dedicated to "the
rising sun of humanity, Comrade Joseph Stalin").
THIS IS not the occasion to delve into the etiology of the violent and
destructive nature of the political pathology inflicting utopian movements
from the French Revolution onward. Freud's most original successor,
Wilhelm Reich, analyzed it in his seminal The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
Later works, Theodore Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality and Erich
Fromm's The Fear of Freedom, further elaborated the relationship between
personality disorders and political extremism.
Radical movements seem to attract personalities that seethe with explosive
rage. Their rage is attached to a cause as Dostoevsky so memorably limned
in The Devils giving its destructiveness an appearance of virtue and
legitimacy.
This may explain why, despite their protestations that they defend
freedom, so many leftists actually support the most murderous tyrants
from Stalin to Arafat, and why some liberals give aid and comfort to
aggressive, oppressive and corrupt dictatorships such as the Palestinian
Authority.
Neve Gordon is a prime example of this paradox. Gordon, one of the rabidly
post-Zionist revisionist historians who teaches political science at
Ben-Gurion University. Most of the articles Gordon has published are
devoted to denouncing Israel as a fascist terrorist state.
Gordon would probably claim that he is fighting for the rights of
oppressed Palestinians, but tellingly he devotes most of his energy to
recycling calumnies that subvert Israel's legitimacy. Gordon does not seem
to care for the Palestinians except as instruments of his rage.
He goes beyond the radical-chic support for the PLO given by most Israeli
academic leftists. On a visit to Ramallah he embraced Arafat and
implicitly protected with his body the terrorists hiding in the compound.
Gordon has expressed understanding for terrorism because it is caused by
"injustice." He does not seem to care that the Palestinians are subjected
to the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship so long as they are
nominally "independent."
He was among the signers of the petition before the recent Iraq war
declaring that Israel was planning to perpetrate atrocities and massive
crimes against humanity once the war broke out. He also endorsed boycotts
against Israel.
Had Israel enjoyed an open, pluralistic public debate especially in the
media and the universities one could let the pathological defamers do
their thing. But the public arena in Israel is dominated by politically
correct leftists who silence any opposition.
Like the Islamic fundamentalist parties in countries such as Iran or
Algeria where democratic elections have been exploited to abolish
democracy so does the pathological Left exploit democratic freedoms,
including academic freedom and freedom of speech, in order to defy the
majority will and subvert it from within.
The post-Zionists and neo-Marxists on the Ben-Gurion University faculty,
that Gordon exemplifies, are true believers. They are capable of calling
for a boycott of Israeli universities for alleged crimes against humanity;
they are not promoters of free speech or pluralism.
This is, alas, also true of many other social-science and humanities
departments in Israel where, in the words of the (Meretz!) former minister
of education Amnon Rubinstein "a unison choir" of political correctness
suppresses free debate.
In fact, several attempts have been made by BGU leftists to use the law to
intimidate adversaries and suppress criticism. The most recent, a
frivolous libel suit filed by Neve Gordon against Prof. Steven Plaut of
Haifa University, a stalwart defender of free speech.
Those who support freedom for terrorists cannot stomach any opposition.
They file suits simply to harass critics and intimidate potential
adversaries by causing them great expense and loss of time.
Serious consideration must therefore be given to the protection of
academic freedom and free speech from a pathological Left that is so adept
at abusing them.
The writer is president of The Israel Center for Social and Economic
Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank.
What a surprise! Note how the ISM terrorists attacking Israel's fence
were equipped with masks against tear gas because they were planning to be
violent from the start?
1. Headline in Haaretz (itself an extremist far leftist newspaper:
"Investigation of the Shooting of the Leftist Activist (who was shot in th
eleg while vandalizing Israel's security fence on Saturday) shows the
Soldiers Operated In Full Compliance with Israeli Rules and Restrictions
on Opening Fire".
If hordes of violent protesters attacked the fence around Barbara
Streisand's home in Beverly Hills, wanna bet they'd be mowed down by
gunfire?
Addendum from Haaretz:
6 people hurt, including 2 Israelis, in fence protest
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspodent, Haaretz Service and Reuters
Israel Defense Forces troops shot and wounded four Palestinians and two
Israelis on Wednesday, during a protest at a construction site for the
separation fence in the West Bank, witnesses said.
Two Border Policemen were also wounded by stones thrown at them by
protesters.
The bulldozers moved into the Palestinian Christian village of Burdos,
near Ramallah, on Tuesday, to begin preparing the ground for a new segment
of the fence, Israel Radio reported.
In Wednesday's incident, the 500 or so protesters threw stones at the
bulldozers. Security forces responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.
IDF sources said in response to the incident that soldiers had used
"non-lethal means," and not live ammunition, to disperse the protesters.
At least six people were arrested, Israel Radio said.
The incident marks the second time in five days that IDF troops have
opened fire at demonstrators gathered by the fence. On December 26,
soldiers shot and wounded one Israeli and one American protester.
Jonathan Pollak, a member of the Israeli Anarchists against the Wall
organization, said that during Wednesday's incident, soldiers fired at the
mostly Palestinian protesters as well as Israelis and foreigners.
Many of the Palestinian protesters were detained as well as four Israelis,
including the wounded woman, and four unidentified foreigners, Pollak told
Reuters.
He said that the foreign protesters included members of the
pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement and the International
Women's Peace Service group.
2. You know how all these heads of the EU are suddenly getting parcel
bombs sent to them in the mail? You think the Euro press is referring to
those doing the sending as activists and militants with understandable
grievances because they obviously suffered from victimhood? Well, we
sure should! Oh, and the Interpol should stop looking for the senders
cause there is no police solution to th eprolem of terrorism.
3. You remember attempt at lynching in cold blood an IDF soldier? In
Ramallah in 1998? The soldier was unarmed, and managed to escape with
only some injuried.
Well Israel's Supreme Court, in an act of judicial caring, just
shortened the prison term of one of the kingpins of the lynching.
You think that will encourage Palestinian peace and moderation?
3. Yossi's Dream:
http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3149
4. Anti-Semitism at the LA Times
The self-hating Jewish Jihadnik from Trent granted Column at LA Times:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11531
(Neumann by the way is an associate of Michael Lerner from Tikkun)
5. 2003 - Year of the Jihad:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11545
6. Eurotrash Card Deck:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11530
7. Israel's Left is Racist:
ost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072844152587&p=1006953079865
8. Taranto on ISM:
By JAMES TARANTO
Terror Advocates Make Life Richer
The other day the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had a column called
"Passages," honoring people who died during 2003, "leaving our lives a
little richer for having known them." Among them:
Rachel Corrie, 23, an activist from Olympia who was crushed to death by an
Israeli military bulldozer while protesting the destruction of Palestinian
homes in the Rafah refugee camp. After its internal investigation, the
Israeli military said the driver of the bulldozer could not see Corrie.
Corrie's parents were not satisfied with the Israeli explanations, and in
September they called for an independent U.S. investigation of her death.
Corrie died March 16.
As readers of this column are well aware, Corrie was a terror advocate who
was trying to disrupt an Israeli effort to destroy tunnels that
Palestinian terrorists were using to smuggle weapons from Egypt to use in
attacks against Israeli civilians. In addition to abetting the murder of
Jews, a few weeks before her death Corrie burned the American flag in
front of a crowd of Arab schoolchildren.
One can argue that Corrie's death was a tragedy; after all, she was
immature, and had she lived, she might have eventually outgrown and
repented her hatreds. But the Seattle Post-Intelligencer staff is a pretty
twisted bunch to credit her with "leaving our lives a little richer."
9. Jerusalem Post Editorial:
\Fence-building anarchists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 30, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday this newspaper ran a picture of Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen.
Moshe Ya'alon being lectured to by wounded anarchist and former
paratrooper Gil Na'amati from his hospital bed.
The picture of our highest-ranking officer patiently listening to a young
man who may still be charged with sabotaging the security fence speaks
volumes both regarding the nature of Israeli democracy and the bizarre
turns we must take to defend ourselves.
Na'amati was in a group of protesters who were allegedly shaking and
cutting the chain-link security fence. There were reportedly only four
soldiers opposite a much larger group of agitators, some of them masked,
who seemed to be trying to break through the fence and cross to the
Israeli side. After shouting and firing warning shots in the air, the
soldiers reportedly asked and received permission to fire at the legs of
the would-be infiltrators.
Much attention has been paid to the question of whether the soldiers knew
they were firing at Israelis or not. This question would seem to imply
that if the protesters were Palestinians, shooting at them would be more
acceptable.
We must be clear: Deadly force should not be used against peaceful
protesters, be they Israelis or Palestinians. That said, it is not always
possible for a soldier to know who is a terrorist and who is an unarmed
demonstrator. And breaching a border fence is hardly a legally protected
form of free speech.
One soldier who was there said, "I will tell you the truth: I was
afraid... We were terrified that they would throw grenades at us."
The IDF judge advocate-general has ordered a full investigation into the
incident, and Na'amati has already been questioned under warning. We
encourage these investigations and are confident that whoever violated
orders or the law will be punished.
The other question being raised is why the soldiers were not equipped with
riot gear. In retrospect, they should have been. But it should also be
recognized that a border, temporary or not, in a time of terrorism is a
dangerous place.
Many Palestinians have been killed trying to breach the fence around the
Gaza Strip. Some of them were armed terrorists, some were hapless laborers
looking for work in Israel.
Even if the IDF's training and equipment are improved, it is not realistic
to expect a perfect ability to distinguish between deadly terrorists,
jobless migrants, and violent anarchists or other political grandstanders.
Protesters who choose battle zones as their venue are taking a risk that
cannot be eliminated and is at least partly their responsibility.
At the same time, we must remember that those who sympathize with
terrorism against us or oppose even our non-violent means of self-defense,
such as a fence, both expect to be protected by Israeli democratic values
and are attempting to stretch those values to the breaking point.
Groups like Na'amati's "Anarchists Against the Wall" will always take
advantage of the fact that democracies believe in the right to protest.
You won't see them protesting in Ramallah or Gaza in opposition to suicide
bombings against Israel, either because they support terrorism, or because
the Palestinian Authority would never permit such a protest.
It is ironic, of course, that "anarchists" would feel closer to a police
state than to a democracy. But the protesters are misdirected even on
their own terms, that is, even if they only care about Palestinians and
not Israelis.
It is true that the current war is causing all kinds of hardships for the
Palestinians, including those born of security measures that affect
Palestinians in general, not just the terrorists who attack us or the
regime that oppresses them. The security fence and assorted road blocks
are obvious examples.
Yet the complaint of the Palestinians and their fellow travelers generally
boils down to "it all started when he hit me back." Want to help the
Palestinians? Tell them to stop attacking Israel, and the record shows
that Israel will quickly reciprocate by easing its onerous security
measures.
Indeed, if the Palestinians were to implement the road map rather than
torpedo it, and drop their claim of a right to live in Israel (the "right
of return"), there could be final-status negotiations that would obviate
the need for a temporary fence unilaterally imposed by Israel. In the
meantime, it is Palestinian terrorism that is building the fence, with the
help of its supposed friends.
Poll: Who was at fault in the fence protest incident?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072671050091
10. Sir, - I think it odd that Palestinian spokespersons and their
supporters
worldwide, notably the International Solidarity Movement, refer to the
security fence as the "apartheid wall."
After all, they wish to achieve peace with Israel on the condition, nay,
the demand, that almost one-half million Jews in the disputed territories
of Judea, Samaria and Gaza and in the east Jerusalem neighborhoods be
forcibly transferred only because Arabs can't live with them.
Who is the real apartheid supporter in this case?
YISRAEL MEDAD
Shiloh
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
1. ___________________
Trent University's problem professor
Jonathan Kay
National Post
Saturday, August 09, 2003
It is a starting point for debate about the Middle East that one can
oppose
Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. Jews and Palestinians are
locked in a violent, complex dispute. Reasonable people can disagree
about,
say, whether Ariel Sharon's counter-terrorism strategy is too aggressive
--
or whether roadblocks used to control the movement of Palestinians are
inhumane.
But since the Al-Aqsa intifada broke out in 2000, hard-left academics and
activists have sometimes blurred the distinction between hatred of Israeli
policies and hatred of Jews. To excuse suicide bombings as a legitimate
option of the "oppressed" (so long as the victims are Jewish), to recycle
the lies of Jenin and other modern-day blood libels, to demonize Israel as
"genocidal" while ignoring the far worse calamities in Chechnya, Sudan,
Algeria and elsewhere -- all these tactics reflect a mindset that many
Jews
find indistinguishable from plain bigotry.
Exhibit A here in Canada is Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at
Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. Since last year, the educator
has been posting his essays on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.org.
The
articles vary in subject: terrorism, U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East,
etc. But they are all soaked in a single, dominant motif: a shrill,
virtually pathological hatred for the state of Israel.
Neumann seems to view the Jewish state as a real-life Mordor populated by
ghoulish orcs who seek nothing but the stench of death. Israel, the Trent
educator says, is "a growing evil" whose campaign against the neighboring
Arabs is "vengeful, relentless [and] sadistically gradual." The country's
"crimes," he writes, reflect "a cold-blooded, calculated, indeed an
eagerly
embraced choice of war over peace, and an elaborate plan to seek out those
who had fled the misery of previous confrontations, to make certain that
their suffering would continue."
Neumann believes Israel is plotting a "catastrophic assault" on the
Palestinians. And its hope, he says, is that, "at some point, [it] will be
able to kill many tens of thousands."
Naturally, comparisons to the Nazis and their eugenics agenda abound.
Israeli settlers want peace "just as Hitler wanted peace," Mr. Neumann
says. The Jews see the Palestinians as "lice," and are seeking their
"extinction." Because the Jewish state is built on "vicious ethnic
nationalism," it "thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die." The army,
meanwhile, serves "the higher purpose of clearing away the vermin who
resist the implantation of superior Jewish DNA throughout the occupied
territories."
Are Prof. Neumann's views anti-Semitic? The answer to this question does
not appear to trouble him much. His theory is that Jews bear a collective
responsibility to speak out against Israel. And if they fail to acquit
themselves of that duty, then they have fairly earned the world's hatred.
As usual, he sees a comparison with the Nazis as apt: "If it is not
racist,
and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against
humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the
Jews."
Thus, he writes in his June 4, 2002 Counterpunch essay What is
Antisemitism?, "we should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and
maybe we should have some fun with it."
Trent is a respected university. So how does Prof. Neumann get away with
this hate-fuelled claptrap?
For one thing, he is a Jew by birth -- even if he talks about his
ancestral
culture disdainfully, like an abolitionist describing his slave-holding
forebears. As with every minority group, Jews get wider latitude to
criticize their own than outsiders.
Another factor is "academic freedom." Earlier this year, the Canadian
Jewish Congress wrote to the President of Trent University, Bonnie
Patterson, expressing concern about the professor's views. She demurred
that "the free expression of ideas in universities [is] essential to our
teaching."
A noble thought. But one wonders if Mr. Neumann would still be working at
Trent if he'd instead argued that anti-black hatred was acceptable because
of what Robert Mugabe was doing in Zimbabwe.
The President also noted there had been no complaints against Mr.
Neumann's
classroom behavior. The Trent philosophy prof may be anti-Israel -- but,
as
the university sees things, his feelings aren't interfering with his role
as an educator.
Or are they? This summer, it came out that Prof. Neumann had recently
engaged in a revealing e-mail debate about Israel and Judaism with the
"webmaster" of an Internet site called Jewish Tribal Review (JTR).
In the exchange -- which JTR subsequently published -- the webmaster
pushes
Mr. Neumann to expand his critique of Israel to include "Jewish/Zionist
hegemony" in America's "media/government" machine. To his credit, Prof.
Neumann declines. But his response, as reported by JTR, contains this
admission: "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try
to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or
understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose.
This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't
fit my strategy, I won't talk about it."
This statement can be read narrowly or broadly. So the JTR webmaster asks
him for clarification: "Am I reading this right? ... You say you are 'not
interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding ... except so far as
it serves that purpose.' Is this the foundation of your teachings as a
philosopher?"
In his response, Prof. Neumann reportedly writes: "If an effective
strategy
means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care.
If
an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or
reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging
vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel,
I
still don't care."
(Prof. Neumann admits he spoke "carelessly" during his exchange with JTR,
which he regarded as confidential; and insists "I do not lie or obfuscate
in anything I write, because that would hurt the Palestinians." Regarding
the above-cited statements, he told me he would "neither confirm nor deny
having made" them.)
As his Trent University Web page illustrates, Prof. Neumann is an
accomplished scholar with a lengthy publication record. But I think it is
an open question whether someone who would apparently subordinate all to
the vilification of a single country belongs in a classroom. Certainly, it
is a question Trent officials will have to wrestle with in coming weeks.
Jonathan Kay is Editorials Editor of the National Post. jkay at
nationalpost.com
See also: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumanncjc.htm
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/015067.html
and http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann01072003.html
2. PETA disses Cousin Jesus:
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5453
3. Don't Free Willy:
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5443
4. Take a look at http://www.indymedia.org.il (bottom of the page has the
English) - perhaps we should all be
writing the Attorney General to urge him to prosecute these people?
Trent University's problem professor
Jonathan Kay
National Post
Saturday, August 09, 2003
It is a starting point for debate about the Middle East that one can
oppose
Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. Jews and Palestinians are
locked in a violent, complex dispute. Reasonable people can disagree
about,
say, whether Ariel Sharon's counter-terrorism strategy is too aggressive
--
or whether roadblocks used to control the movement of Palestinians are
inhumane.
But since the Al-Aqsa intifada broke out in 2000, hard-left academics and
activists have sometimes blurred the distinction between hatred of Israeli
policies and hatred of Jews. To excuse suicide bombings as a legitimate
option of the "oppressed" (so long as the victims are Jewish), to recycle
the lies of Jenin and other modern-day blood libels, to demonize Israel as
"genocidal" while ignoring the far worse calamities in Chechnya, Sudan,
Algeria and elsewhere -- all these tactics reflect a mindset that many
Jews
find indistinguishable from plain bigotry.
Exhibit A here in Canada is Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at
Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. Since last year, the educator
has been posting his essays on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.org.
The
articles vary in subject: terrorism, U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East,
etc. But they are all soaked in a single, dominant motif: a shrill,
virtually pathological hatred for the state of Israel.
Neumann seems to view the Jewish state as a real-life Mordor populated by
ghoulish orcs who seek nothing but the stench of death. Israel, the Trent
educator says, is "a growing evil" whose campaign against the neighboring
Arabs is "vengeful, relentless [and] sadistically gradual." The country's
"crimes," he writes, reflect "a cold-blooded, calculated, indeed an
eagerly
embraced choice of war over peace, and an elaborate plan to seek out those
who had fled the misery of previous confrontations, to make certain that
their suffering would continue."
Neumann believes Israel is plotting a "catastrophic assault" on the
Palestinians. And its hope, he says, is that, "at some point, [it] will be
able to kill many tens of thousands."
Naturally, comparisons to the Nazis and their eugenics agenda abound.
Israeli settlers want peace "just as Hitler wanted peace," Mr. Neumann
says. The Jews see the Palestinians as "lice," and are seeking their
"extinction." Because the Jewish state is built on "vicious ethnic
nationalism," it "thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die." The army,
meanwhile, serves "the higher purpose of clearing away the vermin who
resist the implantation of superior Jewish DNA throughout the occupied
territories."
Are Prof. Neumann's views anti-Semitic? The answer to this question does
not appear to trouble him much. His theory is that Jews bear a collective
responsibility to speak out against Israel. And if they fail to acquit
themselves of that duty, then they have fairly earned the world's hatred.
As usual, he sees a comparison with the Nazis as apt: "If it is not
racist,
and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against
humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the
Jews."
Thus, he writes in his June 4, 2002 Counterpunch essay What is
Antisemitism?, "we should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and
maybe we should have some fun with it."
Trent is a respected university. So how does Prof. Neumann get away with
this hate-fuelled claptrap?
For one thing, he is a Jew by birth -- even if he talks about his
ancestral
culture disdainfully, like an abolitionist describing his slave-holding
forebears. As with every minority group, Jews get wider latitude to
criticize their own than outsiders.
Another factor is "academic freedom." Earlier this year, the Canadian
Jewish Congress wrote to the President of Trent University, Bonnie
Patterson, expressing concern about the professor's views. She demurred
that "the free expression of ideas in universities [is] essential to our
teaching."
A noble thought. But one wonders if Mr. Neumann would still be working at
Trent if he'd instead argued that anti-black hatred was acceptable because
of what Robert Mugabe was doing in Zimbabwe.
The President also noted there had been no complaints against Mr.
Neumann's
classroom behavior. The Trent philosophy prof may be anti-Israel -- but,
as
the university sees things, his feelings aren't interfering with his role
as an educator.
Or are they? This summer, it came out that Prof. Neumann had recently
engaged in a revealing e-mail debate about Israel and Judaism with the
"webmaster" of an Internet site called Jewish Tribal Review (JTR).
In the exchange -- which JTR subsequently published -- the webmaster
pushes
Mr. Neumann to expand his critique of Israel to include "Jewish/Zionist
hegemony" in America's "media/government" machine. To his credit, Prof.
Neumann declines. But his response, as reported by JTR, contains this
admission: "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try
to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or
understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose.
This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't
fit my strategy, I won't talk about it."
This statement can be read narrowly or broadly. So the JTR webmaster asks
him for clarification: "Am I reading this right? ... You say you are 'not
interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding ... except so far as
it serves that purpose.' Is this the foundation of your teachings as a
philosopher?"
In his response, Prof. Neumann reportedly writes: "If an effective
strategy
means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care.
If
an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or
reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging
vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel,
I
still don't care."
(Prof. Neumann admits he spoke "carelessly" during his exchange with JTR,
which he regarded as confidential; and insists "I do not lie or obfuscate
in anything I write, because that would hurt the Palestinians." Regarding
the above-cited statements, he told me he would "neither confirm nor deny
having made" them.)
As his Trent University Web page illustrates, Prof. Neumann is an
accomplished scholar with a lengthy publication record. But I think it is
an open question whether someone who would apparently subordinate all to
the vilification of a single country belongs in a classroom. Certainly, it
is a question Trent officials will have to wrestle with in coming weeks.
Jonathan Kay is Editorials Editor of the National Post. jkay at
nationalpost.com
See also: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumanncjc.htm
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/015067.html
and http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann01072003.html
2. PETA disses Cousin Jesus:
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5453
3. Don't Free Willy:
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5443
4. Take a look at http://www.indymedia.org.il (bottom of the page has the
English) - perhaps we should all be
writing the Attorney General to urge him to prosecute these people?
Subject: Auld Lang Zion 2004
(Haifa, Israel)
Should auld accomplice be forgot,
And never brought to trial?
Should auld Osloids, friend, be forgot,
And days of auld lang Zion?
For betraying auld lang Zion, my dear,
For abasing auld lang Zion.
Should their accomplice be forgot,
And days of auld lang Zion?
We all hae run aboot the world,
Under fire the whole time.
We've wandered mony a weary foot,
To reach auld lang Zion.
Save auld lang Zion, my dear,
Save auld lang Zion,
Indict those Oslo blaggards, dear,,
For auld lang Zion!!!
2. Criminalizing Free Speech at Arutz7:
http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=55282
3. Take a look at http://www.thestruggle.org/Signers.html and you will
have a pretty good introduction to the Jews for a Second Holocaust. You
will notice among the names there several claiming to be Rabbis, and one
in particular, Lewis Bogage, is apparently the Reform Rabbi who runs the
Hillel at DePauw University, a school in Indiana.
"Rabbi" Bogage has a long history of supporting Israel's destruction
through implementing the so-called "Right of Return" for Palestinians.
He is an Indiana clone of Mikey Lerner, except he is at least ordained
by the Reform movement as a Reform Rabbi. Here is but one example of his
"work":
http://www.jewishbulletin.ca/archives/Jan02/archives02jan04-04.html
Her is another
http://nonprofitnet.ca/wao/wao.php?show&117http://nonprofitnet.ca/wao/wao.php?show&117
Note the flag in the corner?
The web has quite a few other similar stories on him.
If you would like to tell Hillel what you think of such a person running
one of its centers on a college campus, write its Interim President
Avraham Infeld
Title: Interim President
Phone Number: 202-449-6560
Fax Number: 202-449-6609
eMail: ainfeld@hillel.org
You can find a host of OTHER Hillel officers to write to at
http://hillel.org/hillel/HillelPages.nsf/0bc14969e4e1ebf6852567d2004ee94d/d257db53274f549b852567d7006b66d3?OpenDocument
4. Cute: http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5439
5. Nice web site: http://www.wildjew.com/
6. The Beautiful People who support Terrorists:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11514
7. Michael Ledeen gives them heck:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11512
8. Ford and the Islamofascists:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11513
9. Fences: http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Fences.htm
10. The Soros Agenda
The press corps is finally giving billionaire George Soros the attention
he deserves as the new Daddy Warbucks of the Democratic Party. Mr. Soros
has responded that all he's doing is exercising his own Constitutional
right to free speech. We'd agree, except for the detail that the world's
38th richest man (according to Forbes) is using his money to restrict
everyone else's freedom.
In his political funding, Mr. Soros is exploiting the loophole in campaign
finance laws that lets billionaires donate however much they want to
private political lobbies. But more than that, he also turns out to be a
leading cash cow for the Washington lobbies trying to restrict media
competition and political speech. Mr. Soros is the personification of what
deserves to be called the "public interest" conceit.
This is the idea that folks like Mr. Soros are merely selfless benefactors
of truth and justice, but companies trying to protect their rights in
Washington are greedy special interests. The hedge-fund operator made his
money practicing capitalism but now he spends it trying to give himself
and his ideological allies an advantage over other voices. Among his
fundees in this case are four, closely coordinated groups. The men who
founded or run them are known in the Beltway as "the Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse," after what they are always claiming will happen if some
market is deregulated.
They are the Media Access Project, the Consumers Union, the Consumer
Federation of America, and the Center for Media Education (which has
morphed into the Center for Digital Democracy). Don't be fooled by their
consumer-friendly names. All four organizations have long been mouthpieces
of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. In the past three years they
have bashed or knotted up many of the Bush Administration's major
communications proposals.
Take Andrew Schwartzman, head of the Media Access Project, and leader of a
campaign to sink FCC Chairman Michael Powell's rules raising ownership
caps for broadcasters. MAP's revenue for fiscal 2001 was $526,000, and
according to the Soros foundation Web site the billionaire gave the group
$600,000 from 2000 to 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOW JONES REPRINTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order
presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or
customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or
visit: www.djreprints.com. See a sample reprint in PDF format Order a
reprint of this article now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Digital Democracy, meanwhile, has sued to block the FCC's
new broadband rules that would free fast Internet access from crushing
regulations. The Center is run by Jeff Chester, who spun it off from the
Center for Media Education. CME received a $90,000 donation from Mr. Soros
in 2001-02.
Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, has
a talent for churning out studies about how Mr. Powell's deregulation
would "undermine democracy." His group took $80,000 from Mr. Soros in
2000. And the Consumers Union, run by Gene Kimmelman, also dipped into the
Soros pot for $175,000 from 1999 to 2001. The two groups teamed up last
year to release a report blaming Mr. Bush and the FCC for widening the
"digital divide."
Not that the Four Horsemen fight only to control the airwaves. A few also
played roles in promoting the campaign finance laws that have given Mr.
Soros and his cash such a big political advantage. Combine their funding
with the $1.7 million that Mr. Soros gave the Center for Public Integrity,
the $1.3 million he gave Public Campaign, the $300,000 to Democracy 21,
the $625,000 to Common Cause, and the $275,000 to Public Citizen -- and
you can be forgiven for believing Mr. Soros got campaign finance passed
all by himself.
Like Mr. Soros, all of these groups share the view that the real arbiters
of public policy should be elites like them. Their own political success
refutes their contention that somehow Big Media dominate our public policy
debates. And with the new limits on what other Americans can donate to
political campaigns, and even on when they can run TV advertising, the
Soroses of the world will wield even more influence. Which is of course
their point.
As his clout grows, we hope the media pay even more attention to the views
of Mr. Soros and his web of left-wing activists. Our readers can examine
for themselves the nearly 1,900 payouts that Mr. Soros made to entities
since 1999 at http://prs.soros.org/GrantsList/GrantSearch.asp1. We'd say
they reveal a billionaire who is himself a threat to what he likes to call
an "open society."
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107274813557591400,00.html
Monday, December 29, 2003
Subject: Hate Speech and Its Critics
1. HATE SPEECH FROM THE LEFT
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, December 28, 2003
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/28/hate_speech_of_the_left/
2. When hate speech is protected but criticism of it is
"libel": http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11497
3. Coulter's
latest: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11496 which
includes this unforgettable snipe:
Is it just me, or is Kwanzaa becoming way too commercialized?
4. Sharon's Wall: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11478
Sunday, December 28, 2003
1. A few days ago I complained about the people who start the Oslo
body count from September 2000 instead of from the White House pawshake in
1993. A much better accounting can be found at
http://masada2000.org/oslo.html. There you will find the REAL death toll
produced by the Israeli Left.
2.
Us Beautiful People Opposed to Occupation
Who us? US? But we are the beautiful people. We love peace. We pet
cats. We sing Joan Baez songs. We believe in the brotherhood of peoples.
So how dare you fire bullets at us?
Sure we were there to show our solidarity with the mass murderers and
the suicide bombers. We understand that the security fence Israel is
building is designed to make it harder for the terrorists we support to
enter Israel and murder Jewish children and other civilians. And that is
precisely why we believe it must come down.
So, yes, we marched on Saturday, the day none of those religious
settlers can harass us and document what we do, and yes we gathered by a
part of the Security Fence, a segment that is still chain fence and not
yet towering concrete walls. And yes there we attacked the fence,
sabotaged it, vandalized it, ripped pieces from it, possibly electronic
sensors. You see, we think the terrorists should be allowed to enter
Israel to protest Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, by which we of
course also mean Tel Aviv and Haifa, and we oppose anything Israel tries
to do to protect its citizens short of total capitulation to the
progressive demands of the Palestinian fascists.
So of course it is understandable that our group got violent and tried
to cut through the
Israeli security barrier outside the Palestinian village of Masha near
Qalqilya. And yes of course we admit that we were trying to damage the
barrier of razor-wire fences, concrete walls and trenches that Israel says
it needs to stop infiltrations by Palestinian suicide bombers.
In the words of one of our members cited: "We began cutting the fence
and shaking it. The Israeli army was waiting for us and shot live bullets
directly at us," Liad Kantorowicz, one of the Israeli protesters, who
described themselves as anarchists, told Reuters. Yes, we were using
wire cutters to destroy this segment of the fence. Our crowd included the
usual terror-supporters from the ISM = International Solidarity Movement,
the anti-Semitic communist group that openly supports Palestinian terror
and has acted to oppose all Israeli attempts to take actions against
terrorism. Rachel Corrie, the bimbo who tried to play a game of chicken
with an Israeli army bulldozer and won the game, had been one of these.
In short, we are people who believe that 1300 murdered Israelis is
simply not enough. We will not tolerate any attempt by Israel to defend
its children. And that is why we violently attacked the security fence
yesterday and the soldiers guarding it.
So how dare those soldiers shoot one of our pro-terror members in his
leg? So what if he was wearing a mask while valdalizing the fence? And
how dare they injure one of the ISM provocateurs from overseas showing her
support for terrorism? So what if she was using wire cutters at the time
on the fence? So what if the crowd would have been mowed down with
gunfire had they been trying to use wirecutters on, say, the fence of a US
military facility any place on earth, or even just the fence at a nice
country club in California. So what if the ISM people injured had signed
a contract promising not even to enter the West Bank if allowed to
disembark in Israel? So what if Israel's Police Minister described the
"protesters" as "collaborators with terrorism", and so what if parliament
member Yuri Stern described them as "barbaric criminals"?
We demand an investigation! We want all those who cheered on the
troops who fired at us, who suggested that these troops be awarded medals,
to be arrested for incitement. And maybe libel.
3. Financial Aggression against Israel:
http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3136
4. Former PM Earning $130,000 a Month
(IsraelNN.com) Losing in the election for prime minister in 2001 has not
left Ehud Barak unemployed. Reports indicate the former party prime
minister is earning $130,000 a month and now ranks among the high wage
earners in the country, the daily Haaretz reported.
Who says those with extremely low IQs cannot succeed in the
business world?
Friday, December 26, 2003
1. Caroline Glick on the Academic Gulags of Israel:
Column one: Of intellectual bondage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Glick Dec. 26, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How could you report the war in Iraq if you sided with the Americans?"
"How can you say that George Bush is better than Saddam Hussein?"
These are some of the milder questions I received from an audience of some
150 undergraduate students from Tel Aviv University's Political Science
Department. The occasion was a guest lecture I gave last month on my
experiences as an embedded reporter with the US Army's 3rd Infantry
Division during the Iraq war.
Many of the students were visibly jolted by my assertion that the
patriotism of American soldiers was inspirational. The vocal ones among
them were appalled when I argued that journalists must be able to make
moral distinctions between good and evil, when such distinctions exist, if
they wish to provide their readership with an accurate picture of the
events they describe in their reports.
"Who are you to make moral judgments? What you say is good may well be bad
for someone else."
"I am a sane human being capable of distinguishing good from evil, just
like every other sane human being," I answered. "As criminal law states,
you are criminally insane if you can't distinguish between good and evil.
Unless you are crazy, you should be able to tell the difference."
When the show was over, and the students began shuffling out of the
lecture hall, a young woman approached me.
"Excuse me," she said with a heavy Russian accent.
"How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?"
"Because it is better to be free than to be a slave," I answered.
Undeterred, she pressed on, "How can you support America when the US is a
totalitarian state?"
"Did you learn that in Russia?" I asked.
"No, here," she said.
"Here at Tel Aviv University?"
"Yes, that is what my professors say," she said.
In the weeks that have passed since I gave that lecture, I have not been
able to get those students out of my mind.
While campuses throughout the Western world are known as hotbeds for
radicalism, it is still hard to believe that Israeli students, who
themselves served in the IDF, and who as civilians have experienced more
than three years of unrelenting terrorist attacks on their cafes, night
clubs, campuses, highways and public buses, could subscribe to such views.
How can they believe it is impossible to make moral distinctions between
those fighting terrorism and totalitarian regimes and those perpetrating
terrorism and leading such
dictatorships?
It is an open secret that many of the most prominent Israeli academics and
professors are also identified with the radical leftist fringes of the
Israeli political spectrum.
The Hebrew University's Political Science Department was dominated for
years by the leaders of Peace Now. Tel Aviv University's Social Science
and Humanities Faculties are the professional home to some of the leaders
of the even more radical Ta'ayush and Yesh Gvul organizations.
Israeli professors have signed petitions calling for boycotts of Israeli
goods. Some have even supported the boycott of Israeli academics by
foreign universities and academic publications.
Israel Radio reported this week that the letter written by 13 reservists
from the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit in which they announced their
refusal to serve in the territories was written for them by a Tel Aviv
University professor.
Prof. Rafi Yisraeli from the Hebrew University notes, "It is ironic that
the university presidents and Minister Natan Sharansky are now organizing
a campaign to stop the boycott of Israeli academics in foreign
universities.
A year ago, I discussed the issue, as well as the rampant anti-Semitism on
European campuses ,with the president of the University of Paris. He told
me, 'What do you want from us? All we are doing is repeating what we hear
from Israeli professors.'"
Case in point is Tel Aviv University law professor Andrei Marmor.
Marmor is currently a visiting faculty member at the University of
Southern California Law School. Recently he published a policy paper at
USC where he argues that Israel's territorial claims to land it secured
during the 1948-49 War of Independence are no different from its claims to
land secured in the 1967 Six Day War. In his view, both are illegitimate.
Marmor goes on to argue that Zionism cannot claim to be a liberal movement
unless it accepts the "right of return" of Palestinians to Israel.
In the mid-1990s, a Tel Aviv University graduate student conducted a
survey of the political views of university professors.
The student discovered that not only were the professors overwhelmingly
self-identified with far left and Arab political parties, most also
expressed absolute intolerance for the notion that professors with
right-wing or even centrist views should be allowed to teach in their
departments. "Over my dead body," said one.
All of this is well known. Yet knowing of the professors' radicalism, and
seeing the effects of such dogmatic views on university students, are
different things.
Since my exchange with those students, I have spoken to professors and
students at the five major liberal arts universities in Israel to try to
understand how the intellectual tyranny of the radical Left on campuses
impacts their educational and professional experiences.
Students speak of a regime of fear and intimidation in the classroom. Ofra
Gracier, a doctoral student in Tel-Aviv University's humanities faculty
explains the process as follows:
"It starts with the course syllabus. In a class on introduction to
political theory for instance, you will never see the likes of Leo Strauss
or Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman. You will only get Marx and Rousseau
and people like that. So, if you want to argue with Marx, you are on your
own. You don't know anything else.
"But say you want to dispute your professor. I was taught this class by
Yoav Peled, an avowed communist. He was explaining why capitalism is evil.
I mentioned the Asian economic miracle South Korea, Japan, Singapore.
He went nuts and spent the rest of the class screaming at me.
"Then there is the grading system. In a history course I took, I took a
Zionist line in a research paper. My professor gave me a low grade and
explained that my grade was the result of my argument.
"Most people toe the leftist line even when they disagree because of the
grade discrimination. If you get low grades, you can't get accepted to a
master's program and if, in the master's program you get low grades you
won't be accepted into a doctoral program."
Avi Bell, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University's Law School, relates a
separate but related problem. "Last year I taught a course on the legal
aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of my students were clearly
Zionists and also knowledgeable about Israeli history.
And yet, when I received their seminar papers at the end of the term, I
saw that most of them wrote anti-Zionist arguments.
"The reason this happened is because there is a dire lack of scholarship
in certain areas. For instance, if you want to research the issue of
Palestinian policies of land discrimination against Jews, you have to go
to primary sources.
No one has written a book about it even though it is a huge issue. But if
you want to research the question of alleged Jewish land discrimination
against Arabs, you have a bookshelf full of books at your disposal."
Indeed, Dr. Martin Sherman of Tel-Aviv University's Political Science
Department was unable to get the university's Jaffee Center for Strategic
Studies to publish his original work on the hydro-strategic impact of a
Palestinian state on Israel. Sherman, with degrees in physics and geology
and practical experience as a water adviser in the Ministry of
Agriculture, is a recognized expert in the field.
"My paper showed conclusively that the establishment of such a state would
involve the transfer of control over 60 percent70 percent of Israel's
water sources to the Palestinians. They wouldn't have it. I was strung
along by Shai Feldman [the head of the Jaffee Center] for months and
months, until it was finally made clear that it wouldn't be published."
Citing alternate publications in research papers is also not allowed.
Another graduate student explained that her professor gave her a low grade
on a paper because she cited research published in Netiv magazine.
"That is a right-wing propaganda sheet, published in the Occupied
Territories," she was told. Her argument that most of Netiv's articles are
written by academics and are based on original research didn't matter.
She ran into a similar problem when she cited an article published in the
Shalem Center's journal Azure.
Most of the academics and students that I spoke with were happy to discuss
their situations and yet averse to the notion of being quoted by name. "I
am up for tenure," and "I still need my dissertation proposal approved,"
were some of the most frequent explanations.
A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on
Israeli attitudes toward the state was published on Thursday in Haaretz.
According to the findings, a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being
Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national
identity.
Mexicans, Chileans, Norwegians, and Indians all have higher degrees of
pride in their national identities than Israelis. Is it possible that our
academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of
Israelis to take pride in who they are?
This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072326002827
2. Nice piece on 2003:
http://jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3200
3. The Further Beilinization of Ariel Sharon:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1369
1. Recently a French TV character named Deodona (sp??) came out on stage
on Channel France 3, dressed like a black-coated unltra-Orthodox Jew,
lifted his arm in a nazi salute, and screamed, "Heil Israel", and invited
the public to join the Axis of Good, the alliance of American imperialism
with Zionism. The
Paris Attorney General was not amused and announced he plans to indict the
buffoon under France's anti-racism laws.
I thought this worth mentioning, because had the same guy come to
Israel and done the exact same performance in French, English, Hebrew, or
Arabic on an Israeli TV stage, it would be regarded as protected speech.
The Attorney General in Israel has never indicted anyone in Israel for
anti-Semitism, not from the treasonous Left and no Arab fascists.
So in that case, what exactly IS regarded as speech that is libelous
and NOT protected in Israel? Well, the answer should now be obvious.
Anyone writing or speaking criticism of the political views of leftist
anti-Jewish extremists needs to be charged with committing "libel",
because such statements are not protected speech in post-survivalist
Israel.
2. I have a pet peeve, and that is the mindless habit, in fact what has
become the unchallenged convention in Israel and the world, of counting
the victims of the Oslo carnage from the start of the misnamed "Al Aqsa
Intifada", beginning in September 2000. By that reckoning, the number of
Israelis murdered by the implementation of the policies of Israel's Left
is a mere 904, as of yesterday's atrocity on the Tel Aviv beltway.
But counting in this way makes it seem that the carnage is something
that just began in 2000, and hidden behind the system of counting is the
Left's assertion that the entire bloodbath was caused by Ariel Sharon
going for a stroll on the Temple Mount in September 2000. You know, that
walk that was almost as controversial as would have been a walk by an
Italian politician in the Vatican....
This is not just a technical mathematical debate. The proper way to
count the Olso carnage body count is from the time of the pawshake on the
White House lawn, when Rabin signed the first Oslo "Accord" with Arafat,
and the Labor Party decided to turn the West Bank and Gaza over to the
terrorists to become nazi terror bases and cities of refuge for mass
murderers, while importing the terrorist leadership from Tunis into the
Lands of Israel, and by arming and bankrolling the Palestinian nazis.
The correct body count is close to 1400, not 904, where the exact
figure is never reported by the Israeli media, under the near-totalitarian
hegemony of the Israeli Far Left. Reporting things that way might clarify
for the confused public that the Oslo carnage was produced by the policies
of the Israeli Left, starting with the Peres-Rabin decision to impose Oslo
on the country. And we sure would not want the Israelis reminded that
the Left is directly to blame for the 1400 deaths of Israelis.
3. Speaking of the near-totalitarian hegemony over the media by the
Left, a serious crack has opened up in that hegemony recently, because the
new chair of the Israel Broadcasting Authority has been ruffling the
feathers of the pink flamingos, the Far Leftist media moguls who have
controlled Israeli TV news and electronic broadcastings since, well,
since forever.
Several of the leading talking heads have gotten the bum's rush or
been forced to resign. Now the Left is all enraged because the new boss
is appointing Uri Dan to be the chief reporter on a couple of news
documentary shows on Channel One TV. Dan is a vintage ace Israeli
reporter and columnist, but the Left despises him because he is personally
friendly with Ariel Sharon and approves of many things Sharon does.
That, in the "minds" of the Left, should disqualify him for any media
position. Note that for the past generation, when Far Leftists mouthed
their biased monologues all over the Israeli media, no one ever
complained that biased leftists should be excluded. Indeed, for years,
the news service on Channel One was the personal fiefdom of Leftist Czar
Moti Kirshenbaum, who openly stated that non-leftist opinion would not be
permitted on the screen as long as he was in charge (and back then Channel
One was the ONLY TV station broadcasting in Israel).
Kirshenbaum is one of the characters no longer with us at Channel
One. He moved to the "privatized" Channel Ten, a failing insolvent new
station with an invisible market share, where he shares the rocking chair
on the news and commentary broadcasts with fellow geriatric far leftist
Yaron London. The two old pharisees sit and chat between themselves in an
endless dialogue of the dumb, in what always reminds me of those two
puppets of the old geezers on all the Muppet Shows, who sit in the balcony
and issue cynical pronouncements and then laugh to themselves.
4.
CODED MESSAGES BELY PALESTINIAN 'CONDEMNATION' OF TERROR
By Michael Widlanski * 25 December 2003 11:00 PM
Several Israeli media outlets reported that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian
Authority condemned the Palestinian human bomb attack tonight north of Tel
Aviv.
But the truth is a little different.
Neither Voice of Palestine Radio nor Palestinian State television reported
the "condemnation," and VOP radio--which is directly supervised by Arafat--
referred to man who set off the bomb as a "heroic martyr."
He was described as having "died a heroic martyr's death" (Arabic:
istash-hada, tenth form reflexive verb for martyrdom). Occasionally the
Paletinian media have used more neutral terms to describe the deaths of
human bombers, but not in this case.
Describing the "martyrdom" of the human bomber in its 10-PM news was not
unique during the Christmas Day broadcasts of Voice of Palestine.
Another Palestinian, who blew up while preparing a car bomb Wednesday night
(Christmas Eve) was characterized throughout Thursday's broadcasts as having
died a heroic martyr's death. (VOP 2PM Akhbar al-Yom news magazine show).
So do Yasser Arafat and his hand-picked prime minister Ahmad Qrei'a (also
known by his kunya, Arabic nickname, Abu 'Ala) really condemn terror
attacks?
In fact the "condemnation" appeared as part of a big headline on the
PA/PLO-controlled Palestinian news agency known as WAFA (Arabic: Wikalat
al-Anba al-Filistiniyya:Palestinian News Agency), but the heart of the
article in Arabic is an extreme denunciation of Israeli "massacres,"
"crimes" and "atrocities."
(See www.wafa.pna.net/AraText/25-12-2003/page052.htm )
Although the article, in line 11, says the "Palestinian Leadership
repudiates and condemns all attacks on civilians be they Israeli or
Palestinian," its tone is far more condemnatory of Israeli attacks on HAMAS,
Jihad and FATAH car bomb makers whose deaths are also treated as Israeli
atrocities.
Indeed, the language of the WAFA statement clearly leaves the door open for
attacking Israeli civilians "beyond the Green Line" as well as all men and
women in Israeli army or police uniforms.
In fact, Palestinian radio and Palestinian television openly encourage
attacks against Israeli soldiers, policemen and "settlers" by using songs,
coded language and film montages enticing young boys to gain entrance to
paradise by becoming martyrs in the struggle against Israeli occupation.
* Michael Widlanski, a specialist in Palestinian communications, teaches at
Hebrew University's Rothberg School, and he recently completed eight years
of research on the Palestinian mass media.
Thursday, December 25, 2003
A bit vintage but still worth reading:
Nice Piece: The myth of the occupied territories
By Isaac Yetiv
The San Diego Union-Tribune
January 30, 2002
A recent poll showed a majority of the French people believed there was a
Palestinian state, which Israel had conquered in 1967 and "occupied"
since.
The French are certainly no exception. This widely held misconception is a
vivid testimony to the efficacy of Arab propaganda and to the failure of
Israel to counter it.
The truth is that there has never existed in history a sovereign Arab-
Palestinian state; hence, no "occupation" could have occurred. Even former
Secretary of State James Baker, not known for his sympathy to the Jewish
state, when asked in 1998 by an Egyptian journalist if the "territories"
were "occupied," responded in the negative: "They are clearly disputed
territories;" he said, "that's what U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 are
about."
This distinction is not academic; it cuts through the heart of this
seemingly intractable problem. The word "occupation," with its loaded
geopolitical connotations, has become the rallying cry of the
Palestinians, inflaming their passions and inciting them to violence, thus
rendering an already difficult situation practically unmanageable.
It is enough to remember that the "territories" of the West Bank and Gaza
were taken by force, by Jordan and Egypt respectively, in a war of
aggression against newborn Israel in 1948. Later Jordan annexed the West
Bank, making its inhabitants Jordanian citizens (the term "Palestinian"
was not current then).
In 1967, Jordan joined Egypt and Syria in another war of aggression, lost
the war and the West Bank to Israel. Even a status quo ante in the
framework of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan would have
returned the territories to Jordan, not to a new "entity," but the
decision of King Hussein to "wash his hands from the Palestinians" kept
Israel in control of these territories.
Another important fact, practically unknown, is that, since Oslo, 98
percent of the territories are governed by the Palestinian Authority, not
by Israel.
Another bone of contention, usually accompanying "occupation," is the
question of Jewish settlements. Some call them "illegal;" some say they
are "an obstacle to peace;" but there is not one international legal
document that supports either of these opinions. On the contrary: In 1920,
the San Remo International Conference "recognized the historical
connection of the Jewish people to Palestine ," found "grounds for
reconstituting their national home" and "encouraged close settlement of
the land," which then meant all of Palestine, including today's Jordan.
Even the Oslo agreements did not call for the dismantlement, or even a
"freeze" of Jewish settlements; on the contrary, they stipulate the right
and obligation of Israel to defend them. In 1967, U.N. resolution 242
called for Israel to withdraw from "territories" [not the territories] to
"secure recognized boundaries", to be arrived at "through negotiations."
In 1993, Israel initiated these "negotiations" with the Oslo agreement in
order to put an end to the "occupation," which culminated in the
far-reaching Clinton- Barak peace offer of Palestinian statehood which is
not even mentioned in the Oslo accord.
The rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 establishing a
Jewish state and a Palestinian state, which Israel accepted, was followed
by a disastrous war in 1948 that gave more territory to Israel; they again
attacked in 1967 and lost more territory; even the surprise attack on Yom
Kippur 1973 ended in failure. The Camp David offer in 2000 was followed by
the bloody war of terror.
As early as 1970, Stephen Schwebel, former head of the International Court
of Justice, wrote in The American Journal of International Law: "As
between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and in 1967, on the one hand,
and her Arab neighbors acting aggressively on the other, Israel has better
title to the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of
Jerusalem, than do Jordan or Egypt."
Oslo, Camp David and Taba have shown that the people of Israel have made
the strategic change toward peace with security. Will the Arab world,
especially the Palestinians, respond to the challenge or will they revert
to their century-old rejectionism and miss another opportunity to bring
peace and prosperity to the Middle East?
Yetiv is a retired professor and specialist in Middle Eastern affairs.
Nice Piece: The myth of the occupied territories
By Isaac Yetiv
The San Diego Union-Tribune
January 30, 2002
A recent poll showed a majority of the French people believed there was a
Palestinian state, which Israel had conquered in 1967 and "occupied"
since.
The French are certainly no exception. This widely held misconception is a
vivid testimony to the efficacy of Arab propaganda and to the failure of
Israel to counter it.
The truth is that there has never existed in history a sovereign Arab-
Palestinian state; hence, no "occupation" could have occurred. Even former
Secretary of State James Baker, not known for his sympathy to the Jewish
state, when asked in 1998 by an Egyptian journalist if the "territories"
were "occupied," responded in the negative: "They are clearly disputed
territories;" he said, "that's what U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 are
about."
This distinction is not academic; it cuts through the heart of this
seemingly intractable problem. The word "occupation," with its loaded
geopolitical connotations, has become the rallying cry of the
Palestinians, inflaming their passions and inciting them to violence, thus
rendering an already difficult situation practically unmanageable.
It is enough to remember that the "territories" of the West Bank and Gaza
were taken by force, by Jordan and Egypt respectively, in a war of
aggression against newborn Israel in 1948. Later Jordan annexed the West
Bank, making its inhabitants Jordanian citizens (the term "Palestinian"
was not current then).
In 1967, Jordan joined Egypt and Syria in another war of aggression, lost
the war and the West Bank to Israel. Even a status quo ante in the
framework of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan would have
returned the territories to Jordan, not to a new "entity," but the
decision of King Hussein to "wash his hands from the Palestinians" kept
Israel in control of these territories.
Another important fact, practically unknown, is that, since Oslo, 98
percent of the territories are governed by the Palestinian Authority, not
by Israel.
Another bone of contention, usually accompanying "occupation," is the
question of Jewish settlements. Some call them "illegal;" some say they
are "an obstacle to peace;" but there is not one international legal
document that supports either of these opinions. On the contrary: In 1920,
the San Remo International Conference "recognized the historical
connection of the Jewish people to Palestine ," found "grounds for
reconstituting their national home" and "encouraged close settlement of
the land," which then meant all of Palestine, including today's Jordan.
Even the Oslo agreements did not call for the dismantlement, or even a
"freeze" of Jewish settlements; on the contrary, they stipulate the right
and obligation of Israel to defend them. In 1967, U.N. resolution 242
called for Israel to withdraw from "territories" [not the territories] to
"secure recognized boundaries", to be arrived at "through negotiations."
In 1993, Israel initiated these "negotiations" with the Oslo agreement in
order to put an end to the "occupation," which culminated in the
far-reaching Clinton- Barak peace offer of Palestinian statehood which is
not even mentioned in the Oslo accord.
The rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 establishing a
Jewish state and a Palestinian state, which Israel accepted, was followed
by a disastrous war in 1948 that gave more territory to Israel; they again
attacked in 1967 and lost more territory; even the surprise attack on Yom
Kippur 1973 ended in failure. The Camp David offer in 2000 was followed by
the bloody war of terror.
As early as 1970, Stephen Schwebel, former head of the International Court
of Justice, wrote in The American Journal of International Law: "As
between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and in 1967, on the one hand,
and her Arab neighbors acting aggressively on the other, Israel has better
title to the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of
Jerusalem, than do Jordan or Egypt."
Oslo, Camp David and Taba have shown that the people of Israel have made
the strategic change toward peace with security. Will the Arab world,
especially the Palestinians, respond to the challenge or will they revert
to their century-old rejectionism and miss another opportunity to bring
peace and prosperity to the Middle East?
Yetiv is a retired professor and specialist in Middle Eastern affairs.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
1. The Free Speech web site that enraged the Israeli Left to the point
of suing me for "libel":
http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/shelp/speechisrael.htm
2. From today's Jerusalem Post:
Letter to the Editor:
Pathological
Sir, - Daniel Doron's informative and well-written column "The Left is
pathological" (December 18) makes many important points. In his discussion
of Neve Gordon, the extremist lecturer in political science at Ben-Gurion
University, there is one point that should be noted.
Gordon is not simply a writer of Israel-bashing articles that appear,
among other places, in anti-Semitic journals and neo-Nazi Web sites, but
he is also the leading Israeli endorser of the views of Norman
Finkelstein. Finkelstein has been declared a Holocaust denier, fraud
and/or anti-Semite by nearly everyone in the Jewish world, including Elie
Weisel, Jonah Daniel Goldhagen, the Anti-Defamation League and the World
Jewish Congress.
Neve Gordon is the leading academic faculty member in Israel, and possibly
the only one, who endorses Finkelstein and recognizes him as a bona-fide
researcher. Indeed, Gordon has compared Finkelstein ethically to the
prophets of the Bible.
STEVEN PLAUT
Haifa
3. Humor Section:
"A Test to Detect Liberals in the Family"
Posted by the ChronWatch Founder, Jim Sparkman
Monday, December 22, 2003
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5391
Since many of us will probably be visiting family and friends this
holiday season, I thought what better way to celebrate the season than
by either taking or giving a test to see if any of your friends and family
are liberal lefties.
Directions: Simply answer True or False to each question. Scoring
is at the end of the test.
1. President Bush was selected, not elected. T or F
2. Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world. T or F
3. Gore was robbed. T or F
4. The war in Iraq was fought for big oil. T or F
5. Everything Ed Asner says is true. T or F
6. France was right on the war. T or F
7. Dennis Kucinich belongs in the race for president. T or F
8. Saddam should not be executed. T or F
9. Some suicide bombers have a point. T or F
10. Guns kill people, so should be confiscated. T or F
11. We should use ''Happy Holidays'' not ''Merry Christmas,'' so we don't
offend others. T or F
12. Clinton was the greatest president ever. T or F
13. Barbra Streisand is an astute political commentator. T or F
14. Jesse Jackson is the greatest African-American in America today.
T or F
15. Criminals are victims too. T or F
16. SUV's kill innocent people. T or F
17. Illegal aliens are not illegal. T or F
18. President Bush is a Nazi. T or F
19. Colin Powell is an Oreo. T or F
20. The truth is not important. T or F
21. Conservatives are evil people. T or F
22. Everything bad that happens to you is not your fault. T or F
23. Conservatives hate the poor. T or F
24. Mumia is innocent. T or F
25. If you disagree with affirmative action, you are a racist. T or F
26. All terrorist are not bad people. T or F
27. We knew about 9/11 before it happened. T or F
28. It was okay for Clinton to lob bombs into the Sudan but it was wrong
for Bush to lob bombs into Iraq. T or F
29. Conservatives want to pollute the environment. T or F
30. Alec Baldwin makes very wise political pronouncements. T or F
31. Madonna is really smart when it comes to politics. T or F
32. The flu is the president's fault. T or F
33. Halliburton is the evil empire. T or F
34. The French are brave. T or F
35. Howard Dean would make a great president. T or F
36. President Clinton was the first Black President of the U.S. T or F
37. Everything Dan Rather says is true. T or F
38. Everything Peter Jennings says is true. T or F
Scoring: If you answered ''True'' to ANY ONE of the above 40
questions, you are a liberal lefty and you should get on a plane and
become a French citizen.
Feel free to pass this on to your friends and family. What greater
gift can we give each other than to find out who the real lefties are in
the family and then send them packing to Paris?
4. The BBC does it again:
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5393
5. News from Belgium:
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5375
6. I thought this was cute:
12 Politically Correct Days of Christmas
On the 12th day of the Eurocentrically imposed midwinter festival,
my Significant Other in a consenting adult, monogamous relationship gave
to me:
TWELVE males reclaiming their inner warrior through ritual drumming,
ELEVEN pipers piping (plus the 18-member pit orchestra made up of
members in good standing of the Musicians Equity Union as called for in
their union contract even though they will not be asked to play a
note),
TEN melanin deprived testosterone-poisoned scions of the patriarchal
ruling class system leaping,
NINE persons engaged in rhythmic self-expression,
EIGHT economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products
from enslaved Bovine-Americans,
SEVEN endangered swans swimming on federally protected wetlands,
SIX enslaved Fowl-Americans producing stolen non-human animal products,
FIVE golden symbols of culturally sanctioned enforced domestic
incarceration,
FOUR hours of recorded whale songs,
THREE deconstructionist poets,
TWO Sierra Club calendars printed on recycled processed tree carcasses,
and...
ONE Spotted Owl activist chained to an old-growth pear tree.
Monday, December 22, 2003
1. Time Magazine chose as its ?Man of the Year? the American soldier. The cover shows three young GIs. The American soldier was chosen by Time because he represents the pride and the values that the Time editors believe in or wish to honor.
Not to be outdone, two Israeli daily newspapers may follow suit and chose as THEIR man of the year those people with whom they most clearly identify and whom they wish to honor, people who represent what they believe in, and so they might put on their covers for Man of the Year the Tanzim Terrorist.
2. Just in time for Hannuka, the latest manifestation of leftist treason in Israel is the organizing of 13 reservists who serve in the elite Chief of Staff Scout Unit to declare that they will refuse to serve in the army until Israel implements the political policies advocated by the most extremist leftist 3% of the Israeli public. To put things into perspective, this Unit is the most elitist fighting unit in the IDF. It is the unit that rescued the hostages in Entebbe. On the other hand, while the exact numbers who have served in the unit are secret, the 13 traitors in question clearly represent far less than 1% of all the fighters associated with the Unit. The 13 are reservists, not in active service. The Israeli media as usual are hailing the 13 as heroes and brave men of conscience. The Channel One news granted endless time to the supporters of the traitors to express their views, while not a single person was interviewed who opposed their behavior or regar
ded them
as traitors. Even Ehud Barak, the Uberleftist of the Labor Party, denounced them.
The 13 reservists issued a statement saying they are opposed to Israel ?oppressing the Palestinians? and demanding immediate ending of all Israeli military activities against the Palestinian terrorists. They went even beyond the group of air force pilot traitors from earlier this year. They also say they are refusing to serve because they oppose the construction of the ?defensive wall? designed to prevent suicide bombers from murdering Jewish children. In other words, if we translate their position, these 13 are refusing to serve in the military because they oppose any attempts by Israel to prevent the Palestinian nazis from murdering Jewish children. They are opposed to any military action against nazi leaders hiding among civilians, and since the Arab nazi leaders always hide among civilians, they are in effect opposed to any actions by Israel of any sort to defend itself.
So once again Israel?s Left has exhibited how openly and candidly treasonous it is, and how it believes that Leftists should be exempt from having to obey the will of the majority, or to obey the law, or to submit to democratic decision making.
3. If Israel is ever annihilated, the Israeli intelligence services will bear a major part of the blame, including military intelligence (forgive my use of that oxymoron). From the start of Oslo, Israel?s intelligence services have seen their jobs not as developing accurate intelligence assessments of the behavior and goals of the Palestinians, but rather of turning out ?spin? and politicized press in support of the political agenda of the Israeli Left.
This morning, the press is full of the ?news? that military intelligence thinks the Hamas is in fact observing a de facto ceasefire with Israel since September. The Hamas has not succeeded in carrying out a major nazi atrocity since Sept. 9, when it blew up a café in Jerusalem. Military intelligence, serving as the amen chorus for the Beilins and Pereses, sees this as a wonderful sign of progress and moderation. Haaretz goes so far as to declare that the Palestinians are now largely opposed to violence.
And if you are one of those people who thinks that a ceasefire is holding when Israel manages to arrest all the suicide bombers in a week before they reach their targets, no doubt you will find this persuasive. In fact, in recent weeks the military and police have managed to catch and prevent at least 52 different attempts by the Hamas to carry out atrocities. In many cases, they were operating in joint terror teams together with members of the Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Martyrs, two terrorist organizations under the direct command and control of Yassir Arafat. SO I guess if you do not count any of THOSE attempts to perpetrate atrocities as being purely Hamas activities, you could reasonably conclude that the Hamas is observing a ceasefire.
