Thursday, May 31, 2007
5/31/2007 03:37:00 PM
Israel's cabinet minister Haim Ramon slips the tongue to a lass to whom he
is not married?
Boring! Old News!
Want some REAL sensation?
Just consider the scoop this week at WND.com by the valiant Aaron Klein:
"Terror leader arrested having car sex near Arafat's grave
Israeli forces raid jeep of longtime wanted militant caught in
According to Klein: "Khaled Shawish, an officer in Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas' Force 17 presidential guards, was captured by
undercover Israeli police forces following scores of shooting attacks he
is suspected of carrying out. Shawish, who doubles as the Ramallah chief
of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, previously boasted of
involvement in a West Bank shooting attack in December 2000 that killed
Israeli ultranationalist leader Benjamin Kahane and Kahane's wife,
Talya...The sources said at the time of his arrest, Shawish was having
intercourse in the back seat of his jeep with a Palestinian woman, whose
identity is being withheld by WND. The woman was not his wife. The
Brigades, founded by Arafat, largely considers the late PLO leader's
resting place to be a sacred site."
So Shawish was enjoying a car job while rockets were flying into Sderot.
We assume that it was NOT Haim Ramon he had with him back there in the
You may recall that in the early days of Oslo news reports emerged that
the PLO headquarters had run up an enormous phone bill for calls placed to
phone sex numbers. Israel's phone company is still trying to collect for
5/31/2007 02:27:00 PM
1. A CALL FOR BOYCOTT AND DIVESTMENT
by Steven Plaut
Prof. Haifa Univ.
We thought you would be interested in the following document, uncovered by
archeologists in Britain. It is a statement that was issued by the Union
of British University Lecturers in the year 1938, and was endoxrsed by the
civil servants union of Canada, by the Presbyterian Church, and by a host
of progressive Jewish professors.
In the interests of history scholarship and accuracy, we reprint the
document here in full:
A Call for Divestment in Czechoslovakia
From the Union of British University Lecturers February 12, 1938
Dear Learned Comrades:
The Union of British University Lecturers is calling upon lovers of
justice and peace throughout the world to boycott all official
institutions of Czechoslovakia and especially the Czechoslovak
universities. While we have tried other forms of persuasion, the racist
regime in Czechoslovakia continues to abuse the human rights of the
country.s ethnic Germans, denying the Sudeten Germans their right to
As was declared by our representatives to the recent goodwill conference
held in Berlin, sent there to express out friendship and understanding for
the Reich.s peace proposals, we must unambiguously denounce the racist
apartheid regime that has long been operating in Czechoslovakia. The
Czechoslovak colonialists are illegally occupying the lands of the Sudeten
Germans. This occupation must end.
In recent months the Sudeten victims of Bohemian occupation have launched
a protest movement, which we fully endorse. Regretfully, some the victims
of occupation have also engaged in terrorist activities directed against
the Czechoslovak apartheid regime. We believe that blame for this should
not be assigned to the victims of racism, the Sudetens, and understand the
desperation that underlies these Sudeten German operations. Indeed, we
urge peace-loving states and churches around the world to join the
authorities in Berlin in providing funding to the political groups now
operating among the Sudetens and representing them.
Recently, the main political group speaking on behalf of the Sudetens has
been the Sudeten-German Party (SdP), headed by Konrad Henlein. While some
in the world are justifying the Czechoslovak decision not to conduct
negotiations with the SdP because of its openly nazi orientation, we
demand that Czechoslovakia open immediate talks with it. After all, the
SdP enjoys the popular support of the bulk of the Sudeten population and
refusal to conduct negotiations with it is anti-democratic. And besides,
who are the Czechs to dictate which party and leaders should represent the
Oppressed people unfortunately often are forced into use of violence. And
in this case, the Sudetens were victimized by Czechoslovak state terrorism
and racism for well over a generation.
So what if Czechoslovakia has free and open elections, freedom of speech,
and other manifestations of liberal democracy? We consider Czechoslovakia
to be a phony democracy, with false freedoms existing only on paper, so
long as the Sudeten Germans are second-class citizens. That is why we
cooperate with the anti-apartheid groups and movements operating within
the Third Reich, which are heralding the struggle against Czechoslovak
oppression of Germans.
Sure, the Czechoslovak political leaders have offered to consider some
forms of local autonomy for the Sudetens. But these offers are humiliating
and amount to little more than the creation of German Bantustans for the
Sudetens, who would continue to suffer from Czechoslovakian domination.
Why should the Sudetens be denied complete self-determination and the
control of their own state and army? Why are Sudetens any less entitled to
statehood than Czechs and Slovakians? So what if the German Reich already
controls most of Central Europe? That should not preclude the rights of
the Sudetens to have their own state? Czechoslovakian universities must be
boycotted because of their collaboration with the racist regime in Prague!
The universities continue to discriminate against Germans by conducting
their classes in Czech, and by refusing to allow swastika banners to be
hoisted on campus. We have also received reports that there were attempts
in one university to expel a pro-German professor, although those attempts
failed. Another university conducts courses in a satellite campus located
inside occupied Sudetenland!
Accordingly, we believe that researchers and scholars at Czechoslovakian
universities need to be taught a firm lesson. This can only be
accomplished using the same divestment tactics that were so successfully
utilized in other struggles, such as against the Italian conquest of
Part of the statement for divestment includes this: .Czechoslovakia
continues to grab the lands of the Sudeten people for ever-expanding
Bohemian settlements, building Czechoslovakian-only roadways, and the
construction of a giant wall and fence that is confiscating a significant
portion of the Sudeten land. 83% of the Sudetenland water has been taken
for Czechoslovakian use, leaving Sudetens with desperate water shortages.
Czechoslovakia has destroyed the homes of more than 28,000 Sudetens in
four and a half years. Hundreds of thousands of ancient fir trees and vast
tracts of agricultural land have also been destroyed..
The Union of British University Lecturers has also voted for and hereby
demands the divesting of funds from all companies that support the
Czechoslovak occupation of the Sudeten Territories. Our resolution
contains statements of action:
- That a committee be convened in the conference to create and maintain a
list of companies that support in a significant way the Czechoslovak
occupation of Sudeten territories. The list will be delivered to all
university associations, conference churches and conference investment
- We call upon Czechoslovakia, as well as the U.S. government, Britain,
the government of Poland, and the newly-elected Sudeten leadership to
respect all people and find solutions based on international law and human
- We affirm the right of Sudeten Germans to freedom of movement in all
lands, and believe that Prague should be declared an open city for people
of all faiths and creeds.
Peace can yet be achieved. Boycott Czechoslovakia Now!
WHAT occupied territories?
Had your breakfast already? Don't look at this:
5/31/2007 10:13:00 AM
Subject: Support the Boycott! End the Occupation!
A Call for Action against Occupation from the Israel Professor for Justice
We, Israeli professors for justice and peace, do hereby appeal to
researchers, academics, scholars, and teachers in Israel and throughout the
world to take a firm and clear stand against continuing occupation and
denial of rights. We are of course referring to the continuing occupation
of territories by Britain in which Britain clearly has no right to be. We
demand that all British universities be boycotted and all academics at those
universities be boycotted until these same people and institutions come out
clearly and openly in favor of immediate unconditional removal of all
British occupation from these territories. We demand a moratorium on all
funding of academic research in Britain by sources for funding everywhere
and divestment from Britain in all its forms.
Unlike Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the latter
of which is not occupied any longer in any way, which has lasted a mere 40
years, but Britain's occupations of territories has lasted centuries. Take
for example the clearly illegal British occupation of Gibraltar. There
Britain maintains an illegal settlement in open defiance of all
international accepted standards of legitimacy and concepts of national
rights. Moreover, Britain has placed there an illegal security fence that
prevents non-British nationals from entering Gibraltar. This apartheid
fence is a human rights atrocity and must be torn down at once. And until
it is, the entire world should divest from Britain and boycott British
Then there are those clearly illegal British settlements constructed on
occupied Argentinian territory in the Falkland Islands. What clearer
example is there of the continuing colonial aggression of white European
imperialism against the Third World?!
But Britain's illegal settlements have also been constructed elsewhere.
Britain continues to maintain settlements on the Channel Islands that
obviously belong to France. While it is true that Britain earlier ended
its occupation of Hong Kong and India, that is no excuse for its settlements
elsewhere. After all, Israel ended its occupation of Sinai but that has not
stopped the British University and College Union, representing more than
120,000 college-level educators, from voting May 30 to pass a resolution
calling for a boycott of Israeli academics and universities as well as a
moratorium on European Union funding of Israeli research. And what about
Britain's occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. True, Afghanistan and
Iraq were terrorist enclaves, but since when does THAT serve as
legitimization of dispatch of occupation forces? British professors clearly
do not think that Israel has any right to use force against terrorists
attacking its population, so why should British forces do so!
Of course the very worst cases of illegal British occupation of the
territories of The Other are in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. These are
occupations imposed upon those oppressed population by force of arms. And
in Ireland, the occupation produced genocidal levels of mortality. These
occupations have lasted for centuries!
The moral indifference by British academics to these continued barbarous
occupations and to the denial of self-determination for Scots, Welsh, and
the Northern Irish is clearly as unforgivable as the failure of some
academics in apartheid South Africa to speak out against abuses there.
Moreover, Britain itself is a racist apartheid society. Not only the Welsh,
but Moslems, blacks, and Asians suffer from discrimination and disadvantage
inside Britain. Their wages are lower than those of white Englishmen and
they face discrimination in housing! British universities have failed to
redress these inequalities. If divestment from South Africa was justified,
how much more so must it be in THIS case. In fact, 27 British professors
have ENDORSED our calls for imposing an international boycott of their own
universities! These courageous heroic souls must be supported!
We have sat in silence for much too long. The time has come. Please
join us in calling for an open-ended boycott of British academics and
universities until all these cases of occupation are ended!
Israeli Professors for Justice and Peace
Steven Plaut, Chairperson
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
5/29/2007 03:35:00 PM
1. The Tribulations of Herr Trivers:
(followup on earlier item)http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/29/lecture
2. The Latest on Nazi Normie:
3. The front page of Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest daily, today reports
that Israel's Ministry of Tourism is planning a major campaign to attract
homosexual tourists to Israel. As part of the campaign, the Ministry of
Tourism, whose Minister is from the party of Avigdor Lieberman, will
advertise gay tourism using a large color photo (which appears on the
front page of the paper and can be seen here
showing two men wearing yarmulkas kissing with the Old City of Jerusalem
in the background. The Ministry seems to have gotten its symbols
confused. While both men wear yarmulkas, the one in the foreground is
covered with tattoos. The Torah prohibits tattoos. Come to think of it,
it also prohibits sodomy.
4. The same paper, Yediot, reports that in all of Sderot there is only
one homeless person. He is a mute and deaf. He does not hear the Kassam
rockets that land. SO the municipality gave him a vibrating beeper.
Israel's government is not considering as an alternative to the beeper
turning Gaza into a parking lot.
5. The same paper, Yediot, reports that a professor at Ben Gurion
University is suspected of having arranged for his son to get a PhD from
the same university without having to fulfill the requirements for the
degree. The police have been informed. Of
course, Ben Gurion University has a long history of trashing academic
standards for non-academic reasons, so it is a bit strange seeing the
university suddenly upset when one of its professors is accused of doing
it for his son.
6. A Japanese politician suspected of accepting bribes just committed
suicide. Of course, Japanese politicians have a sense of honor. If
Israeli politicians who take bribes committed suicide, who would be left
to run th egovernment?
5/29/2007 12:14:00 PM
An Unstable Academic Threatens Alan Dershowitz
By Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 29, 2007http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28494
article for links)
On May 4, 2007, Professor Dershowitz took his campaign against Norman
Finkelstein to the Wall Street Journal, publishing an Op-Ed there entitled
"Finkelstein's Bigotry". In it Dershowitz again explains why no
self-respecting university should employ a fraud and pseudo-scholar like
Finkelstein, especially one with widespread ties to Islamic terrorists and
anti-Semitic neo-Nazis. Dershowitz notes that Finkelstein brags that
"never has one of [his] articles been published in a scientific magazine."
By that he means academic journals. Yes, Finkelstein has yet to publish a
scholarly article in a refereed academic journal, the sine qua non for
tenure at any serious university. His entire "record" consists of
anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda "books", which get published on
the basis of their commercial potential (bashing Jews is a great seller),
not their academic quality.
Finkelstein has been fired from every college job he ever held before
DePaul. Dershowitz notes that Finkelstein only went to DePaul out of
desperation, after "radical Islamist Aminah McCloud -- a follower of Louis
Farrakhan -- helped him land a job at DePaul." Dershowitz adds that
Finkelstein himself dismisses DePaul as "a third-rate Catholic
In the Wall Street Journal piece, after reviewing Finkelstein's history of
fraud and anti-Jewish bigotry, Dershowitz concludes thus:
He (Finkelstein) has encouraged radical goons to email threatening
messages; "Look forward to a visit from me," reads one. "Nazis like [you]
need to be confronted directly." He has threatened to sue if he loses --
while complaining about outside interference. No university should be
afraid of truth -- regardless of its source -- especially when truth
consists of Mr. Finkelstein's own words. Whether or not he receives
tenure, Mr. Finkelstein will persist in his unscholarly, ad hominems
against supporters of Israel, Holocaust survivors and the U.S. But for the
time being, the question remains: Will his bigotry receive the imprimatur
of the largest Catholic university in the America?
Dershowitz was too much a gentleman to reveal to readers of the Wall
Street Journal the name of the toady for Finkelstein who sent him the
obscene threatening letter in question. But the perp has now "outed"
himself. It is none other than Rutgers University professor of
anthropology and biology Robert Trivers!
Ever since LeRoy Jones, a.k.a. Amiri Baraka, resigned from being New
Jersey's resident "poet laureate" thanks to his trashy, anti-Semitic and
anti-American"poetry", Trivers has arguably been the Garden State's most
notorious "intellectual" extremist. Besides biology, he is renowned as a
hater of America and Israel.
Trivers is a biologist, and . unlike most political extremists of his ilk
. actually has academic publications to his name, even distinguished ones.
He is also a close crony of Noam Chomsky and collaborates with Chomsky in
producing leftist agitprop. Here is a sample of the wisdom of
Trivers-cum-Chomsky: "We find repeatedly now.in wasps, in birds and in
monkeys.that when organisms realize they're being deceived they get pissed
off. And they often attack the deceiver." The two also claim there that
the American government intentionally let the Challenger space shuttle
Trivers' letter in the Wall Street Journal taking credit for sending
vulgar threats to Dershowitz follows in full:
What I Said to Dershowitz
Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2007; Page A15
In regard to Alan Dershowitz's commentary "Finkelstein's Bigotry"
(editorial page, May 4): In it he asserts that "He [Norman Finkelstein]
has encouraged radical goons to email threatening messages; 'Look forward
to a visit from me,' reads one. 'Nazis like [you] need to be confronted
But all of this is untrue. I wrote the letter in question (April 15,
2007), but without Prof. Finkelstein's knowledge, interest or approval.
The key sentences had nothing to do with Prof. Finkelstein: "Regarding
your rationalization of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians, let me just
say that if there is a repeat of Israeli butchery toward Lebanon and if
you decide once again to rationalize it publicly, look forward to a visit
from me. Nazis -- and Nazi-like apologists such as yourself -- need to be
As for being an academic goon: I am late responding because I was in
Europe lecturing after receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences.
Professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences
His juvenile boasting about getting a biology prize aside, Trivers is not
best known for his biological writings at all but rather for his long
collaboration with Huey Newton and the Black Panthers. Perhaps it is not
surprising that someone who cheers Hizbollah terrorism and thinks Israel
practices "butchery" when it retaliates against the Hizbollah should also
have long served as an apologist for Afrofascist racism and American
Trivers started his academic career at Harvard. As a Harvard
undergraduate he had a nervous breakdown and was denied admissions into
the University's Law program. Instead, he moved into biology in 1967 to
study lizards. After getting his PhD, he taught at Harvard for a while
but got turned down for tenure. In embittered response, he stopped
academic work altogether for many years. The Guardian (UK) on August 27,
2005 wrote, "Robert Trivers could have been one of the great romantic
heroes of 20th-century science if he'd died in the '70s, as some people
supposed he would." Early on, he proposed a theory about the effects on
the gender of offspring in animals that was later largely debunked.
From Harvard he moved to the University of California at Santa Cruz, long
a hotbed of political radicalism. (UCSC employed Angela Davis gave the
Black Panthers' Huey Newton a "PhD".) Trivers later described the move
to UCSC thus: "It was a once-in-a-lifetime mistake, in the sense that I
can't afford to make another one like that. I survived, and I helped raise
my children for a while; but that was all."
Biological research having lost its attraction for him at the time, he
devoted his energies to the Black Panthers. According to John Brockman as
cited in the Boston Globe, ''Over the years there were rumors about a
series of breakdowns; he was in Jamaica; in jail. He fell off the map.''
He established contact with Huey Newton while the latter was in prison.
Newton liked Trivers' theories about "self-deception." They became close
chums. Trivers officially joined the Panthers in 1979. He turned out
articles for them claiming that IQ tests were being used to oppress black
folks. Newton and his co-terrorists were willing to forgive Trivers the
fact that he is white. Trivers had grown up in Jamaica; his father was a
Jewish refugee from Lithuania. (Burney Le Boeufas calls him "the
blackest white man I know.")
Trivers published "research" together with Newton, including an analysis
of the role of self-deception by the flight crew in the crash of Air
Florida Flight 90 (Trivers, R.L. & Newton, H.P. Science Digest 'The crash
of flight 90: doomed by self-deception?' November 1982). Newton was
godfather to Trivers' youngest daughter. Trivers still features large in
the "Dr. Huey Newton" collection at Stanford University.
Trivers has never abandoned his leftist extremism and PC wackiness.
Trivers' career includes ten days in a police lock-up over a disputed
hotel bill. According to the Guardian, " His language matches the macho
clothes: for an Ivy League professor, he says 'fuck' a lot."
Trivers thinks population growth and "reproductive success" (which drives
evolution) are more dangerous than nuclear war and endorses
zero-population growth. At Rutgers he has been involved in "Palestinian
solidarity" activities and efforts to "divest" from Israel. As the Wall
Street Journal letter shows, Trivers thinks Israel defending itself from
terrorist aggression is "butchery", and we can just imagine what he thinks
of the unjustified American "aggression" against Iwo Jima in World War II.
Trivers has tried to deploy his biological theories on "self-deception" as
ammunition for the Left's attempt to force an American capitulation in
Iraq. He says: "Then the 1990s, the era of Clinton and feel-goodism: when
he lied, nobody died. Well, half a million Iraqis died in the 1990s, and
that's just counting children, .. I fear that we'll spend our lives always
describing in retrospect what deceit and self-deception just did to us and
not getting to the point where we can try to prevent some of the bullshit
ahead of time."
So much for his scientific discourse and accuracy.
The Islamic Reconquest of Palestine
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 29, 2007
3. Fighting the Jihadists at UCI
4. Well, the Labor Party primaries are over and the Labor Party members
basically demonstrated that they do not want any of the three candidates
to lead the party. I share those sentiments. None of the contenders got
the required 40% of the primary votes. That means the two with the most
votes now will face one another in a runoff.
Thosee two are both incompetent leftwing capitulationist McClellenist
ex-generals. The Labor party often choses as its leaders incompetent
leftwing capitulationist McClellenist ex-generals. The Labor Party thinks
that if it is headed by an ex-general, then the voters will overlook the
fact that it is a party of national self-annihilation, capitulation,
incompetence and corruption.
The two ex-generals now facing one another in the runoff are Ehud Barak,
known in these quarters as Ehud NeBARAKnezzer, thanks to his attempt at
destroying Jerusalem in 2000 by offering it to the Palestinian Authority,
and Ami Ayalon, the bald version of Yossi Beilin. Ayalon was head of
Israel's navy and later of military intelligence and so bears blame for
some of the
collosal failures of Israeli military intelligence. Barak is the sleazy
corrupt politician who was Prime Minister from 1999-2001 and who invited
the Hezbollah to drop 4000 katyusha
rockets on Israeli civilians when he ordered Israel's cowardly unilateral
surrender to the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2000.
What a choice!
The kingmaker in all this is Amir Peretz, who will auction off his
contingent of 22% of Labor Party members (who voted for him in the
primaries) to the ex-general making him the best set of promises.
5. Israel's contribution to Western security:
6. The Suspense is Over!
Syria's Assad wins second term
Some 97.62 percent of voters reelect Bashar Assad, interior minister says
Monday, May 28, 2007
5/28/2007 01:10:00 PM
1. Holocaust Denial on University of Haifa Chat Listhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/1#2161
2. A rare non-treasonous Op-Ed in Haaretz:
Sderot is us
By Ari Shavit
Every night, Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal tours his city, checking the number of
houses with lights on. Last week the number of lights dropped each
evening. On the eve of Shavuot it reached a nadir. Whole apartment blocks
stood empty. On the street where Moyal himself lives only a few residents
remained. At its height, Sderot had a population of 24,000, the exhausted
mayor says. In recent years, when the Qassam attacks mounted, the number
fell to about 20,000. But now, with the refugees whom Hamas chased out
being scattered throughout the country, no more than 10,000 people remain
in the city. And suddenly the feeling is that perhaps it has really
happened: Perhaps Sderot has been broken.
But Sderot has still not been broken. If the rocket attacks cease, most
people will return. Without security, without hope, without happiness - a
depressing return to no-choice. So the basic fact remains: Sderot 2007 is
a city that seems cursed. A frontier city with no home front. A frontier
city with no aura of heroism. A frontier city that the government should
protect, but isn't protecting. A frontier city that the nation should be
standing behind, but is not. A frontier city abandoned by the center of
It should not have been like this. Sderot is not Gush Katif. There is no
debate. On the contrary: Sderot is a "Green Line" city. Sderot is a
post-withdrawal city. Sderot is the righteous Israeli city after the
occupation. Sderot is the future. Indeed, it is the litmus test that will
teach us in real time what we can expect in the future when we withdraw
completely. This being the case, Sderot should have been the apple of the
eye of all those preaching withdrawal in the past, and of everyone who
still believes in withdrawal. Sderot should have been the city of peace
writers and peace singers and peace industrialists. A "peace now" city. A
city of Israeli solidarity. A city of mutual responsibility. A city where
strong Israelis stand together with Israelis who are less strong in the
face of Islamic zealotry.
All this is not happening. Bank Hapoalim is funding the new emergency
center there. But the large sum needed to renovate the city's shelters was
raised by American evangelical Christians. The major community work in the
city is being done by Hanan Porat. Yitzhak Mordechai is working in Sderot,
and Arcadi Gaydamak is amusing himself there in the absence of the center
of the country. Enlightened, satiated Israel is not standing with all its
strength behind Sderot.
The attack on Sderot is a strategic attack on peace. It is an attack on
the two-state solution. If the attack succeeds, there will be no chance of
any future withdrawal. If the attack succeeds, the occupation will be
perpetuated. Therefore, before the great political decision is made on how
to act in Gaza, a moral decision has to be made about Sderot. Sderot must
become the national project of the current period. Its residents cannot be
expected to confront the Qassams alone. In the face of buses removing
people from the city, buses of supporters must set out for it. In the face
of the economic collapse of Sderot should come an unprecedented economic
embrace of it by government and nongovernment bodies alike.
At the same time, it should be made clear that there is one law for Sderot
and Tzahala: A Qassam on Sderot is like a Qassam on Kikar Hamedina. The
insensitivity has got to stop. Sderot has to be defined as the Israeli
front line. The struggle for the city should be viewed as both a struggle
for Israeli sovereignty and as a symbol of the responsibility of Israelis
for each other.
Sderot is us, all of us. We rise and fall with Sderot.
3. Ehud NeBARAKnezzer:
4. May 26, 2007
COMMENTARY: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
Dealing With Iran
By JAMES TARANTO
May 26, 2007; Page A9
NEW YORK -- Benjamin Netanyahu runs a few minutes late for our Monday
afternoon meeting. When he arrives in his midtown Manhattan hotel suite,
he explains that he has just received word from home of the latest
Palestinian war crime. "Hamas fired 15 rockets into Israel today. One of
them hit a car, killed a woman," says Mr. Netanyahu, the former Israeli
prime minister and now leader of the opposition. The victim, 32-year-old
Shirel Friedman, was on her way to see her mother.
For the 57-year-old Mr. Netanyahu, there is a sort of grim vindication in
such attacks. He quit the government of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
in August 2005, objecting to Mr. Sharon's plan for unilateral withdrawal
from Gaza. "I had a very big argument with him on this," Mr. Netanyahu
recalls. "He thought that we would have the right of free action -- that
we would garner international support for any reaction. I thought that is
a very thin sheet of ice -- the international community can turn against
you as quickly as it turns for you -- but the overwhelming fact is that
the Muslim militants and Iran will find a new base, a few miles from Tel
Aviv, with the ability to cover the south of the country and the center of
the country with rockets."
Five years earlier, Ehud Barak, Mr. Netanyahu's successor as prime
minister, had similarly withdrawn from southern Lebanon, creating a safe
haven for Hezbollah, which has periodically rocketed cities in Israel's
north. In both cases, Mr. Netanyahu says, Israel's leaders were
"captivated by a concept, and the concept was that we purchase security
from retreat, from withdrawals -- that is, that the way to stop the
attacks on us is to placate our enemies by unilaterally withdrawing from
territory under our control, thereby robbing them of the pretext to attack
us. In fact, this was interpreted exactly in the opposite manner. . . . It
was interpreted not as a sign of strength but as a show of weakness."
"There is not much difference" between Hezbollah and Hamas, Mr. Netanyahu
says. "They are both supported by Iran, supplied by Iran, inspired by
Iran." They share a common goal, "to get us to withdraw from more
territory -- of course this time not so-called occupied territory, but
Israel proper. For them, any inch of Israel is occupied territory, and the
'liberation' will be culminated when Israel ceases to exist."
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made that clear in 2005, when he
declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map" -- a particularly
chilling pronouncement given that his regime is seeking weapons that would
make it capable of doing just that. "This could be the rise of the first
undeterrable, fanatical nuclear power in the world," says Mr. Netanyahu.
"It's an apocalyptic, messianic sect that could possess nuclear weapons,
to the detriment of all mankind."
How to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat has proved a conundrum for
America and the West, including Israel. Mr. Netanyahu acknowledges that
military strikes would pose "complications and difficulties" and thus
"should be a last resort." But diplomacy has been tried for several years
with scant results.
Mr. Netanyahu proposes a third way. The Iranian regime, he argues, is
economically vulnerable. He is in America to urge state and local pension
funds to divest from foreign companies that do business in Iran (U.S. law
already keeps American firms out).
"This could be very effective," he tells me, "because Iran is in desperate
need of new investments for its sagging oil industry. It's curtailed its
oil production by 7%, I think, in each of the last three years. It's
running unemployment to a rate of close to 20%, and Ahmadinejad is
continuously being criticized from rivals within the regime and outside
the regime for failing to deliver on economic problems."
Divestment "could stop Iran dead in its tracks," Mr. Netanyahu argues.
"We're talking about several dozen companies . . . that are propping up
the energy sector in Iran and a few other relevant sectors. They are
eminently susceptible to stock prices. Their chief executives are
compensated by stock prices. Divestment depresses stock prices and
immediately forces reconsideration." This in turn would squeeze "Iranian
economic elites," who Mr. Netanyahu says are motivated by money, not
ideology. "That elite funds and finances a lot of politicians, and when
they see their own holdings and their own businesses endangered, they'll
put pressure to either block the nuclear program or to change the regime."
Mr. Netanyahu believes Americans across the political spectrum could unite
behind the principle that "a regime that promotes genocide cannot receive
American taxpayers' savings . . . through European intermediaries." And
the idea is catching on.
Last year Missouri's treasurer, Sarah Steelman, established a terror-free
mutual fund and spearheaded a move to divest the $6.9 billion State
Employees Retirement System from companies that do business in Iran and
other terror-supporting nations. Earlier this month Florida's Legislature
unanimously approved a bill mandating divestment from companies with ties
to Iran or Sudan. On Capitol Hill, Sens. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) and Sam
Brownback (R., Kan.) have introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act,
which would create a federal list of investors in Iran and shield fund
managers from lawsuits if they disinvest.
The big prize, of course, is California, whose $247 billion pension fund
is the nation's biggest. "I spoke to Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger on this
a few weeks ago," Mr. Netanyahu says. "He said he'd look into it. I'm
going to call him, possibly before I leave tonight." On Tuesday an
official from the Israeli Embassy in Washington emailed me that Mr.
Netanyahu "did get in touch with Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday. . . .
The Governor was aware of the divestment bill and said that it may get
passed by the end of the summer."
With Democrats seeking retreat from Iraq, bipartisanship is in short
supply in America just now. Two days after Mr. Netanyahu and I spoke, a
major presidential candidate for the first time announced that he no
longer even believes there is a "global war on terror." John Edwards, who
voted for the Iraq war in 2002, now dismisses the entire war on terror as
"a slogan designed only for politics . . . a bumper sticker, not a plan."
I ask Mr. Netanyahu if the U.S. made a mistake in liberating Iraq. He says
it did not: "I think it was right to bring down Saddam Hussein, who
murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people." But he brings the
discussion back to Iran. "It would have been prudent to use the rapidity
of success of victory -- that is, the fact that the U.S. had accomplished
in three weeks what Iran couldn't accomplish in 10 years and a million
casualties -- to deliver a stern warning to Iran to dismantle its nuclear
program. In a way, this was achieved without design with Libya's nuclear
program that had been much more advanced than anyone understood. . . .
That same leverage could have been used on Iran."
If Mr. Netanyahu seems preoccupied with Iran, it is not because he is
dismissive of other threats, including al Qaeda. "Of the two, Iran is more
dangerous, because the Sunni militants so far have not gotten their hands
on a nuclear weapons program. . . . If the Taliban were to topple the
current regime in Pakistan and get their hands on nuclear weapons, I would
say they're more dangerous than Iran, or equally dangerous."
He sees al Qaeda as existing on a continuum with Tehran's Shiite
fundamentalists: "They're now competing with each other on the soil of
Lebanon to gain paramountcy -- al Qaeda in the north and Hezbollah in the
south. But both of them practice suicide attacks, both of them have the
cult of death, and both of them are absolutely uninhibited in the use of
force against their chosen enemies. Now, is there a difference? Yeah, I
suppose. I think one wants to send us back to the ninth century and one
wants to send us back to the seventh century." The Shiite extremists, Mr.
Netanyahu quips, "give us two centuries extra."
Yet he is careful to distinguish between "militant Islam" and the broader
Muslim population. "Militant Islam condemns and intimidates and kills
Muslims before anyone else. That's what they're about. The infidels are
defined first as the renegades of Islam -- that is, Muslims who do not
practice some . . . pre-medieval religious creed that is hopelessly
antiquated for most Muslims and most Arabs."
Because of the militants' power to intimidate and the weak civic
institutions in Arab societies, Mr. Netanyahu is wary of pushing those
societies too quickly toward electoral democracy. He thinks it was a
mistake to allow Hamas to compete in last year's Palestinian voting. "But
I think that one element that should be expedited as rapidly as possible
is the democratization of markets. I think that expanding economic freedom
is just as important -- in some cases more important -- in moderating
societies than accelerated moves to political freedoms without the proper
I ask if he can point to any positive examples in the Arab world. "How
about Dubai? How about the Gulf states? What you see there is quite
remarkable. It also tells you that Arabs and Muslims are not inherently or
genetically programmed to oppose free markets. That's just nonsense. With
the right system of incentives and economic freedoms, you see this
explosive growth that I, frankly, admire. . . . We always said that if we
have peace, then we'll have prosperity. It may be the other way around."
In the aftermath of last summer's war with Hezbollah, public confidence in
Israel's government has hit bottom. Recent opinion polls give Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert a dismal 3% approval rating. Mr. Netanyahu is happy
to pile on: "The right strategy . . . is to use superior force, come in
from their rear, at their most vulnerable point, and use a lot of ground
power to physically eliminate them. . . . None of this was done, and the
people felt that this failure was too stinging to be left alone, so they
want a change of government." He faults the government for "lack of
experience . . . lack of decisiveness, lack of leadership." And he worries
that Israel faces near-term threats on three fronts: Lebanon, Gaza and
Syria, "which is arming feverishly."
Is a political comeback in his future? "I hope that we can get to
elections as soon as possible," he says. "But that's a decision for 61 out
of 120 Knesset members to make, and they're not going to readily part with
Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com1.
URL for this article:
Hyperlinks in this Article:
5. This made my day:
6. Elect Ehud Barak and Make Haifa look like this again thanks to
thousands more Katyushas:
7. Mega-Moonbat Reuven Kaminer, an anti-Israel extremist, has a
conniption over Israel Academia Monitor. They must be doing something right!:
'Some of you may have come across a group of right wing Jewish loonies on
the internet by the name "Israel-academic-monitors (sic)." Well, the
loonies have a zombie machine that scans the net for any appearance by a
democratic (sic) Israeli academician. Automatically, they send out links
to what they consider "anti-Israeli" or anti-Semitic statements made by
that academician. Well, the loonies' zombie machine sighted Baruch
Kimmerling's name in articles on his death and sure enough, the emails
warning the world about Baruch Kimmerling are now scattered all over the
course, they - the monitors - would explain that it is all automatic. Even
so, I ask them, gentlemen, have you no shame?'
Dirt on Kaminer:
Kaminer is a mini-chief in the Stalinist HADASH Arab communist party:
8. It is always pleasant to see one of Israel's Oslo lefties return to
planet earth. Ben Kaspit is an establishment leftist who is one of the
main columnists in Maariv. He has long supported Oslo self-annihilation
and capitulation. Well, on May 17, 07 he wrote (my translation):
"The vision of murderous gangs, chaos, and Islamist extremism at the gates
of Ashkelon is now being realized as we watch. This is the grand
and colossal failure of the Gaza Withdrawal.... We are now paying the
price for that."
Welcome to the campus of the University of Duh.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
5/26/2007 09:19:00 PM
The Road Map of the Harlot
by Steven Plaut
There are legends about her origins. Some say she is the very snake from
the Garden of Eden itself. She reappears in different forms and under
different names throughout human history. Many regard her as a she-demon
from the netherworld. Everywhere, she has the same Modus Operandi: Come
and show me your true vulnerability, she cried, and I promise we will live
in peace forever, trust me. If you doubt my sincerity then YOU are the
But she is best known to us as Delilah, the harlot of Gaza. It was then
that Samson went to her and lay with her. Reveal to me your true
vulnerability, she insisted. I will not use it against you. Trust me. We
will dwell together in peace.
But he was shrewd. Piece of cake, he teased, all you have to do is bind me
up with seven vines that were never dried. And no sooner did he offer her
this goodwill gesture for peace than her Tanzim descended upon him and
bound him with the very same vines. Death to the Occupier, she screamed.
In fire and spirit we will redeem thee, oh Gaza. But he broke those
bindings like thread and launched a reprisal raid for which the entire
world condemned him as aggressor.
You colonialist imperialist, she sneered. Make fun of my Peace of the
Brave, will you? But Samson was under pressure from the entire world,
including the White Pyramid, to smooth things over with the harlot.
Reveal to me your true vulnerability, she insisted. So what if last time
I used it to entrap you? This time I am sincere.
Oh, alright, he agreed. Anything for some shut-eye. If you bind me with
brand new ropes from Sears that have never been used before, I will be as
weak as a newborn kitten.
Rapid-eye-movement sleep had barely set in when the Tanzim leaped into the
boudoir. Death to the Occupier, screamed the harlot, and her militia men
attacked the sleeping paratrooper. But he arose and implemented a
campaign of targeted assassinations against his tormentors.
What, again you mock me? Where is your sense of trust?, sighed the
harlot. And now the White Pyramid was getting impatient. It wanted the
Philistines pacified so that it could pursue its campaign against the
I was just testing you, said Samson all goo-goo eyed. Now that I know you
are my sincere sweet turtle dove, I will let you in on my true secret.
Just weave seven locks of my hair into a Valentine's card, and I will be
as Silly Putty in your hands. She did, but he just tore them off, got up
and walked out.
You cad, she wailed. You demon! The White Pyramid was really getting
irritated now with the obstinacy of the guy and Belgium was going to try
him for war crimes having to do with the foxes with burning tails ruining
the fields of the Philistines. She is sincere this time,
insisted the Secretary of State, you must put her good will to the test.
That is true, insisted the Euro eunuchs.
The Council of Kingdoms denounced the warrior as an aggressor. Professors
from the tribe of Dan insisted that the Philistines were sincerely
interested in making Peace Now. The Post-Zionist followers of Bilaam
were calling for international sanctions against him. Human rights
activists were demanding that he stop taunting the harlot.
Oh alright, sighed the warrior in appeasement, if not in utter exhaustion.
If you give me a Marine crew cut, then I will be as helpless as a chad
gadya. But you gotta cross your heart and promise this time, and no more
of your tricks! This time, you better be sincere.
We know what followed. Samson eventually did get his revenge, but at the
cost of his own Oslo-like self-destruction.
But what ever became of the harlot of Gaza? The Bible is silent about
that. Was she in that pagan temple brought down upon the heads of the
savage in his feat of targeted assassination? Apparently not, or it would
have been so noted.
The she-demon wandered the world, showing up in unexpected places. She
married King Ahab and sent out her shaheeds to murder the prophets of God.
She tried to lure Odysseus to his destruction. She was almost captured in
Salem, Massachusetts. She possessed the souls of the world leaders in the
1930s, as they submitted themselves to her charms. Show me your true
vulnerability, she cooed. And after each round, her terror Tanzim stormed
in and carried out atrocities, only to be followed by new flirtations and
new peace programs based on the same old theme: Trust me, so what if I
lied to you in the past, this time I am sincere.
She went into hiding again until 1992. It was then that she crept out from
her grotto beneath the fever swamp and once again painted her harlot face.
Stepping upon the shore in her old Gaza stomping grounds, she sighed and
taunted. Show me your true vulnerability, she said. Trust me, I only
want to know out of curiosity. I would never use it against you. This is
my sincere peace offer.
And like Delilah of old, and like Delilah's love-struck gargantuan
paramour, time after time she repeats the same strategy and he responds
with the same tributes of puppy love. Her suitor never learns from her
past behavior, never wises up, never tires of self-delusion. After each
betrayal, she returns with the same siren call.
Just expose your vulnerability to me. Just place your neck in this
friendly noose. It is for peace, you see.
So what if I lied to you every single time in the past. It was all
because YOU did not truly trust me, she responds with melodramatically
hurt feelings. You never went all the way, placing your very existence in
my hands. And until you abandon your suspicions and obstinacy, until you
show me your true love, by accepting my Road Map and placing your neck in
my noose, we have nothing to talk about and the rockets will continue to
Friday, May 25, 2007
5/25/2007 12:00:00 PM
Haaretz, Last update - 18:34 24/05/2007
Report: Nobel laureate cancels U.K. trip over 'widespread anti-Israel,
By Haaretz Service
An American Nobel prize laureate has withdrawn from a speaking engagement
at a London university, citing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment in
the United Kingdom, a British newspaper reported Thursday.
According to The Guardian, Professor Steven Weinberg of the University of
Texas told the Imperial College that his decision was motivated by a move
by Britain's National Union of Journalists to boycott Israeli products.
Weinberg had been due to honor Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam, a
co-winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize for physics, The Guardian said.
The paper quoted Weinberg as telling the college that he believes the
NUJ's move stems from the "desire to pander to the growing Muslim minority
In his letter of withdrawal, Weinberg wrote that, "given the history of
the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other
countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a
moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than
The Guardian said that Weinberg also pulled out of a 2006 conference at
Durham University due to a boycott of Israeli academics imposed by
lecturers' union NATFHE.
2. Mikey Lerner's Moonbat Black Anti-Semite Friend:
3. Leftist Uber-Moonbat Aviad Kleinberg, history prof at Tel Aviv
University, finds some subversion:
4. The Kassamization of Israeli Arabs:
5. Chozer B'tshuva:
May 25, 2007
Wall St Journal
How to End 'Islamophobia'
By TAWFIK HAMID
May 25, 2007; Page A15
Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of "Islamophobia," a
fear and disdain for everything Islamic. On May 17, this accusation
bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic
Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." These
ministers also warned, according to the Arab News, that this form of
discrimination would cause millions of Muslims in Western countries, "many
of whom were already underprivileged," to be "further alienated."
In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently
accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of American Islamic
Relations. CAIR has taken up the legal case of the "Flying Imams," the six
individuals who were pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis this
past November after engaging in suspicious behavior before takeoff. Not
long ago, CAIR filed a "John Doe" lawsuit that would have made passengers
liable for "malicious" complaints about suspicious Muslim passengers.
In an interview at the time, CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad accused Rep. Peter
King (R., N.Y.) of being an "extremist" who "encourages Islamophobia" for
pointing out what most people would think is obvious, that such a lawsuit
would have a chilling effect on passengers who witnessed alarming activity
and wished to report it. We can only assume that Mr. Awad believes flyers
should passively remain in a state of fear as they travel and submissively
risk their lives. In this case, Congress is acting appropriately and
considering passing a law sponsored by Mr. King that would grant
passengers immunity from such lawsuits.
It may seem bizarre, but Islamic reformers are not immune to the charge of
"Islamophobia" either. For 20 years, I have preached a reformed
interpretation of Islam that teaches peace and respects human rights. I
have consistently spoken out -- with dozens of other Muslim and Arab
reformers -- against the mistreatment of women, gays and religious
minorities in the Islamic world. We have pointed out the violent teachings
of Salafism and the imperative of Westerners to protect themselves against
Yet according to CAIR's Michigan spokeswoman, Zeinab Chami, I am "the
latest weapon in the Islamophobe arsenal." If standing against the violent
edicts of Shariah law is "Islamophobic," then I will treat her accusation
as a badge of honor.
Muslims must ask what prompts this "phobia" in the first place. When we in
the West examine the worldwide atrocities perpetrated daily in the name of
Islam, it is vital to question if we -- Muslims -- should lay the blame on
others for Islamophobia or if we should first look hard at ourselves.
According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes survey, "younger Muslims in the
U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide
bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified."
About one out of every four American Muslims under 30 think suicide
bombing in defense of Islam is justified in at least some circumstances.
Twenty-eight percent believe that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11
attacks and 32% declined to answer that question.
While the survey has been represented in the media as proof of moderation
among American Muslims, the actual results should yield the opposite
conclusion. If, as the Pew study estimates, there are 2.35 million Muslims
in America, that means there are a substantial number of people in the
U.S. who think suicide bombing is sometimes justified. Similarly, if 5% of
American Muslims support al Qaeda, that's more than 100,000 people.
To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that
treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the
symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not
allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide
mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted
Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping
of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of
Shariah ("Ma Malakat Aimanikum"). Muslims should teach, everywhere and
universally, that a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's,
that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress
as they wish.
We Muslims should publicly show our strong disapproval for the growing
number of attacks by Muslims against other faiths and against other
Muslims. Let us not even dwell on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and countless
other scenes of carnage. It has been estimated that of the two million
refugees fleeing Islamic terror in Iraq, 40% are Christian, and many of
them seek a haven in Lebanon, where the Christian population itself has
declined by 60%. Even in Turkey, Islamists recently found it necessary to
slit the throats of three Christians for publishing Bibles.
Of course, Islamist attacks are not limited to Christians and Jews. Why do
we hear no Muslim condemnation of the ongoing slaughter of Buddhists in
Thailand by Islamic groups? Why was there silence over the Mumbai train
bombings which took the lives of over 200 Hindus in 2006? We must not
forget that innocent Muslims, too, are suffering. Indeed, the most common
murderers of Muslims are, and have always been, other Muslims. Where is
the Muslim outcry over the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq?
Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets
against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same
vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It
might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah
law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.
It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of "Islamophobia"
as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against
suspicious passengers and against those who rightly criticize current
Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest
and humble introspection. Muslims should -- must -- develop strategies to
rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its
dreadful consequences. Among more important outcomes, this will also put
an end to so-called Islamophobia.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist
group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
URL for this article:
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
5/22/2007 05:30:00 PM
Hide the Twinkies
by Steven Plaut
YNET News reports that Oprah Winfrey (which probably should be spelled
Wingfry) will be waddling into town.
Oprah has a history of running Israel-bashing pro-Palestinian articles in
a magazine she publishes: "O" Magazine. She also has made insensitive and
ignorant comments about the Holocaust.
Whenever the subject of terrorism is broached on her show, Oprah
studiously avoids allowing anyone to link it to Palestinians or the
Hizbollah. She interviewed mothers of suicide bombers who were distraught
because their houses were bulldozed. There was no mention of Israeli
babies and their mothers being blown up in buses, pizza parlours blown to
smithereens, nor Jewish teens murdered while at the disco in Tel Aviv. Not
even the Jews murdered when two guests of the International Solidarity
Movement blew up Mike's Place in Tel Aviv. Debbie Schlussel has dubbed her
the affable Joseph Goebbels of daytime talk TV. Columnist Naomi Ragen
demolished Oprah for her politicized bias. The Anti-Defamation League has
denounced her for bias, noting that 'Palestinian girls will be rescued
when their leaders say "No" to the incitement, hate and violence that has
permeated their political and cultural landscape for years now.'
Maybe she can analyze the problems of self-esteem among suicide bombers
and other terrorists. Israel may need Doctor Phil to treat us after Oprah
leaves town, to return to her bored overeating overspending housewives
with the closet reorganization crises.
2. The ISM terrorizes along with the Hamas:
3. Herr Finkelstein and Penn:
5/22/2007 10:19:00 AM
1. Subject: The "Then Maybe They Will" Doctrine
The "THEN MAYBE THEY WILL" Doctrine
By Steven Plaut
For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been a
prisoner of the "THEN MAYBE THEY WILL" doctrine. Each and every major
policy decision made by Israel's political establishment has reflected the
power of wishful thinking and faith in the make-pretend.
If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the
Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run media.
If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the
smuggling of explosives and weapons from Egypt to Palestinian terrorists.
If Israel "recognizes" the "Palestinian people," THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
If Israel agrees to limited autonomy for "Palestinian" Arabs at Camp David,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop seeking Israel's destruction and the world will
not try to set up an independent Palestinian Arab terror state.
If Israel recognizes the right of the "Palestinian people" to
self-determination, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL recognize the right of Jews to
If Israel grants its Arab citizens affirmative action preferences, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop cheering terrorists and stop seeking the annihilation
of Israel and of its Jewish population.
If Israel turns the other cheek after Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop being fired.
If Israel ignores Hezbollah border violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop
If Israel provides the "Palestinian Authority" with arms and funds, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL not be used for terror atrocities against Israel.
If Israel conducts a unilateral withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon and
allows the Hizbollah to station rockets on the border, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
not shoot any.
If Israel officially agrees to let the "Palestinians" have a state, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL abandon their agenda of annihilating Israel.
If Israel turns the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY
WILL not use it as a base for terror attacks against Israel.
If Israel grants all religions unlimited freedom in Jerusalem, including
Moslem control of the Temple Mount, THEN MAYBE THE WORLD WILL acknowledge
the legitimacy of Israeli control of the city.
If Israeli politicians pay for 75% of the costs of Israeli universities,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not become centers for anti-Israel leftist sedition.
If Israel expels all the Jewish settlers from Gaza as a gesture of
friendship towards the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL reciprocate with
friendship towards the Jews.
If Israel refrains from retaliating against the Hizbollah terrorists after
they murder captive Israeli soldiers in cold blood, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not
seek to kidnap any more soldiers.
If Israel allows the Palestinians to hold "elections", THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
not elect the Hamas.
If the Palestinians elect the Hamas, THEN MAYBE IT WILL not pursue a program
of aggression and terrorism against Israel.
If Israel refrains from retaliation after dozens of Kassam rockets turn
Sderot into the Israeli Guernica, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop all by
If Israel sets free thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL renounce violence and not murder any more Jews.
If Israel allows bands of far-leftist traitors to seize control of many
departments in its universities, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not collaborate with
If Israel allows dozens of foreign "solidarity" protesters to enter Israel
for purposes of helping terrorism, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not attack Israeli
soldiers and police violently nor collaborate with terrorists.
If Israel sits back while the Syrians exert their hegemony over Lebanon,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL rein in the Hizbollah and stop border attacks on
If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL put a stop to Palestinian terrorism.
If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL suppress the Hamas and Jihad terrorists and prevent the Hamas from
taking power within the "Palestinian Authority."
If Israel holds talks with terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce their
genocidal ambitions and seek peace.
If the Israeli courts and Attorney General suppress freedom of speech for
anti-Oslo dissidents, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL stop anti-Semitic
If Israeli politicians raise the minimum wage, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not thus
cause unemployment to skyrocket.
If Israel agrees to one ceasefire after another with the Arabs, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL eventually comply with one.
If Israel criminalizes and bans "radical" Jewish dissident organizations,
THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL do the same with Arab terrorist groups.
If Israel sets up street signs in Arabic and otherwise demonstrates its
goodwill towards Arabs with endless gestures, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
reciprocate with renunciation of hatred and violence against Israel.
If Israel agrees to the stationing of UN troops in Lebanon, THEN MAYBE THEY
WILL actually do something to stop terror attacks on Israel.
If Israel allows Arabs in Israel to build illegally, including on public
lands, turning a blind eye to violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become
pro-Israel and loyal.
If Israel agrees to let the Moslems control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL respond with friendship and moderation.
If Israel overfunds Arab municipalities, covering their fiscal deficits run
up intentionally, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become pro-Israel and loyal.
If the Israeli media and chattering classes demonize the settlers, THEN
MAYBE THE ARABS WILL want to make peace with Israel.
If Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria THEN MAYBE SYRIA WILL seek
peace and reject the idea of using the Heights again to attack Israel.
If Israel allows the "Palestinian Authority" to control parts of the West
Bank, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not fire rockets at the Jews the same way they do
If Israel agrees not to build weapons of mass destruction, THEN MAYBE THE
ARABS AND IRANIANS WILL not seek to build any either.
If Israel agrees to evacuate the Jews from the Negev, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
stop firing Kassam rockets at Israel.
If Israel agrees to place its neck in the Oslo noose, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS
WILL not pull the rope.
2. Midstream used to be an important Zionist magazine and still sometimes
runs important Zionist articles. But evidently it is having second thoughts
about its commitment to Israel. In the last it runs a screed by Arthur
Waskow, the anti-Israel anti-Zionist far-Leftist hippy "rabbi"
Waskow is consistently anti-Israel and pro-Arab. He is also anti-American.
His theology is pagan. He promotes "Eco-Judaism"
paganism and vedic tree worship and polygamy. What is such a buffoon doing
Its people can be contacted at:
633 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 339-6020
Fax: (212) 318-6176
Leo Haber, Editor
Cecile Bittkower, Editorial Assistant
Fraidy Burstein, Production Manager
Sam E. Bloch, Business Manager
2. Israel's Post-Zionist Pseudo-Scholars promote blood libels:
3. From Tom Gross:
DAVID IRVING AND HIS JEWISH COUNTERPART, NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
Convicted Holocaust denier David Irving was ejected from the Warsaw book
fair on Saturday. He had planned to display his books there.
Polish organizers said there was no room at the book fair for a man who
denied that the Nazis murdered six million Jews, half of whom were Polish
citizens. "We asked him to leave," said Grzegorz Guzowski, the book fair
organizer. "Our employees helped him pack up his things, and our car drove
him to the address he specified." (For more, see the first article below.)
Among previous dispatches on Irving, see "David Irving: Auschwitz 'was a
tourist attraction' (& British Muslims scrap Holocaust Day)" (Jan.
31, 2007), www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000823.html.
The second article below is by Marty Peretz, who strongly criticizes the
decision by DePaul University, the largest private educational institution
in Chicago, to consider Norman Finkelstein for tenure. Peretz cites "The
wife of the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Ernst Zuendel (who) gushed...
Finkelstein is a Jewish David Irving."
For more on Finkelstein and DePaul University, see the twelfth note in the
dispatch, "Auschwitz death toll was higher, UK government archives reveal"
(April 16, 2007),
Among others I quote the respected German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung,
which wrote about Finkelstein: His "assertions are pure invention... No
facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no
quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the
time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."
BUT THE BBC DECIDE TO GIVE HIM MORE AND MORE AIRTIME
Despite (or perhaps because of) Finkelstein's distortions of the Holocaust,
the BBC is increasing the times they invite him on their programs to air his
hateful views. For example, earlier this month BBC World TV carried an
appearance by Finkelstein at the prestigious Oxford Union at Oxford
University where Finkelstein was given plenty of air time to spread
disinformation. (The BBC doesn't usually carry broadcasts from the Oxford
(The BBC's coverage of the ongoing violence in Gaza and southern Israel in
recent days has also been particularly duplicitous, omitting lots of
pertinent facts vital to understanding Israel's viewpoint, facts which were
not omitted by CNN International and France 24, France.s new global 24-hour
TV news network.)
Among other recent comments made by Norman Finkelstein, the man DePaul
University now wants to give tenure to:
"Israel has embarked, in its own words, on a war of annihilation against the
Lebanese people. Not a day passes when the language they use doesn't
escalate... This is pure and simple Nazi language... Right now, and I say it
publicly, right now we are all Hizbullah... And every victory of Hizbullah
over the vandals and the marauders, the invaders and the murderers; every
victory by Hizbullah over Israel is also a victory for liberty and a victory
for freedom... the monsters and freaks in the White House and their
collaborators in Tel Aviv . so far as I'm concerned they can all drop dead."
"FINKELSTEIN IS A JEWISH DAVID IRVING"
By Marty Peretz
The New Republic
May 12, 2007
4. Waking up at last?:
5. The Left (including the Jewish Asslibs) = ALSO wrong about Iraq:
May 22, 2007
Wall St Journal
The Left's Iraq Muddle
By BOB KERREY
May 22, 2007; Page A15
At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York,
Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi
delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been
imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and
wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.
But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "democracy cannot be
imposed with military force."
What troubled me about this statement -- a commonly heard criticism of
U.S. involvement in Iraq -- is that those who say such things seem to
forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries
like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.
Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The
U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly
seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered
attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of
complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our
nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the
"head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated
extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security
Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure
of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council
resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was
stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly
they chose their words to describe themselves and their political
opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it
was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back
and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we
cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war
to overthrow the government of Iraq.
Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have
consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we
can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the
price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in
Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they
The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be
on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only
military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued
yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease
the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite
and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new
democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we
are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a
unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to
end this carnage? I would.
American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for
self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes
and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias
to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and
murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school
teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's
infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi
government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do?
If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this
is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with
the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion
tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember
this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign
fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the
last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the
primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war
on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist
operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically, "yes."
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was
not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified --
though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from
Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.
Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because
of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical
Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a
dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups
wouldn't have lasted a week.
Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that
should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do
not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are
inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't
exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the
long-term threat of terrorism.
The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under
what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow
terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these
fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we
cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using
military force to eliminate them.
Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the
9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.
URL for this article:
Monday, May 21, 2007
5/21/2007 11:13:00 AM
1. An interesting New Ally against the Academic Fifth Column in
One segment of the Israeli population is generally unaware of the
mischief and dangers related to Israel's academic fifth column . namely,
the Orthodox. By and large these folks do not take advanced university
degrees, and when they do it is usually at Bar Ilan University, which is a
relatively minor arena of Post-Zionist agitation. Over the weekend a
major article was published that may signal a change in this.
"Besheva" is a free weekly distributed mainly through synagogues over
Shabbat in Israel, dealing partly with religious issues and partly with
politics, in Hebrew only. It is nominally connected with the Israel
National News (Arutz 7) web site but seems to be produced independently.
This past weekend, May 17, it carried a full page article by Rabbi
Eliezer Melamed about Israeli universities. Rabbi Melamed is one of the
best known and most respected Rabbis among the Orthodox religious Zionist
movement. He is a respected "posek" or issuer of Rabbinic rulings
regarding religious questions (see
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/Hmidrash.asp?cat=149 ). He sometimes
also speaks about politics (as an example, see
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/489 ). He heads
a yeshiva at Har Bracha in the West Bank. (Here is a short bio:
In the weekend column, part of his article was devoted to questions
regarding college tuition and the ongoing current student strike in
Israel, which has lasted now for about 2 months. Melamed denounced the
strike and the strike leaders, and declared it unjust and immoral. But
then he went on to write a broadside attack on the leftwing "Post-Zionist"
faculty members at Israeli universities, who devote their energies to
demonizing Israel and denouncing Israel's legitimacy. He notes that these
are a particularly common plague in the Schools of Social Sciences and the
He writes (page 40): "We cannot support Israeli academia without
reservation. Too many things going on there are not in accordance with
our values. From the schools of social sciences and the humanities there
are emerging numerous voices that abhor Jewish tradition and values and
are the worst anti-Zionists, people who denounce Israel for almost every
conceivable and imaginary evil.
"The academic establishment does nothing to rein these people in. To
the contrary, these people enjoy every defense in the name of academic
freedom. But these are the very schools and departments from which we
should expect efforts to strengthen the Israeli spirit rather than vicious
attacks against it. Why should Israeli citizens finance the salaries of
such people?! To the contrary . let's have some REAL freedom of choice.
Those who wish to study with such people should pay for this out of their
own pockets, while those who don't wish to - will not. Why should these
people earn the same salaries as those in the natural sciences who
actually make contributions of priceless value to Israel?
"It will be entirely unsurprising if it turns out that forces from the
Radical Left are actually behind the long ongoing student strike, the same
Radical Left whose power base is in the departments of social sciences and
humanities at the universities. Have the students even investigated for
whom these people are working? Which hostile or foreign interests are
they serving? Perhaps tuition is nothing more than a misleading banner to
recruit students for their real agenda. For all these reasons, the
students should not participate in the strike."
From out of Jerusalem shall Torah Go Forth, but from out of Israel
Academia Monitor (www.israel-academia-monitor.com ) is going the news
about the mischief of Israel's academic fifth column, and it is reaching
important new audiences!
2. Stanford's Joel Beinin, professor of jihad, finds a death threat:
See also http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz072202.asp
3. Too little, too late:
4. Roll Call of Treason:
5, Israel's partisan Attorney General - "moral turpitude" is something
that characterizes people whose politics he does not like
6. The Pro-Terror NGO "Doctors without Borders" collaborates with
7. The "Asafsaf" does not like flags:
8. Tell Hilton what you think!
9. Climate Change WHAT?
10. Baruch Kimmerling, who just died, was one of the worst members of
Israel's academic Fifth Column. A far leftist anti-Zionist, an
activist in the Stalinist HADASH party, Kimmerling
wrote a series of books in which he literally invented "Palestinian"
nationalism and history.
Here are some earlier items on Kimmerling:
Here is a typical Kimmerling screed:
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
5/16/2007 10:15:00 PM
1. DePaul's Disgrace:http://www.tnr.com/blog/spine?pid=107268
Oh, for sure. At my campus and at your campus, there was usually a nutcase
professor who had very odd views, really very odd, about this and that. A
professor of engineering would believe that blacks were stupid or that
woman should stay home and do the wash...or a professor of chemistry would
believe that the Holocaust was a historical invention. It was unpleasant.
Maybe even worse than unpleasant. But it somehow didn't go to very heart
of the university which was that teachers should be experts in their
Well, you know about Norman Finkelstein who is truly a nutcase teacher in
the field for which DePaul University is now considering him for tenure.
Our Leon Wieseltier has called him "poison, he's a disgusting self-hating
Jew, he's something you find under a rock." Omer Bartov, the
world-renowned scholar of genocide at Brown University, wrote in the New
York Times that Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry is "an ideological
fanatic's view.by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks... [His
theory is] both irrational and insidious.an international Jewish
conspiracy verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites." If his these
words from critics are not sufficient, how about those from his fans? The
wife of the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Ernst Zuendel has gushed, "I
feel like a kid in a candy store. Finkelstein is a Jewish David Irving."
OK, don't take my word. Listen to him on YouTube for yourself.
If you can't stand listening and watching, take the easy route...and just
I'm going to try and be brief this afternoon, I know it's hot, and so many
people have already said so many important things. I want to make
basically 3 points. Number one, in my view reasonable people can disagree
about how the conflict in Lebanon began, but reasonable people cannot
disagree about what's happening now. The conflict is perfectly clear to
anyone who looks at it honestly. Israel has embarked, in its own words, on
a war of annihilation against the Lebanese people. Not a day passes when
the language they use doesn't escalate. One day they say for each
Hezbollah rocket we will destroy 10 Lebanese homes. The next day they say
we will flatten southern Lebanon. The next day they say we will cleanse
southern Lebanon. The next day they say we will obliterate and pulverize
southern Lebanon. We have to be honest about what they are saying. This is
pure and simple Nazi language. They're talking about -- and we shouldn't
be afraid to use that analogy. They are waging a war of annihilation
against the Lebanese people.
Number two, I heard a few days ago a member or several members of the
House of Representatives say, "We are all Israelis now." Now, I beg to
differ. Right now, and I say it publicly, right now we are all Hezbollah.
All of us. You can have differences, disagreements with their ideology,
with their values, with their organization. But right now at this moment
that is totally and utterly irrelevant; just as, for those of you who are
older in this meeting, in the 1940s you can disagree with Stalin and
Stalinism and the Soviet Union on this and on that. And there were
excellent reasons for disagreeing. But every victory of the Red Army over
the Nazi invaders was a victory for liberty and a victory for freedom. And
every victory of Hezbollah over the vandals and the marauders, the
invaders and the murderers; every victory by Hezbollah over Israel is also
a victory for liberty and a victory for freedom.
One last point, and that is the question of Israel. I personally remain
committed to the belief that ordinary people, Jewish and Muslim, Jewish
and Arab, if left to their own devices, they can live together in peace,
freedom, mutual dignity and mutual respect. But if Israel proves itself
unable to live in mutual dignity and mutual respect with its Arab
neighbors; if it chooses to become the garrison state for the United
States whose only purpose and being is to enslave the Arab people; if it
chooses, I am not saying it is, I am saying but if it chooses then it's
losing its right to be there in the Middle East. It's no different than Da
Nang airbase during the Vietnam War if your only purpose is to wreak
murder, wreak havoc, destroy, level, pulverize, flatten, cleanse. If
that's your purpose, if that's your raison d'etre, then you've lost your
right to be there.
One last point. For those of you who are indifferent to moral arguments,
there remains a, the fancy word is a realpolitik argument, a real world
argument. And the real world is, Israel is courting its own disaster.
Maybe the blind, the arrogant, those who are drunk with power, intoxicated
with their weapons, they don't see it; but rational people, reasonable
people see what's going on. Hezbollah is not, thank goodness, the PLO.
They're serious, they're committed, they're determined. Hopefully, and I
mean hopefully, reasonable, sane people will see that, and will recognize
that even if they don't like the Arabs, and even if they don't like
Muslims, it's a wiser strategy, it's a more prudent strategy just from the
vantage point of self interest. It's wiser and more prudent to learn to
live with your neighbors rather than try to destroy them, because sooner
or later before you destroy them they will destroy you; which means at the
end of the day we all have a common purpose, though maybe we don't see it.
And the common purpose is we are all fighting, resisting, struggling to
make this world a decent place, a fair place, a place where dignity and
mutual respect is allowed for; and where everyone can live, everyone to
live who wants to live in mutual respect and mutual dignity. Those who do
not -- the monsters and freaks in the White House and their collaborators
in Tel Aviv -- so far as I'm concerned they can all drop dead. But let's
the rest of us struggle, work hard, reach out to everybody. Make it a
common struggle for a common goal -- truth and justice. Thank you.
2. Raise University Tuition in Israel!
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Man Bites Dog and Haaretz discovers "Terrorism"
It is said that dogs biting men are not news but when a man bites a dog,
THAT makes the headlines! (To right, photo of the "Jewish terrorist" with
the psychiatric problems.)
Newspapers love reversal of roles and stereotypes. When Arabs murder Jews
simply because they are Jews, it is hardly news. THAT happens all the
Haaretz, Israel's leftwing Post-Zionist daily, sometimes called the
Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew, has never been very interested in
Arabs murdering Jews because they are Jews. Following the lead of the
overseas Bash-Israel media, Haaretz always refers to such perps as
"activists" and "militants". The "T" word (terrorism) is never used to
refer to Arab murders of Jews in stories at Haaretz.
But let a Jew go and murder an Arab, and Haaretz runs banner headlines
about "Jewish terrorism". In 2005 when Eden Natan-Zada, a mentally ill
19-year-old AWOL Israeli soldier, killed four Arabs on a bus in Shfaram
(and was then himself murdered by the mob there), Haaretz headlines
screamed about the Jewish "terrorist who murdered Arabs because they are
This week Julian Soufir, a French Jew living in Israel, murdered an Arab,
claiming he did so because he just wanted to kill an Arab. He was arrested
and is pleading not guilty by reasons or mental illness, and he may well
be mentally ill. He has been under psychiatric care since some domestic
violence incidents. Justice Muki Landman wrote in his judgment that the
investigation material indicated that the suspect suffered from a mental
illness. "Under these circumstances, and due to the fact that in the best
interest of the investigation and reaching the truth it is imperative that
his mental condition be evaluated."
But Haaretz has yet another example of the worldwide scourge of "Jewish
Pluralism at Haaretz resembles that in Pravda back in the days of
Brezhnev. There is only one correct opinion, that of the ultra-Left, and
it is repeated ad nauseum by almost all writers in the paper. Today
Haaretz runs an Op-Ed by one of its countless leftists, Goel Pinto,
demanding that Jews collectively apologize to Arabs for "Jewish
terrorism". We can't seem to recall many cases when Arabs apologized for
mass murders of Jews because they are Jews.
Pinto in Haaretz blasts Jews, especially French Jews, for being "racist".
His evidence? Many of them voted for Sarkozy! Of course most French
citizens voted for Sarkozy. Pinto adds:
'The Jewish murderer Soufir immigrated to Israel before he murdered an
Arab - and not because of any shortage of Muslims in France. Rather, it
was because in France many Jews prefer to wrap themselves in the tallit of
victimhood - and the anti-Jewish incidents there give them sufficient
ammunition to do so....Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Acting President
Dalia Itzik should pay a visit to the family of the murder victim and ask
for forgiveness in the name of the state and the Jewish people....This is
also the appropriate time for the heads of France's Jewish community, led
by Chief Rabbi Yosef Sitruk, to visit the Great Mosque of Paris and to ask
for forgiveness. Forgiveness for the murder, but also for the anti-Muslim
racism that is rooted in their community, which is one of the main causes
for the deterioration in relations between Jews and Muslims in France.'
Now here is a thought. Since reversal of stereotype is so newsworthy,
maybe Haaretz should try an experiment in it and reverse its own role
playing and stereotype. All it need do to create the biggest Man Bites Dog
story in decades is come out clearly in favor of Israel's right to defend
itself against Arab terrorism and Islamofascist aggression, including by
means of assassinating terrorists, and also come out clearly in opposition
to Palestinian demands, including the "right of return."
4. The Folly of Withdrawal:
5. Jews: 1; Moonbats: 0: