Harvard Endorses Israel's Destruction

On March 3-4, Harvard University is hosting a conference sponsored by its Kennedy School of Government entitled “One State Conference: Israel/Palestine and the One State Solution.” Its explicit goal is to discuss methods of achieving the the destruction of Israel.

According to the “Vision and Goals” of the conference, as outlined by its website:

“To date, the only Israel/Palestine solution that has received a fair rehearsal in mainstream forums has been the two-state solution. Our conference will help to expand the range of academic debate on this issue. Thus, our main goal is to educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization.”

When you who's speaking and who's not,what the conference is about becomes painfully obvious.

The Harvard student groups involved include student groups including, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Palestine Caucus, the Arab Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Association for Justice in the Middle East, and members of the radical Jewish Voice for Peace. Speakers will include Ali Abunimah, the Executive Director of the Electronic Intifada; Dalit Baum, of the BDS organization Coalition of Women for Peace; Ilan Pappe, a radical left Israeli academic who makes a nice living lecturing in Europe about how evil the country he was born in is and whose main claims to fame were fabricating the story of a 'massacre' at a place called Tantura that was proven in court never to have occurred and popularizing a phony quotation to make it seem like Israel leader David Ben -Gurion endorsed the expulsion of Israel's Arabs ; Marc Ellis, Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, who makes a fetish out of equating Zionism with old fashioned colonialism and Israel’s treatment of the 'Palestinians' to the Nazi treatment of Jews and is now desperately trying to avoid being fired; and Hamas apologist Diana Buttu.

And of course,as a main attraction, there's the Kennedy School's own Stephen Walt, co-author of the factually challenged anti-semitic trophe The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. When he's not busily engaged in poisoning the minds of America's future foreign policy establishment, Professor Walt writes putrid little pieces for Foreign Policy shilling for Mein Kampf, which echoes his own book in repeating the dark fairy tales of a Jewish Fifth Column and fantasizing about a second Holocaust. He'll go over huge, I'm sure.

All of these individuals and groups have something in common. They all see Israel as an “apartheid state,” guilty of the “ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population.” And they all want a final solution in which Israel disappears by any means necessary as quickly as possible. And yes, the last sentence is exactly what I meant, because to these people a 'one state solution' means the murder and ethnic cleansing of Israel's Jews, nothing less.

Nor is this going to be just a bunch of speakers. This is being billed as an 'activist' conference, as opposed to one with an academic or research framework. It's rife with a number of how-to workshops on deligitimizing Israel. And needless to say, not a single pro-Israel voice is going to be heard.

And make no mistake..Harvard is totally behind this. The Kennedy School's logo appears on the conference website, Harvard is providing the premises and the university is admitting that this hatefest is being at least partially underwritten by “modest” funds set aside for student activities. Yet, when he was pressed, Kennedy School Dean David T. Ellwood actually had the temerity to release this statement, saying:

I want to emphasize once again that Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School in no way endorses or supports the apparent position of these student organizers or any participants they include. We hope that the final shape of the conference will be significantly more balanced.

No, they're not endorsing it or supporting it - all they're doing is allowing it to use university property, letting the organizers use the Kennedy School logo and helping fund it!

Melodie Jackson, Associate Dean for Communications was at least a bit more honest: “Generally administrators try to be supportive of student ideas for events that they are planning.”

Really, Ms. Jackson? That's wonderful news. So if a Harvard student group wanted to present a conference using Harvard facilities on Islamist terrorism featuring David Horowitz, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Ayann Hirsh Ali and Walid Shoebat the university would fund and support it and allow it to use Harvard's facilities?

Yes, we both no better than that. Especially given the enormous amount of money the Saudis pump into Harvard and other universities to make sure nothing like that ever happens. It's called prostitution when private entrepreneurs engage in it.

As the CAMERA link above mentions, according to the working definition of anti-Semitism developed by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), and recognized by the United States Department of State, the One State Conference Harvard is funding and hosting is implicitly “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” and thus actively disseminating anti-Semitism.

That also explicitly applies to another part of the working definition, “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”, which is something every member of this charming group has done on many occasions and is almost certain to do when being cheered on by the sort of people this conference is going to attract.

And Harvard is complicit in it, thus returning to an old Harvard tradition that dates back to the 1930's, when many of the faculty members at Harvard were openly anti-Semitic, including Harvard’s president James Bryant Conant, who was the force behind quotas to keep Jews out of the university, law school Dean Roscoe Pound, an outspoken Nazi sympathizer who attended Nazi rallies in Germany during his vacations, and Harvard history professor, America Firster and Nazi apologist William L. Langer.

Harvard didn't stop with mere quotas and openly expressed anti-Semitic sympathies. The University went one better when they invited Nazi official Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaungl, one of Hitler's top aides as the Harvard commencement speaker in 1934. When Jews in Boston protested, President Conant had them arrested for “illegally displaying signs.”

So this is a real back to the future moment for Harvard, which is, after all, a private university that has every right to promote Jew hatred if it wants to.

But they can't have it both ways and deny that Harvard is doing so. Because that's exactly what Harvard's doing. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

It's morally disgusting and a comment on the times we live that a university with the motto 'veritas' (truth) would be so eager to embrace falsehood, lies and bigotry.

Harvard Endorses Israel's Destruction

On March 3-4, Harvard University is hosting a conference sponsored by its Kennedy School of Government entitled “One State Conference: Israel/Palestine and the One State Solution.” Its explicit goal is to discuss methods of achieving the the destruction of Israel.

According to the “Vision and Goals” of the conference, as outlined by its website:

“To date, the only Israel/Palestine solution that has received a fair rehearsal in mainstream forums has been the two-state solution. Our conference will help to expand the range of academic debate on this issue. Thus, our main goal is to educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization.”

When you who's speaking and who's not,what the conference is about becomes painfully obvious.

The Harvard student groups involved include student groups including, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Palestine Caucus, the Arab Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Association for Justice in the Middle East, and members of the radical Jewish Voice for Peace. Speakers will include Ali Abunimah, the Executive Director of the Electronic Intifada; Dalit Baum, of the BDS organization Coalition of Women for Peace; Ilan Pappe, a radical left Israeli academic who makes a nice living lecturing in Europe about how evil the country he was born in is and whose main claims to fame were fabricating the story of a 'massacre' at a place called Tantura that was proven in court never to have occurred and popularizing a phony quotation to make it seem like Israel leader David Ben -Gurion endorsed the expulsion of Israel's Arabs ; Marc Ellis, Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, who makes a fetish out of equating Zionism with old fashioned colonialism and Israel’s treatment of the 'Palestinians' to the Nazi treatment of Jews and is now desperately trying to avoid being fired; and Hamas apologist Diana Buttu.

And of course,as a main attraction, there's the Kennedy School's own Stephen Walt, co-author of the factually challenged anti-semitic trophe The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. When he's not busily engaged in poisoning the minds of America's future foreign policy establishment, Professor Walt writes putrid little pieces for Foreign Policy shilling for Mein Kampf, which echoes his own book in repeating the dark fairy tales of a Jewish Fifth Column and fantasizing about a second Holocaust. He'll go over huge, I'm sure.

All of these individuals and groups have something in common. They all see Israel as an “apartheid state,” guilty of the “ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population.” And they all want a final solution in which Israel disappears by any means necessary as quickly as possible. And yes, the last sentence is exactly what I meant, because to these people a 'one state solution' means the murder and ethnic cleansing of Israel's Jews, nothing less.

Nor is this going to be just a bunch of speakers. This is being billed as an 'activist' conference, as opposed to one with an academic or research framework. It's rife with a number of how-to workshops on deligitimizing Israel. And needless to say, not a single pro-Israel voice is going to be heard.

And make no mistake..Harvard is totally behind this. The Kennedy School's logo appears on the conference website, Harvard is providing the premises and the university is admitting that this hatefest is being at least partially underwritten by “modest” funds set aside for student activities. Yet, when he was pressed, Kennedy School Dean David T. Ellwood actually had the temerity to release this statement, saying:

I want to emphasize once again that Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School in no way endorses or supports the apparent position of these student organizers or any participants they include. We hope that the final shape of the conference will be significantly more balanced.

No, they're not endorsing it or supporting it - all they're doing is allowing it to use university property, letting the organizers use the Kennedy School logo and helping fund it!

Melodie Jackson, Associate Dean for Communications was at least a bit more honest: “Generally administrators try to be supportive of student ideas for events that they are planning.”

Really, Ms. Jackson? That's wonderful news. So if a Harvard student group wanted to present a conference using Harvard facilities on Islamist terrorism featuring David Horowitz, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Ayann Hirsh Ali and Walid Shoebat the university would fund and support it and allow it to use Harvard's facilities?

Yes, we both no better than that. Especially given the enormous amount of money the Saudis pump into Harvard and other universities to make sure nothing like that ever happens. It's called prostitution when private entrepreneurs engage in it.

As the CAMERA link above mentions, according to the working definition of anti-Semitism developed by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), and recognized by the United States Department of State, the One State Conference Harvard is funding and hosting is implicitly “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” and thus actively disseminating anti-Semitism.

That also explicitly applies to another part of the working definition, “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”, which is something every member of this charming group has done on many occasions and is almost certain to do when being cheered on by the sort of people this conference is going to attract.

And Harvard is complicit in it, thus returning to an old Harvard tradition that dates back to the 1930's, when many of the faculty members at Harvard were openly anti-Semitic, including Harvard’s president James Bryant Conant, who was the force behind quotas to keep Jews out of the university, law school Dean Roscoe Pound, an outspoken Nazi sympathizer who attended Nazi rallies in Germany during his vacations, and Harvard history professor, America Firster and Nazi apologist William L. Langer.

Harvard didn't stop with mere quotas and openly expressed anti-Semitic sympathies. The University went one better when they invited Nazi official Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaungl, one of Hitler's top aides as the Harvard commencement speaker in 1934. When Jews in Boston protested, President Conant had them arrested for “illegally displaying signs.”

So this is a real back to the future moment for Harvard, which is, after all, a private university that has every right to promote Jew hatred if it wants to.

But they can't have it both ways and deny that Harvard is doing so. Because that's exactly what Harvard's doing. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

It's morally disgusting and a comment on the times we live that a university with the motto 'veritas' (truth) would be so eager to embrace falsehood, lies and bigotry.

Muslim States At UN Slam Gays For 'Abnormal Sexual Behaviour', Boycott Panel On Anti-Gay Violence

A Pakistani spokesman for the Muslim bloc in the UN caused a furor today by announcing to the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states (essentially, the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation plus 'Palestine') would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

The site UN Watch has the statement in full posted on its site.

The letter, written by Pakistan’s envoy Zamir Akram on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's 56 members plus the Palestinian Authority was sent, believe it or not, on Valentine’s Day to UN Human Rights Council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

Who says Muslims don't have a sense of humor?

The OIC declared its " unequivocal opposition" to the upcoming March 7th panel discussion on a new UN report on discriminatory laws and practices and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity...which primarily occur guess where?

The OIC said it will “will not accept its considerations and recommendations.”

The OIC letter also said the panel on anti-gay violence addresses “controversial notions” that have “no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument,” “misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and would “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework,” and “ shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.”

By 'shifting the focus', they mean talking about anything but Jews and Israel, of course.

It's fascinating to me - well, perhaps sickening is a better word- the way the Left in the west makes common cause with countries that actively repress women and homosexuals while at the same time making a fetish about the 'Palestinians' and 'anti-Zionism' to demonize the small country of Israel, which does neither. It's also interesting that the so-called humanitarians at the UN don't simply kick them out no matter how many times they violate the UN Charter.

This is anecdotal, but none the less true. There are a number of homosexual Arabs in Tel Aviv and elsewhere who are essentially illegal aliens who fled to Israel from the 'Palestinian Authority' and Gaza to avoid being executed. The Shin Bet and the police have a list and know exactly whom they are but deliberately do not deport them as long as they live out their lives quietly...because they know that to do so would be the equivalent of a death sentence.

All men may be equal, but all cultures aren't.

Muslim States At UN Slam Gays For 'Abnormal Sexual Behaviour', Boycott Panel On Anti-Gay Violence

A Pakistani spokesman for the Muslim bloc in the UN caused a furor today by announcing to the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states (essentially, the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation plus 'Palestine') would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

The site UN Watch has the statement in full posted on its site.

The letter, written by Pakistan’s envoy Zamir Akram on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's 56 members plus the Palestinian Authority was sent, believe it or not, on Valentine’s Day to UN Human Rights Council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

Who says Muslims don't have a sense of humor?

The OIC declared its " unequivocal opposition" to the upcoming March 7th panel discussion on a new UN report on discriminatory laws and practices and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity...which primarily occur guess where?

The OIC said it will “will not accept its considerations and recommendations.”

The OIC letter also said the panel on anti-gay violence addresses “controversial notions” that have “no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument,” “misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and would “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework,” and “ shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.”

By 'shifting the focus', they mean talking about anything but Jews and Israel, of course.

It's fascinating to me - well, perhaps sickening is a better word- the way the Left in the west makes common cause with countries that actively repress women and homosexuals while at the same time making a fetish about the 'Palestinians' and 'anti-Zionism' to demonize the small country of Israel, which does neither. It's also interesting that the so-called humanitarians at the UN don't simply kick them out no matter how many times they violate the UN Charter.

This is anecdotal, but none the less true. There are a number of homosexual Arabs in Tel Aviv and elsewhere who are essentially illegal aliens who fled to Israel from the 'Palestinian Authority' and Gaza to avoid being executed. The Shin Bet and the police have a list and know exactly whom they are but deliberately do not deport them as long as they live out their lives quietly...because they know that to do so would be the equivalent of a death sentence.

All men may be equal, but all cultures aren't.

CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau - And Retains Only Arab Reporters

CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.

CNN's usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they're only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It's no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered.

CNN's coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict has been questionable for a very long time, and it's going to get even worse now that it will only be reported from one side's point of view. The fact that this also coincides with the brass at CNN's point of view and their willingness to take steps to ignore even basic journalistic ethics to promote shows how far a once respected news source has fallen.

(hat tip, Jean-Patrick Grumberg at www.Dreuz.info)

CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau - And Retains Only Arab Reporters

CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.

CNN's usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they're only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It's no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered.

CNN's coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict has been questionable for a very long time, and it's going to get even worse now that it will only be reported from one side's point of view. The fact that this also coincides with the brass at CNN's point of view and their willingness to take steps to ignore even basic journalistic ethics to promote shows how far a once respected news source has fallen.

(hat tip, Jean-Patrick Grumberg at www.Dreuz.info)

California Federal Judge Rules Assault On Jewish Students By Muslims Is 'Protected Speech'

No, I'm not kidding.

Over at UC Berkeley, Muslim students and were holding an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” demonstration sanctioned by the university and conducted by the Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine and their assorted leftist allies on campus in 2010.

For anyone who's never been to these little gatherings, they feature anti-Semitic,inflammatory rhetoric as the main course along with street theater like trampling and burning Israeli flags ( which contain a religious symbol, by the way)and simulated 'checkpoints' blocking off essential parts of the campus and forcing students to run a gauntlet of violent and intimidating students to get by.

At the 2010 protest at Berkeley, 20-year-old Jessica Felber and a few other Jewish students in the pro-Israel Tikva group had the courage to confront this mob by mounting a small pro-Israel demonstration in response.

The anti-Israel crowd responded by issuing violent threats against the Jews, culminating in leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine, Husam Zakharia, assaulting Ms. Felber and ramming her from behind with a loaded shopping cart.Ironically, Felber was carrying a sign that read “Israel Wants Peace” when she was assaulted.

Zakaria was later arrested but the local district attorney apparently declined to prosecute him.

In an interview, Felber said Zakharia has been involved with numerous violent incidents involving Jews:

According to her, physical intimidation has frequently been employed as a tool by SJP to silence students opposing their anti-Zionist activities on campus. “SJP students have been terrorizing us for three years with intimidation, accusations and threats. This incident is simply the culmination of it all and we are not going to tolerate it anymore.”

SJP’s tactics backfired on at least one occasion when, in November 2008, the group attempted to disrupt a concert organized by the Zionist Freedom Alliance during “Israel Liberation Week” on the UC Berkeley campus. After striking a ZFA activist in the head, Zakharia found himself beaten to the ground. Following the incident, Zakharia and two fellow SJP members, along with two Zionist activists, were cited for battery but no charges were officially filed.

Felber then decided to file a civil rights action against the University of California at Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials. The complaint stated that Defendants were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other similar incidents on campus against Jewish and other students, but took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.

The complaint charged that the assault was the result of the university having essentially sponsored and encouraged similar incitements by the SJP and the MSA and failing to discipline them for past incidents.

It documented how the university had ignored numerous complaints from students about the poisonous climate on campus and accused the university of tolerating 'the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses' thus violating the civil rights of Ms. Felber and other students to enjoy a peaceful campus environ.

Now, if Ms.Felber had been black and was injured by, say, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or White Aryan Nation during a campus demonstration, you know without even guessing that the Obama Department of Justice would be in this up to their necks and providing DOJ lawyers for her by the busload. Instead, she was forced to hire private counsel.

The case went to trial in Federal Court in Oakland and was heard by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, an Obama appointee.

He dismissed the case out of hand.

He claimed that the harassment constituted 'protected political speech':

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg wrote. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

Now, I always thought that freedom of speech involved talking, not ramming someone from behind with a shopping cart. But apparently the rules are different when it comes to Muslims...and Jews, for that matter.

If attacking someone physically is now protected speech, would that also apply if a bunch of young Jewish men grabbed a few baseball bats and exercised their freedom of speech in breaking up what amounted to a racist assault on their people and their right to self-determination?

Well, your 'Honor'?

I smell the stench of something very old and pungent here...

(hat tip, Louie Louie)

California Federal Judge Rules Assault On Jewish Students By Muslims Is 'Protected Speech'

No, I'm not kidding.

Over at UC Berkeley, Muslim students and were holding an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” demonstration sanctioned by the university and conducted by the Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine and their assorted leftist allies on campus in 2010.

For anyone who's never been to these little gatherings, they feature anti-Semitic,inflammatory rhetoric as the main course along with street theater like trampling and burning Israeli flags ( which contain a religious symbol, by the way)and simulated 'checkpoints' blocking off essential parts of the campus and forcing students to run a gauntlet of violent and intimidating students to get by.

At the 2010 protest at Berkeley, 20-year-old Jessica Felber and a few other Jewish students in the pro-Israel Tikva group had the courage to confront this mob by mounting a small pro-Israel demonstration in response.

The anti-Israel crowd responded by issuing violent threats against the Jews, culminating in leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine, Husam Zakharia, assaulting Ms. Felber and ramming her from behind with a loaded shopping cart.Ironically, Felber was carrying a sign that read “Israel Wants Peace” when she was assaulted.

Zakaria was later arrested but the local district attorney apparently declined to prosecute him.

In an interview, Felber said Zakharia has been involved with numerous violent incidents involving Jews:

According to her, physical intimidation has frequently been employed as a tool by SJP to silence students opposing their anti-Zionist activities on campus. “SJP students have been terrorizing us for three years with intimidation, accusations and threats. This incident is simply the culmination of it all and we are not going to tolerate it anymore.”

SJP’s tactics backfired on at least one occasion when, in November 2008, the group attempted to disrupt a concert organized by the Zionist Freedom Alliance during “Israel Liberation Week” on the UC Berkeley campus. After striking a ZFA activist in the head, Zakharia found himself beaten to the ground. Following the incident, Zakharia and two fellow SJP members, along with two Zionist activists, were cited for battery but no charges were officially filed.

Felber then decided to file a civil rights action against the University of California at Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials. The complaint stated that Defendants were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other similar incidents on campus against Jewish and other students, but took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.

The complaint charged that the assault was the result of the university having essentially sponsored and encouraged similar incitements by the SJP and the MSA and failing to discipline them for past incidents.

It documented how the university had ignored numerous complaints from students about the poisonous climate on campus and accused the university of tolerating 'the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses' thus violating the civil rights of Ms. Felber and other students to enjoy a peaceful campus environ.

Now, if Ms.Felber had been black and was injured by, say, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or White Aryan Nation during a campus demonstration, you know without even guessing that the Obama Department of Justice would be in this up to their necks and providing DOJ lawyers for her by the busload. Instead, she was forced to hire private counsel.

The case went to trial in Federal Court in Oakland and was heard by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, an Obama appointee.

He dismissed the case out of hand.

He claimed that the harassment constituted 'protected political speech':

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg wrote. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

Now, I always thought that freedom of speech involved talking, not ramming someone from behind with a shopping cart. But apparently the rules are different when it comes to Muslims...and Jews, for that matter.

If attacking someone physically is now protected speech, would that also apply if a bunch of young Jewish men grabbed a few baseball bats and exercised their freedom of speech in breaking up what amounted to a racist assault on their people and their right to self-determination?

Well, your 'Honor'?

I smell the stench of something very old and pungent here...

(hat tip, Louie Louie)

Ron Paul:U.S. should not support Israel, Defends Hamas, Homicide bombing,Calls Gaza 'Concentration Camp'

This interview was done January 5th, 2009. On Iran's Press TV, no less. Tell me again he doesn't hate Jews.

Ron Paul:U.S. should not support Israel, Defends Hamas, Homicide bombing,Calls Gaza 'Concentration Camp'

This interview was done January 5th, 2009. On Iran's Press TV, no less. Tell me again he doesn't hate Jews.

Tom Friedman vs. Israel

That's the title of a brand new Pajamas Media column by David Gerstman, whose Middle East media analysis appears here from time to time. Here's a slice:

Two weeks ago, columnist Thomas Friedman created a controversy in his column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir“ when he wrote:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.

By using language evoking antisemitic imagery of Israel “owning” Congress, Friedman seemed to step over a line. In an effort to control the damage of his ill-advised language, Friedman defended himself to Gary Rosenblatt of the The Jewish Week. At the end of the article Rosenblatt wrote:

Friedman has often written of his support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies.

Last year Bradley Burston of Ha’aretz quoted Friedman:

“Israel doesn’t have to worry about me,” Friedman had stressed early in the interview. “At the end of the day, Israel will have my support — it had me at hello.”

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

In 1999, Friedman wrote a hypothetical column titled “How Bibi got Re-elected.” The conceit of the column — actually written before Netanyahu lost the premiership to Ehud Barak — was that Netanyahu tackled the most important issue facing Israel at that time — withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Friedman wrote:

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

The Israeli move has totally unnerved the Syrians, the Hezbollah guerrillas and Iran. ”They are all now in a quandary,” said the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. ”The Hezbollah guerrillas are saying to themselves: ‘Now that we have liberated Lebanon, do we want to use that as leverage to rule Lebanon? Or do we want to use that as a springboard to move on to Jerusalem?’ If they want to do the latter, now they’re really going to have to pay for it.”

Over the next six years Hezbollah violated the internationally approved border no less than 20 times, killing and wounding Israeli civilians and soldiers. In 2006 — following a particularly egregious incident in which Hezbollah crossed the borders, immediately killing eight soldiers and kidnapping (later killing) Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel struck back. How did Friedman describe Israel’s response?

In a column titled “War, Timeout, War, Time …” Friedman wrote about Israel’s three recent wars against terror:

What is different about these three wars, though, is that Israel won them using what I call “Hama Rules” — which are no rules at all. “Hama Rules” are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

The brutality of the Israeli retaliations bought this timeout with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the civilian casualties and troubling TV images bought Israel a U.N. investigation into alleged war crimes.

Even as Friedman acknowledged that Israel was fighting an enemy embedded among civilians, he still compared Israel’s second Lebanon War with Hafez Assad’s brutal assault on civilians. Rather than defending Israel’s right to self-defense, Friedman equated Israel’s self-defense with Assad’s all out assault on civilians. Even though Israel heeded his advice by withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Friedman didn’t defend Israel when the withdrawal resulted in a new threat.

While Israel fought against the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built up subsequent to Oslo, there was international pressure for diplomacy. Ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for March 2002, Friedman wrote a column (in the form of a fictional memo from President Bush) titled “Dear Arab League“:

Memo to: President Hosni Mubarak, Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, President Bashar al-Assad and the rest of the Arab League
…
We’re just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines — in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the Golan Heights — we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Since you’ve all told me privately that this is your position, why not make it public and get the benefit? This is how to bury Osama bin Laden and define for the world who the Arabs really are. If you can’t take that risk, why should I?

An excellent takedown of one of Israel's self-proclaimed 'friends. Read the rest here

Tom Friedman vs. Israel

That's the title of a brand new Pajamas Media column by David Gerstman, whose Middle East media analysis appears here from time to time. Here's a slice:

Two weeks ago, columnist Thomas Friedman created a controversy in his column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir“ when he wrote:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.

By using language evoking antisemitic imagery of Israel “owning” Congress, Friedman seemed to step over a line. In an effort to control the damage of his ill-advised language, Friedman defended himself to Gary Rosenblatt of the The Jewish Week. At the end of the article Rosenblatt wrote:

Friedman has often written of his support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies.

Last year Bradley Burston of Ha’aretz quoted Friedman:

“Israel doesn’t have to worry about me,” Friedman had stressed early in the interview. “At the end of the day, Israel will have my support — it had me at hello.”

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

In 1999, Friedman wrote a hypothetical column titled “How Bibi got Re-elected.” The conceit of the column — actually written before Netanyahu lost the premiership to Ehud Barak — was that Netanyahu tackled the most important issue facing Israel at that time — withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Friedman wrote:

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

The Israeli move has totally unnerved the Syrians, the Hezbollah guerrillas and Iran. ”They are all now in a quandary,” said the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. ”The Hezbollah guerrillas are saying to themselves: ‘Now that we have liberated Lebanon, do we want to use that as leverage to rule Lebanon? Or do we want to use that as a springboard to move on to Jerusalem?’ If they want to do the latter, now they’re really going to have to pay for it.”

Over the next six years Hezbollah violated the internationally approved border no less than 20 times, killing and wounding Israeli civilians and soldiers. In 2006 — following a particularly egregious incident in which Hezbollah crossed the borders, immediately killing eight soldiers and kidnapping (later killing) Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel struck back. How did Friedman describe Israel’s response?

In a column titled “War, Timeout, War, Time …” Friedman wrote about Israel’s three recent wars against terror:

What is different about these three wars, though, is that Israel won them using what I call “Hama Rules” — which are no rules at all. “Hama Rules” are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

The brutality of the Israeli retaliations bought this timeout with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the civilian casualties and troubling TV images bought Israel a U.N. investigation into alleged war crimes.

Even as Friedman acknowledged that Israel was fighting an enemy embedded among civilians, he still compared Israel’s second Lebanon War with Hafez Assad’s brutal assault on civilians. Rather than defending Israel’s right to self-defense, Friedman equated Israel’s self-defense with Assad’s all out assault on civilians. Even though Israel heeded his advice by withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Friedman didn’t defend Israel when the withdrawal resulted in a new threat.

While Israel fought against the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built up subsequent to Oslo, there was international pressure for diplomacy. Ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for March 2002, Friedman wrote a column (in the form of a fictional memo from President Bush) titled “Dear Arab League“:

Memo to: President Hosni Mubarak, Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, President Bashar al-Assad and the rest of the Arab League
…
We’re just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines — in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the Golan Heights — we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Since you’ve all told me privately that this is your position, why not make it public and get the benefit? This is how to bury Osama bin Laden and define for the world who the Arabs really are. If you can’t take that risk, why should I?

An excellent takedown of one of Israel's self-proclaimed 'friends. Read the rest here

Ron Paul: 'Hey He's Not Racist, Just Batsh*t Crazy'

So says his former aide and campaign coordinator Eric Dondero:

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

And oh yes,according to Dondero, Ron Paul has some interesting views on Israel. He isn't just anti-Israel, he's against it's very existence and thinks it all ought to be given back to the Arabs.

That of course fits in with the amendment he offered lst February to cut off all aid and military sales to Israel and only Israel.And his endorsement in 2008 of avowed anti-semite and 9/11 truther Cynthis McKinney,who ran as the Green Party candidate.

Anti-semite? Naw. not Ron Paul! Just ask the neo-Nazis over at Stormfront who are raising money for him and have his logo on their site.



Ron Paul hanging out with Stormfront founder Don Black...birds of a feather indeed.

Ron Paul: 'Hey He's Not Racist, Just Batsh*t Crazy'

So says his former aide and campaign coordinator Eric Dondero:

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

And oh yes,according to Dondero, Ron Paul has some interesting views on Israel. He isn't just anti-Israel, he's against it's very existence and thinks it all ought to be given back to the Arabs.

That of course fits in with the amendment he offered lst February to cut off all aid and military sales to Israel and only Israel.And his endorsement in 2008 of avowed anti-semite and 9/11 truther Cynthis McKinney,who ran as the Green Party candidate.

Anti-semite? Naw. not Ron Paul! Just ask the neo-Nazis over at Stormfront who are raising money for him and have his logo on their site.



Ron Paul hanging out with Stormfront founder Don Black...birds of a feather indeed.

Heart Of Darkness; Obama's Campaign To Make Israel A Scapegoat And Fool America's Jews

The Obama Administration is obviously very concerned about its fading support among America's Jews. And to counteract it, there's a subtle but growing campaign going on to convince America's Jews that not only is the president the most pro-Israel in history, but that it's those ungrateful Jews in Israel that caused the death of the so-called peace process and cause all the rampant Muslim Jew hatred rather than President Obama's arrogant, amateurish and deceitful behavior. And the president and his handlers are using committed foot soldiers who are either Jews or people posing as 'friends' of Israel to do it.

The president, speaking in front of a fundraiser to group of American Jews in the Manhattan home of Obama donor Jack Rosen,the chairman of the American Jewish Congress made this incredible statement: "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security ... and that will continue."

A whole chorus of the administration's allies has come out full force to echo this fantasy.

For instance, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel was to blame for Muslim Jew hatred :

"A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”

According to the account in the Israeli paper, “The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.”

Gutman apparently never read the Qu'ran or the Hadiths and is clueless as to the real roots of Muslim anti-Semitism, which predates the re-establishment of Israel by centuries.

But of course, Gutman is infinitely qualified for his post as ambassador, having bundled $500,000 in 2008 for Obama, according to OpenSecrets.org.

It's worth repeating the words of the next speaker after Gutman,German attorney Nathan Gelbart:


"The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the “Anti-Zionist” or – even more sophisticated – the so-called ‘Israel critic,’”

“The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region,” he said. “There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”

“For no other country he would criticize or ask to boycott its goods or academics. And this for one simple reason: Because Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not more and not less.”

Gelbert's remarks were received with loud applause, while Ambassador Gutman left the conference hurriedly, claiming prior obligations.

The White house has reportedly backed away from Gutman, issuing a hurried statement that his views do not reflect theirs. Actually they reflect the Obama Administration's views exactly, but the White House is a lot more subtle, what with elections coming up.

In another instance,you have SecDef Leon Panetta's recent remarks at a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington DC. Apparently the Secretary took some time off from hollowing out America's military to explain to an audience of American Jews that really, the problems in the Middle East are all Israel's fault:

"I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view," Panetta said.

He said Israel needed to take risks, including by breathing new life into moribund peace talks with Palestinians. When asked by a moderator what steps Israel needed to take to pursue peace, Panetta said: "Just get to the damn table."

As if it was Israel that was refusing to negotiate!

"I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we've seen Israel's isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow," Panetta said.

Panetta suggested that Israel reach out and mend fences with countries like Turkey, Egypt and Jordan which "share an interest in regional stability."

Panetta said that while Israel is not solely responsible for its isolation, it could more actively attempt to reverse the trend: "For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan," he said.

"This is not impossible. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them."

"It is in Israel's interest, Turkey's interest, and US interest for Israel to reconcile with Turkey, and both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship back on track," Panetta said.

As if Israel hasn't made ample gestures to these countries, only to have them slapped away each time? And exactly how is Israel supposed to 'mend fences' with Islamist governments in Turkey and Egypt? Or Jordan,where King Abdullah toes the anti-Israel line because he's scared stiff of his mostly 'Palestinian' subjects tossing him out on his behind and claiming Jordan as yet another 'Palestinian' state?

Egypt, Turkey and Jordan aren't committed to 'regional stability' and Panetta knows it. What they're committed to is Israel's disappearance,because it is a Jewish state. But Panetta and the Obama Administration would have us believe that this is Israel's fault. Just as the dead-in-the-water 'peace process is Israel's fault, rather than President Obama's:

Panetta further urged Israel to "lean forward" to achieve peace with the Palestinians. Peace talks have been moribund for more than a year.

"Rather than undermining the Palestinian Authority, it is in Israel's interests to strengthen it by ... continuing to transfer Palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of cooperation," he said.

Rather than 'lean forward', what Panetta really means is 'bend over'. And he's telling Israel that after you get raped, give up territory and important and irreversible strategic concessions and pay in blood because of it, the world will of course take your side and forcefully condemn those who attack Jews...just like they did when Israel retreated from Gaza.

It's worth noting that Panetta's remarks are not directed at Israel, but at American Jewish voters.

Panetta's speech took place at at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy... established and funded by Obama contributor and major Democrat fund raiser and contributor Chaim Saban. And just by coincidence, it was the Saban Center who also funded this bogus poll, designed to convince American Jews that Israelis absolutely love Obama, so it's just fine to vote for him.

Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pressed into service, making remarks at - what a coincidence- a closed Saban Forum.

According to our Secretary of State, pending Knesset legislation to limit foreign donations to far Left anti-Israel NGOs like Peace Now, B’Tselem and the Holy Land Trust and stop Israeli Supreme Court justices from naming their own successors are 'assaults onIsrael's democracy'. She even had the nerve to claim that Israel's women are 'excluded from public life'. Aside from the prominent judges and Knesset members in Israel who are female, apparently no one told her that the MK who is a prime mover in favor the bill to cut funding is Faina Kirschenbaum.

Secretary Clinton, of course, would never say such a thing about her 'Palestinian' friends or Jordan, where honor killings of uppity females are endemic. Nor would she make such remarks in Israel, where she would have been laughed off the stage and severely challenged. No, the idea here was to slime Israel's democracy here in the US to make it easier for American Jewish voters to feel good about voting against Israel's present government and re-electing President Obama.

Ignorant Jewish quislings like Gutman and Rosen are already in the bag.The regime may even recall Ambassador Gutman to try to show their 'pro-Israel' bonifides. But this campaign - and there's no other word for it - is directed at American Jews to try to convince them that black is white so that they'll line up and pull the lever for the most anti-Israel president in history.

I don't know what's in President Obama's heart. But I know that many of his most intimate associates are rabid anti-Semites, or 'Anti-Zionists' to use the more fashionable new term for these creatures. I know he has little or no respect for the Jewish religion. I know that he's supported Islamist movements throughout the Middle East like the Muslim Brotherhood that have rabid Jew hatred as a primary feature. And I know he's done more to delegitimize Israel and distance America from a major ally than any president in history. And that's all I or anyone else should need to know.

This latest cynical campaign of contempt ought to send a message to those still sitting on the fence. As far as I'm concerned, any Jew - or for that matter, anybody - who votes for Obama cannot claim to be pro-Israel. End of story, and it goes beyond any Republican or Democrat affiliation.

UPDATE: Per Journolista Ben Smith, the campaign intensifies as George Soros' zombies weigh in.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Heart Of Darkness; Obama's Campaign To Make Israel A Scapegoat And Fool America's Jews

The Obama Administration is obviously very concerned about its fading support among America's Jews. And to counteract it, there's a subtle but growing campaign going on to convince America's Jews that not only is the president the most pro-Israel in history, but that it's those ungrateful Jews in Israel that caused the death of the so-called peace process and cause all the rampant Muslim Jew hatred rather than President Obama's arrogant, amateurish and deceitful behavior. And the president and his handlers are using committed foot soldiers who are either Jews or people posing as 'friends' of Israel to do it.

The president, speaking in front of a fundraiser to group of American Jews in the Manhattan home of Obama donor Jack Rosen,the chairman of the American Jewish Congress made this incredible statement: "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security ... and that will continue."

A whole chorus of the administration's allies has come out full force to echo this fantasy.

For instance, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel was to blame for Muslim Jew hatred :

"A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”

According to the account in the Israeli paper, “The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.”

Gutman apparently never read the Qu'ran or the Hadiths and is clueless as to the real roots of Muslim anti-Semitism, which predates the re-establishment of Israel by centuries.

But of course, Gutman is infinitely qualified for his post as ambassador, having bundled $500,000 in 2008 for Obama, according to OpenSecrets.org.

It's worth repeating the words of the next speaker after Gutman,German attorney Nathan Gelbart:


"The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the “Anti-Zionist” or – even more sophisticated – the so-called ‘Israel critic,’”

“The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region,” he said. “There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”

“For no other country he would criticize or ask to boycott its goods or academics. And this for one simple reason: Because Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not more and not less.”

Gelbert's remarks were received with loud applause, while Ambassador Gutman left the conference hurriedly, claiming prior obligations.

The White house has reportedly backed away from Gutman, issuing a hurried statement that his views do not reflect theirs. Actually they reflect the Obama Administration's views exactly, but the White House is a lot more subtle, what with elections coming up.

In another instance,you have SecDef Leon Panetta's recent remarks at a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington DC. Apparently the Secretary took some time off from hollowing out America's military to explain to an audience of American Jews that really, the problems in the Middle East are all Israel's fault:

"I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view," Panetta said.

He said Israel needed to take risks, including by breathing new life into moribund peace talks with Palestinians. When asked by a moderator what steps Israel needed to take to pursue peace, Panetta said: "Just get to the damn table."

As if it was Israel that was refusing to negotiate!

"I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we've seen Israel's isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow," Panetta said.

Panetta suggested that Israel reach out and mend fences with countries like Turkey, Egypt and Jordan which "share an interest in regional stability."

Panetta said that while Israel is not solely responsible for its isolation, it could more actively attempt to reverse the trend: "For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan," he said.

"This is not impossible. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them."

"It is in Israel's interest, Turkey's interest, and US interest for Israel to reconcile with Turkey, and both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship back on track," Panetta said.

As if Israel hasn't made ample gestures to these countries, only to have them slapped away each time? And exactly how is Israel supposed to 'mend fences' with Islamist governments in Turkey and Egypt? Or Jordan,where King Abdullah toes the anti-Israel line because he's scared stiff of his mostly 'Palestinian' subjects tossing him out on his behind and claiming Jordan as yet another 'Palestinian' state?

Egypt, Turkey and Jordan aren't committed to 'regional stability' and Panetta knows it. What they're committed to is Israel's disappearance,because it is a Jewish state. But Panetta and the Obama Administration would have us believe that this is Israel's fault. Just as the dead-in-the-water 'peace process is Israel's fault, rather than President Obama's:

Panetta further urged Israel to "lean forward" to achieve peace with the Palestinians. Peace talks have been moribund for more than a year.

"Rather than undermining the Palestinian Authority, it is in Israel's interests to strengthen it by ... continuing to transfer Palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of cooperation," he said.

Rather than 'lean forward', what Panetta really means is 'bend over'. And he's telling Israel that after you get raped, give up territory and important and irreversible strategic concessions and pay in blood because of it, the world will of course take your side and forcefully condemn those who attack Jews...just like they did when Israel retreated from Gaza.

It's worth noting that Panetta's remarks are not directed at Israel, but at American Jewish voters.

Panetta's speech took place at at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy... established and funded by Obama contributor and major Democrat fund raiser and contributor Chaim Saban. And just by coincidence, it was the Saban Center who also funded this bogus poll, designed to convince American Jews that Israelis absolutely love Obama, so it's just fine to vote for him.

Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pressed into service, making remarks at - what a coincidence- a closed Saban Forum.

According to our Secretary of State, pending Knesset legislation to limit foreign donations to far Left anti-Israel NGOs like Peace Now, B’Tselem and the Holy Land Trust and stop Israeli Supreme Court justices from naming their own successors are 'assaults onIsrael's democracy'. She even had the nerve to claim that Israel's women are 'excluded from public life'. Aside from the prominent judges and Knesset members in Israel who are female, apparently no one told her that the MK who is a prime mover in favor the bill to cut funding is Faina Kirschenbaum.

Secretary Clinton, of course, would never say such a thing about her 'Palestinian' friends or Jordan, where honor killings of uppity females are endemic. Nor would she make such remarks in Israel, where she would have been laughed off the stage and severely challenged. No, the idea here was to slime Israel's democracy here in the US to make it easier for American Jewish voters to feel good about voting against Israel's present government and re-electing President Obama.

Ignorant Jewish quislings like Gutman and Rosen are already in the bag.The regime may even recall Ambassador Gutman to try to show their 'pro-Israel' bonifides. But this campaign - and there's no other word for it - is directed at American Jews to try to convince them that black is white so that they'll line up and pull the lever for the most anti-Israel president in history.

I don't know what's in President Obama's heart. But I know that many of his most intimate associates are rabid anti-Semites, or 'Anti-Zionists' to use the more fashionable new term for these creatures. I know he has little or no respect for the Jewish religion. I know that he's supported Islamist movements throughout the Middle East like the Muslim Brotherhood that have rabid Jew hatred as a primary feature. And I know he's done more to delegitimize Israel and distance America from a major ally than any president in history. And that's all I or anyone else should need to know.

This latest cynical campaign of contempt ought to send a message to those still sitting on the fence. As far as I'm concerned, any Jew - or for that matter, anybody - who votes for Obama cannot claim to be pro-Israel. End of story, and it goes beyond any Republican or Democrat affiliation.

UPDATE: Per Journolista Ben Smith, the campaign intensifies as George Soros' zombies weigh in.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Drool Britania: How The UK Subverts Israel's Democracy

There was an interesting bill introduced in the Israeli Knesset this week that is long overdue. It would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 ( about $5,366 or £3,370 as I write this) to Israeli nongovernmental organizations per year. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis, and has Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu’s support.

According to the bill, "inciting activity undertaken by many organizations, under the cover of human rights work, has the goal of influencing political debates, and the character and the policies of the state of Israel."

In other words, Israel is finally passing legislation prohibiting foreign countries from unduly interfering in its domestic politics. And that's appropriate, since the massive donations from places like the UN and EU have gone almost exclusively to Israeli organizations on the political far Left that are well out of the mainstream, like the Meretz Party,B’Tselem, Breaking The Silence,Terrestrial Jerusalem, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha.And as we'll see,to 'Palestinian' groups that aren't focused on democracy or human rights in the areas they rule but on undermining Israel's very existence.

Britain's Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould undoubtedly got a message from London, because he was quick to react by saying that the bill 'would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.'

Ambassador Gould is obviously just doing his job, passing on the sentiments of Her Majesty's government. But it's worth turning this around and asking how the UK's deliberate subversion of Israel's democracy looks to Israel.

Makor Rishon, an Israeli paper, recently published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”

And it's quite interesting reading. It shows that aside from Iraq, the British government gave a grand total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

The total during the same period given to Israel's far left organizations was much bigger, weighing in at over £600,000.Between 2003-4 and 2009-10, the UK gave a whopping total of nearly £3.8 million to NGOs in Israel. As NGO Monitor details, these groups are heavily involved in political activity against the Israeli government.

These groups are involved in pushing an agenda that has been rejected by the vast majority of Israeli voters and could almost be said to be suicidal. But the UK has so little respect for Israel's democracy that it funds them lavishly, along with the EU and other donors who could be said not to have Israel's best interests at heart.The UK itself belatedly recognized this by taking some of these groups ( Yesh Din, Ir Amim,and Gisha) off its funding list in the future while retaining others who in practice are only slightly more subtle about their agenda

And Britain's largess to 'Palestinian' groups in the Fatah-led 'Palestinian' Authority, received about 400,000 pounds. For those of you whom are math challenged, that's a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of undermining the Middle East's only democracy as opposed to creating new ones in the Arab World. The 'Palestinian' groups included Defence for Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS) and the Holy Land Trust, which are heavily involved in the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel.

Funding these Israeli and 'Palestinian' groups would be comparable to Britain funding Code Pink, ANSWER and The National Lawyer's Guild here in America or Israel funding Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades or the British National Party in the UK, except it's even worse because neither America or Britain is surrounded by genocidal enemies.

When you attempt to actively thwart the will of the citizens of a democracy, you show your utter contempt for them.It's not Israel that should be concerned about anything 'reflecting badly' but the UK.

This legislation is long overdue, and Britannia should hang its head in shame.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Drool Britania: How The UK Subverts Israel's Democracy

There was an interesting bill introduced in the Israeli Knesset this week that is long overdue. It would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 ( about $5,366 or £3,370 as I write this) to Israeli nongovernmental organizations per year. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis, and has Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu’s support.

According to the bill, "inciting activity undertaken by many organizations, under the cover of human rights work, has the goal of influencing political debates, and the character and the policies of the state of Israel."

In other words, Israel is finally passing legislation prohibiting foreign countries from unduly interfering in its domestic politics. And that's appropriate, since the massive donations from places like the UN and EU have gone almost exclusively to Israeli organizations on the political far Left that are well out of the mainstream, like the Meretz Party,B’Tselem, Breaking The Silence,Terrestrial Jerusalem, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha.And as we'll see,to 'Palestinian' groups that aren't focused on democracy or human rights in the areas they rule but on undermining Israel's very existence.

Britain's Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould undoubtedly got a message from London, because he was quick to react by saying that the bill 'would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.'

Ambassador Gould is obviously just doing his job, passing on the sentiments of Her Majesty's government. But it's worth turning this around and asking how the UK's deliberate subversion of Israel's democracy looks to Israel.

Makor Rishon, an Israeli paper, recently published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”

And it's quite interesting reading. It shows that aside from Iraq, the British government gave a grand total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

The total during the same period given to Israel's far left organizations was much bigger, weighing in at over £600,000.Between 2003-4 and 2009-10, the UK gave a whopping total of nearly £3.8 million to NGOs in Israel. As NGO Monitor details, these groups are heavily involved in political activity against the Israeli government.

These groups are involved in pushing an agenda that has been rejected by the vast majority of Israeli voters and could almost be said to be suicidal. But the UK has so little respect for Israel's democracy that it funds them lavishly, along with the EU and other donors who could be said not to have Israel's best interests at heart.The UK itself belatedly recognized this by taking some of these groups ( Yesh Din, Ir Amim,and Gisha) off its funding list in the future while retaining others who in practice are only slightly more subtle about their agenda

And Britain's largess to 'Palestinian' groups in the Fatah-led 'Palestinian' Authority, received about 400,000 pounds. For those of you whom are math challenged, that's a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of undermining the Middle East's only democracy as opposed to creating new ones in the Arab World. The 'Palestinian' groups included Defence for Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS) and the Holy Land Trust, which are heavily involved in the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel.

Funding these Israeli and 'Palestinian' groups would be comparable to Britain funding Code Pink, ANSWER and The National Lawyer's Guild here in America or Israel funding Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades or the British National Party in the UK, except it's even worse because neither America or Britain is surrounded by genocidal enemies.

When you attempt to actively thwart the will of the citizens of a democracy, you show your utter contempt for them.It's not Israel that should be concerned about anything 'reflecting badly' but the UK.

This legislation is long overdue, and Britannia should hang its head in shame.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!