4. In the early 1990s, Prof. Shlomo Avineri, the Labor Party senior political science professor from the Hebrew University, was one of the leading intellectual boosters of Shimon Peres? daydreams. Avineri could barely control his excitement and enthusiasm when the Oslo ?Accords? were signed. After Rabin was assassinated, Avineri granted the Left further artillery support by insisting that Bibi Netanyahu was himself to blame for the assassination.
But never rule out the possibility that a Jew may wake up and return to sanity. In recent weeks, the same Avineri has been attacking Beilin?s Geneva Boondoggle in the press. He wrote two pieces in Haaretz, the official propaganda organ for the Geneva Misunderstandings, attacking them and Beilin mercilessly. The Beilin ?Accords? do not recognize the right of Jews to have their own country, at least not in the Middle East, says Avineri. Maybe in Siberia. They not only do not rule out any Palestinian ?right of return? to the rump Israel Beilin wishes to constrict, but the ?Accord? explicitly endorses such a ?right? and the ?right? to destroy Israel. One and a half cheers for Prof. Shlomo Avineri!
5. I am sure that Khaddafi swallowed his gum and decided to end his nuke
program just because he loves peace and freedom and that it has absolutely
nothing to do with the Allied liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan and new
US threats against Syria. So no one should think that it is part of the
grand success of the US in Iraq. Just a coincidence, that is all. Can I
now run for President as contender for the Democratic Party nomination?
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Hannuka Amongst the Hellenists
By Steven Plaut
Of all the Jewish holidays, the one that I think best captures the
contemporary
Jewish Zeitgeist, the one that is the most relevant to the current (and, if
certain trends are not reversed, the last?) chapter in Jewish history, is
Hannuka. Hannuka is of course the story of Jewish national liberation. It
is the story of the military victory of the few against the many, of the
champions of Judaism against the pagan barbarians.
But it is more than this. It is the saga of the heroic struggle of Jewish
survivalists (those one would today label"Zionists") against the
assimilationists and self-hating Hellenists of thesecond century BCE.
Hannuka is less a story about the battle against the Greeks than it is
about the battle against the predominant assimilationist
paradigm at the time among the Jews. It is about the battle against the
anti-survivalists, those who hated themselves for being Jews and so those
who seek
to be "progressive", "modern", and "in", through rejecting, disgracing and
degrading themselves and their people. The Hellenists who fought the
Hasmoneans were struggling AGAINST Jewish survival. Sound familiar?
In the United States, the main movement of Hellenistic assimilationism
has been the school of "Political Liberalism as Judaism," the
pseudo-religion that holds that all of Judaism can be reduced to the
pursuit of this week's liberal political fads. But the global avante garde
of Jewish self-hatred these days is the Israeli Left.
The Israeli Left is the main manifestation today of Jewish anti-Semitism.
It not only promotes "plans" and policies designed to end Israel's
existence, increasingly endorsing the one-state bi-national Rwanda solution
as the solution to the "problem" of Israeli national existence. It also
regularly attacks every symbol and concept of traditional Judaism. You
think I am exaggerating? Well just consider the Op-Ed last year in the
Israeli daily Haaretz, penned by one Yehiam Shorek, a "historian" who
teaches at the Beit Berl College in Israel. Beit Berl is a college run by
the kibbutz movement and financed by the Israeli taxpayer.
The "historian" Shorek devoted his Haaretz column to proving that the
Maccabis were fascist and racist hooligans, bloodthirsty zealots, and
downright Likudniks. His column was entitled "Bloodthirsty Zealots". His
thesis was that Jews should stop celebrating Hannuka and the exploits of
the Maccabis and should instead feel sympathy for the poor occupied and
mistreated Greeks and Hellenists. His article was NOT a spoof!
The evil Maccabis were plotting to perpetrate population "transfer",
wrote Shorek, that most evil of all crimes in the "minds" of Israel's
fundamentalist Leftists. Population "transfer" is far worse than, say, mass
murdering 1300 Jews after signing with them a series of peace accords, or
turning the West Bank and Gaza over to barbarian Nazis to allow them to
carry out such mass murders. Shorek is a member of that same Fundamentalist
Left that will not rest until all Jews have been expelled from the West
Bank and Gaza in an act of ethnic cleansing and where no Israeli armed
forces are left behind to interfere with the terrorist activities of the
Palestinians.
Matityahu, the father of Judah Maccabi and his brothers, was a lunatic,
wrote Shorek. He was a warmonger who dragged his country into an
unnecessary "war of choice", one that was not a legitimate "war of
self-defense". (Never mind that there is nothing at all in Judaism that
says Jews should refrain from conquering their lands unless it is part of a
war of self-defense.) The Maccabis were the aggressors, insisted Shorek.
And they suppressed the free speech of those who supported the Greeks; how
undemocratic of them!
Judah Maccabi was guilty of causing many families to lose their loved
ones by leading people to war, wrote Shorek, instead of pursuing some sort
of Hellenistic Oslo appeasement and capitulation, the sort the "enlightened
Left" seeks today to impose upon Israel. All Judah Maccabi really wanted to
do was to Occupy Occupy Occupy, insisted Shorek. No better than the West
Bank settlers today!! And not only that, but Judah and his hooligans were
Orthodox Jews, which every leftist knows must make them primitive and
barbaric, unlike the enlightened Marxist historians who live on nice
kibbutzim or teach at the Beit Berl college.
(If you would like to tell the management of Beit Berl what you think
they should do with Shorek, write daliabk@beitberl.ac.il , or , Beit Berl
College, Doar Beit Berl, 44905, Israel Tel. 972-9-7476333, Fax.
972-9-7454104. You could also write or send an email to the Minister of
Education and demand that all funding for Beit Berl be frozen until Shorek
is dismissed at sar@education.gov.il.)
Unfortunately, Shorek is hardly a lone phenomenon. Israel's anti-Jewish
leftists have been launching similar jihads against every other symbol of
Jewish valor. Masada was a cesspool of non-tolerant fanatics, according to
them. The Bible is a backward document full of fabrications. The school
should stop teaching it altogether, they demand, and instead teach
something really useful like the poetry of Palestinian "poets". Archeology
proves the Bible is nothing but lies and fantasy, they insist. One wag
labeled such people Pentateuch Deniers (intended as alliteration for
"Holocaust Deniers".)
In Israel, the country's politics - particularly its cultural/educational
elite and its chattering classes - are now largely dominated by those
motivated by the desire for their country to commit national suicide. They
scorn themselves, their own country and their own people the same way that
the Hellenized Jews did at the time of the
Maccabis. Many endorse boycotts of Israel by anti-Semites abroad. Like the
Hellenized Jews, they are convinced that traditionalist Jews are
reactionary and primitive, and that the greatest national priority should
be renunciation of Jewish peculiarity and the striving to assimilate
amongst the cosmopolitan progressive "Greeks" of the world. They are
ashamed of their Jewishness and convinced that the only path to peace is to
renounce it. They insist that a Seleucid "narrative" should replace the
Jews' own reactionary national one.
Israel's universities are by and large the Occupied Territories of these
Hellenists. The Israeli media is to almost the same extent. Hellenists
dominate much of the Israeli military and somewhat incredibly the
intelligence services. (It is doubtful the country could have undergone the
Oslo debacle had these intelligence services not operated as lapdogs for
the Beilinized Israeli Left.) Hellenists have attempted to rewrite the
Israeli school curriculum, to teach Israeli Jewish children to
despise themselves. Their message is that Jews must feel ashamed because
they are mean, selfish, evil and immoral people. Surely there would be no
anti-Semitism on the planet were not the Jews such awful, insensitive people.
Their aim is to convince the Jews that the only way they may become
accepted in the world is to adapt to paganism, to stop seeking to exist as
a separate national entity, to commit national suicide. Moreover, their
campaign is aimed at challenging the moral existence of the Jews. They
realize this is the weakest chink in the armor of the Jews. If Jews can be
convinced that they are morally in the wrong, then no Maccabis will arise.
The aim of the Jewish Hellenists is the delegitimization of
the Jews as a nation, discrediting the moral position of Jewish survivalism.
The message of the contemporary Hellenists is unambiguous: Those who wish
to purify the Temple, who seek pure oil for the Temple lamp, who wish to
evict the barbarians from Jerusalem, are the enemies of peace. The Maccabis
must be arrested for incitement. The Jews must provide Antiochus with
concessions and arms and funds and a Road Map. Under no circumstances
should the Jews seek to defend themselves militarily against the Seleucids
for there is no military solution to the problem of Seleucid persecution.
If the barbarians murder the Jews, it is because the Jews are evil selfish
people and because they have been too reluctant to abandon their primitive
survivalism.
If the Israeli anti-Jewish Left has its way, the Post-Hasmonean
post-survivalist era will be upon us. Dip the latkes in lard.
The Twelve days of Oslo
On the first day of Oslo, my true love gave to me,
A lemming in a pear tree.
On the second day of Oslo, my true love gave to me,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the third day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the fourth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the fifth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Five New History Texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the sixth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two shuls a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the seventh day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Seven deaths in Gilo,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the eighth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Eight kidnapped hostages,
Seven deaths in Gilo,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the nineth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Nine new subpoenas (for incitement),
Eight al-Kassem rockets,
Seven deaths in Gilo,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the tenth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Ten brand new taxes,
Nine new subpoenas (for incitement),
Eight al-Kassem rockets,
Seven deaths in Gilo,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the eleventh day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Eleven car bombs popping,
Ten brand new taxes,
Nine new subpoenas (for incitement),
Eight al-Kassem rockets,
Seven deaths in Gilo,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
And a lemming in a pear tree.
On the twelfth day of Oslo my true love gave to me,
Twelve new excuses,
Eleven car bombs popping,
Ten brand new taxes,
Nine new subpoenas (for incitement),
Eight al-Kassem rockets,
Seven deaths in Gilo,
Six more appeasements,
Five New History texts,
Four soldiers lynched,
Three legless kids,
Two cafes a-burning
*** AND A LEMMING IN A PEAR TREE!! ***
(Who's got the eggnog?)
Friday, December 19, 2003
1. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN
ISRAEL'S UNIVERSITIES DURING THE OSLO DECADE: 1993-2003
by Professor Arieh Zaritsky
http://think-israel.org/zaritsky.oslodecade.html
"Academic Freedom" and "Truth" are the most important aspects of life in
higher learning institutions, where civilization is preserved and
progresses. Indeed, I cherish these values and exercised them during the
first 20 years of service at Ben-Gurion University.
Then, when the Oslo era hit us, all this has changed completely. Many of
us, who opposed the so-called "Oslo-PiPi" (Peace Process), were too nave
to realize what was going on, but reality slowly sobered us up. It was
recognized that betraying one's truth was apparently the easiest way to be
promoted, particularly in Faculties where issues are least rigorous such
as Humanities and Social Sciences.
As a member of the Natural Sciences Faculty, I was not aware of this issue
until the "Merry Days" of Oslo, when the Bolshevik mood prevailing in the
so-called Humanities Faculty has penetrated the exact sciences (Natural,
Engineering and Medical). My attention was captured when I realized that
major essential assets and interests for the survival of Israel were 'sold
away' by colleagues, perhaps for gaining some temporary and questionable
personal "Fame and Fortune" among our worst enemies abroad.
I have been disillusioned, disappointed, and frustrated. A small part of
what I've learnt during this last decade is being exposed now. The time
will come when more will be told. In fact, a long article about this that
I composed was not published in "NATIV" bimonthly because the Editor
(Arieh Stav) was warned by his lawyer that those mentioned might sue him,
the periodical and the author. Amnon Lord, who delivered a lecture this
morning here, knows what I mean. This is an attempt to compose a small
part without mentioning names, all of whom are 'registered' in my files.
A typical example of my point is that of a Professor of Geography who
heads "The Negev Institute for Regional Development." Remember the plan
designed by the Rabin government to deliver to the Palestinian Authority
sovereignty over a 5 km stretch surrounding a highway between Gaza and
Hevron? It was obvious to us that the plan would mean that Israel would
not be able to sustain the Negev (mind you, over 50% of Israel's area). It
was not included in the 1947 UN plan and is still being claimed by the
Egyptians. That is why my late Genetics teacher in The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, who fought in the Negev as a Pal'Mach'nik during the
Independence War, distinguished professor Yair Parag Z"L, published
numerous articles in daily newspapers and directed letters to that
Geographer and others, warning against that plan and asking for their
explanations and responses - all in vain! Similar letters by Dr. Ron
Breiman (IB"LA) were never answered. Merely by his silence, rather than
helping develop the Negev, as this professor claims to do, he helped split
it in two. Hasn't he been one of those who established the "Negev Party,"
which thanks G-d, lost in the elections of 1999?
Another of these establishing that party is a historian specializing in
the Israeli Socialist movements. This one refused to offer a teaching job
to one of the most talented and wise political scientists that I know, Dr.
Ra'aya Epstein of Yerucham, after he investigated her political views.
Offering a job to Dr. Uri Milstein, the world-famous historian
specializing in Israel's wars, is unheard of - particularly because he
was, like myself, raised in the Socialistic movement, so he 'betrayed' it,
in their view. Rather, this clique has appointed several of the most
infamous Post-Zionist historians and political scientists to the
'Oslo-oriented' newly-established Department of "Politics and Governance"
at BGU.
Is anybody surprised to hear, lo and behold, that these two
'Humanitarians' (the geographer and the historian) became presidents of
two colleges under the auspices of BGU?
Another post-Zionist who chaired the geography department refused to serve
in the so-called "occupied territories," two other 'Humanists' (chairing
other departments there) blame Prime Minister Sharon for murder and
advocate around the world that he be jailed, and a famous writer incited
to kill the settlers even before Oslo's inauguration.
One yarmulke-wearer is always a good cover for extreme leftists as an
argument that they are not discriminatory. Such a professor here was
recruited from the North American Peace Now movement to compare the
responsibility of Jewish mothers who expose their kids to dangers in the
"occupied territories" to that of Arab mothers who send theirs to become
homicide bombers.
This line of thought culminated in several senior Faculty members
initiating and signing a petition to boycott the Israeli Academia. Have we
ever heard of such a mental disease, of people who boycott themselves? Why
do they remain among the boycotted Academia? On the other hand, have we
ever heard of an organization who continues to feed those who boycott it?
There are more, many more, such Auto-Anti-Semites at BGU - the system is
rotten from its top.
Couldn't one argue, however, that all my examples prove the existence of
absolute "Freedom of Speech" at BGU? Why not compare me to the Biblical
Bil'am, who was supposed to curse Israel but was rather led to bless it?
Well, this would have been so if we (the many who opposed Oslo) were given
the same chance. However, despite the fact that over 90 senior Faculty of
BGU are members of PSI (Professors for a Strong Israel Organization), we
were not allowed to introduce into the campus any of our lecturers with
opposing views.
Numerous political conferences (financed by the governmental Misrad
Ha'Hasbarah) were organized and conducted on campus in an academic
disguise praising the Peace Process and its anticipated 'fruits',
brainwashing students and Faculty. When, on the other hand, we wished to
organize a balanced conference to discuss the book of Arieh Stav (entitled
"Ha'Shalom - Arab Cartoons"), for example, we were told by the then
Deputy-President (now, Israeli ambassador to the UK) that "no politics
will prevail on campus while I am in office." We had to host Arieh and
other distinguished lecturers such as Professor Moshe Sharon at a hall in
an obscure community club somewhere in town while the infamous men, Drs.
Ron Pundak and Yair Hirshfeld, and Sophian Abu-Zaidah, as well as the
infamous women, Dr. Naomi Chazan, Shulamit Aloni and Hannan Ashrawi, were
given a free podium at BGU's various so-called 'Humanity' and 'Social'
Sciences departments. Even the President of the Zionist of America
Organization, Mr. Morton Klein, was not officially invited to BGU when he
visited Be'er-Sheva.
Is it strange or unexpected, after all the above, that a student was
punished by BGU's Discipline Committee for flying the Israeli flag on
campus opposite a group of Arab students (across the fence) who had raised
the flag of the so-called "Palestine Liberation Organization" on their
Land Day (Yom Ha'Adama) several years ago?
These are just 'the tip of the iceberg' of what was going on at BGU in
general during the Oslo Decade. Now, let me tell you a couple of stories
about my personal experience.
As many of you know, soon after the signing of the Oslo Accords on the
White House's green lawn, I established an electronic mail list, to
quickly spread announcements about petitions, demonstrations and other
activities of the so-called National Camp. One day in 1999, I was called
to the office of my dean (Natural Sciences, remember), in the presence of
my department chairman, to warn me not to use my email address at BGU for
this purpose. I obviously refused to comply, but tricked them into telling
me that BGU received a letter from the office of the Prime Minister, then
Ehud Barak, who was annoyed by my activity. At the same time, there was
wide activity by other Faculty exploiting the same means (email) to
support Barak's policies.
The same email list was apparently effective. Would these people have
bothered themselves chasing me otherwise? It was SO effective, that the
"Acting Committee" of BGU discussed the issue of "how to stop Zaritsky."
The reason they left me alone? They said, "Leave Zaritsky - he is Ready To
Fight." The obvious implication should be learnt by all who refrain from
fighting because they are afraid of inconvenience.
Another example on record: an official campus security person approached
me in June 2002 and asked me (strictly, though politely) to remove
postings from my office door because "some people complain." My response
was (strictly and politely as well) negative, of course. I asked for an
official letter from the General Manager of BGU, who had sent him. And I
suggested that he stroll through the corridors of the Humanities Faculty,
demanding that the people there remove postings. Again, the lesson is that
it pays to be assertive in such cases!
It may be best to end my brief lecture on this subject by citing two who
are not considered "extreme right," to say the least, one from Academia,
the other from the Media.
1. The Knesset's "Education, Culture and Sport Committee" was urgently
called by Meretz MK Zehava Gal'on on May 15, 2002, to discuss "The Blow to
Academic Freedom in Israel," struck by 43 professors petitioning against
the invitation of Dr. Yossi Beillin to Lecture at BGU. This whole issue is
interesting and deserves a lecture by itself, but here is what Dr. Yuval
Steinitz (MK and Chairman of Foreign Affair and Defense Committee) said at
this meeting (my translation):
"As one who graduated at the Philosophy Department in Tel-Aviv University,
it is obvious to me that if the Oslo process had been tried and failed
several years earlier, and consequently my transformation from 'Peace Now'
to the Right and the Likud had happened while I studied for my Ph.D., I
would very likely never had been recruited as a lecturer in an Israeli
University because the hostile prevailing atmosphere that de-legitimized
the Right. The recommendations and the whole surrounding atmosphere is
very powerful, hence raised my chances to be awarded the prestigious Allon
Fellowship. The chances to be recommended by people like Assa Kasher, for
example, would have been dramatically reduced. There was a professor at
TAU that was motivated to help my academic career."
I can only paraphrase, after observing the so-called Academic Freedom
here, "I would still have been looking for a job in Israeli Academia if
'The Oslo Experiment' had been implemented and failed several years
earlier, when I was a young, non-tenured lecturer."
2. The media person is an honest Leftist journalist, Ben-D'ror Yemini.
This is from his article in Ma'ariv, July 23, 2002 (translated by me): "It
is popular among certain circles to compare Israel to the Nazis. If you
belong to those who perform such horrendous comparisons, you are
considered among the progressive and enlightened forces. The major protest
would be one protesting against the protest on simply expressing these
things. In an Orwellian conversion, of the Political Correct (PC)
inventors, the criticism against comparison is persecution while the
attempt to shut the criticism up is Freedom of Speech."
This last citation can be useful as a reminder to the protest of the "nice
guys" against the protest of the 43 BGU professors against Beillin's
lecture there. Thank you.
Arieh Zaritsky is Professor in the Department of Life Sciences at Ben
Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er-Sheva. His research interests are
in bacterial physiology (cell division, aging, chromosome and plasmids
segregation, growth and morphogenesis) and mosquito biocontrol. His
website address is http://www.bgu.ac.il/life/zaritsky.html.
This essay is based on a talk delivered at a conference entitled The Oslo
Decade in Review in Jerusalem, September 10, 2003. The conference was
sponsored by the Root and Branch Association.
2. Now THERE is a peace plan: http://israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3105
3. Cute:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/1553/format/html/displaystory.html
4. A Zoology of the Israeli Left: http://think-israel.org/leftists.html
and also http://think-israel.org/yiftachel.html