Thursday, August 27, 2009
8/27/2009 05:27:00 PM
1. Ben Gurion University reaping what it sowed over decades:http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial%20-%20Yocheved%20Miriam%20Russo%20-%20boycott%20Neve%20Gordon.htm
A DAY OF SHOCK IN BEERSHEBA
By Yocheved Miriam Russo
Today, many of us in Beersheba - home of BGU, Ben Gurion University of
the Negev, named in honor of Zionist supreme, David Ben Gurion - find
ourselves in a state of shock.
BGU President Prof. Rivka Carmi says she's
"shocked" by the call to boycott Israel made in a LA Times op-ed written by
Dr. Neve Gordon, the Chairman of her Department of Politics and Government.
As Prof. Carmi told the Jerusalem Post, "We are shocked by Dr. Neve
Gordon's irresponsible statements, which are morally deserving of full
condemnation. We vehemently shake ourselves of the destructive views
[advocated by Gordon], who makes cynical use of freedom of expression in
Israel and Ben-Gurion University."
As for me, I'm shocked that she's
Is Prof. Carmi the only one at BGU who hasn't been watching -
and reading, and listening to - the vicious anti-Israel propaganda that
Neve Gordon has been spewing for years? Was she unaware of his "destructive
views" when just last January she promoted him, made him Chairman of the
Department of Politics and Government?
Is she the only one who doesn't
remember how Gordon barricaded himself with Terrorist Supreme Yasser Arafat
during the siege of Ramallah? How - for years -- he's posted his
"destructive views" on Holocaust denial websites? How he repeatedly called
for Israel to be destroyed through his "one state" solution, in which Jews
would be inundated with Arab "refugees"?
Can the head of the University
possibly have been unaware that her lecturer in Political Science - and now
head of the Department - regularly denounced Israel as a fascist, terrorist
regime, one that "resembles Nazi Germany"?
Has she completely forgotten
last December's war, when Hamas rockets and missiles rained down on much of
southern Israel, some hitting the BGU campus? Did she forget how, in
response, her Department head, Dr. Gordon, didn't denounce the Hamas
terrorists? Instead he denounced Israel for "targeting" the building called
"Gaza University", a structure used as a repository for the rockets
intended to kill Israelis.
Was Prof. Carmi really so aloof from faculty
affairs that she failed to notice that Dr. Gordon was a regular columnist
for the Hamas media apologist, Aljazeera.com, where Gordon regularly ranted
that Israel is opposed to peace and was plotting to steal Arab lands?
it seems. Apparently Prof. Carmi isn't much interested in anything her
Politics and Government Department does. According to Prof. Fred Lazin, who
teaches political science within that department, _before_ Neve Gordon
submitted his treasonous commentary to the LA Times, he told his department
what he was going to say, and _offered to step down as chair_ if they
thought his words would prove too embarrassing. "There was a unanimous
decision not to let him do that," Lazin said.
So the whole BGU Department
of Politics and Government stands behind Neve Gordon's treasonous
commentary - and the President of BGU is completely unaware of it? For
years now, foreign educational institutions have worked to boycott Israeli
academic institutions. But the President of BGU, one of seven Israeli
Universities, has no idea that her Department of Politics and Government
supports the boycott?
So Prof. Carmi wants us to believe, because in her
'shocked' denial, she refers to Dr. Gordon as "one rogue faculty member." I
guess she wasn't aware that the entire Department of Politics and
Government endorsed what Neve Gordon wrote.
Even if she doesn't pay
attention to internal faculty affairs, it would be hard for anyone who
reads a regular newspaper in Israel to have missed the legal skirmish when
Neve Gordon took it upon himself to sue Prof. Steve Plaut, a University of
Haifa professor of economics, for libel. Especially after Gordon lost,
because one of the appellate judges, Judge Abraham Abraham, made an
astonishing ruling all of his own. Even though Plaut had not described
Gordon as a "Jew for Hitler", if he had, Judge Abraham wrote in his
opinion, Plaut would have been within his rights.
How many professors
does Prof. Carmi have, anyway, who get themselves into messes like this?
Professors who sue other professors for libel - which ends up with an
Israeli appellate Judge ruling from the bench that her professor could be
called a "Jew for Hitler"?
Okay, so let's suppose Prof. Carmi was indeed
oblivious of the litigation itself. How could she possibly have missed the
highly colorful newspaper battle that came after, when US legal lion Alan
Dershowitz jumped into the fray with a fiery op-ed in the Jerusalem Post?
"Neve Gordon," Dershowitz wrote, "belongs to the class of the rabidly
anti-Israel far-left professors whose trade mark is the delight they take
in comparing Israel to apartheid South-Africa and Nazi Germany"?
ignorance is shocking, especially when Dershowitz characterized Gordon's
writing as "consisting of anti-Israeli propaganda designed to 'prove' that
the Jewish State is fascist". Really, wouldn't you think a University
President would sit up and take notice at that? Be a little bit concerned
about how one of her Department heads is being portrayed in the
When Dershowitz' took his parting shot - writing
that "Gordon has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust justice deniers
and anti-Semites", terming him "a despicable example of a self-hating Jew
and self-hating Israeli" - wouldn't you think that the head of any normal
University would be a little leery about having such a person teaching
politics and government?
If Neve Gordon had been teaching art or music,
maybe it wouldn't have mattered so much. But to have that kind of
anti-Israeli venom spewing from the head of your Department of Politics and
Government? How could she afford not to pay attention?
It's not as though
Prof. Carmi wasn't in charge during this time. She was appointed President
in December of 2005, almost a full year before the whole Dershowitz
episode, which had most of the world wondering and shaking their heads over
what could possibly be going on at BGU.
If nothing else, you'd think that
at least some of her Board of Directors or her major donors would have
called some of these incidents to her attention. It's too bad they didn't.
If they had, then surely Prof. Carmi couldn't be "shocked" by Gordon's
The truth is, I can't imagine how anyone who's been
reasonably aware of University politics could be shocked or surprised by
Neve Gordon's most recent broadside. For years he's been calling Israel an
'apartheid' state. The only new element he added was a few specifics about
his proposed boycott of Israel.
Maybe it's that Gordon's LA Times
proposal doesn't seem very serious to professional academics. Gordon begins
with his traditional observation, saying that "most accurate way to
describe Israel today is as an apartheid state". He goes on to note that
neither pressure nor condemnation from the EU and the US has had any
positive effect. So he suggests a bit of stronger medicine, a boycott of
Israel, beginning with divestment from companies operating in Judea and
Samaria and later moving on to firms which "help sustain and reinforce the
"Nothing else has worked," Gordon laments. "Putting massive
international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next
generation of Israelis and Palestinians - my two boys included - does not
grow up in an apartheid regime."
Gordon weeps crocodile tears over how
difficult this is for him, as an Israeli citizen, "to call on foreign
governments, regional authorities, international social movements,
faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with
That part I understand. I, too, find it difficult to make the
suggestion I'm going to make. Unlike Neve Gordon, I live in Beersheba, home
of BGU. One of the biggest employers in our fair city is BGU. Many of my
friends work for or are associated with BGU in some way. Normally, I'd fall
on my own sword before doing anything that would hurt them or their
families in any way.
But -- as Gordon notes - the situation is serious.
If we want to save BGU some tough action is required. Dr. Gordon suggests a
boycott as a way to gain Israel's attention. So why not a boycott of BGU,
to get Prof. Carmi's attention?
As seems apparent, Prof. Carmi has been
unaware of the anti-Israel venom that has, for many years, been spewing out
of her Department of Politics and Government. Not only has she not taken
steps to reprove or reform her wayward Department head, she's done
precisely the opposite, not only promoting him, but endorsing him,
supporting him, defending him, repeatedly terming his vicious hate
propaganda "serious and distinguished research into human rights."
This can't go on. So here's my proposal: In order to save BGU from itself,
I think a boycott is in order. If we want to save Beersheba's much-loved
Gurion University of the Negev, then we must boycott it.
