Posted tagged ‘Antisemitism in America’

« WarSclerotic home page
Newer Entries »

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon?

November 15, 2016

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon? PJ Media, David P. Goldman, November 15, 2016

(Gosh Darn! Trump should have appointed Keith Ellison or some other “acceptable” leftist, anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Islamist. Please see also, The Ellison Angle and Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?. — DM)

All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against Steve Bannon, the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. Steve is fervently pro-Israel, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that he is anti-Semitic. Other observant Jews who know Bannon, for example Joel Pollak, attest to his support for Israel and friendship for the Jewish people.

All we have learned from the sewage-storm directed at Bannon is that the Establishment plays dirty and that the formerly Republican #NeverTrumpers aren’t just misguided ideologues, but also yellow-bellied, gutter-crawling, backstabbing, bushwacking liars. Hell hath no fury like a self-designated elite scorned. All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

They hate Steve Bannon because he beat them fair and square on the battlefield of social media. He is the President-elect’s most effective general. Trump’s enemies can’t reverse the results of a national election, but they can try to cut the incoming president off from his popular base.

The charges against Steve Bannon are a tissue of lies without a modicum of merit.

Anyone can search the Breitbart Media archive for posts on Israel, Jews, and related topics, as I have, and determine that Steve Bannon’s hugely successful media platform is 100% pro-Israel. Not only that: Breitbart consistently reports on the dangers of anti-Semitism around the world. Not a single article appeared in Breitbart.com during the past two years that could not have appeared in Israel Hayom, the leading Israeli daily.

But that is not what one hears from Ian Tuttle at National Review, who complains that “in May, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol was labeled a ‘Renegade Jew.’ He was indeed, by another Jew, David Horowitz, who argued that Kristol had betrayed Jewish interests by trying to torpedo Trump–a point Horowitz emphasizes here. Tuttle knows this but chooses to twist Horowitz’ headline into its opposite. Tuttle’s colleague Jonah Goldberg also inveighs against Bannon but his post is too silly to quote.

Generously, Tuttle allows that Bannon is not Goebbels. No, he isn’t, but the Establishment (including conservative Establishment) media drumbeat against Bannon takes its cue from Goebbels doctrine of the Big Lie: repeat it often enough, and people will believe it, no matter how absurd it is.

NeverTrumper John Podhoretz meanwhile penned an underhanded a attack on Steve Bannon on the Commentary website yesterday. One has to read this a couple of times to appreciate how sleazy it is: “The key moral problem with Steve Bannon is that as the CEO of Andrew Breitbart’s namesake organization, he is an aider and abetter of foul extremist views, including anti-Semitic ones. He used the site to promote the alt-right, which has retailed anti-Semitism as well as general outright racism and white nationalism. The distinction may seem like a minor one, but it isn’t; the hatred Breitbart has channeled is too general for it to be singled out for its anti-Semitic content.”

Note the construction of Podhoretz’ sentence: Breitbart isn’t anti-Semitic, but in some vague, unnamed way, he has facilitated anti-Semitism from the alt-Right (whatever that is). The man is an embarrassment to the venerable Jewish monthly. It’s time for Commentary to find a new editor.

Those are facts, indisputable, accessible, and easy to verify. Anyone can enter the terms “Jews” or “Israel” and “site:www.breitbart.com” into the Google search engine and obtain everything that Breitbart has published on the subject. I looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish articles that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom. There is not a shred of evidence–not a single article–that supports Podhoretz’ allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views. In lieu of other evidence, the the supposedly offensive David Horowitz piece has been cited dozens of times in the past 24 hours (including by the Times of Israel!).

Of course, one expects the Establishment media to lie at two hundred decibels. Yesterday’s email blast from the usually staid Financial Times began, “Donald Trump has chosen Reince Priebus, the establishment head of the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, while naming Steve Bannon — his campaign chair who ran Breitbart News, a website associated with the alt-right and white supremacists — as his chief strategist and counsellor.” To claim that Breitbart is associated with white supremacists is a despicable lie. , but the FT feels compelled to say such things because polite opinion requires ritual anathemas of Trump.

And the liberal Jewish website The Forward wrote, “The reaction was quick and furious from Jews and anti-hate groups. The Anti-Defamation League, which stays out of partisan politics and vowed to seek to work with Trump after his election, denounced Bannon as ‘hostile to American values.'” The Forward headline asks, “Will Steve Bannon bring anti-Semitism into Trump’s inner circle?” It is shameful that Jewish organizations cry “wolf” over anti-Semitism in pursuit of a patently political agenda.

“A world is collapsing before our eyes,” tweeted France’s Ambassador to the United States as the returns came in early in the morning of Nov. 9. The “liberal world order” of elitist social engineering has come to an end. The Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine have no more reason to publish than do the New York Times or the New Republic. The world simply has moved away from them. And symbolizing their humiliation is one man who who took on their vast media machine with seemingly insignificant resources, and defeated them. They will stop at nothing to destroy him.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Breitbart, Media and Donald Trump, Never Trumpers, President Elect Trump, Steven K. Bannon, Trump appointments
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?

November 15, 2016

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism? Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 15, 2016

(Please see also, The Ellison Angle.– DM)

sd

When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course. 

President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.

“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”

The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”

Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”

Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused todenounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.

That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What Should Americans Be Talking About?

October 17, 2016

What Should Americans Be Talking About? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, October 17, 2016

Should Americans uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “It is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also an acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” — Muslim Brotherhood, 1991.

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

For the American voter, issues of immense urgency to the survival of the free world — such as individual freedom, dispassionate enquiry and freedom of speech and thought, which we dangerously have come to take for granted — are being derailed by crude language and behavior, when Americans need to be paying attention to serious threats to the United States, its allies and to the values of the West.

Internationally, these threats come from Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and countless terrorist groups.

Domestically, they appear in the form of massive corruption — financial and otherwise — that is visibly hollowing out American institutions, such as the FBI (the failure to follow investigative procedure, followed by calls for FBI Director James Comey’s resignation); the Department of Justice (the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, and the Attorney General meeting with a former president whose wife is under investigation); the State Department (email leaks are still yielding up evidence of collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the State Department under Hillary Clinton); the IRS (targeting conservative non-profits, and raiding the businesses of private citizens, who disagree with policy); the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to acquire power over every puddle in America) and the Executive branch in the “I have a pen and I have a phone” president’s dealings with Iran.

There have also been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos.

1952There have been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos. (Image source: World Economic Forum)

Instead of helping Americans to create a safer, more prosperous way of life, the Ferguson events destroyed a community, devastated small business owners, and eroded security, the rule of law, and any hope for a better future. Who benefits? Creating chaos embeds a political dependency: rather than helping people to climb out of poverty, it keeps them voting for politicians to “rescue” them.

Jews and Israel are also targeted — often, regrettably, by other Jews, who appear naïvely to hope that they will thereby “immunize” themselves from attacks on Jews. Recently, for example, an article accused the U.S. Republican presidential election campaign of “significantly enhancing the presence of antisemitism in the public arena.”

Seriously?

While “conservative” radicals, such as white supremacists do exist, they are not even close to overtaking the mainstream discourse. That space, rather, seems to have been filled in the last decades by self-described “liberals” who now seem to dominate it to such a degree that the Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, John Ellison, felt obliged to write a letter warning prospective applicants not to expect a “safe space.” “Conservative” radicals are not the ones hunting down Jews — “liberals” and Islamists are victimizing and shutting them out.

Ironically of course, the liberals have not yet figured out that the agendas of these two groups are incompatible (as in gender equality); perhaps they are trying to “immunize” themselves, too.

Public debate in the US, particularly in the next few weeks, really needs to be about choosing what policies would actually improve the lives of Americans. Should they uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

American university campuses, which should proudly be championing debate of all ideas, have instead been rife with antisemitism for years, mostly because a “thought police” obsessed with identity politics — another way of saying my race, religion, skin color or sexual proclivity is good, yours is not — has overtaken campuses and turned them into embittered war-zones. It is postmodern Stalinism.

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “it is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also and acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

The glue that brings “liberals” and Islamists, such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in the US (a front[1] for the Muslim Brotherhood), together in a common cause is the goal of eradicating Israel — of course always only under the euphemisms of “helping Palestinians” and “Peace,” even though Jihadi camps for children were organized first by Palestinians.

A 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood outlines its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America. It depicts the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for civilization jihad in the United States stating:

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers… [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

________________-

[1] In a 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood, outlining its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America, the Muslim Students Association was mentioned as “one of our organizations and the organizations of our friends”, that is, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Academia, Antisemitism in America, Clash of civilizations, Clinton campaign, Clinton corruption, Clinton e-mails, Clinton obstructions of justice, Department of State, Diversity, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamists in America, Leftists, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Obama, Racism, Snowflakes
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Clinton’s Private Emails About Israel

August 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Private Emails About Israel, Breitbart,  Shmuley Boteach, August 5, 2016

November will see one of the consequential elections of our lifetime. With Israel and the world enduring another cycle of terrorism, and the Jewish State’s very existence threatened by the catastrophic Iran deal, the American election has a direct bearing on Israel’s future.

I’ve written in the past about the State Department’s email dump of Hillary Clinton’s communications from her private server. The former secretary of state received a veritable trove of advice and information about Israel from her closest advisers. Curiously, it was mostly negative and hostile to Israel. It behooves Hillary to explain the emails and why they are mostly of a negative nature.

Here are some examples.

Martin Indyk was advising Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. In 2007, Indyk’s Brookings Institution, a purportedly objective non-partisan government think tank, opened up a branch in Qatar, a country that is virulently anti-Israel and which currently serves as Hamas’ main financial backer. Seven years later it was revealed that Indyk’s relationship with Qatar had progressed to the point that Qatar had given $14.8 million dollars to Indyk’s institute. This phenomenon of foreign governments purchasing political influence via think tanks in Washington has been well attested to in the past.

Keep in mind that in the background of this concealed, blatant conflict of interest, Indyk was one of the top diplomats assigned to formulating policy and negotiating a two-state solution in Israel. The bombshell revelations of the Qatari donations compromised Indyk immensely and Netanyahu’s government responded by saying that Indyk could not be trusted. Nonetheless, during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, Indyk had her ear when it came to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Indyk’s emails to Clinton show a Qatari-inspired anti-Israel bias. He talks about the need to look, not at Netanyahu’s politics, but his “psychology.” He writes to Clinton’s advisors of Netanyahu: “[A]t heart, he seems to lack a generosity of spirit.”

Indyk attacks Netanyahu over and over as having “inflated demands” and lacking the willingness to risk Israel’s security with a West Bank that would likely become yet another Hamastan. He writes nothing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s continual incitement and his calls for the murder of Israelis or the need to outlaw terrorist groups.

Indyk also describes how world opinion can be used against Netanyahu, writing, “If Israel doesn’t make a serious move, it will further delegitimize its standing internationally.” He also describes how the US can use the fear of a potential nuclear Iran to force Israel to sign a deal with the Palestinians, because “Bibi needs President Obama in his corner to deal with the threat from Iran.”

Then there is Jake Sullivan, who currently serves as a top foreign policy advisor for Hillary’s campaign and who was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff while she was Secretary of State. Sullivan has also been revealed to harbor anti-Israel views. In one heavily redacted email to Clinton regarding talks with Netanyahu, Sullivan’s subject line reads “dealing with Netanyahu.” There is often a cavalier attitude in how many of Hillary’s subordinates refer to the Prime Minister of Israel. His name rarely comes with any titles reflecting his status as an elected leader. Rather, he’s usually just “Netanyahu.”

Then there is, of course, Sidney Blumenthal, of whom I have written much in the past, especially about his anti-Semitic son Max, who recently celebrated the death of, and defamed, Elie Wiesel, prompting Hillary Clinton to disavow him, something for which she deserves great credit.

Sidney Blumenthal sent Hillary an anti-Semitic article entitled, “The preemptive strike on Jodi Rudoren” that claims the Jewish lobby “sought to influence media coverage in a variety of sometimes heavy-handed ways” and says “the pressure from these groups is relentless.” This column was retweeted by Max Blumenthal. And Hillary found the article important enough to forward it to Sullivan and her deputy assistant Secretary of State Phillipe Reines. She writes to them, “Had you seen this?” Sullivan responds to the anti-Semitic article, “I hadn’t. Interesting.” Reines, on the other hand, seems to have been so disgusted by this intolerant article that he surprisingly shoots back to Hillary, “My people control the banks too.” It appears Reines was letting Hillary know that this article was deeply biased and on a par with other well known libels against the Jewish people.

Jake Sullivan has also shown himself to be a fan of Peter Beinart, whom I have debated several times and someone who justified terrorist attacks against Israelis and demanded that America punish Israel for electing Netanyahu. Beinart, in one of our debates, compared the world’s foremost Jewish philanthropist and the principal sponsor of Birthright, Sheldon Adelson, to the terrorist leaders of Iran.

Beinart’s writings are blatantly anti-Israel and he has become infamous in the Jewish community for his calls for a complete boycott of Judea and Samaria in the hopes of forcing Israel to withdraw and allow terrorist Hamas to fill the vacuum. The fact that Hamas or Islamic State would inevitably overthrow Abbas’s weak government, as happened in Gaza, does not weigh in Beinart’s demands that Israel be punished if it does not accede to his demands.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just Sullivan. It seems that Hillary Clinton herself is a fan of Peter Beinart.

After Sid Blumenthal sent Hillary an anti-Israel column by Beinart, Hillary forwarded it to Sullivan, writing, “Pls read so we can discuss.” In response, Sullivan writes “Fascinating.”

When Blumenthal sent Hillary an article by his son Max filled with his usual anti-Israel drivel, Clinton forwarded the article to Sullivan with the message, “Interesting reading.”

Sullivan responds, “This is really fascinating. Does Beinart get into all of this?” Hillaryresponds, “Yes.”

Sullivan’s response to another Israel-hating Max Blumenthal article is to call it “fascinating” and try and compare the ideas it contains with the writings of Israel critic Peter Beinart. Of course, it was Bill Clinton himself who wrote a wild endorsement of Beinart’s book The Crisis of Zionism, in which Beinart charges Israel with everything from racism to apartheid-like conditions.

I have every desire to treat Hillary Clinton fairly when it comes to Israel and, as I wrote above, she deserves credit for finally disavowing the demented anti-Semitism of Max Blumenthal, even though he is the son of her foremost advisor.

But it’s important to note that when former senior adviser to President Barack Obama Dennis Ross wrote his tell-all book Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.-Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama, he described a faction within the White House that saw Israel as “more of a problem” than a partner. Since Hillary describes herself as someone who was a great friend to Israel in the Obama administration, it is imperative that she publicly clarify her position on Israel vis-a-vis some of her advisors whose opinions on Israel are deeply hostile.

Categories: 2016 elections, Antisemitism in America, Clinton advisers, Clinton and Israel, Clinton e-mails, Department of State, Israel
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

That Kissinger Promise and Obama’s Fulfillment

May 30, 2016

That Kissinger Promise and Obama’s Fulfillment, The Jewish Press, Vic Rosenthal, May 30, 2016

Obama-Kissinger-e1464550543436Pres. Obama seated with Henry Kissinger

{Originally posted to the author’s website, Abu Yehuda}

Old realpolitiker Henry Kissinger was in the news recently when he sat down with Donald Trump, to give him the benefit of his experience. It brought to mind Kissinger’s numerous attempts to get Israel out of the territories it conquered in 1967, before, during and – especially – after the Yom Kippur War.

Kissinger went to Iraq in December of 1975 to try to wean the regime away from the Soviet Union and improve relations with the US. In a discussion with Sa’dun Hammadi, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Kissinger suggested that American support for Israel was a result of Jewish political and financial power, promised that the US would work to force Israel back to pre-1967 boundaries, and indicated that while the US would not support the elimination of Israel, he believed that its existence was only temporary. Here is an excerpt (the whole thing is worth reading):

I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated. And I would say that until 1973, the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed.

We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. You yourself said your objection to us is Israel. Except maybe that we are capitalists. We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don’t agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon—struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.  [my emphasis] …

Kissinger also promised that aid to Israel, which he presented as a result of Jewish political influence, would be significantly reduced. He indicated that legal changes in the US – he must have been referring to the creation of the Federal Electoral Commission in 1974 to regulate campaign contributions – would attenuate Jewish power and therefore American support for Israel. Naturally, he didn’t foresee the Israel-Egypt peace agreement, which permanently established a high level of military aid to both countries.

He further promised that the US would support a PLO-run Palestinian state if the PLO would accept UNSC resolution 242 and recognize Israel. This of course is what (supposedly) happened in the Oslo accords.

Kissinger insisted that “No one is in favor of Israel’s destruction—I won’t mislead you—nor am I.” But his hint that a smaller Israel might not survive is clear. Surely he understood that a pre-1967-sized Israel (within what Eban called “Auschwitz lines”) would have no chance of surviving, simply because of the strategic geography of the area.

Kissinger was wrong about the Arabs developing the capability to challenge Israel, but their place has been taken by soon-to-be-nuclear Iran and its proxies, who are significantly more dangerous than the Arab states ever were.

US policy, however, has kept more or less the same shape, except that the hypocrisy of insisting that the US supports the existence of Israel but in a pre-1967 size is even more glaring. The substitution of the PLO for the Arab states as the desired recipient of the land to be taken from Israel has barely made a ripple either in America or among the Arabs, suggesting that the policy is more about Israel giving up land than about the Arabs getting it.

The original motivation for Kissinger’s promises was supposedly the desire of the US to replace the Soviet Union as the patron of the Arab states. After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War in 1991, however, there was no change in policy. Although the Oslo Accords were initiated by left-wing Israelis, the US eagerly embraced them, and the so-called ‘peace process’ became a permanent stick to beat Israel with.

President Obama is especially adept at emphasizing support for Israel’s existence while at the same time demanding that Israel make concessions that would make her continued existence impossible. Apparently agreeing with Kissinger about Jewish power, Obama has worked to reduce the pro-Israel influence of American Jews in numerous ways, such as by providing access to the White House for groups like J Street and the Israel Policy Forum, while marginalizing traditional Zionist organizations like ZOA.

Kissinger’s almost anti-Semitic claim that US support for Israel is bought with Jewish money was probably untrue in 1975 and is even less so today, when a large proportion of American Jews, including wealthy ones, have chosen their liberal or progressive politics over Zionism. The coming struggle over the introduction of a pro-Palestinian plank into the Democratic platform is an indication that the party and with it, many of its Jewish supporters, is moving toward Obama’s position.

The Obama Administration’s program to extricate itself from the Middle East by empowering Iran as the new regional power has given a new impetus to the policy of shrinking Israel. Iran sees Israel as a major obstacle to its hegemony, for both geopolitical and religious/ideological reasons, and is committed to eliminating the Jewish state. Obama found it necessary to restrain Israel from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities at least once (in 2012), and seems to be prepared to sacrifice Israel in order to achieve his goal of establishing Iranian regional dominance.

Some would go even further and say that Obama’s primary ideological goal is to eliminate Israel and the Iranian gambit is a means to this end, but that is highly speculative! Or maybe it’s a matter of two birds with one stone.

Henry Kissinger didn’t do us any favors, but I think the anti-Israel thread in American policy would have been strong enough without him, running from Truman’s Secretary of State George C. Marshall all the way to Obama’s stable of anti-Zionists like Rob Malley and Ben Rhodes.

Today Israel is long gone from the Sinai, more recently from Gaza, and probably only thanks to the disintegration of Syria, still holding the Golan Heights. I would like to believe that PM Netanyahu was correct when he said that Israel will never leave the Golan. Regarding Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, I expect that we are about to begin a very difficult time, as the Obama Administration is likely to mount a campaign in its last days to fulfill Kissinger’s promise to the Arabs at long last.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Arab nations, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Foreign policy, Gaza, Golan, Hamas, Henry Kissinger, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Israel borders, Israeli left, Israeli security, Jewish state, Leftists, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama and Iran, Obama and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians and Jews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

BDS Spreads Anti-Semitism Across U.S. Campuses

May 12, 2016

BDS Spreads Anti-Semitism Across U.S. Campuses, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Noah Beck, May 12, 2016

1534 (1)

Anti-Semitic incidents seem to spring up each week on college campuses throughout the United States. According to a study, “The strongest predictor of anti-Jewish hostility on campus” is the presence of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

The greater the BDS activity, especially involving faculty members, the more likely anti-Semitic episodes become, said the study issued last month by the AMCHA Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to investigating, documenting, and combating anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses.

One recent example occurred on April 15, when the City University of New York Doctoral Students’ Council passed a resolution calling for an academic boycott of Israel, 42-19. Weeks earlier, a CUNY professor and BDS advocate claimed that the killing of Palestinians in Gaza “reflects Jewish values.” On CUNY campuses, the New York Observer reports, Jewish students were harassed, with “Jews out of CUNY” uttered in at least one instance, and a professor who wears a yarmulke was called a “Zionist pig.”

On April 21, two-thirds of a union representing about 2,000 graduate students at New York University voted to approve a motion to support a BDS resolution against Israel. The motion also urges the union and its affiliate, the United Auto Workers, to divest from Israeli companies. The resolution asks NYU to close its program at Tel Aviv University, claiming the program violates NYU’s non-discrimination policy.

About a month earlier, NYU’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), one of the main organizing forces behind the nationwide BDS campaign, hosted Israeli academic Ilan Pappé, described by Benny Morris as “one of the world’s sloppiest historians.”

As reported by AMCHA:

“Pappé blamed Jews, perceived historically as evil, for antisemitism stating, ‘The [Jewish] Israelis…are responsible for bringing antisemitism back.’ He denied Jews self-determination and demonized Israel stating, ‘evil Zionism will come to an end – all immoral regimes do’ as well as suggested rich Jews should leave Israel as a process of ‘decolonization.’ He further demonized Israel throughout accusing Israel of carrying out ‘ethnic cleansing’ multiple times. Pappé delegitimized Israel consistently referring to Israel as a ‘settler colonialist project,’ …[and] promoted BDS.”

The Jewish Law Students Association at Harvard University and Harvard Hillel co-sponsored an event April 14 on “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict & the U.S.” During the question and answer session, Husam el-Qoulaq, an HLS student and head of SJP at the school, insulted  Israeli Knesset Member Tzipi Livni by asking, “How is it that you are so smelly?… A question about the odor of Ms. Tzipi Livni, she’s very smelly, and I was just wondering.” The student’s question resurrected the anti-Semitic stereotype of a “smelly/dirty Jew.” Incredibly, some “progressive” HLS Jewish students later defended el-Qoulaq.

As BDS campaigns spread on campuses, anti-Semitic expression increasingly follows – from swastika-filled vandalism at UC Davis and Purdue University to student “debates” at Stanford University that implicitly dignify classical anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling the media and economy. Among other recent incidents:

  • April 20: At Michigan’s Grand Valley State University, there have beensix anti-Semitic incidents reported on campus since last December. These involved swastikas on walls or doors of residence halls, messages including “I am a Nazi” and “Hitler did nothing wrong,” a faculty member making anti-Semitic gestures in a classroom, and a Star of David with an “X” scratched into it on the window of a bus.
  • April 19: At the University of Maryland, about two dozen protesters arrived at a Hillel and Jewish Student Union event called, “Israel Fest” and, for about an hour, chanted, “Fight the power; turn the tide; end Israeli apartheid” and held signs saying “Zionism kills.”
  • April 15: At the University of Notre Dame, a letter published by three students in the school newspaper accused Israel of apartheid and directed readers to the Anti-Semitic site “IfAmericansKnew” and the site for a major BDS group, Jewish Voice for Peace.
  • April 10: At Atlanta’s historically black Morehouse College, participants at the U.S. Universities Debating Championship (USUDC) were forced to justify the motion, “This House Believes That Violence By Palestinians Against Israeli Civilian Targets Is Justified.”

According to AMCHA, 2016 already has seen 171 anti-Semitic/BDS incidents as of April 21. At this rate, 2016 will see a 36 percent increase in incidents over last year.

Faculty members have become increasingly active in BDS efforts and smears. During a talk at Vassar College in February, Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar accused Israel of harvesting Palestinian organs and conducting scientific experiments in “stunting” the growth of Palestinian bodies. Last month, 40 Columbia University professors signed a BDS petition. More recently, one pro-BDS professor even tried to link campus rape to Israel. As Rochester Institute of Technology lecturer A.J. Caschetta notes, “at a time when much of academe is jumping on the BDS bandwagon, there is little risk to academics who join the movement, whereas opposition to majority leftist positions often leads to a perilous path.”

Indeed, academics who buck this trend may be endangering their careers. At Connecticut College, one of the few professors who defended Andrew Pessin, who hasn’t been in his classroom for the past year after a hate-filled campaign miscast his comments about Hamas as a smear on all Palestinians, says his stance cost him a promotion. Manuel Lizarralde, associate professor in Ethnobotany, wrote in a faculty-wide email Jan. 26 that the college “acted like vigilantes and found the perfect scapegoat,” in Pessin.

Within days, Lizarralde said, he was called in by the administration for a scolding. Noting that he was recently denied promotion, Lizarralde suggested in a recent email that this was payback for his support of Pessin. Connecticut College has “a sense of racism since we are Latinos, Jews and advocate for social injustice…[and we] are being punished [for such activism].”

Responding to the negative media coverage generated by the Pessin case, Connecticut College President Katherine Bergeron published an email to the faculty March 28, in which she championed “the right of all its members to express their views freely and openly.” She failed to explain how that principle applied to Pessin, who was hounded off campus for expressing his views, only to see them twisted and turned against him. She said that the school should promote “reasoned and informed debate about the most complex issues of our time,” but Pessin’s absence leaves the school with no pro-Israel voice. When asked about the contradictions between her email and the Pessin affair, she declined to comment.

Meanwhile, outrage against Connecticut College continues to build, with a petition to investigate the Pessin affair and revoke the school’s accreditation now exceeding 1,500 signatures.

Just as the character assassination targeting the only pro-Israel voice at Connecticut College appeared as a total surprise, BDS campaigns to influence student government votes across the country pop up with minimal notice, just weeks before the vote, giving the opposition little time to organize. That strategy helped secure SJP a BDS victoryat the University of Chicago undergraduate student government in March.

It failed to persuade the university’s administration, though.

Who is funding BDS? Analyst Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies recently told members of Congress that former employees of Hamas-linked charities now work for the Illinois-based organization American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which is “arguably the leading BDS organization in the US, a key sponsor of the anti-Israel campus network known as Students for Justice in Palestine.” Schanzer noted that AMP provides money, speakers, training and even “apartheid walls” to SJP campus activists. More surprising, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given anti-Israel BDS organizations hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to the Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center.

On campus after campus, the BDS movement has proven itself to be well organized and determined to poison the minds of impressionable students against Israel. It will take an equally concerted and sustained effort to oppose BDS in academia.

Categories: Academia, American Muslims for Palestine, Antisemitism in America, BDS, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Palestinians and Jews, SJP
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Florida Synagogue Bomber Plotted to Kill Jews for “Glory of Allah”

May 3, 2016

Florida Synagogue Bomber Plotted to Kill Jews for “Glory of Allah” Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 3, 2016

james-medina-11-e1462213958443

The last time I was in Los Angeles, there were guards at every synagogue. In New York, there are police officers in front of every synagogue. But the media won’t talk about Muslim anti-Semitism. Instead it’ll pretend that we face a grave Islamophobia threat. Two days from now this story will be buried beneath a deluge of “Muslims fear backlash” stories. And Jews will have to pray in synagogues under assault.

And so we turn to James Gonzalo Medina aka James Muhammad, who converted to Islam, threatened a church and then plotted to bomb a synagogue for Islam.

Medina has a number of prior arrests, including one in August 2012 when he was accused of sending violent threats via text message to a Coral Springs family.

One text read: “By next week, Ima bomb ya [curse word] … Bring him! I will buy a gun [off] the street and rampage [family member’s] church. Murder she wrote,” according to the 2012 affidavit.

And at some point, Muhammad/Medina prioritized killing Jews.

One of Medina’s associates informed the FBI source that Medina was planning to martyr himself in a firearms attack on the Aventura synagogue, using AK-47 assault rifles — then, the affidavit said, the conversation turned to claiming responsibility for it. Medina said he liked the source’s idea of using the name of a notorious terrorist group — ISIS or al-Qaida-linked Shabaab — to assume responsibility.

Medina, who told the source he had converted to Islam four years ago, said the planned synagogue attack would inspire other Muslims. Medina would later express his “current hatred for the Jewish people,” the affidavit said.

An FBI undercover employee questioned Medina about his resolve: “You’re sure this is something you want to do?” Medina answered: “I feel like it’s my calling,” adding he was “comfortable” with killing innocent women and children.

Initially, an FBI confidential source met with Medina and two of his associates in late March and discussed the attack plan for the first time, according to an FBI affidavit. In early April, Medina talked about the timing of the assault with the source, who mistakenly suggested it could be carried out in a couple of weeks on the Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur — not realizing the upcoming holiday was Passover.

Medina’s response: “… that’ll be a good day to go and bomb them,” the affidavit said.

Before his arrest, Medina made three videos with his cellphone: In the first, he was recorded saying, “Aventura, watch your back. ISIS is in the house.” In the second, he said, “Today is gonna be a day where Muslims attack America. I’m going to set a bomb in Aventura.” And in the third, he said his good-byes to his family.

And yes, he knew what he was doing. The “not a Muslim” thing did not fly.

CHS: MEDINA doesn’t have passion.

TI: No, no listen, listen, listen … no no it’s possible. I always knew in my heart …

CHS: MEDINA is suicidal, he’s not a Muslim.

TI: No, no, no, no listen, listen, listen. When, when I first met him, you know what he taught me. He taught me something you know. It’s not like he’s not knowledgeable. It’s not like he’s not bullshit.

CHS: It’s ok.

TI: It’s not like he’s not religious.

CHS was the FBI’s informant.

On April 1, 2016, MEDINA met with the CHS and at one point, while driving around in the CHS’s car, MEDINA directed the CHS to the synagogue in Aventura, the site of MEDINA’s intended attack. MEDINA described the synagogue (“it’s a real big one”), and when they drove up to it, MEDINA pointed it out (“[Y]ou see the, the, the David’s triangle star.”) Then MEDINA redirected the conversation from the location of the attack to its timing. MEDINA stated, “You see it there. And you see, I mean that’s where it is, but you gotta know when to go like.”

MEDINA explained some of his religious philosophies that form the basis for his current hatred for Jewish people…  MEDINA explained that if he would conduct an attack be would want to do it at a synagogue because Jewish people are the ones causing the world’s wars and conflicts.

MEDINA further explained that attacking one synagogue would give hope and light to other Muslims in America.

MEDINA further explained that the “plot” that he and BH had discussed allowed them to “strike back to the Jews, by going to a synagogue and just spraying everybody … ‘ cause we’re Muslims you know what I mean? It’s a war man and it’s like it’s time to strike back here in America.” MEDINA then stated that he wanted to go inside to kill people while the others shot people as they were fleeing the scene.

MEDINA then commented that the news coverage could galvanize Muslims to worldwide action: “I wanna see it go worldwide with now all the Muslims realizing you know, when it’s our time .. . Next thing you know it will be in California, Washington, and the brothers are saying you know, it’s our time now.”

MEDINA then discussed placing the bomb in the parking lot of the synagogue, and added, ” [W]e can just lay one out there and then bomb it later … I’d like to put it like, as close as possible, to the door.”

MEDINA envisioned a terrorist operation that would inflict maximum casualties, commenting “‘Cause, uh, I’m sure this is gonna be hammered. All these people gonna die.” He provided detailed instructions to the CHS about how to drop him off and then pick him up after the bomb had been strategically placed.

MEDINA again recounted the operational plan, with emphasis on the fact that it shoUld be when the synagogue is full of people: “[Y]ou just let me in there real quick, and I find my opportunity to walk in while the service already started … When I see, uh, I find the clearance, it’s where you’re gonna tell me, okay now, pull up and drop me off.” MEDINA flatly told the CHS, “Oh my God, I can’t wait.”

MEDINA told a story about a Jewish woman he had met earlier who had given him a ride. A discussion had ensued regarding her fear of Muslims once she realized MEDINA was a Muslim and her thoughts that MEDINA might kill her. Thereafter, MEDINA remarked to the UCE and the CHS that he had told her, “[Y]ou know, we’re, we’re just getting bombed for no reason, and it was time to get out. But it made me just think more that, you know, it just, when she said that you will kill me, I’m thinking yeah man, I want to. You know what I mean? I really do … ”

The UCE asked, “Why do you wanna do this?” MEDINA responded, “Because I realize that I have a lot of love for Allah. And I know that all these, all these wars that are going on, it hurts me, too. You know? It’s my call of duty. I gotta 10 get back, when I’m doing this, I feel that I’m doing it for a good cause for Allah.”

MEDINA’s comments prompted the UCE to ask another question about his motivation, “What message are you sending?” The UCE wanted to know more about MEDINA’s purpose in attacking the synagogue, including what claim of responsibility would be made. MEDINA answered that “I’m gonna call that it’s ISIS in America.” MEDINA plainly told the UCE that “I do want to get the bomb,” and though he had considered using an AK.-47 assault rifle to “just go in there and rampage everybody,” he concluded, “Well I’d like to use the bomb.” MEDINA added, “And I’m hoping that that one bomb can just cause a big damage you know? And let them realize that their Yom Kippur’s going down.”

MEDINA responded that it is Allah’s will and that he’s not crazy and reckless to the point where he would get the UCE arrested: “No I’m not like that.” The UCE cautioned MEDINA one more time that “once you do this, there’s no going back.” MEDINA reiterated his plan to personally deposit the bomb, and after it detonated, enjoy watching the news coverage of the attack: “That we, they, whatever they’re sayin’, that they’re being bombed and all of that … , and knowing that it was from us. And just getting’ a joy that I’m doing this you know, I did it. It worked out. And whatever happens, it’s for the glory of Allah.”

2 days.

Then the media will be running stories about how Islamophobia is the real problem and Muslim anti-Semitism doesn’t actually exist. Then The Nation will be doing sob stories about Medina claiming that he was a mentally unstable man used as a pawn by the FBI, just like they’re still doing for synagogue bomber Ahmed Ferhani in New York.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Islam and Jews, Islamic integration, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, synagogues
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hundreds Swarm SDSU President to Protest Freedom Center Anti-BDS Posters

April 30, 2016

Hundreds Swarm SDSU President to Protest Freedom Center Anti-BDS Posters, Front Page Magazine, Sara Dogan, April 29. 2016

Anti BDS poster

A series of posters created by the David Horowitz Freedom Center targeting proponents of the Hamas-inspired and funded Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against the Jewish state have incited a storm of controversy on the San Diego State University campus where hundreds of students swarmed University President Elliot Hirshman to claim that he did not condemn the posters forcefully enough and demanding an apology.

The Freedom Center’s posters identified by name a number of prominent student and faculty BDS activists on the campus and described them as having “allied themselves with Palestinian terrorists to perpetrate BDS and Jew Hatred on this campus.” The posters also contained the hashtag #StopTheJewHatredonCampus, the slogan of the Freedom Center campaign which seeks to confront the agents of campus anti-Semitism and refute the genocidal lies spread by Palestinian terrorists and their campus allies. These lies include the claims that Israel occupies Palestinian land and that Israel is an apartheid state.

Protestors were also incensed by a print ad taken out by the Freedom Center in the Daily Aztec.

The ad states:

There is an epidemic of Jew hatred on American campuses and at San Diego State University. This Jew hatred is incited by Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Students Association and assorted leftist groups, all of whom support the terrorist organizations Hamas and Fatah.

The ad goes on to explain that both SJP and MSA were created by operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and that both groups “disseminate genocidal lies about Israel whose purpose is to weaken and destroy the world’s only Jewish state.”

Posters for the campaign appeared on five California campuses, including at UCLA and UC-Berkeley, where they also sparked protests from anti-Israel activists, as well as university administrators who falsely characterized them as “hate speech.” Images of all the posters may be viewed here. Accounts of the protests and administrator responses can be read here.

In an email sent to San Diego State’s entire student body on Tuesday, Hirshman criticized the posters but also defended the importance of free speech: “First, we recognize and fully support the rights of all parties to voice their positions on political issues, whether supportive or critical. We also understand that when parties adopt a specific political position they become responsible for their actions and these actions may produce criticism.”

Hirshman’s failure to outright condemn the posters did not sit well with SDSU’s anti-Israel activists and the campus left. The protestors first held a silent protest of Hirshman during the swearing-in ceremony of incoming Associated Students President Jamie Miller. Following that protest, students surrounded a police car in which Hirshman was traveling and detained him for over two hours, chanting “Hirshman, Hirshman, come on out. We have something to talk about.” The Daily Aztec, San Diego State’s campus paper, reported the incident this way:

After leaving the council chambers, protesters got word that Hirshman was in a police cruiser near the Cal Coast Credit Union Open Air Theater, and rushed to “trap” him. The police cruiser was surrounded for over two hours as students chanted and even began praying.

Hirshman eventually got out of the police vehicle and stood to the side, surrounded by members of his administrative staff, who formed a barrier around Hirshman and several leaders of the protest so they could speak.

Photos of the protest taken by the Aztec reveal students holding signs proclaiming “We Demand An Apology” and “Respect My Name.”  A large banner hung on a fence adjacent to the protest reads “SDSU THINKS WE ARE TERRORISTS.” Video footage of the protest taken by a local ABC affiliate can be viewed below:

Despite the protestors’ claims to the contrary, it is notable that neither the Freedom Center’s ad nor its posters call SJP and MSA members terrorists. They merely declare that they support anti-Israel terrorists and parrot their propaganda, a claim which any photo of a mock “Israeli apartheid wall” will confirm.

President Hirshman himself confirmed this point while speaking with protestors, saying, “I don’t think they’re saying our students are terrorists. If there was a statement that our students were terrorists and they weren’t, I would certainly condemn that.”

Student activists interviewed by the Aztec defended their actions in detaining President Hirshman. One of the protestors, Hassan Abdinur, who was named on the Freedom Center’s poster as an SJP and MSA activist, stated: “Things have been building up and building up and the university hasn’t done anything so this was our opportunity to kind of stand face-to-face, really close, actually I smelled his breath, with the president of the university and tell him how we feel about what’s going on.”

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune which also reported the story, Hirshman eventually gave the student protestors a brief and nonspecific apology. “If we have done things inadvertently that have upset or hurt people, we are sorry for that,” Hirshman said.

While the protestors finally dispersed following that apology, they remain unsatisfied by Hirshman’s failure to condemn the posters outright. Presumably they were looking for a reaction more in line with UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Jerry Kang who sent an email attacking Horowitz to the entire UCLA community calling the Freedom Center’s posters “repulsive” and “personalized intimidation” and stating that they produce “chilling psychological harm.”

“[We wanted] an apology to the entire student body for his disrespect and disregard for the student voice [and] opinion,” Mustafa Alemi, a member of SDSU’s Associated Students Board of Directors, and also one of the SJP and MSA activists named on the posters, told the Daily Aztec. “Without our tuition money he’s not living the life he has right now and the fact that it took two to three hundred students to block his car to have a conversation with us is incredibly disrespectful.”

David Horowitz is scheduled to speak on SDSU’s campus on May 5th. It will be interesting to see just how respectful the conduct of SJP and MSA activists will be during his address.

Categories: Academia, Antisemitism in America, BDS, Freedom of Expression, Islam and Jews, Islam in America, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America, Palestinian terrorists, US colleges
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Welcome to the United States, where anti-Israel indoctrination masquerades as ‘critical thinking’

April 8, 2016

Welcome to the United States, where anti-Israel indoctrination masquerades as ‘critical thinking’ israel matzav, April 8, 2016

Greetings to all of you from Boston (yes, again).

I am starting today’s posting with a local story – from my home town.

Indoctrination @ Newton, a new video released today by Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT), exposes a pattern of anti-Israel teachings found in Newton, Massachusetts high schools, including:

  • Newton’s high schools have used Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) maps that falsify the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Newton students were not told that the maps were created by the PLO’s propaganda unit.
  • Newton’s schools presented students with a falsified version of the Hamas Charter. In Newton’s doctored version the word ”Jews” – as a target of hatred — is replaced with the word “Zionists.”
  • In one lesson, Newton students are asked to consider the Jewish state’s right to exist. (The legitimacy of no other nation-state’s existence is questioned.) The lesson included “expert” opinions, which are drawn overwhelmingly from anti-Israel academics and anti-Semitic activists.
  • A book used in Newton high schools has a recommended reading list that includes the extremist writings by Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Sayyid Qutb, and Yusuf Qaradawi, whose sermons call for the murder of Jews and homosexuals.
  • Newton schools officials are shown to continuously refuse to make school curricula and teaching materials available to the Newton residents.

Charles Jacobs, APT President said, “The video also shows that Saudi, Palestinian, and other Arab-funded teaching materials have been inserted into the curriculum, much of it containing anti-Israel bias.”

The Saudi funded Arab World Studies Notebook was used in Newton high schools until public pressure forced its removal. The Notebook, condemned by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), and rejected by many other school boards, teaches students, among other things, that Israeli soldiers murder Palestinian women. Newton’s Superintendent of Schools David Fleishman claimed that use of the Notebook helps develop “critical thinking skills.”

The video’s release follows news reports of anti-Semitic incidents, including hateful graffiti found in Newton North High School and at the F.A. Day Middle School. The graffiti featured swastikas and the genocidal statement “Burn the Jews.” According to media reports, Newton Day school officials – in violation of required mandatory reporting procedures – failed to inform parents and police about the incidents. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed concerns about these escalating anti-Semitic incidents.

Upon discovering racist graffiti at Boston Latin High School, city, state, and federal agencies immediately launched an investigation into the matter. Jacobs said, “Concerned parents in Newton demand equal protection for Jewish students. Accordingly, in light of Newton’s biased education, its ongoing refusal to allow public access to curricula and teaching materials, and the recent escalation of anti-Semitism, we urge Newton Mayor Setti Warren, Massachusetts’ state education officials, and the FBI to investigate this hateful situation in Newton schools.”

Let’s go to the videotape. More after the video.

As many of you know, I grew up in Newton – about a 5-minute walk from Newton North High School. I did not attend the Newton public schools. Newton was and is a heavily Jewish suburb of Boston and both Newton North and Newton South have many Jewish students. Some of you may have heard of this alumna of Newton North. One can only wonder how much influence the Newton public schools had on her political views.

Are there Jewish anti-Semites in Newton?

 

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Education, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America, Palestinians
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Newer Entries »