Don't send students to BGU. Don't send money. Send a message. Enough is
2. The Orwellian Lobby for Neve Gordon: The Orwellian Lobby for
Neve Gordon makes Ilan Pappe look like a serious academic and a
patriotic Zionist. He makes Micah Leshem and Yuval Yonay look rational and
It is always amusing watching the Israeli Academic Fifth
Column rushing out to defend the right of anyone to smear Israel and Jews,
and to defend the most mind-bogging falsehoods and blatant fabrications in
the name of "academic freedom." These are invariably the very same people
who oppose freedom of speech for those who disagree with their own
political agendas and, in particular, oppose freedom of expression for
those who think Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend
itself. They no doubt see the Swedish newspaper's "report" of Jews
harvesting body parts of dead Palestinians to be a great manifestation of
freedom of speech and academic freedom. But they are the last people on
earth to defend freedom of speech for anyone expressing an unfashionable,
politically incorrect, or patriotic opinion, while at the same time
cheering on Neo-Fascist attacks on freedom of speech when they are adopted
by far leftists. So out trot the members of the Gordon Lobby to defend Neve
Gordon's call for a worldwide boycott of Israel and its institutions. Out
come these heroic people pretending they do not know that Israel is the
only country in the Middle East that is NOT an apartheid regime, and so
instead they cheer on international efforts designed to end Israel's very
existence as if they are battling "apartheid." In the name of "democracy,"
these people demand that the world impose upon Israel the political agenda
of the few dozen people in the country who endorse Neve Gordon's "one-state
solution," endlessly and repeatedly promoted by Gordon, a "solution" that
does not differ at all from the Rwanda solution, and one rejected by every
Israeli Jew except for those few analogues to Taliban John and Lord Haw-Haw
who, like Gordon, seek to have the Jews, or at least the Zionists, thrown
into the sea. And even more amusing is the pretense by the Academic Fifth
Column that they think Gordon is some sort of champion of democracy. A
champion of democracy who wants the world to suppress Israeli
self-determination and majority rule, and coerce the country into accepting
Gordon's own agenda for annihilating Israel. A champion of democracy who
misuses the courts to try to suppress the freedom of speech of those who
criticize his opinions through SLAPP harassment (for details, see
#0066cc 1px dashed;">IDF anti-terror operations. A champion of democracy
who misuses his academic position to smear army officers and to attempt to
get them indicted overseas in kangaroo courts as "war criminals" (for
details, see http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10510 
). And no less amusing is the pretense by such people that they are not
aware of the scores of "academics" at Israeli universities who have built
careers upon little more than turning out charlatan anti-Israel hate
propaganda, pseudo-academics hired and promoted by their ideological
comrades inside the system. DePaul University can fire an anti-Semitic
pseudo-academic with no serious scholarly achievements (for details, see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=28143  ) , as can other
schools in the democratic world, but at Israeli universities similar people
are retained and granted tenure in the name of "academic freedom." Then
there is the sudden outrage on the part of the Academic Fifth Column at the
prospect of donors to Israeli universities exercising THEIR freedom of
speech about such things, and at the growing signs that donors and electied
officials are refusing to pony up cash for sedition and hate propaganda.
And anyone who thinks the Israeli taxpayer and his elected representatives
will sit back endlessly as academic freedom is abused by the Academic Fifth
Column and campuses are turning into little anti-Zionist indoctrination
centers should think again. For more details see
http://frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=6772  and
http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14811  and
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=31912  and
8/27/2009 03:02:00 AM
1. Apologies for the earlier posting having the list of email addresses
in the heading - I am getting senile and meant them to be in BCC
Two-State Solution - Or Potemkin Peace?
By: Steven Plaut
Date: Wednesday, August 26 2009
The creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step
in the escalation of the Arab war against Israel even if the resumption of
that war is delayed for a brief time while the world celebrates the
outbreak of a Potemkin peace in the Middle East, produced by the end of
Israeli "occupation" of Palestinians.
Like the famous Potemkin villages that were all faade with no substance,
the two-state solution would prove to be nothing more than the signal of
the commencement of the next Middle East war.
Human beings seem to have a basic impatience with hearing the truth
repeated over long periods of time. In an era in which technology,
politics, and science change so rapidly, many consider it implausible that
a statement that was true years ago can still be true today.
Surely, they insist, explanations from the past, such as those pertaining
to the Middle East conflict, must be obsolete by now, replaced with new
updated theories and contemporary perceptions of reality.
No subject has fallen victim to quite so much pseudo-historic revisionism
and denial of "out-of date" truths as the Middle East. George Orwell said
the first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious. Obvious
truths about the Middle East need to be restated because they are under
assault by so many dishonest men.
We hear so often that the Middle East conflict is mind-numbingly complex.
This is a false notion. Actually, the Middle East conflict is
extraordinarily simple to understand. Its causes and issues have not
changed at all in 60 years. That which produced the first Arab-Israeli war
in 1948 is exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace
There is one - and only one - cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if
that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to
obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world
to come to terms with Israel's existence within any set of borders
* * *
The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of
Palestinian Arabs, but rather about the total Arab rejection of
self-determination for Israeli Jews.
The Arabs today control 22 countries and territory nearly twice the size
of the United States (including Alaska), whereas Israel cannot even be
seen on most globes or maps. Arabs as an ethnic group control more
territory than any other ethnic group on earth. And they refuse to share
even a fraction of one percent of the Middle East with the Jews, in a
territory smaller than New Jersey.
Without the West Bank, Israel at its narrowest is not even 10 miles wide,
about the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The main reason the Arab
world demands that Israel relinquish the West Bank is so that it can be
used to attack Israel.
The Arab world controls such vast amounts of territory and such vast
amounts of wealth (thanks to petroleum) that it could have created a
homeland for Palestinian Arabs anywhere within its territories at any
From 1948 until 1967 the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were both under the
rule of Arab states (Jordan and Egypt, respectively). They could easily
have set up a Palestinian homeland in those areas. They did not.
The fact is, no Palestinians before 1967 demanded any "homeland," though
they did demand that the Jews be stripped of theirs. This is because
Palestinians are not a "people" at all, at least as far as the term has
been understood throughout human history.
Until relatively recent times, Palestinians never had any real interest in
their own state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when the
geographical entity called Palestine was detached from Syria by the
Indeed, the term "nakba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic and in leftist
newspeak), used exclusively now to refer to the creation of Israel,
actually was coined to refer to the outrage expressed by Palestinians
separated from their Syrian homeland.
* * *
Immediately after the Six-Day War, a sudden need for a Palestinian state
was fabricated by the Arab world as a gimmick to force Israel back to its
pre-1967 borders. The Arab world began agitating for a Palestinian state
so that the Palestinians could serve the same role the Sudeten Germans did
in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for
the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power.
The term "self-determination" has been repeated as a rhetorical
inalienable right for so long that few people recall now that pursuing
self-determination can also serve as a tool of aggression on the part of
barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers.
When Hitler decided to embark on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he
dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, claiming he was
merely interested in "helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain
self-determination." He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in
the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of
their oppression and mistreatment.
In reality, of course, these ethnic Germans already had the option of
self-determination within the neighboring sovereign German nation-states,
and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside
Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured
indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany's neighbors. Hitler
insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the "misery of mistreated ethnic
Germans," supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia.
"Self-determination" was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland
and other countries.
Like Germany before World War II, the Arab world used the method of the
Big Lie, with its infinite and mindless repetitions, to invent a fairy
tale about Palestinians being mistreated and oppressed by Israel.
The reality is that Arabs living under Israeli rule have always been
treated considerably better than Arabs living under Arab regimes, and
infinitely better than non-Arab minorities living under Arab regimes.
Jimmy Carter has it completely backward: Israel is the only country in the
Middle East that is not an apartheid regime.
Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who
enjoy freedom of speech and press; free access to courts operating with
due process; legal protection for property rights; and the right to vote.
And Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any
other group of Arabs in the Middle East.
But then, the Sudeten Germans were never really oppressed either. Israeli
Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle
East and are in some ways better treated than minority groups in many
Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does not deal with
Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst
the terrorists operate. The number of innocent Palestinian civilians
intentionally killed by Israel is exactly zero. The number of civilians
injured in Israeli anti-terror operations is tiny when compared with NATO
and Allied military operations in Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
* * *
The world media, which know even less about the Middle East than they do
about other parts of the globe, swallow the anti-Israel disinformation
with gusto. And so, as was the case in the late 1930s, a campaign of
genocidal aggression enjoys near-universal political support among those
who have been snookered into thinking that the Middle East conflict has
something to do with "self-determination" and statehood for mistreated
The real goal of the Arab aggressors, as they readily concede to anyone
willing to listen, is nothing less than Israel's extermination. And those
who think the state of Israel can be eliminated without a second Holocaust
taking place are deluding themselves.
The endless complaints about "human rights violations" by Israel against
the Palestinians are a rhetorical part of the broader campaign of
aggression against Israeli survival. Arabs living under Israeli rule are
the world's foremost illustration of "Moynihan's Law," which holds: "The
amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse
function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard
from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better
protected are human rights in that country."
Given the wide support among Palestinians for terrorist atrocities against
Jews, the self-restraint and moderation used by Israel in dealing with the
threat has no precedent in the world. Israel's own Arabs make little
attempt to hide their open identification with the genocidal enemies of
their own country and they by and large support the annihilation of the
state in which they hold citizenship.
No other democratic country facing such open sedition and identification
with the enemy in time of war ever responded with anywhere near the
restraint shown by Israel.
In World War II, when faced with a far less dangerous problem, the United
States locked up its ethnic Japanese population in internment camps.
Democratic Spain set up teams of death squads to deal with its separatist
terrorists. Democracies in war have junked habeas corpus and treated their
internal fifth columns as the enemy, with no hesitation or squeamishness.
Democratic Czechoslovakia and India (as well as non-democratic countries
throughout Eastern Europe) undertook wholesale expulsions of millions of
members of their internal ethnic minorities who had sided with the enemy.
Greece and Turkey and the two sections of Cyprus simply expelled their
minority populations altogether.
Israel, in contrast, operates affirmative action programs that benefit
Arabs; finances Arabic-language schools in which Israeli Arabs preserve
and develop their culture; funds Arab municipalities; and turns a blind
eye to massive Arab sedition and lawbreaking, including illegal squatting
on publicly owned lands.
It is hard to come up with the words needed to mock the ludicrous nature
of the complaints about Israeli mistreatment of Arabs. These complaints
come from the very people who are apologists for genocidal Islamofascist
terrorist movements and for Arab fascist states, regimes that are among
the most barbarous and oppressive on earth.
Israel even agreed in principle, foolishly as it turns out, to recognize
the legitimacy of Palestinian national ambitions and to relinquish lands
to the Palestinian Authority. What it got in exchange was a genocidal
fascist Hamastan on its borders, with other terrorist militias operating
in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Since the Oslo "peace process" began in the early 1990s, the working
hypothesis endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet (including large
numbers of IQ-challenged Israeli politicians) has been that the most
urgent task at hand is to end the Israeli "occupation" of Palestinian
The problem is that any Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it,
will produce nothing but escalated violence, terror and warfare in the
Middle East, certainly not stability or peaceful relations. It will seek
war with Israel and will attempt to draw the entire Muslim world into that
war. It will be indifferent to the economic and social problems of its own
The Israeli left and its amen chorus in the international media have been
repeating for so many years that the ultimate cause of Palestinian
terrorism and Arab grievances is the "occupation" of "Palestinian lands"
by Israel that few are capable any longer of thinking about that assertion
critically. But the assertion is wrong. The main cause of anti-Israel
terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian
This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain
why so few people understand it, but here are the facts:
Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2005 and
evicted all the Jews who had been living there. The Israeli withdrawal
produced a barrage of many thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians
inside Israel (not the "occupied territories" that, we are told, are at
the heart of Arab anger with Israel) - a barrage that eventually forced
Israel's reluctant leaders to carry out a full-scale operation against
Gaza terrorism earlier this year.
The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in 2000
by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that
fiasco was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against
northern Israel in the summer of 2006 - and several times that number now
poised to strike Israel.
The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by
the early Oslo withdrawals - before which there had been no suicide
There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West
Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders in order to make way for a
Palestinian state would trigger a massive rocket and terror assault
against the remaining areas of Israel, launched from the "liberated" West
Bank. The same thing would result from Israel relinquishing the Golan
Heights to Syria.
The promotion of a "two states for two peoples" solution has radicalized
most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties
and politicians calling for violence against Jews and the destruction of
Israel. Even the "moderate" factions within the PLO keep insisting that
after such a plan is implemented they will never recognize the right of
Jews to have their own state anywhere in the Middle East.
The Arabs still condition any two-state solution on Israel agreeing to
being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that
it will morph demographically into the 24th Arab state.
That such a two-state Potemkin solution will not end the conflict, but
only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the
quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups.
The Palestinians tell each other, in their newspapers, their mosques and
their internal political debates, that any two-state solution is but a
stage in a "plan of stages," after which will come additional steps
ultimately aimed at ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
Why shouldn't we believe them?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
8/26/2009 05:10:00 PM
Collaborators in the War Against the Jews: Marc H. Ellis
By: Steven Plaut
Collaborators in the War Against the Jews: Marc H. Ellis
By: Steven Plaut
Monday, August 24, 2009
This is the first in a series of articles about collaborators in the
Islamic war against the Jews.
Some of the individuals waging an all out war on American college campuses
against Israrel and the Jews are themselves Jewish. Some have called them
"non-Jewish" or "self-hating" Jews. What is undeniable is that in the
role they have chosen, these individuals are collaborating, often openly
and without apology, with groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah and states
such as Ahmadinejad's Iran that call for a new genocide. Over the next
few weeks, Frontpage will profile some of these Jewish collaborators in
the war against Israel and the Jews and show how they give and and comfort
to the Islamist enemy -- The Editors.
The campus war against Israel and the Jews is led by a group of
anti-Semites, many of them faculty members, who have made a career for
themselves by traveling from one university to another supporting Arab
terrorism. They invariably pretend that they are promoting peace. But in
the Orwellian bubble where they live, Arab aggression and terror become
self-defense and Israeli self-defense becomes aggression and terror.
Israeli democracy is apartheid, while Arab genocide is liberation.
One of the most bizarre aspects of this campus war against the Jews is how
common self-hating anti-Semitic Jews are in the ranks of the movement to
achieve the annihilation of Israel. For reasons that only a psychiatrist
could fully understand, these people use their birthright to give
authenticity to the campaign of delegitimizing and demonizing Israel.
Today the leading promoters of .divestment. and of boycotting Israel are
academic Jewish leftists, some of them from Israel itself. In a few
extreme cases, this detestation of Israel is combined with a fawning
courtship of Islamic terrorists, American and European Neo-Nazis, and even
One of the most public of these Jewish collaborators in the Arab war
against Israel.s survival is Marc H. Ellis, a Jewish .professor of
theology. and director of the Center for American and Jewish Studies at
Baylor, a Baptist University in Waco, Texas. For most of the academic
world, especially the world of Jewish scholarship, Ellis is a bigot
residing in the lunatic fringe. But in the eyes in the eyes of Holocaust
Deniers and Arab terrorists, he is a distinguished theologian. The racist
Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a fan of Ellis. books and often recommends
The theology that Ellis teaches is the theology of Jewish evil. Ellis is
essentially a Norman Finkelstein look alike. Unlike Finkelstein, who was
fired from DePaul University because his .scholarly. books were
Jew-baiting propaganda in disguise, Ellis has a job. But, in fact, there
are surprisingly few differences between the ranting anti-Semitism for
which Finkelstein was fired and the "scholarly work. for which Ellis has
been rewarded. Indeed, the two have a long history of collaboration. They
appear at one another's conferences and on one another's web sites,
standing together in a sort of anti Semitic mutual assistance pact.
Like Finkelstein, Ellis is honored and cited as a Jewish anti-Jewish and
anti-Israel authority who helps debunk the "myth" that there ever was a
Holocaust of Jews by neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers, notably on the web
site of recently deported Canadian Nazi Ernst Zundel, by the Neo-Nazi
"Institute for Historical Review" or
Ellis has hosted Finkelstein in Texas on numerous occasions, and the two
sit together on the boards of a number of pro-jihad anti-Israel propaganda
organizations such as the Deir Yassin Remembered Organization, which also
includes among its members such notables as Saudi-financed Paul Findley,
Swedish Neo-Nazi Israel Shamir, PLO spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, and Israeli
convicted spy and traitor . the communist Mordecai Vanunu who recently
spoke at the York University anti-Semitic conference calling for Israel to
Ellis has publicly endorsed not only Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry,
but also Finkelstein's scurrilous attacks on Nobel Prize winning writer
and concentration camp survivor Elie Wiesel. Ellis and Finkelstein are
listed together in Gabriel Schoenfeld.s review of Holocaust
pseudo-scholarship in The Return of Anti-Semitism.
Ellis has been a full-time basher of Israel for decades. He holds a PhD
from Marquette University, a Jesuit institution in Milwaukee which has
never distinguished itself as a serious research center on Jewish thought.
His first position after graduation was at Maryknoll School of Theology, a
Catholic school in New York that it is evidently not accredited as a
research university, although it has had its fair share of "liberation
theologists. He moved to Baylor University in 1998 as a full professor
and now directs "Jewish Studies,. by himself, the sole faculty member at
the .Center of American and Jewish Studies.. The Center web site lists
endorsements by a "Christian feminist theologian," by Noam Chomsky and a
few other anti-Semites, but not by a single scholar of Judaism.
Ellis has a publication record that consists almost exclusively of
anti-Israel propaganda tracts. These all largely promote liberation
theology1 mixed with his thoughts about the Holocaust and Israel's endless
track record of "inhumane crimes..2 Most of these works are published
with "Fortress Press,. a non-academic church publisher associated with the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Ellis sits on the editorial board
of Tikkun, a far-leftist, anti-Israel, Sixties-fixated magazine, which
touts Marxism and New Age liberation theology dressed up in some nominally
Jewish emblems and slogans. Ellis is a regular on the Bash-Israel lecture
circuit, especially before Muslim audiences, and is a speaker in demand
for the "Palestine Solidarity. events that have become central part of the
anti Israel, anti Semitic displays on American college campuses.
The centerpiece of Ellis. crusade against Israeli survival is a warped
view of the Holocaust that rivals Norman Finkelstein.s. He has authored a
number of books that claim to be .Holocaust scholarship,. including Ending
Auschwitz: The Future of Jewish and Christian Life (Westminster John Knox
Press, 1994), O, Jerusalem: The Contested Future of the Jewish Covenant
(Fortress Press, 1999), and Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes (Pluto
Press, 2003), the latter two purporting to extract some "lessons of the
Holocaust" for use in resolving the Arab-Israeli war.
Ellis summarizes his ambivalence about the Holocaust in these words: "To
speak of the Holocaust without confessing our sins towards the Palestinian
people and seeking a real justice with them is a hypocrisy that debases us
as Jews. Surely, the ultimate trivialization is the use of memory to
oppress others and this, rather than the `industry', is responsible for
the difficulties facing those who seek to communicate the historic
suffering of European Jews."
A central assertion in Ellis. campaign against Israel is his insistence
that Jews have abandoned "Prophetic Ethics.. But there is little in his
books to indicate that he has the slightest idea of which ethics the
Prophets of the Bible really promoted, nor even that he has ever bothered
to read those books of the Bible. He evidently is willing to take Tikkun
editor Michael Lerner's word on what they contain.3
Ellis' idea of defending the ethics of the Hebrew Prophets is to write
Israel-bashing pieces for the same al-Ahram Egyptian daily that regularly
prints blood libels about Jews and cites the "Protocols of the Elders of
Zion" as an authoritative source.4 Industriously, if somewhat
mysteriously, Ellis finds sources in the Books of the Prophets for the
Palestinian "Right of Return,. which he so passionately endorses,5
although (or perhaps because) it means an end Jewish national existence.
Ellis thinks that Jews should turn their High Holidays into days of
mourning for their "crimes" against "Palestinians."6
One of Ellis.s recent books is called Judaism does not Equal Israel, and
he has touted it in numerous talks on and off the Baylor campus. Its
theme is that Israel is not just an evil threat to the region but to
Judaism itself. It features a foreword praising Ellis. negative take on
Judaism written by fellow Israel-basher Archbishop Desmond Tutu. (The
fact that Ellis could not find a Jewish theologian to praise his .take. on
Judaism is significant.)
Another work in which he reiterates his insistence that the Holocaust
needs to be converted into a weapon against Israel's survival is Israel
and Palestine: Out of the Ashes (Pluto Press, 2003.) The first hint one
has of the real orientation of this atrocious little book, which purports
to be a theological re-examination of what it means to be Jewish after the
Holocaust, is that the only people Ellis and his publisher could find to
endorse the book on the jacket are Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and others
favoring Palestinian terrorism. Pro-terror and Islamist web sites have
given the book rave reviews. So has the PLO's web site. The leftist
publication The Nation recently praised the book's call for Israel to be
eliminated, although expressing dislike for the fact that Ellis thinks
religion still has some positive roles to play in the 21st century.
The only thing of value that Ellis thinks Jews should derive from their
experiences during the Holocaust is a duty to unambiguously denounce
Israel and to support the demands and agenda of the Palestinian
terrorists. He denounces all Jewish denominations and all rabbinic
institutions for their failures to endorse Palestinian violence
unreservedly. He is as hostile to the Jews of America as he is to those
of Israel: "We as Jews come after the Holocaust, but we also come after
the illusory promises of Israel and America. And we cannot find our way
alone, only with others who realize that the promises they have been
handed are also illusory."
Ellis. concept of Israel is of a bunch of "bullies" riding about in
helicopters and firing senselessly at poor innocent Palestinian civilians
for absolutely no reason at all (an image repeated ad nauseum in many of
Ellis. screeds). Suicide bombers blowing up Israeli buses and other
perpetrators of mass atrocities against Jews do not interest him. Ellis'
Israel is a belligerent selfish entity, mistreating and enslaving (yes, he
uses that term) the Palestinians, as part of some sinister grand design of
the settlers in the "Palestinian" territories.
Ellis pretends never to have heard of the Oslo "peace process" and writes
about Israeli "conquest" and "occupation" of the Palestinians as being
"complete," this long after Israel turned almost all of these unfortunates
to the Hamas. and the PLO's tender rule.
The theme of Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes is the same that Ellis
preaches nonstop on the lecture circuit. He asserts that the Jews have
utilized the Holocaust as a gimmick to grasp power, steal property, and
oppress the poor Arabs. Further, he asserts that Israel's original sin was
to utilize the Holocaust as an excuse to occupy "Palestinian" land. The
only "massacres" of any consequence that have occurred in the long Mideast
struggle, in his view, are Jenin and Deir Yassin (neither of which was in
fact a massacre.) What the Palestinians suffered in these ambiguous
encounters was, he says, the moral equivalents of the Holocaust of the
Jews. But in the 2002 Jenin battle, less than twenty civilians died in
the midst of a military operation by Israel against terrorists hiding in
the town. And Deir Yassin was the scene of a 1948 battle in which some 100
civilians were killed, in an action immediately condemned by the
leadership of the Haganah, the Jewish community.s main paramilitary force,
and by the area.s two chief rabbis. To put these events in the scale of
atrocity with the Holocaust is simply obscene.
Ellis is openly contemptuous of any talk about Jews being in need of any
national empowerment. Such things constitute "Constantinian Judaism,"7 to
use Ellis' favorite nonsense term, a malapropism picked up - one suspects
- after spending too much time misrepresenting Judaism at Christian
theological institutions. What he means by this term is the conscripting
of religion to serve the agenda of the militarist state. (Ellis uses it
to describe Jews who support either Israel OR the United States - and of
course those evil malicious Jewish "settlers..) Jews can only fulfill
their proper ethical role in history, which - Ellis is persuaded - is to
promote socialism and leftist fads, if they are stateless and suffering.
Ellis never finds time in all his discussions of the theological
implications of the Holocaust to consider the mass murder of Jewish
children by his beloved Palestinians. Uniformed Jewish youths certainly
have no right to ride around in helicopters to prevent such things. Nor is
he willing to acknowledge that any "mistreatment" of Palestinians, such as
the assassination of some of their leading terrorists, might have anything
at all to do with the atrocities committed by Palestinians against
countless Israeli Anne Franks. In a book supposedly about the lessons of
the Holocaust for the Jews, there is not a single word about the Nazi-like
demonization of Jews by the PLO and its affiliates, nor about the daily
Islamofascist calls for genocide against Jews.
Ellis even rejects the political positions of Israel's Far Left as
insensitive, brutal, and insufficiently "progressive.. He is a passionate
supporter of the "One-State Solution," in which Israel will simply be
eliminated as a Jewish state and will be enfolded within a larger
Palestinian-dominated state that stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to
the Jordan River. (This is also known as the .Rwanda Solution. because of
the atrocity that would surely follow its implementation.) He preaches it
at conference after conference, insisting that such a fate is the ultimate
realization of the Jewish mission and the only permissible lesson that
Jews may learn from the Holocaust.
The main theological lesson that Marc H. Ellis draws from the Holocaust
and preaches wherever he goes is that Jews must stop trying to defend
themselves against violent anti-Semites and that instead "progressive
Jews" such as himself should see to it that Israel is destroyed. The only
real lesson that Ellis wishes the world to learn from the Holocaust is
that Israelis are now behaving like the Nazis who murdered six million of
their forbears and that Jews who assist the Palestinian violence in
achieving its aims are ethically equivalent to the .good Germans. who
rescued Jews in World War II from the Gestapo.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
8/23/2009 04:42:00 PM
Sunday, August 23, 2009
It is Time to Boycott Ben Gurion University to Save it!
Just when it seems that there is no expression of academic treason that
Israel has not seen and that Ben Gurion University has not defended as
"pursuing peace and justice," along comes Neve Gordon, the head of Ben
Gurion University's politics department, and issues a call in the Los
Angeles Times for a world boycott of Israel. He says it is in order to
save Israel. And a growing movement among Jews who do NOT hate themselves
is organizing to boycott Ben Gurion University in response.
You know, to save it from itself!
Here is the Haaretz report:
According to Israel's Haaretz, Aug. 23 2009, a large group of Los Angeles
Jews are launching a campaign to boycott Ben Gurion University for as long
as Gordon works there:
Members of the Los Angeles Jewish community have threatened to withhold
donations to an Israeli university in protest of an op-ed published by a
prominent Israeli academic in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, in which he
called to boycott Israel economically, culturally and politically. In the
wake of the publication of the article, Israel's Consul-General in Los
Angeles, Yaakov (Yaki) Dayan sent a letter to the president of Ben-Gurion
University, Prof. Rivka Carmi, in which he said that such statements may
be detrimental to the university.
"Since the article was published I've been contacted by people who care
for Israel; some of them are benefactors of Ben-Gurion University," Dayan
wrote. "They were unanimous in threatening to withhold their donations to
your institution. My attempt to explain that one bad apple would affect
hundreds of researchers turned out to be futile."
"I believe that the definitive answer to anti-Zionist lecturers like
Gordon is to set up a center for Zionist studies, which unfortunately does
not exist in Israeli academia," he continued. "This center would help
dispel the lies disseminated by Gordon in the name of your university."
Gordon is one of Israel's most openly anti-Smeitic and anti-Israel
academic extremists. He surpasses Ilan Pappe in some ways. Much of his
"academic" career has consisted of turning out anti-Israel hate propaganda
and passing it off as scholarly research. He is so extreme that his
articles are covered by Holocaust Deniers, by the main Iranian newspaper,
and by Neo-Nazi web sites all over the world. Ben Gurion University's
President, Rivka Carmi, has repeatedly supported Gordon and defended his
behavior, endorsing not only his right to say treasonous things but also
has endorsed the contents of what he says. Carmi celebrates Gordon as a
"serious cholar of human rights." Sure he is.
Gordon served as a "human shield" for wanted terrorists and murderers
being hidden by Yassir Arafat. He has spent much of time in recent years
promoting and supporting Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelstein, who was fired by
DePaul University for his own lack of serious academic work. At DePaul
University, anti-Israel hate propaganda does not count as scholarship, but
at Ben Gurion University it does! He is a leftist Neo-Fascist who opposes
freedom of speech for those with whom he disagrees and has attempted to
use the Israeli court system to suppress democracy and freedom of speech
through a SLAPP harassment. He has repeatedly called for Israel to be
elimiated altogether. Gordon's campaign for the anniliation of Israel is
being carried out while Gordon sits in a cushy academic job paid for by
the Israeli taxpayer.
To tell the heads of Ben Gurion University what you think of all this,
write to Rivka Carmi, President
P.O. Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel,
Prof. Jimmy Weinblatt, Rector
P.O. Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel
Other officers listed here: http://cmsprod.bgu.ac.il/Eng/Units/management/
University "Friends of" Offices outside Israel are listed here:
Here is Gordon's "Let's Destroy Israel" piece in full:
Boycott Israel: An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the
only way to save his country.
By Neve Gordon
August 20, 2009
Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the
push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn
from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world
for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a
celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics
produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the
kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in
South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis -- even peaceniks -- aren't signing on. A
global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also
brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its
egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory
position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.
It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on
foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements,
faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with
Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am
convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.
I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of
crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to
raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace
camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state.
For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan
Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews
and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5
million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas
Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same
area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The
Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights.
By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied
territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.
The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen,
is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my
Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime.
There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.
The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all
Palestinians and thus establishing a bi-national democracy within the
entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would
amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews,
it is anathema.
The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state
solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with
possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a
recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that
only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be
allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new
Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because
Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the
ground," the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a
Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than
1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.
For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter
the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date
the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently
this is not something they want.
So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then
how does one achieve this goal?
I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last
three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have
dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has
led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't
citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually
dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are
moving more and more to the extreme right.
It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid
trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and
condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have
yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to
withdraw from the occupied territories.
I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005
and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective
is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law
and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.
In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organizations from all over the
world formulated the 10-point Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign
meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is
sensitive to context and capacity." For example, the effort begins with
sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied
territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and
reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists
who come to Israel in order to draw attention to the occupation are
welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.
Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel
is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and
Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
8/18/2009 08:19:00 PM
Subject: Fast Thoughts of the day
1. Isn't there something wrong when the President of the United states spends
every waking hour of the day worrying about some Jews who want to build homes,
but nary a moment of the day worrying about Iranians who want to build nukes?
2. A survey in the US just found that 85% of the dollar bills in circulation
contain trace amounts of cocaine. A second survey found that 100% of the
copies of Tikkun Magazine in the country contain traces of cocaine.
3. Does anyone know the name of the dog that ate the rabbinic smicha
(ordination) of Michael Lerner?
Friday, August 14, 2009
8/14/2009 06:43:00 PM
How the British Eliminated the Intifada of 1936-1939
One picture is worth a million words. Such is the photograph above. It
illustrates the method by which the British administration in Palestine
successfully eliminated the first Intifada [Arabic for uprising] during the
The photo shows a British armored railroad wagon behind a railcar on which two
Arab hostages are seated. In this way the British prevented the mining of the
railroad tracks by Arab terrorists. This type of railcar preceding the regular
trains turned the Arabs seated there (generally Mukhtars and notables from
villages along the railway route) into cannon fodder. Should they try to blow
up the trains, they would explode along with their own people and their
HOW THE PHOTO WAS FOUND
This photo was provided by Gadi Talmor, who found it among the effects of his
late father, Chaim Kahanov. His father had served in the Hebrew settlement
police together with a friend named Zecharia Oryon. While on one of their usual
patrols, guarding the fields, they noticed the railcar with the hostages and
Oryon took the photograph with a simple box camera. The photograph lay in a
drawer and when examining his father's effects it was found, scanned, and this
is the result.
600 JEWS KILLED
The first Intifada of the Arabs in the Land of Israel exacted a heavy price
from the Yishuv [name for pre-state Jewish population] – more than 600 killed
and 2,000 wounded in a Yishuv numbering only 400,000. Murderous gangs marauded
then as they do today: broke into settlements, murdered men, women, and
children, set crops on fire, and destroyed workshops. They also attacked
British installations – telephone lines, police stations, railway lines,
bridges, and petroleum pipelines. For a time they controlled the entire
mountain area of Judea and Samaria and the British did not dare to go there.
Finally, the British decided to apply harsh measures. Anyone caught carrying
arms was sentenced to death or a lengthy prison term. About 150 Arab rioters
were hanged. Collective punishment was employed in every village from which
shots were fired (they had no Kassam rockets then). Heavy fines were exacted,
the crops were set alight, and houses destroyed.
Several times the British struck back with cruel retaliatory measures. In
response to the murder of the regional governor's aide by an Arab from Jenin, a
convoy of military vehicles loaded with 24 tons of explosives headed there with
which they blew up a considerable portion of the town.
When the mining of railroad tracks increased, the British seated the village
family-heads living along the rail route in open railcars in front of the
train. In this way any explosion would harm the Arabs first. This method was
also used in vehicle convoys where the British obliged Arab taxis to precede
them and set off any mines.
6000 ARABS KILLED
During the Arab uprising some 2000 Arab homes were destroyed, - 6000 were
killed… another 6000 were arrested. Most of the rebel leaders were killed,
exiled, or fled the country. The economic damage sustained by the Arab
population was enormous – burnt fields, uprooted orchards, a cessation of trade
with the Jewish Yishuv, and severe unemployment.
Desyruction of Jaffa 1938
The biggest retaliation was carried out against the ancient neighborhoods in
Jaffa, which was a nest of vipers from the very start of the riots. On June 18,
1936, warning leaflets were distributed there. Later the residents were removed
from their homes, the area surrounded with barbed wire and engineering units
went in and blew the houses up.
A series of appeals in the courts by the Arabs against the destruction of the
houses were rejected, but the Chief Justice, [Sir Michael F. J.] McDonnell,
censured the destruction of Jaffa, and the Arabs exploited the condemnation in
The response of the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Wauchope, to the Chief
Justice's declaration was harsh. "This declaration has been interpreted by the
Arabs as a direct encouragement in their struggle against the government" – he
reported to London. As a result the British judge was recalled.
Tr. Joseph Schachter
2. The 14 Lies that Prevent Middle East Peace:
3. Dersh on Terrorist Double Standards:
4. Obama Oops: http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35938
Thursday, August 13, 2009
8/13/2009 05:05:00 PM
Obama's Apartheid Plan For Jerusalem
By: Steven Plaut / The Jewish Press
Thursday, August 13, 2009
South Africa comes to Israel at the President's hand.
When Barack Obama was elected president, many around the world saw it as
the culmination of decades of successful efforts by the American civil
rights movement. How ironic, then, that the Obama administration has been
conducting a campaign against Jews who wish to live in certain Jerusalem
The administration has a real problem with Jews seeking to live in two
neighborhoods of Jerusalem, the Sheikh Jarrah section, at the foot of Mount
Scopus, and the Simon the Righteous neighborhood, located close to the
pre-1967 cease-fire lines that once separated Israel from Jordan. The latter is
an area whose Jewish roots go back at least two millennia. It was Jewish
when the Arabs were still moon worshippers and London just a field of mud.
Even worse, the Obama people are promoting an arbitrary, selective
apartheid for Jerusalem directed only against Jews - Arabs, including Arabs from
the West Bank, who do not hold Israeli citizenship should be free to live in
any predominantly Jewish n_eighborhood in Jerusalem (as well as in Jewish
neighborhoods in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Beersheva and elsewhere).
During World War II, Hitler's main agent for recruiting Muslims to the
Nazi banner was Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. A
terrorist leader, he fled Jerusalem when the British attempted to arrest him
and spent part of the war as the guest of honor of the Nazis.
The Mufti had owned some property in what is now the East Jerusalem
neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. That property was legally purchased by American
businessman Irving Moskowitz_
(http://www.moskowitzfoundation.org/favicon.ico) , who has owned the property for 20 years now and has a permit to
construct an apartment building there in place of the current structure on the
site, the Shepherd's Hotel.
The Obama administration is claiming that since the property once belonged
to the Grand Mufti and is now in a predominantly Arab neighborhood in East
Jerusalem, Israel should freeze and halt all Jewish building there.
Evidently, under Obama's new affirmative apartheid policy for Jerusalem, only
Arabs should be permitted to build in East Jerusalem.
Now, Obama happens to lives not far from Arlington Cemetery, which sits
on land confiscated from Confederate General Robert E. Lee during the Civil
War. Israel has at least as much right to use the property taken from the
Grand Mufti as the U.S. has to fill up Gen. Lee's plantation with graves.
The idea that Israel should prevent Jews from building in East Jerusalem
because Palestinians claim some sort of right to it is as absurd as
suggesting that all construction in the District of Columbia be frozen because the
British once claimed rights over it.
Obama's people are also up in arms because Israel removed some illegal
Arab squatters from land they did not own in Jerusalem's _Simon the Righteous
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879090351&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer) . This was a Jewish neighborhood until the
Jordanians conquered it and evicted all the Jews there in an act of ethnic
cleansing. The Israeli Supreme Court _has repeatedly ruled_
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132338) that the land in question belongs
legally to Jews.
The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 called for the creation of a
Jewish state and an Arab state alongside it. The Arab state never arose
because the land that had been set aside for it was gobbled up by the Arab
countries that sent their armies to annihilate the Jews.
The UN partition granted Jerusalem's Mount Scopus, with its hospital and
university facilities, to Israel. Access by Jews to the area was
supposed to be free and unfettered. But Arab terrorist militias placed Mount
Scopus under siege and attacked any vehicle trying to reach it. The _Mufti
(http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Hadassah_convoy_Massacre.htm) the massacre that followed.
On April 13, 1948, a large convoy consisting mainly of Jewish doctors and
nurses tried to reach the hospital on Mount Scopus. It was attacked in
Sheikh Jarrah at the mount's foothills. The Jewish vehicles were hit by mines
and strafed by gunfire and other weapons.
Some 79 Jews and a British soldier were murdered by the terrorists of
Sheikh Jarrah. The bodies were so badly burned that most of them could not be
identified. The victims included the head of Hadassah hospital and the head
of its medical school.
In recent years, Arab-occupied Sheikh Jarrah has again been the frequent
scene of terrorism and violence against Jews. During the recent Gaza
campaign, Arab thugs attacks Jews driving or walking near Mount Scopus.
Obama is concerned about the potential for unrest and violence if Jews
move to the property they own in Sheikh Jarrah and other Arab neighborhoods in
Jerusalem. But of course he would never propose removing the Arab
residents of those areas in order to restore tranquility. His Klan Plan consists
only of preventing Jews from moving in and ruining the neighborhood.
Jews have exactly as much right to Sheikh Jarrah as the U.S. government
had to the Lee Plantation that became Arlington Cemetery. And the rights in
both cases were won in exactly the same way - through bloodshed.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
8/12/2009 02:28:00 PM
The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle East
By: Steven Plaut
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Israel's enemies around the world have poisoned the debate with their smoke and
If a Martian were suddenly to land on earth and started listening to and
reading the mainstream media, he would form the impression that the entire
Middle East conflict were due to Israel building some settlements in land that
much of the world thinks should become a Palestinian state. A near-consensus
exists among the governments of the world and among media writers that peace
has yet to break out in the Middle East because of three principle reasons. The
first is that the Jews and the Arabs have been unable to agree about whether
there should be a Palestinian state. The second is because Israel has
obstinately refused to withdraw its troops from (so-called) "occupied Arab"
lands. The third is because Israel behaves cruelly towards the Palestinians.
The Martian could easily carry these beliefs back to its home planet, as long
as it did not bother to learn the background and the history of the Middle East
conflict. Those three reasons cannot survive an antibiotic of familiarity with
Middle East history.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the
idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since
the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the
Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West
Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the
Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian
statehood and even less to do with Israeli "settlements." In fact Israel has
agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian
state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from
the Palestinians -- like recognizing Israel's right to exist. As it turns out,
even so-called "moderate" Palestinians reject any such idea.
Meanwhile debate about the Middle East conflict is based on an incredible
absence of historic information and on a series of stylish misconceptions about
Middle East history. The anti-Israel Lobby, which grows by the day in its
maliciousness and anti-Semitism, counts on the ignorance of much of the public
concerning how the Middle East got to where it is.
Here are just a handful of popular misconceptions and their antidotes:
1. Falsehood: Israel was erected on land that belonged to Palestinian Arabs.
Truth: Before Israel was created its territory never belonged to Palestinian
Arabs and had not been ruled by any Arabs at all since the Middle Ages. It had
been a Turkish province for centuries until it was captured by Britain during
World War I. The League of Nations awarded governance of "Palestine" to Britain
at the end of the war in exchange for its commitment to turn the area into a
Jewish homeland. The lands on which Jewish immigrants settled before Israel was
created were purchased by Jews at above-market prices and in most cases had no
Arabs living on them. Virtually no Arabs were evicted.
2. Falsehood: The Jews came to Palestine as foreigners and aliens whereas the
Palestinians were the indigenous people of the territory.
Truth: Jews lived in "Palestine," which is the Land of Israel of Eretz
Yisroel," continuously from the time of the Bible. Most families of
"Palestinians" migrated into "Palestine," during the same period as the Zionist
waves of immigration, starting in the second half of the 19th century. The
largest ethnic group in the country at the time was the Turks. The "Palestinian
Arabs" in 1948 were primarily families of migrants from Lebanon and Syria.
Ironically, they were motivated to become "Palestinians" in the first place
thanks to the Zionist movement, which brought capital and labor into
"Palestine" and improved living conditions there. Huge numbers of the names of
"Palestinian" Arab villages and towns are slightly-modified Hebrew names. It is
difficult to dig in the ground of "Palestine" without uncovering Jewish
artifacts, some thousands of years old. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mandatory
Palestine's territory had been sliced off in the 1920s and used to set up
Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel. The remaining
territory, Western Palestine, was to become the Jewish homeland. That was the
original "two-state solution," and it was later denounced by Arab regimes.
3. Falsehood: There is no Palestinian state today because of Israeli aggression
Truth: There is no Palestinian state today because of Arab aggression and
obstinacy. In late 1947, the United Nations approved by a two thirds majority a
proposal to create in historic "Palestine" two states to replace the British
Mandatory regime there. One would be Jewish and the other a Palestinian Arab
state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs rejected the idea. The Arab states launched
an attack of genocide aggression against the Jews, invaded "Palestine" and
gobbled up the lands earmarked for the Arab Palestinian state. Most of those
lands were then held illegally by Jordan and semi-legally by Egypt until 1967
when they were liberated by Israel in the Six Day War. The Arab world has
maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948, refusing to recognize its
legitimacy, and attacking Israel over and over in a series of wars and
terrorism campaigns. The Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973,
1982, 1986, and sponsored terrorist atrocities against Jews in Israel since it
was created. The attack which produced the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 is
exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace settlement
4. Falsehood: Israel conducted "ethnic cleansing" of the Palestinian Arabs in
Truth: The Arab states conducted ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948. About a
million Jews were expelled by Arab states, their property stolen, and most then
became citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948-49 as a
direct result of the Arab war of aggression against Israel, in which the
Palestinians participated. The estimated number of such Arab refugees varies
between 400,000 and 750,000, with the former the more likely correct estimate.
Afterwards, many were quietly allowed to return to Israel. Hundreds of
thousands of Arabs from other Arab countries then declared themselves
"Palestinian refugees" in order to get handouts from the UN and other
international relief organizations. The actual Palestinian Arabs became
refugees for the same reason that ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe
became refugees after World War II: because they were on the losing side of the
war of aggression launched by their own political leaders.
5. Falsehood: Israel is an apartheid regime and mistreats Arabs.
Truth: Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime.
Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy
freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due
process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli
Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of
Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated
political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than
are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in
the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale
massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate
6. Falsehood: Arabs engage in aggression and terrorism because Israel occupies
Truth: Israel occupies territories (that had been controlled by Jordan and
Egypt before 1967) because of Arab aggression and terrorism. Had the Arabs made
peace with Israel after 1949, the West Bank and Gaza would have remained under
the hegemony of Arabs and they could easily have erected a Palestinian Arab
state there any time they wished. Instead, they attacked Israel in an attempt
at genocidal extermination in 1967 and they lost.
7. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Israeli
opposition to Palestinian self-determination.
Truth: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Arab
opposition to Israeli-Jewish self-determination. There is one and only one
cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath
an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause
is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel's existence
within any set of borders whatsoever. The cause of the war is Arab refusal to
come to terms with Jewish self-determination in any form whatsoever. The Middle
East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of "Palestinian
Arabs," but rather it is about the Arab rejection of self-determination for
Israeli Jews. For a century, the Arabs have attempted to block Jewish
self-determination, using violence.
No Palestinians before 1967 demanded any "homeland," although they did demand
that the Jews be stripped of theirs. That is because Palestinians are not a
"people" at all and do not consider themselves such, any more than do the Arabs
of Paris or of Detroit. Palestinians never had any real interest in their own
state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when "Palestine" was detached from
Syria by the European powers. Indeed the original term "Nakba" ("catastrophe"
in Arabic and in leftist NewSpeak) was coined to refer to the outrage of
Palestinians separated from their Syrian homeland. Immediately after the Six
Day War a sudden need for a Palestinian state was fabricated by the Arab world,
as a gimmick to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Israel would then
again be ten-miles wide at its narrowest, and so prepped for the new Arab
assault of annihilation and genocide.
The Arab world invented the "Palestinian people" so that it would serve the
same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to
provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large
fascist power. The term "self-determination" has been repeated as a rhetorical
"inalienable right" for so long that few people recall that pursuing
"self-determination" can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous
aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of
conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of
legitimacy, merely "helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain
self-determination." He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the
Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of
mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option
of "self-determination" within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states,
and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside
Germany. Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured
indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany's neighbors. Hitler
insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the "misery of mistreated ethnic
Germans," supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia.
"Self-determination" was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and
The Arab world decided that the "Palestinians" must play the role of Sudetens,
serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and
Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as
pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of
Arabs in need of "self-determination."
8. Falsehood: Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza, and as a response to Israeli settlements there.
Truth: Palestinian terrorism against Jews began in the 1920s, escalated in the
1930s, continued non-stop in the 1940s even in the midst of World War II, and
reached heights of barbarism in the 1950s. All this was long before Israel
"occupied" anything. The PLO was set up long before the Six Day War, meaning
before Israel "occupied" the West Bank and Gaza, and before those areas held a
single Israeli settlement.
9. Falsehood: Israel has no right to build settlements in the West Bank.
Truth: Israel has as much right to build settlements in the West Bank as
France has to build towns in Alsace and Lorraine, or as Poland has to build in
areas that once held ethnic Germans. The Arabs launched a series of wars of
aggression against Israel and lost. Aggressors who lose war also lose
territory. The bulk of Jewish "settlers" are actually Israelis living in the
suburbs of Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967. A handful of small rural
"settlements" have been constructed in empty West Bank lands from which no Arab
civilians were evicted. In any real peace settlement, Jews would have as much
right to live in the West Bank as Arabs have to live inside Israel. A peace
accord that rules out such an arrangement would be no peace accord at all.
10. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict continues because Israel refuses to
share its land and resources with Palestinians.
Truth: The Middle East conflict continues because the Arab world refuses to
share its land and resources with Jews. It is about the absolute refusal of the
Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political
entity within any set of borders in the Middle East. The Arabs today control 22
countries and territory nearly twice the size of the United States (including
Alaska), whereas Israel cannot be seen on most globes or maps. Arabs as an
ethnic group control more territory than any other ethnic group on earth. They
refuse to share even a fraction of one percent of the Middle East with the
Jews, even in a territory smaller than New Jersey. Without the West Bank,
Israel at its narrowest point is less than 10 miles wide, about the length of
the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The main reason the Arab world demands that Israel
relinquish the West Bank to Palestinian terrorism is so that it can be used to
attack Israel again and so that Israel can at last be militarily annihilated.
The Arab world controls such vast amounts of territory and such vast amounts of
wealth (thanks to petroleum) that it could have created a "homeland" for
Palestinian Arabs anywhere within its territories at any time.
11. Falsehood: Israel deals with Palestinian violence and terrorism using
excessive disproportionate force.
Truth: The number of innocent Palestinian civilians intentionally killed by
Israel is exactly zero. The number of civilians injured in Israeli anti-terror
operations is tiny when compared with NATO and Allied military operations in
Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Given the near universal support among
Palestinians for terrorist atrocities against Jews, the self-restraint and
moderation used by Israel in dealing with the threat has no precedent in the
world. Israel's own Arabs make little attempt to hide their open identification
with the genocidal enemies of their own country and they by and large support
the annihilation of the state in which they hold citizenship. No other
democratic country facing such open sedition and identification with the enemy
in time of war ever responded with anywhere near the same restraint as shown by
Israel. In World War II, when faced with a far less-dangerous problem, the
United States locked up its ethnic-Japanese domestic population in internment
camps. Democratic Spain set up teams of death squads to deal with its
separatist terrorists. Democracies in war have junked habeas corpus and treated
their internal Fifth Columns as the enemy, with no hesitation or squeamishness.
Democratic Czechoslovakia and India (as well as non-democratic countries
throughout Eastern Europe) undertook wholesale expulsions of millions of
members of their internal ethnic minorities who had sided with the enemy.
Greece and Turkey and the two sections of Cyprus simply expelled altogether
their minority populations. Israel, in contrast, operates affirmative action
programs that benefit Arabs, finances Arabic-language schools in which Israeli
Arabs preserve and develop their culture, overfunds Arab municipalities, and
turns a blind eye to massive Arab sedition and lawbreaking, including with
regard to illegal mass squatting on publicly-owned lands. Israel is a Western
democracy with a Scandinavian style social welfare system, the only democracy
in the Middle East. It is hard to come up with words to mock satisfactorily the
ludicrous nature of the complaints about Israeli "mistreatment" of Arabs. These
complaints come from the very same people who are apologists for genocidal
Islamofascist terrorist movements and for the Arab fascist states, regimes that
are among the most barbarous and openly war-seeking on earth. The endless
complaints about "human rights violations" of the "Palestinians" by Israel are
a rhetorical part of the broader campaign of aggression against Israeli
survival. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the world's foremost illustration
of "Moynihan's Law," which holds: "The amount of violations of human rights in
a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human
rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being
aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
12. Falsehood: Israel can achieve peace by trading "Land for Peace" and by
relinquishing territories that it "occupies."
Truth: Every time Israel relinquishes territory it "occupies" it triggers an
escalation of terror and violence by Arabs against Jews. The main cause of
anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Arabs.
This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so
few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its
entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The complete
Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip produced a barrage of thousands of
rockets aimed at Israeli civilians inside Israel (NOT in the "occupied
territories"), a barrage that eventually forced Israel's reluctant leaders to
carry out the "Cast Lead" operation against Gaza terrorism. The Israeli
occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by
then-Israeli socialist Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that
fiasco was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against
northern Israel in the summer of 2006, and several times that number now poised
to strike Israel. The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly
triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals — before which there had been no
suicide bombings. There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from
the West Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders would trigger a massive rocket
and terror assault against the remaining areas of Israel, launched from the
"liberated" lands in the West Bank. The same thing would result from Israel
relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria.
13. Falsehood: The Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates
policies to the United States, protecting Israel from just criticism.
Falsehood: The anti-Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates
policies to the United States, protecting Palestinians, Arab fascist regimes,
and Islamofascism from just criticism. While the media overflow with
nonsensical talk about a "Zionist/Israel Lobby," it would only be a small
exaggeration to claim that there is no such thing at all. The anti-Zionist
lobby binds together anti-Semites and fanatics, ranging from Islamists, to the
radical Left to the Neo-Nazi Right. There is little today that separates
anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism and I have never met an anti-Zionist who was
not also an anti-Semite. (Jewish leftist anti-Zionists are the self-hating
moral equivalents of Taliban John and Tokyo Rose).
14. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict can be resolved through "Two States
for Two Peoples."
Truth: The "Two States for Two Peoples" idea is not a solution at all but
simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible
borders. Right after "Two States for Two Peoples" would be implemented, the new
"Palestinian state" would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what
remains of Israel. Even the "moderates" within the PLO insist that any "Israel"
left standing within "Two States for Two Peoples" must be flooded by Arab
migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet
another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any "two-state
solution" on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting
to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24th Arab
state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and
mortar fire from "Palestine" and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into
Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.
That such a "two-state solution" will not end the conflict, but only signal the
commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of
virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state
solution is but a stage in a "plan of stages," after which will come additional
steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The "two-state
solution" is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was
militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is
ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle
East today as the so-called "one-state solution," favored by the anti-Semitic
Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity
controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a
Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step in the
escalation of the Arab war against Israel's existence, even if that war is
delayed for a brief time while the world celebrates the outbreak of a Potemkin
"peace" in the Middle East produced by the end of Israeli "occupation" of
Since the Oslo "peace process" began in the early 1990s, the working hypothesis
endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet (including large numbers of
IQ-challenged Israeli politicians) has been that the most urgent task at hand
is to end the Israeli "occupation" of Palestinian Arabs. The problem is that
ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce nothing but
escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, certainly not
stability or peaceful relations. It will seek war with the rump Israel, and
will seek to draw the entire Moslem world into that war. It will be indifferent
to the economic and social problems of its own citizens.
Humans seem to have a basic impatience with hearing the truth repeated over
long periods of time. In an era in which technology, politics, and science
change so rapidly, many consider it to be implausible that a statement that had
been true 60 years ago could still be true today. Surely, they insist,
explanations from the past, such as those of the Middle East conflict, must be
obsolete by now, replaced with new updated "theories" and more-modern
perceptions of reality.
The result of all this is pseudo-history, where people invent new "theories"
about some of the most widely-accepted truths of history. No subject has been
subject to quite so much pseudo-historic revisionism and denial of "out-of
date" truths as the Middle East. George Orwell once said that the first duty of
intelligent men is to restate the obvious. Obvious truths need to be restated
because they are under assault by so many dishonest men.
The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a right to set up their own state,
and creation of such a state would result in escalated warfare and bloodshed,
not peace. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. Even if such a
right ever existed, the Palestinians – like the Sudeten Germans - would have
forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and
barbarism. Their pacification today requires reimposing of martial rule by
Israel and a thorough program of De-nazification.
The promotion of a "Two States for Two Peoples" solution has radicalized and
Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab
parties and politicians openly calling for violence against Jews and for the
destruction of Israel. The "solution" is a recipe for more bloodshed and
2. Pacifists for the Annihilation of Israel:
3. Ben Gurion University's David Newman has some little problems with spelling
and with Zionism:
4. Tel Aviv University professor Rachel Giora (linguistics) leads campaign to
get Madonna to boycott Israel: