Zionist Conspiracy

1. When Jews join the anti-Semitic Enemy, by Kenneth Levin
Must Read
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20542/The_Diaspora_Syndrome.html

2. Defund Abbas and his Terrorhoids:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU2N2Q5NzJiYjRlOTA0MjNjOTc0NGU5OTY2NTdmYmQ=

3. NYTimes Story about important essay on Jewish anti-Semites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?ex=1170824400&en=69a7a105abf1e92e&ei=5070&emc=eta1MSN
January 31, 2007
Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor
By PATRICIA COHEN
The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for
speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group
has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target:
liberal Jews.

An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled .
.Progressive. Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,. says a number of
Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent
anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director
of the committee, writes, .Perhaps the most surprising . and distressing .
feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in
the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.. Those who
oppose Israel.s basic right to exist, he continues, .whether Jew or
gentile, must be confronted..

The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing
not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off
condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like
former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast
.Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.. By spotlighting the touchy issue of
whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and
detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute
over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and
anti-Semitic statements begin.

The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the
director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana
University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name,
including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the
historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post
columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.

Mr. Judt, whose views on Israel and the American Jewish lobby have
frequently drawn fire, is chastised for what Mr. Rosenfeld calls .a series
of increasingly bitter articles. that have .called Israel everything from
arrogant, aggressive, anachronistic, and infantile to dysfunctional,
immoral, and a primary cause of present-day anti-Semitism..

A historian at New York University, Mr. Judt said in a telephone interview
that he believed the real purpose of outspoken denunciations of him and
others was to stifle harsh criticism of Israel. .The link between
anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is newly created,. he said, adding that he
fears .the two will have become so conflated in the minds of the world.
that references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will come to be seen as
.just a political defense of Israeli policy..

The essay also takes to task .Wrestling With Zion: Progressive
Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. (Grove
Press), a 2003 collection of essays edited by Mr. Kushner and Alisa
Solomon. Mr. Kushner said that he and Ms. Solomon took great care to
include a wide range of voices in their collection, including those of Ms.
Rich, the playwright Arthur Miller and various rabbis.

.Most Jews like me find this a very painful subject,. Mr. Kushner said,
and are aware of the rise in vicious anti-Semitism around the world but
feel .it.s morally incumbent upon us to articulate questions and
reservations..

Over the telephone, the dinner table and the Internet, people who follow
Jewish issues have been buzzing over Mr. Rosenfeld.s article. Alan Wolfe,
a political scientist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion
and American Public Life at Boston College, said, .I.m almost in a state
of shock. at the verbal assaults directed at liberal Jews.

On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions
of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University
of Toronto, wrote, .Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me
wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to
foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish
experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of
being as feeding anti-Semitism..

Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld.s indictment and joined the fray.
Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz,
the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish
Advocate in Boston: .Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists,
not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only
one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews..

Although many of the responses to the essay have referred to its subject
as .Jewish anti-Semitism,. Mr. Rosenfeld said in a telephone interview
that he was very careful not to use that phrase. But whatever it is
called, he said, .I wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is
resurgent, Jews thinking the way they.re thinking is feeding into a very
nasty cause..

In his essay he says that .one of the most distressing features of the new
anti-Semitism. is .the participation of Jews alongside it.. Like others,
Mr. Cohen of The Washington Post complained that the essay cherry-picked
quotations. .He mischaracterized what I wrote,. he said. .I.ve been
critical of Israel at times, but I.ve always been a defender of Israel..
He did add, however, that a wide range of writers were named, some of whom
have written inflammatory words about Israel. .He has me in a very strange
neighborhood,. Mr. Cohen said.

The dispute goes beyond the familiar family squabbling among Jews that is
characterized by the old joke about two Jews having three opinions on a
single subject. Bitter debates over anti-Israel statements and
anti-Semitism have entangled government officials, academics,
opinion-makers and others over the past year, particularly since fervent
supporters and tough critics of Israel can be found on the right and the
left.

Mr. Wolfe, who has written about a recent rise in what he calls .Jewish
illiberalism,. traces the heated language to increasing opposition to the
Iraq war and President Bush.s policy in the Middle East, which he said had
spurred liberal Jews to become more outspoken about Israel.

.Events in the world have sharpened a sense of what.s at stake,. he said.
.Israel is more isolated than ever,. causing American Jewish defenders of
Israel to become more aggressive.

On this point Mr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Wolfe are in agreement. .It.s going up
a notch or four or five,. Mr. Rosenfeld said in an interview. .One of the
things that is clear,. he said of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attacks,
.is that what used to be on the margin and not very serious is becoming
more and more mainstream..

Mr. Rosenfeld, who has written and edited more than half a dozen books as
well as other publications for the committee, emphasized that policy
disagreements were natural and expected. Opposing Israel.s settlement of
the West Bank or treatment of Palestinians .is, in itself, not
anti-Semitic,. he writes; it is questioning Israel.s right to exist that
crosses the line.

But Mr. Judt said, .I don.t know anyone in a respectable range of opinion
who thinks Israel shouldn.t exist.. (Mr. Judt advocates a binational state
that is not exclusively Jewish, something that many Jews see as equivalent
to dissolving Israel). He contends that harsh complaints about Israel.s
treatment of Palestinians are the real target.

Last year Mr. Judt came to the defense of two prominent political
scientists, Stephen M. Walt at Harvard and John J. Mearsheimer of the
University of Chicago, after they were besieged for publishing a paper
that baldly stated (among other things) that anyone critical of Israel or
the American Jewish lobby .stands a good chance of being labeled an
anti-Semite..

David Singer, the committee.s director of research, said the attention Mr.
Rosenfeld.s essay had drawn was not unexpected. .We certainly thought that
it would raise eyebrows in some quarters,. he said.

.I think it.s an act of courage. on the part of the American Jewish
Committee and the author, he added. .It obviously deals with matters of
great sensitivity..

4. Subject: Memo to a Useful Idiot: Canadian Jewish News Column
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=11090
CANADIAN JEWISH NEWS
1 February 2007
MEMO TO A USEFUL IDIOT
By Gil Troy

Dear Shulamit Aloni,

In early January, you supported former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's
inaccurate,
inflammatory accusation that Israel is guilty of practising "apartheid."
You
must be pleased with yourself. Your article has been widely posted around
the
Internet. Googling "Shulamit Aloni" and "apartheid" generates 70,000 hits.

I am, however, appalled. Not only did you fail to make the case, but I
challenge
you to see how your article is being used. I do not believe that all
critics of
Israel are anti-Semites. Nor do all critics call for Israel's destruction.
But I
wonder how many anti-Semites - how many people devoted to destroying
Israel -
will post your article and lovingly quote your words before you take
responsibility for fanning the flames of hatred against your people and
the
country you served as education minister.

You repeated the term apartheid nine times in your nearly 1,100-word
article,
yet only one paragraph discusses the term. Citing international law, you
define
apartheid "as an international crime that, among other things, includes
using
different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus
depriving
people of their human rights." Having shown that Israeli soldiers disrupt
Palestinian travel you ask: "Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?"

That's the wrong question. The relevant question is whether the
Israeli-Palestinian clash is a racial conflict and whether the State of
Israel
has imposed a systematic, racist South-African-type regime. You contradict
your
title when you say that "we, too, used very violent terror against foreign
rule
because we wanted our own state." If Palestinians are fighting "foreign
rulers"
then how is the apartheid label relevant? Apartheid, with its network of
laws
separating black citizens from whites, institutionalized white supremacy.
Neither you nor Carter have justified that charge.

Unfortunately, this is more than a legalistic debate. By supporting
Carter's
term, you are advancing a growing worldwide campaign to delegitimize
Zionism and
expel Israel from among the community of nations, which is the correct
punishment for an "apartheid" state. Your article - and your career -
demonstrate many other eloquent ways to condemn Israeli policies without
using
an incorrect, destructive analogy.

If you doubt how the apartheid accusation is being used against Israel, I
invite
you to surf the web and meet your new allies.

When I appeared on the left-leaning American radio and television network
Democracy Now to condemn Carter's use of the term, I received a wave of
abusive
anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic e-mails. Most critics blamed Israel
exclusively
for the entire Mideast mess, putting Israel's actions and "the Jews" at
the
centre of all the world's troubles.

I was told that the Jewish state should be in southern Germany, not on
Palestinian land, that we Jews thought we were better than everyone, and
that as
a "Jewish New Yorker" I spoke "Yinglish" not English. Most critics
triumphantly
referenced your article or other similar articles from Israelis "proving"
that
Israel practises apartheid - as if it's impossible for an Israeli to be
wrong,
too.

You are, of course, free to believe what you wish and write what you wish.
That's your right. You live in a free county. But had you lived under
South
Africa's apartheid regime, you would have had to write such attacks from
outside
the country or from inside a jail cell.

My question then, is, what is your responsibility? When your words,
consistently, are used by others to smear Israel, to delegitimize the
state, to
rationalize terrorism, and to peddle anti-Semitism, at what point do those
actions implicate you?

The time has come for you to stand up and say, "Yes, my anger about the
situation in the territories remains but, no, don't delegimitize my state,
don't
libel my people, and don't use my heartfelt words to advance your
despicable
agenda." You and many of your comrades on the Israeli left seem to have
forgotten that in the Internet age, your words resonate, making you foot
soldiers in the "electronic intifadah" that seeks Israel's destruction. I
challenge you and your buddies to take responsibility for the anti-Semitic
effects of some of your rhetoric. You cannot deny your impact.

The old saw falsely attributed to Lenin still holds - you don't have to
recognize that you're a "useful idiot" to be one.

Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author of
"Why I
Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today."

5. The Nazification of Greater Madrid:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=120674

6. Rubinstein knows treason when he sees it:
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20547/Meretz_Professor_Knows_Treason_When_He_Sees_It.html

7. Letters to Editor:
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20552/Letters_To_The_Editor.html
Dreamer Vs. Realist

It is clear that Eli Chomsky (.For Israeli-Syrian Talks,. op-ed, Jan.
26) lives in America and Steven Plaut (.Israel Should Offer Syria
Nothing,. op-ed, Jan. 26) in Israel. Like so many in America, Mr. Chomsky
fails to understand the Arab mentality, and therefore he dreams. Professor
Plaut may also dream, but living in Israel forces him to be a realist.

The American grows up with the concepts of fairness, give and take,
live and let live. Would that everyone in the world incorporated those
noble traits. The Arabs are unencumbered by such values. They seek world
domination for Allah. They give nothing, but take (in stages) whatever
they can. They even have a precedent from Muhammad for abrogating treaties
and contracts.

If one considers the peace treaty with Egypt it quickly becomes
apparent that Israel gave up the entire Sinai, its oil fields and Taba,
and in return Egypt agreed not to go to war against Israel. But Egypt has
no trouble looking away as terrorists smuggle all manner of weapons into
Gaza to be used against Israel.

Dream on, Mr. Chomsky. I guess we can.t fault you for trying to hasten
the vision of our prophet Isaiah (Yeshayahu) who speaks of the lion
dwelling with the lamb. But until that glorious future arrives, let.s hope
the Almighty saves us from our shortsighted, misguided Israeli politicians
who don.t even know that the biblical borders of Israel include the Golan
Heights.

Amy Wall

New York, NY

Great Debate

Both Eli Chomsky and Steven Plaut made well-written, articulate cases
for their respective positions, but I must admit to being partial to Mr.
Plaut.s more hard-line approach. At any rate, putting their columns on
facing pages and allowing them to express their views was a great idea,
and I hope we can look forward to seeing more of these debates in future
issues of The Jewish Press.

Saul Wachtel

Brooklyn, NY

8. Western Sycophants And Islamic Oppressors
(http://www.nysun.com/article/47573?page_no=1)
By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
January 29, 2007

# posted by Steven Plaut : 9:40 AM

1.
Emi Elmaliah and Michael Ben Sa'adon decided to open a small neighborhood
bakery when they were released from the Israeli army. Young, married,
with children, they had a modest dream, to make a living selling bread in
a quiet residential neighborhood in Eilat. They and their only employee,
Israel Zamalloa, a Jew from Peru, were murdered when a Palestinian peace
partner of Ehud Olmert blew up their bakery. Naturally, the mother of the
murderer was ecstatic that her son had died murdering Jewish civilians
(see http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/mideastconflictisrael ). The three
victims became the latest victims of the Oslo "peace process".

A completely unexpected attack, the media are telling us. Who could have
possibly known that such a killer could simply walk into Israel across its
border with Egypt? How could anyone possibly have known it was so easier
to walk across the border?

How indeed. Well, for one, 300 Sudanese knew, as did anyone in Israel who
had read a newspaper or watched TV over the past few months. Sudanese
refugees from Darfur who entered Egypt simply walked to the border with
Israel and then walked across, entering Israel with not so much as a
challenge by a border patrolman to show their papers. No doubt the
Sudanese chose the wide-open Egyptian-Israel border because infiltrating
Libya from Egypt can be a real problem you see, what with the guarded
border THERE and all. The Israeli media have been filled with stories
about those Sudanese, with public debates as to what to do with them. But
after those news stories of the Sudanese simply walking into Israel across
the undefended border with Egypt, it seems that the only people left in
the entire country who were NOT aware that the border with Egypt was
unsecured were Israel's Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and army chief
of staff.

Who else knew of the unsecured porous border? Well, every drug smuggler
in the country and every prostitute who entered Israel in the past few
decades. The latter "working girls" are mostly Eastern Europeans who fly
to Egypt and then stroll across the border to practice their "profession".
The bomber of Eilat had exited the Gaza Strip into Sinai via one of those
countless tunnels that Olmert is too cowardly to demolish because one
would have to knock down a few houses of "Palestinians" to get at them.
The murderer was driven down the Sinai to a nice place for a winter stroll
into Israel.

SO after the atrocity in Eilat (the murderer, by the way, was actually
trying to get to Haifa to blow himself up), all the politicians are
whining about how expensive it would have been to secure the border with
Egypt. You know, barbed wire and "nanny cameras" really cost...

2. Polls here are showing that more Israelis believe President Moshe
Katsav about the charges of "rape" and hanky-panky being filed against him
by the Prosecutor's Office than the number who believe the Prosecutor's
charges. This, despite a year's long media campaign leaking stories about
what President Katsav is supposed to have done.

Now Katsav is innocent until proven guilty and here is not the place to
state my own subjective take on what he may have done. But the fact that
more Israelis disbelieve the leftist Prosecutor's Offices than believe
them might just have something to do with the naked leftist bias
manifesting itself every day in the behavior of the Attorney General,
including the prosecution for manslaughter of farmer Shay Dromi for
defending his property from Arab thieves and the long track record of
indicting and jailing anti-Oslo protesters under a variety of charges,
including teenage girls.

3. When the Texas Jihadniks tried to pull a Neve Gordon:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_court_dismisses_frivolous_case_against_ngo_monitor_
Of course Texas has freedom of speech whereas Israel has a neofascist
Left.

4. More on that Pro-Terror Treason conference at TAU:
Defended by Hebrew University leftist prof:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467849565&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

5. Olmert's Peace Partners
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=19091

6. More affirmative apartheid:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26670

7. Why Israel is Imploding:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/218daevb.asp?pg=1

8. On Racism:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6878

# posted by Steven Plaut : 4:36 AM

Suicide Bomber Infiltrated from Gaza
13:16 Jan 29, '07 / 10 Shevat 5767

(IsraelNN.com) The suicide bomber who attacked an Eilat bakery Monday
morning is Mohammed al-Saqsaq, 21, of Gaza, an Islamic Jihad terrorist
spokesman said.

The names of the three civilians killed in the blast have not been
released. At least one was a woman in her 20s. Security personnel still
are investigating how he arrived into the tourist city, which until Monday
had been spared terrorist attacks within the city.

# posted by Steven Plaut : 4:24 AM

1.
Well it is now official. Israel has an Arab cabinet minister. The Left
of course dismisses it as tokenism. Some on the Right were unhappy with
the idea. In particular, Avigdor Lieberman's party was opposed. The
appointment passed the cabinet unanimously except for Lieberman's single
vote against. The new minister is Ghaleb Majadele (Labor Party), who will
serve as minister without portfolio (meaning he does nothing), although
he wants to become Minister of science, culture, and sport, which would
still mean he would do nothing.

Now, the Israeli Left and the media have been having a field day attacking
Lieberman and his party as "racists" for opposing the appointmet of
Majadele. Amir Peretz, commissar of the Labor Party, has repeatedly
denounced Lieberman as a "racist". You would be almost forgiven if you
have been reading the Israeli press and were given the impression that
Lieberman and his entire party are little better than Russian-born
Klansters.

Well, almost forgiven. To understand the truth, you would have to read
the small print in Haaretz in a minor inside story.

Several years ago Israel was subjected to the Ehud Barak 2000 capitulation
to the Hizbollah in Lebanon, which as everyone knows created no danger at
all of Israel being hit with katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon.

As part of that capitulation to terror, quite a few Lebanese Shiites and
Christians who had cooperated with Israel in its erstwhile "Southern
Lebanon Security Zone" were granted asylum inside Israel, because it was
clear that their lives and the lives of their families were in danger once
the Hizbollah took control with Ehud Barak's assistance. Other Arabs from
the West Bank and Gaza who had assisted Israel in its war against
terrorism were similarly granted asylum, since the PLO militias like to
murder them. These were placed in homes in Israeli Arab towns where
their kids could attend Arabic schools. Until such generosity became the
focus of hatred.

In the early years of the 21st century, a series of demonstrations against
these Arab "collaborators" were held in Israel, by radical Arabs and by
anti-Israel leftist Jews. Some of these demonstrations were quite
violent. The protesters denounced those "collaborators" as traitors and
"enemies of their own people" because they were "guilty" of the "crime" of
having tried to help Israel fight terrorism. Haaretz at the time
was filled with denunciations of these people as "traitors".

At the time, I compared the
behavior of the protesters to an imaginary set of demonstrations held in
1945 against German and Japanese informants granted residency privileged
in the US as reward for helping the Allies against the Axis powers in
World War II, where the demonstrators denounce these people as traitors
and "enemies of their own people." Of course, no such demonstrations
were held in 1946 because there were no Americans so clearly traitorous
as to dare to behave in that way.

One of the organizers of the violent demonstrations against these
"collaborators" was allegedly none other than the new Arab cabinet
minister himself (see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818769.html).
A number of innocent Arabs were beaten by the pro-terror
"anti-collaborator" protesters and at least one was murdered. There have
been a number of calls to block the appointment of Majadele due to his
role in inciting the violence and a court petition against the
appointment was filed by a lawyer, Shmuel Zang.

Majadele also has a long track record of denouncing Israel for supposed
"discrimination" against Arabs (see
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818769.html)

2. A story that has been making the news in the Israeli media concerns a
Jewish farmer in the Negev who shot and killed an Arab Bedouin thief who
had broken into his property. The farmer, a religious Jew named Shay
Dromi, raises sheep and shot the thief while the latter and three
business associates were trying to steal some sheep. The Israeli leftist
Prosecutor's Office
ordered that the Jewish farmer be prosecuted for manslaugter and jailed
for many years, as many as 20 years. The Prosecutor at first considered
indicting the farmer for murder. Had the thief been a Jew or the
farmer an Arab (or both), it would have been open and shut justifiable
manslaughter and self-defense. Dromi also wounded a second thief. A
group of 4 thieves in all were trying to break into his property.

In a poll taken this week, 81% of the Israeli public (which is about 20%
Arab) indicated they think Dromi was entirely justified in shooting the
thief. But Israel's Prosecutor cares not a fig for either natural rights
nor for public opinion. 87% of those polled said the cops cannot be
relied upon to stop thieves.

Israel's Left is also aghast. How dare a Jew fire at a group of four
Arab criminals? After all, Arabs are oppressed so it is their right to
steal, right? The Jews owe it to them.

For an excellent legal analysis of this (alas, only in Hebrew), see
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3355718,00.html
Roy Bean, where are you when we really need you east of the Pecos?

3. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26652
Holocaust Deniers and Their Supporters
By Ariel Cohen

4. Jihadization of youth a 'rapid process'
Stewart Bell
National Post
Friday, January 26, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25e76872-b309-47a7-841b-938bdd9ffd71

# posted by Steven Plaut : 3:56 AM

1. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=120408
Prof. Aumann: Post-Zionism Greater Threat Than Nukes
Sunday, January 28, 2007 / 9 Shevat 5767

Nobel Prize Laureate Prof. Israel (Robert) J. Aumann addressed the
Herzliya Conference last week. Speaking after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,
Aumann said that post-Zionism "will be the end of us."

Prof. Aumann, of the Center for the Study of Rationality at Jerusalem's
Hebrew University, began his address by addressing the Iranian threat, but
shifted his focus midway to what he said poses an even more serious threat
to the Jewish nation: post-Zionism.

Having outlined the threat of Iranian nuclear attack, and the greater
threat of Iranian proliferation of nuclear weapons among Islamic terror
groups, Aumann continued:

"And now a few words about a third threat, which is perhaps the greatest
of all. It does not come from Iran, nor from terrorist groups, nor from
any external source. It comes from within us. 'We have met the enemy, and
it is us.' Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, your humble servant makes his
living from game theory - among other things, very serious games: games of
life and death and of existence and annihilation.

"The name of the game in game theory is motivation, incentives. Earlier,
we discussed the motivations of those standing on the opposite side.
Motivating ourselves is the most important thing, and the thing we are
losing the most. Without motivation, we will not endure. What are we doing
here? Why are we here? What are we aspiring to here? We are here because
we are Jewish, we are Zionist, because of our ancient bond to this land;
we aspire to realize our 2,000-year-old hope of becoming a free nation in
our land, the Land of Zion and Jerusalem. Without this profound
understanding, we will not endure. We will simply no longer be here;
post-Zionism will finish us off."

The Nobel Prize Laureate, who was an outspoken opponent of the
Disengagement, then addressed the prime minister: .About half a year ago
in Petra, Jordan, the prime minister said that we are tired. He was right.
He was elected by the nation, and he expresses the sentiments of the
nation. We are like a mountain-climber that gets caught in a snowstorm;
the night falls, he is cold and tired, and he wants to sleep. If he falls
asleep, he will freeze to death. We are in terminal danger because we are
tired. I will allow myself to say a few unpopular, unfashionable words:
our panicked longing for peace is working against us. It brings us farther
away from peace, and endangers our very existence. I think it was
Churchill who said, .If you want peace, prepare for war.. The preparation
includes material preparation, a fantastic army, effective tools of war,
but above all, we are talking about spiritual preparation, about spiritual
readiness to go to war.

.Roadmaps, capitulation, gestures, disengagements, convergences,
deportations, and so forth do not bring peace. On the contrary, they bring
war, just as we saw last summer. These things send a clear signal to our
'cousins' [the Arabs -ed.] that we are tired, that we no longer have
spiritual strength, that we have no time, that we are calling for a
time-out. They only whet their appetites. It only encourages them to
pressure us more, to demand more, and not to give up on anything. These
things stem from simple theoretical considerations and also from straight
thinking. But it's not just theory: it has been proven and re-proven in
the field over thousands of years. I returned today from a trip to India,
where we heard about historical stories that illustrate the same.
Capitulations bring about war; determination and readiness bring about
peace.

.Ladies and gentlemen, we must tell our 'cousins' that we are staying
here. We are not moving. We have time; we have patience; we have stamina.
Understand this and internalize it. And we must not simply say it to our
cousins but feel it within ourselves. This and only this will bring peace.
We can really live in peace and unity and cooperation with our cousins.
But only after they understand and internalize that the Zionist state will
be here forever. Thank you very much..

2. Another frivolous libel SLAPP suit by a jihadnik against a Zionist:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1705

3. Nobel Prize Fame Theory Expert Views the Iranian Nuclear Threat
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:58:22 -0500

Prof. Israel (Robert) J. Aumann, Nobel Prize Laureate; Center for the
Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

First of all, I would like to thank the conference organizers for inviting
me to speak at this important and central event. I was asked to speak
about the existential dangers threatening the State of Israel. One danger
known to all of us stems from Iran 's nuclear armament program, which
threatens to erase the State of Israel from the map. We cannot
underestimate the importance of this danger. However, in my humble
opinion, it is less threatening than it appears at first glance. Iran is
a nation like all nations; it has an address.we know who it is and where
it is. If the rumors are true.that the State of Israel has according
deterrence capability, and no less importantly, means of delivering
weapons, then there is indeed a danger, but it is a limited one. The
rulers of Iran are often called lunatics, but there is no evidence that
this is the case. Iran 's rulers act very rationally. They have goals
that indeed oppose our goals, but these are their goals, and they advance
them very effectively. The destruction of central Iranian cities is not
one of their goals. We certainly need to stand guard, but the fear of
Iran 's direct use of nuclear weapons against Israel seems minimal. I
allow myself to speak freely because I don't know anything that's
happening in the field.perhaps less than anyone in this hall.

However, unfortunately, there is a different danger in Iran 's nuclear
armament.more tangible and more threatening, although more indirect. This
danger is hidden in the possibility that nuclear technology will be
transferred from Iran to terrorist groups such as Al Qa'ida or
others.groups whose identities are indistinct, who have no address. Even
these groups are not insane; they act consistently, rationally, and
sophisticated in order to achieve their goals. But because they have no
address, direct deterrence policy is not effective in their case. Thus,
if they succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, it is unclear how we will be
able to deter them from using it against us.

These groups, or some of them, are very close in their goals and ideology
to Iran . Therefore, this is a great danger in the transfer of nuclear
technology and the necessary materials from Iran to these groups. One
possibility is that such a transfer would be intended and approved by the
Iranian authorities. Another possibility, which is more likely, is that
the transfer will not be intended or planned; this is a case of
infiltration of radical terrorist elements into the Iranian nuclear system
or of a lack of sufficient caution of the Iranian authorities or of a leak
or of deliberate smuggling in the lower echelons of the Iranian
system.leaks and smuggling that are unauthorized and even unknown to the
higher echelons. If such a transfer occurs in one of these two ways, then
we will in fact be in substantial trouble. We will not be able to
directly prevent these groups to execute their schemes.

Therefore, we must act indirectly by offering appropriate incentives. In
my opinion, there are two ways to do this. One is to create strong and
tangible motivation for the government of Iran to prevent at all costs the
transfer of nuclear technology and materials to groups that do not
function under its auspices. The second and less effective way is to give
strong and tangible motivation to these terrorist groups we have mentioned
not to use nuclear weapons against Israel , even if they have obtained
such weapons. As we have said, this type of deterrence is not easy
because these groups have no address, but they have goals and they have an
ideological identity, and it is possible to create adequate incentives on
this backdrop. We mentioned two existential threats facing the State of
Israel.the direct nuclear threat and the indirect nuclear threat.

As we have said, the second danger is greater, and now a few words about a
third threat, which is perhaps the greatest of all. It does not come from
Iran , nor from terrorist groups, nor from any external source. It comes
from within us. "We have met the enemy, and it is us." Esteemed ladies
and gentlemen, your humble servant makes his living from game theory.among
other things, very serious games: games of life and death and of
existence and annihilation. The name of the game in game theory is
motivation, incentives. Earlier, we discussed the motivations of those
standing on the opposite side. Motivating ourselves is the most important
thing, and the thing we are losing the most. Without motivation, we will
not endure. What are we doing here? Why are we here? What are we
aspiring to here? We are here because we are Jewish, we are Zionist,
because of our ancient bond to this land; we aspire to realize our
2000-year-old hope of becoming a free nation in our land, the Land of Zion
and Jerusalem . Without this profound understanding, we will not endure.
We will simply no longer be here; Post-Zionism will finish us off.

About half a year ago in Petra , Jordan , the prime minister said that we
are tired. He was right. He was elected by the nation, and he expresses
the sentiments of the nation. We are like a mountain-climber that gets
caught in a snowstorm; the night falls, he is cold and tired, and he wants
to sleep. If he falls asleep, he will freeze to death. We are in terminal
danger because we are tired. I will allow myself to say a few unpopular,
unfashionable words: our panicked lunging for peace is working against us.
It brings us farther away from peace, and endangers our very existence. I
think it was Churchill who said, "If you want peace, prepare for war."
The preparation includes material preparation, a fantastic army, effective
tools of war, but above all, we are talking about spiritual preparation,
about spiritual readiness to go to war.

4. The Jimmy Carter treason page:
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/carter/carter.html

5.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=62926c33-df00-4608-b817-7a
46d55d7da4
Sunday > January 28 > 2007

How not to handle a genteel racist
Dalhousie Non-debate: White supremacist invited, disinvited, roughed up
and in the end, glorified

Joseph Brean
National Post

6. Jew-baiting at Stanford:
Online Edition Exclusive: Israel's Defeat on Campus
by Daniel Kaganovich and Jeremy England
(http://www.stanfordreview.org/Tellfriend/index.php)
Print Article _ (http://www.stanfordreview.org/cjprint/printpage.php)
(Article forgets to mention Abu Beinin)

7. The Silence of the Left:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6877

8. What makes an Anti-Semite, by Prof. Dina Porat:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1722

# posted by Steven Plaut : 11:13 AM

1. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=120188
Ex-CIA Director: PA Arabs Don't Deserve State
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / 5 Shevat 5767

James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, told IsraelNationalRadio's Alex
Traiman that a Palestinian state should wait "many decades" until they
stop teaching their children to hate and murder.

Traiman asked about Woolsey's choice of terminology in calling the present
conflict between the West and Islam as World War Four.

Woolsey explained that shortly after 9/11, "I saw an op-ed in the Wall
Street Journal by Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University where he wrote
that the Cold War was World War III, and that the war against what I call
Islamist totalitarianism is World War IV... We have a situation where
democracies in the west such as Israel and the US, and Japan and others
too, are at war with a group of Islamist totalitarianism ideologies and
movements - very loosely analogous to the movements of the 20s and 30s -
Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism..."

Woolsey said that it could take the West "decades to win this war; the
Cold War took us four decades to win, and I see no reason to expect this
one to be less than that."

Traiman asked, "Iran is actively working on a nuclear bomb and calls for
Israel's destruction. How long can Israel afford to wait before taking
action? And how long can the US afford to wait?"

Woolsey did not offer a direct answer, but rather some background:
"We can only hope that the Israeli and American governments have a better
handle on the precise details of the Iranian nuclear program... The
Persians [precursors of today's Iranians -ed.] invented chess, and they
are playing it well. Hamas and Hizbullah and other groups are their pawns,
and the Syrian government is a rook, and their most precious piece - their
queen - is their nuclear weapons program. They are moving the pieces
around quite cleverly, this week using Hizbullah to overthrow the
government of Lebanon; next week it may be something else. They are moving
their pieces with skill, and they're a very serious adversary."

PA State - Not in the Coming Decades
Asked his opinion on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the former
CIA director recommended that it not happen in the coming decades. He said
that though the Jewish presence in this region precedes the Moslem claim -
"for some Muslims like Arafat to deny that Jews were ever present here is
idiotic" - the Moslems also have national rights in the area.

Openly avoiding the question of the nature or borders of a Palestinian
state, he emphasized his opinion that "the Palestinians should not be
granted the right to statehood until they start to treat Israeli Jews who
settle in the West Bank as fairly as Israel treats its Muslim citizens."

"An Arab Muslim living in Jaffa," Woolsey said, "enjoys freedom of speech,
religion, and expression, and can vote for his representatives in the
Knesset, and doesn't go to sleep worrying that some government element
might come and kill him. I think that once the Palestinians start treating
Jewish settlers with that same degree of humanity - and they're very, very
far from doing that now - at that point I think we have to seriously
consider how they could have some degree of self-governing. I won't get
into the question of borders, but what I think is that the Palestinians
must be held to the same standards as Israel regarding how they treat the
other. I am sure this will be many decades from now, though, because their
children are taught the Wahhabi doctrine of being suicide bombers and the
like."

Disengagement Was a Mistake
Traiman: "There are continuous calls for American troop withdrawals from
Iraq; the unilateral withdrawal idea is back on the table here in Israel;
and talks with Syria are again being pushed. Why are we playing the
appeasement card?"

Woolsey: "Appeasement isn't called playing a card - it's just folding. I
think those steps that you just mentioned are most unwise. Talking to
Syria and negotiating should be done only when one has leverage...
Unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would not be a wise step for
Israel to take; when one sees what happened in Gaza, and sees the
political advantage that Hamas has taken of the situation to claim
unilateral victory and now to be part of the PA government - how many
failures do you need before you recognize that it's a failure?"

Woolsey said that this past summer's war between Israel and Hizbullah was
a lost opportunity for the United States and Israel to jointly decide on
Syrian targets to be attacked. This type of mistake must not be repeated,
he said:
"We ought to make sure that if there is another legitimate and reasonable
occasion for us to use force in this part of the world against Syria or
Iran, we must not waste it. We should move towards encouraging peaceful
regime change there; but if we are absolutely forced to use force against
Iran, for instance, in order to stop its nuclear program, that should not
be the limit of our use of force - it ought to be used also to break the
power of the terrible Iranian regime and give the people of Iran a chance
to live under a better one."

Asked his opinion on Jonathan Pollard, Woolsey said that though he has
favored a significant punishment for Pollard in the past, "now that he has
served [over] 20 years in prison, my view is that 20 years is enough. I
also think that the close relationship between the US and Israel is also
of some consideration, and at this point I think he's served long enough.
I won't go any further than that."

2. The Anti-Globalist Pogromchiks:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=2791

3. A bit old but absolutely mandatory reading:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2527/press17.htm

4. The "Racist" Canard:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467807212&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

5. My Problem with Jimmy Carter's Book
by Kenneth W. Stein
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2007
http://www.meforum.org/article/1633

6. Jimmy Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust council
Former president also rejected Christian historian because name sounded
'too Jewish'
Posted: January 25, 2007
11:07 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein - 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Monroe Freedman
TEL AVIV . Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too
many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe
Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an
exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president,
also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian
was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the
scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the
council's chairman, author Elie Weisel, to serve as executive director in
1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish
the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with
making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the
Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations
for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner
that stated, "Too many Jews."

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was
initialed by Carter.

Freedman said at the time the board he constructed was about 80-perent
Jewish, including many Holocaust survivors.

He said at the behest of the White House he composed another board
consisting of more non-Jews. But he said he was "stunned" when Carter's
office objected to a non-Jew whose name sounded Jewish.

Freedman said he could not provide the historians name to WND because he
did not have the man's permission.

"I got a phone call from our liaison at the White House saying this
particular historian whose name sounded Jewish would not do. The liaison
said he would not even take the time to present Carter with the
possibility of including the historian on the board because he knew Carter
would think the name sounded too Jewish. I explained the historian is
Presbyterian, but the liaison said it wouldn't matter to Carter."

Freedman said he was "outraged by this absurdity."

"If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant
number of board members to be African American. If I was memorializing
Native American figures I'd expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the
board.

"I do not for a moment consider it inappropriate to build a Holocaust
council with a significant majority of the board being Jewish," Freedman
stated.

Freedman describes himself as "self-proclaimed liberal." He said he
decided to speak out after the release of Carter's latest book,
"Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," which some have accused of being biased
against Israel.

This would not be the first time Carter's messages on right hand corners
of letters generated a Holocaust-related scandal.

Last week, in an interview with the Tovia Singer Show on Israel National
Radio, a former U.S. Justice Department official said he received a letter
advocating "special consideration" for a confessed Nazi SS officer accused
of murdering Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

Neal Sher, who served in the Justice Department's Office of Special
Investigation, said that in 1987 he received a note from Carter
petitioning for re-entry into the U.S. for Martin Bartesch, who had been
deported by Sher's office to Austria after it was established he served as
an SS officer.

Sher said his office had "extraordinary evidence" Bartesch shot Jews.

Bartesch originally immigrated to the U.S. and lived in Chicago. He later
admitted to Sher's office and the court he had voluntarily joined the SS
as a teenager and served in its Death's Head Division at the Mauthausen
concentration camp where many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot,
starved and worked to death. Bartesch also confessed to having concealed
his SS service at concentration camp from U.S. immigration officials.

Sher said the Justice Department obtained a journal kept by the SS and
captured by the U.S. Armed Forces listing Bartesch as having shot to death
Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner.

Bartesch's daughters, who still lived in the U.S., attempted in 1987 to
appeal to politicians to allow the former Nazi officer to enter the
country. They wrote a note in which they claimed it was "un-American" to
persecute a man for crimes committed when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

Sher said he was shocked when he received the daughter's letter replete
with a handwritten note from Carter on the upper right corner stating the
former president wanted "special consideration" for the Bartesch family
for humanitarian reasons.

The note, containing Carter's signature, was obtained this week by the NY
Sun.

7. Jews for a demolished Israel:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/31440/format/html/displaystory.html

# posted by Steven Plaut : 4:27 AM

1.
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20448/Israel_Should_Offer_Syria_Nothing.html
Israel Should Offer Syria Nothing

By: Steven Plaut Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Just when it looked like Ehud Olmert could not mess things up any
worse than he already had, it was reported that he and his mates had been
secretly negotiating a deal with Syria. Allegedly, Israel would reward
Syria for 70 years of aggression by basically shrinking itself to its
pre-1967 dimensions and returning to what Abba Eban once dubbed "Auschwitz
borders."

Under the proposed deal, Israel would abandon the entire Golan
Heights, which would be turned into a large "park" under joint
Israeli-Syrian management. Israel and Syria would then demilitarize areas
on both sides of this nice park, with the Syrian side.s demobilized zone
larger than Israel's. Israel would get a nice written set of promises from
Syria - one of those being to rein in Hizbullah.

The Syrian state-controlled TV and newspapers are already
repudiating and denying the deal. Syrian intransigence may yet save the
Jewish people from the mega-stupidity of Israeli political leaders, and
not for the first time: a deal for a "return" of the Golan Heights to
Syria was almost signed by Ehud Barak in 2000. Had it been concluded, it
would have moved Syrian armed forces right up to the shores of the Sea of
Galilee.

The Golan Heights are Syrian in precisely the same sense that East
Prussia is German. In other words, not at all. Just like East Prussia was
once German but was lost forever to the Germans due to German aggression
and atrocities, so the Golan Heights are "Syrian" only in the historic
sense.

The Golan is certainly far less "Syrian" than the Alexandretta
Province, which belonged to Syria before World War II until Turkey decided
one day to gobble it up. Syrian maps, of course, show both the Golan and
Alexandretta as integral parts of Syria. Today the optimal peace plan that
Israel should adopt is the same as that still used successfully by Turkey
regarding Alexandretta: every time Syria starts bellowing and threatening,
rattle the sabers and watch the Baathists cower.

The Golan Heights are not good for much besides attacking Israel. In
fact, that is the real reason why Assad Jr. wants to get them back.
Israeli proponents of "returning" the Golan to Syria argue that the Camp
David accord with Egypt is a clear precedent for such a deal. After all,
Israel agreed to give back to Egypt every last centimeter of Sinai. But
the deal with Egypt was (or should be) a .first through the gate. one-time
deal that in no way obligates Israel to strike a similar deal with Syria.

Camp David was signed almost 30 years ago, and only after Anwar
Sadat came to Jerusalem and spoke in a convincing way to the Israeli
public about peace. Assad Senior could have followed in Sadat.s footsteps
in the late 1970.s and signed a peace deal with Israel, but he refused.
Syria should be made to pay for three decades of foot dragging. It should
also be forced to pay for its role in Hizbullah terror.

In other words, "land for peace" should decidedly not be the basis
for any deal with Syria, unless it is to be land for peace in the form of
Syria offering Israel additional lands east of the Golan.

The other important difference between Egypt and Syria is that Egypt
is a large and powerful country, one with which Israel was willing to pay
a huge price to end the outright state of war. But Syria, which already
has partly lost its hegemony over Lebanon, is a relatively small,
backward, poor country surrounded on all its borders (besides Lebanon) by
pro-Western regimes friendly to the U.S.

There is no reason to believe Syria would comply with any deal it
strikes with Israel. First, the Baathist junta represents a tiny
ethnic-religious minority that could easily be toppled and replaced. The
younger Assad is a dimwitted leader whose chances of ending up on a
gallows like Saddam are not bad. Rather than reward the unstable Assad
regime with the Golan Heights, a far better strategy would be to sit back
and watch as Syria.s economy collapses under its own centrally-controlled
deadweight, the same way that Soviet regimes collapsed one after the other
in the early 1990's.

All that Israel would get out of any deal with the Syrians would be
yet another set of empty promises. Syria would follow up any agreement
with a massive escalation of violence against Israel from Lebanon via its
terrorist surrogates there. It would ignore all obligations for
disarmament, in a Ruhr-Valley-style strategy of defiance.

In addition, Syria would use its presence along the shores of the
Sea of Galilee to recruit and arm terrorists from among Israeli Arabs in
the Galilee. It would station missiles and arms it receives from Iran on
its soil, perhaps also weapons of mass destruction. The missile barrages
this past summer on Northern Israel were a pale preview of what would
follow.

Even the peace deal with Egypt has been to a large extent a failure.
Egypt today supplies all the explosives and arms being smuggled into Gaza,
including those used to build the rockets that bombard the Negev each
morning. The Egyptian media are at least as anti-Semitic as the Iranian
media. Egypt is accumulating huge stocks of military armaments and there
is no guarantee it would not join in any future Arab armed assault on
Israel.

Kal v'chomer, how much more so should there be reason for skepticism
about Syrian behavior after any "peace deal" Syria signed with Israel.

In one of the Godfather movies, the young Don Corleone is asked what
his offer is to a corrupt congressman. His answer: .We offer you nothing.
Absolutely nothing.. I can think of no better Israeli strategy for dealing
with Damascus, at least until Syria evolves into a stable, democratic
country seriously seeking peace with its neighbors.

(An opposing point of view is at
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20450/For_Israeli%2DSyrian_Talks.html)

2. Jimmy Goobers is a Liar:
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20443/Falsehood%2C_Thy_Name_is_Carter.html

3. Lies Now
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=120110

4. How Iraq was conquered and tamed:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/34438.html

5. Can we get Momma Landa to have a retroactive abortion?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356228,00.html
(without a doubt, the stupidest political comment this year)

# posted by Steven Plaut : 9:49 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467790370&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Faculty of the hard Left

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMNON RUBINSTEIN , THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 22, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tel Aviv University's Faculty of Law held a conference on January 8
entitled "Security prisoners or political prisoners?" According to the
original plan, all the scheduled speakers were from the Left, with some
coming from the extreme, anti-Israeli Left. When this triggered an outcry,
the faculty heads hurriedly added a couple of speakers representing
mainstream Israel and its institutions.

But that changed nothing.

As noted by Ben-Dror Yemini in Ma'ariv, the conference was entirely
political in nature, and one particular guest was given an especially warm
welcome: Tali Fahima, who was recently released from prison after serving
time for aiding Palestinian terrorists.

Yemini compared the Tel Aviv University conference to the Holocaust-denial
conference recently held in Teheran: "Hosting those that deny the Zionist
enterprise's right to exist in Tel Aviv University is not very different
from hosting Holocaust deniers in Teheran University. The pretext of
'academic freedom of speech' is starting to sound increasingly hackneyed
and hollow. Not only in Teheran... in Tel Aviv too."

"Scientific" conferences devoid of any balance are not exactly news in
Israeli universities. Conferences in the social sciences rarely invite any
speakers who represent the mainstream view, the one held by the vast
majority of Israel's citizens and Knesset members.

The novelty at the Tel Aviv University conference was its purpose: to
present Palestinian terrorists as political prisoners. In order to do so a
terrorist who had been sentenced to 27 years in prison for throwing a
Molotov cocktail at a bus was invited and given a seat on the podium in
the law faculty's Hall of Justice auditorium.

That is new. It goes without saying that it didn't occur to the faculty
leaders to invite on the podium, in addition to the terrorist, a victim of
the terror that targets Jews because they are Jews; because as we all
know, Jews are not entitled to human rights.

THE CONFERENCE had a number of other interesting aspects. An entire
session was devoted to the difficulties Palestinian families face when
visiting their imprisoned terrorist relatives.

Three abducted Israeli soldiers have been held by terrorists as hostages
for over half a year. Not only are their families not permitted to visit
them, but, in complete violation of international law, representatives of
the Red Cross have not been permitted to meet with them either. No sign of
life has been received from the soldiers, turning the lives of their loved
ones into a daily hell.

Would the Tel Aviv University Law Faculty be willing to hold a conference
spotlighting the violation of Israelis' human rights by Palestinian war
criminals? Don't make me laugh.

Yet another aspect of this "scientific" conference: It presented nothing
scientific - not a single research paper or academic position. What it did
present were political views coming from the extreme leftist camp - all
exactly as reported by Ben-Dror Yemini, who was there. Under normal
circumstances, a conference of this kind would be held in a political
meeting house or beer hall.

What grants this type of gathering the status of "academic freedom?" The
fact that it is held in the Law Faculty's auditorium and organized by
members of the faculty? Does a university building provide protection for
views - racist, fascist, anti-Semitic - that would otherwise be considered
unacceptable?

These questions are not academic. This writer has supported and still
supports the establishment of an Arab college; he also authorized, in his
capacity as education minister, the establishment of two such colleges for
the training of teachers.

Would it be acceptable for such an Israeli Arab college to hold a
conference of Holocaust deniers, or one on the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion? Or to invite someone who preaches Nazism, simply because it was a
conference organized by an academic institution and held inside it? Based
on the precedent set by the Law Faculty of Tel Aviv University, the answer
would have to be yes.

I AM convinced that most of the faculty's lecturers would dissociate
themselves from such an outcome. I am also sure that most would distance
themselves from identifying with terrorists. Nor do I doubt that the
majority of faculty members are loyal to Israel and also serve in the IDF
reserves.

What, then, led these people to lend their support to this conference? The
answer is that it the dominant fashion in Israeli universities. It's all
the rage. To be a post-Zionist is in. And anyone who dares not to follow
the fashion is out.

This fact reflects all the more seriously on the organizers of that
faculty conference. While one can understand those whose ideological zeal
leads them to concede all the academic principles of a balanced scientific
debate, there is no forgiveness for those who abandon these assets and
bring shame upon their profession merely in order to be fashionable. To
lie to oneself simply to gain acceptance among the fashionable
anti-Israeli circles is indefensible.

I write these words in anger mixed with pain. I was among the founders of
Tel Aviv University's Law Faculty, and its first dean. Among the other
founders were the late professors Ze'ev Zeltner and Gualtiero Procaccia,
and professors Yoram Dinstein, Daniel Friedman and Uriel Reichman. I am
convinced that not one of them could have imagined that the institute they
established would sink so low as to invite a terrorist - even one that had
served out his term - to speak on the podium in the Hall of Justice. It is
a shame and an outrage.

The writer is president of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467790370&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

# posted by Steven Plaut : 12:07 AM

1. A History of Anti-Semitism on Campus

By Amihai Glazer

The hate speech practiced by the Muslim Student
Union at UCI is well known. Also well known is the UCI
Administration.s repeated statements that the Muslim
Student Union has freedom of speech rights to
organize such events as .Holocaust in the Holy
Land.. They are right. Free speech has more
protection at a public university than perhaps at any
other location; even administrators who find the
Muslim Student Union despicable agree that they
have a right to organize events full of hate. Indeed,
though speakers cannot incite listeners to violence
against a specified individual, they do have the right
to incite generalized hatred of Jews and Zionists.

But that does not mean that the University
Administration is bound to silence. University
presidents at several campuses have embraced the
opportunity to denounce hate speech. In September
2002, Harvard President Lawrence Summers issued a
memorable speech citing the upturn in anti-Semitic
incidents and noting that supposedly progressive
universities were taking part in actions that
were .anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.. Faculty
and students calling for divestiture from firms
investing in Israel, but from nowhere else, offer one
example.

Chancellor Berdahl of UC-Berkeley signed a letter
published in The New York Times warning against
extreme anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish activity on
campus. (UCI's chancellor at the time, Ralph
Cicerone, refused to sign the letter.) In September
2002 the president of the University of Michigan,
Mary Sue Coleman, concerned about a forthcoming
conference which featured vehemently anti-Zionist
speakers, issued a statement saying: .This
conference is sponsored by a student organization,
following established University procedures for holding
events on campus ... The agenda of the conference
represents the views of the organizers and not the
University of Michigan..

Faced with another anti-Zionist conference (planned
by New Jersey Solidarity), Richard L. McCormick,
President of Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, stated .For myself, I find abhorrent some
elements of NJ Solidarity's mission. In its mission
statement, NJ Solidarity expresses its opposition to
Israel's right to exist and supports Palestinians human
right to resist occupation and oppression by any
means necessary. These views are in conflict with my
own and, I believe, with the majority of the university
community.. He went on to state: .Freedom of
expression must not be used to incite hatreds or
demonize individuals and groups..

In contrast, UCI has stood silently as speeches
espousing violence were delivered on campus. One
such occurrence was in spring 2002, at a forum
which then-chancellor Cicerone attended. A panelist,
Visiting Professor James Sterba, spent his allotted
time justifying suicide bombings against civilians. No
one from the Administration in attendance ever
distanced himself from such a view. In winter 2004
and again during the week of May 17, 2004, UCI
witnessed a public lecture by Amir Abdel Malik Ali, a
known hate-monger invited by the Muslim Student
Union during its .Anti-Oppression Week. and during
its .Anti-Zionism/Zionist Awareness Week.. Mr. Ali
had the honor of making his hateful speech from a
lectern emblazoned with the UCI emblem.
Fortunately, the UCI Administration no longer allows
such implicit approval. But the Administration does
continue its practice of not enforcing its own rules
when they are violated by the Muslim Student Union.
For example, the Muslim Student Union was allowed
to erect a massive .Apartheid Wall. on a public
walkway, though University policy forbids even the
placement of paper posters on public walkways.

UCI continues in other ways to aid and abet anti-
Semitic and anti-Israeli activity. This year, UCI
honored Ms.Vanessa Zuabi with the Outstanding
Community Service award at its 2006 Lauds & Laurels
Awards ceremony. When Ms. Zuabi was vice
president of the Society of Arab Students, the group
organized a rally in May 2004, purportedly to
demonstrate unity against hate crimes. The rally
came a week after the group's anti-Israel cardboard
wall was destroyed. Jewish student group leaders
approached the leaders of SAS and expressed
sympathy about the destruction of the wall, noting
that they had suffered a similar incident the year
before, when their Holocaust memorial was
destroyed. The Jewish student groups expressed
their interest in showing their solidarity in the cause
of peace by participating in the rally with SAS and
the rest of the UCI community. Had Ms. Zuabi and
the rest of the SAS leadership truly been interested
in promoting peace and in bringing the campus
community together, she and her fellow group
members would have accepted this overture.
Instead, the Jewish student groups were told that
they were not welcome, and unlike other groups on
campus, were not allowed to speak at the rally.
Furthermore, a rally organized by the Society of Arab
Students had a poster with a drawing equating the
Star of David to a swastika. The week
after .Holocaust in the Holy Land,. UCI announced
that Ms. Zuabi would be honored as the student
speaker for the commencement ceremony of the
School of Social Sciences In short, UCI honored a
person who had engaged in anti-Semitic activity.

Nevertheless, there is hope. On May 30, 2006,
Chancellor Drake issued a public statement,
saying .Make no mistake: I find hate speech
abhorrent. It is inconsistent with advancing
understanding or dialogue...I ask you to join me in
renouncing hate speech as a form of expression....
Though the timing of the statement suggests that it
was issued in response to .Holocaust in the Holy
Land,. the statement does not explain who engaged
in hate speech, or who were its victims. I wish a
future statement would.
From Standwithus.org
Amihai Glazer is a professor of economics at the
University of California, Irvine. He received his Ph.D.
from Yale University in 1978.

2. A Letter to the Editor of the Jewish Press:
Unwelcome Guest

A family checked into the Park House Hotel in Boro Park last week under
an assumed name (we now know it was the wife.s maiden name). We did not
know the true identity of this family, who paid in cash for their stay
through Motzei Shabbos.

On Friday afternoon someone recognized the head of the family as being
none other than Mr. Moshe Arye Friedman, who recently traveled to Iran
with members of Neturei Karta to attend the notorious Holocaust denial
conference there.

When we were informed as to his true identity we asked Mr. Friedman to
leave, but he refused. We checked with the police and were advised that
since he had paid for his stay, we had no legal cause to put him out.

A demonstration outside the hotel against Mr. Friedman caused great
angst to our other guests, to many prospective guests, and to neighborhood
residents.

We wish to make clear that had we known who Mr. Friedman was, we would
not have taken his reservation, nor would we have accepted him as a guest
in our hotel.

Israel Tyberg

Manager

Park House Hotel

Brooklyn, NY

3. Will Beilin's next project be an apologia for Mein Kampf?
Carter Is No More Critical of Israel Than Israelis Themselves
Opinion
Yossi Beilin Fri. Jan 19, 2007
http://www.forward.com/articles/carter-is-no-more-critical-of-israel-than-is
raelis/

4. PC Terrorism on Israeli state-run taxpayer-financed radio:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119933

5. The Axis of Anti-Semitism:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3354891,00.html

6. Scandinavian Anti-Semitism:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26541

7. January 22, 2007

When "Chicken Little" Grows Up

by Daryl Temkin, Ph.D.

Few American children miss the experience of being
read the classic story of "Chicken Little". This was
the chicken who was hit on the head by a falling acorn
and interpreted the incident to mean that the sky was
falling. Whereupon the life purpose of the Chicken
Little character became to warn the world of this
imminent disaster . until it was discovered that an
acorn was not the sky.

This American classic children's story perhaps has a
charm effect upon a child's mind but when read by an
adult, the story contains a very deep, dramatic, and
powerful lesson about life.

This is a story of how a "rational" misperception may
forever plague the adult mind. How many times have we
interpreted a situation and made a serious judgment
call only to discover later that our evaluation of the
circumstance was false? Tragically many adults after
discovering that their original judgment or conclusion
was wrong still refuse to correct their errors and
stand by their original position in spite of how wrong
and misguided.

No matter how intelligent, how wise, or how brilliant
we may be, we occasionally make what appears to be
"rational" conclusions which, after further
consideration or investigation, turn out to be
misinterpretations. The challenge appears when we
discover that we are, as the phrase goes, "barking up
the wrong tree". Admitting that one is wrong is often
difficult. It is even more difficult for those who are
considered "experts" with high academic credentials or
those who hold high political positions. Too often
these people would rather be wrong and claim they are
right than to admit that they made a significant
mistake in judgment.

The key turning point in the Chicken Little fable
occurs when undeniable proof that the sky is not
falling is presented and realized. At this point, the
main character has the option to redefine her previous
erroneous sense of reality which had become a strongly
held belief. In this case, that which was once so
firmly believed and even formed a life identity and
purpose is suddenly rendered a meaningless pursuit and
a misguided adventure. Responsible acceptance of the
new information frequently requires a psychological
transformation, a new beginning, and perhaps even the
difficult process of overcoming shame and
embarrassment for the mistaken conclusions which
effected past leadership.

The lesson of this story is that one can make a total
change as to how one perceives the world when a
"rational" misperception is revealed. Initially one
might ask, "What's so brilliant about that?" Then one
realizes that few people are willing to change their
mindsets even in the face of revelations which totally
challenge and negate their previously held conclusion.
The need to be right even when one is wrong is what
needs to be overcome and dismissed.

Few children when read this story are mature enough to
understand the painstaking task that is often involved
in the reevaluation of a strongly held position.
Adults considering this issue realize that it can be a
perplexing if not an arduous task to correct a
mistaken perception yet alone a mistaken conclusion.
As one gains life experience it becomes apparent that
many people who are considered bright and successful
when presented contradictory information refuse to
accept it and resist modification of their conclusions
regardless of the facts. The annals of human history
reveal that clinging to theories which have never
worked, holding to ideas that constantly fail,
supporting positions that are clearly untenable,
standing by actions that can only lead to dead ends,
and retesting plans that in the past have only led to
disasters, is a shockingly repeated scenario. Our
current day confrontation with worldwide terrorism is
replete with grandiose judgment errors which appear to
resist correction. What is worse, the errors in
judgment are reinforced to the point that they become
engraved in stone, and then are called "government
policy".

For mysterious reasons America is now supplying arms
as well as financial aid to its own enemy terrorists.
To the disbelief of all concerned, the Israeli army
has been forced into the position of transferring
American weapons to the Palestinian factions which
will be attempting to kill the very soldiers supplying
them with these weapons. The Israeli army is appalled
that it has to do this, but it cannot question the
operation since it is United States' policy.

America which has been portrayed as a friend of
Israel, is now not only supplying weapons to Israel 's
enemy, an enemy sworn to the total destruction of
Israel, but America is also actively training the
Palestinian soldiers in fighting techniques. To make
sure that there are no mistaken notions surrounding
this hard-to-swallow abominable situation, the
Palestinian military leaders and participants in the
Palestinian-American training camps have freely and
publicly declared that Israel will be the victim of
all of this American supplied warfare training and
weaponry.

America which once appeared to be caring for the State
of Israel has had a long history of expecting Israel
to sacrifice itself for American interests. The list
is extensive and includes major issues such as
Jonathan Pollard being imprisoned for life, the failed
land for peace negotiations, the meaningless two state
solution peace plan, the requirement that Israel not
respond to the thirty-nine Iranian scud missiles that
landed upon the Tel Aviv civilian population, the
requirement that Israel not gain a decisive victory by
destroying the cut off and surrounded Egyptian Third
Army during the Yom Kippur War, the demand that there
be no Israeli supervision of the Egyptian-Gaza
crossing where now millions of pounds of explosives,
major weapons, and ammunition freely flow into the
Gazan hands of world terrorist organizations, as well
as forcing Israel to pull out of Lebanon leaving its
kidnapped soldiers behind, and likely, soon, Israel
will be required to relinquish more land and terrorist
prisoners in order to establish a false and failed
peace which will only empower every known terrorist
organization to achieve its next ultimate victory.

And what does Israel do? It supplies America with
reams of military and security intelligence which
American dollars could never buy.

"Land-for-Peace" is a failed and disastrous policy
which is still being promoted as if it is a wonderful
idea. A "two state" solutions is an unworkable
situation which is still being upheld as a panacea to
Middle East peace. The belief that a sworn enemy can
quietly reside adjacent to its most hated nemesis and
that life will be fine, is such a total misjudgment -
- but the World is silent to the lie and yet the
United States as well as the European Union continue
to "pound the pavement" preaching this clearly foolish
and impossible ideal. The "Right of Return" is working
its way back to the discussion table despite the fact
that it means the end of Israel's existence. America,
believing the fantasy that the competing Palestinian
factions will only fight and kill each other, is
arming the preferred faction even though both are
vehemently calling for the destruction of Israel and
America . this is terrifying and tragic.

Furthermore, all this is happening under the shadow of
America's proclamation that it will not prevent the
continuation and completion of the Iranian nuclear
reactors. Even though it is clearly known that soon
these reactors will produce high grade plutonium, the
essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.

Chicken Little was screaming to all she could find
that the sky was falling. At that time, she was wrong;
she had made a major misperception. But at least when
enlightened, she was able to understand that her
actions were wrong and without letting her pride get
in the way, she proceeded to revise and correct her
interpretation. Her pride and personal image did not
prevent her from admitting to the world that she was
wrong. This is not happening today with our world
leaders.

If Chicken Little grew up today and made it her
purpose to scream to the world that the sky is
falling, she would be right. She would be right to
say, "Why didn't you learn from me -- my story was
telling you that humankind must not be stubborn and
intransigent when it comes to recognizing a mistake
and rectifying it?" The life of the world is at stake,
it.s time to stop acting as if only an acorn has
fallen.

Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel
Education Institute which is devoted to teaching
history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and
Non-Jews.
His weekly opinion column, .Pivotal Thought., has been
the interview and discussion topic for various talk
radio and television news commentary programs.

The Pivotal Thought column appears in a number of
newspaper publications as well as on Internet blogs
and E-magazines. It appears weekly in the newspaper
Shalom LA, Israel-Jewish Life and it often appears in
the newspaper, Muslim Today.

Permission is granted to publish the Pivotal Thought
column with appropriate credits. Please infrom the
Israel Institute as to where the column is appearing.

email: daryltemkinphd@...
web: http://Israel-Institute.org

Israel Institute 1227 Smithwood Dr Los Angeles
CA 90035

8. Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - Jan. 22, 2007

Palestinian street named for Saddam Hussein was paved with USAID money
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch:
p:+972 2 625 4140e: pmw@pmw.org.il
f: +972 2 624 2803w: www.pmw.org.il

After Saddam Hussein's execution, the Palestinian Municipality of Yaabid
decided to name both a school and its main street after the Iraqi
dictator.

It appears that the same street was paved 18 months ago using grants from
USAID.

This is not the first time that US money has gone to build Palestinian
infrastructures that are named to glorify terrorists and enemies of the
US.
Three examples:

1. After the US gave the Jenin municipality money for road works in the
city, a block in the center of Jenin was named for the first Iraqi
suicide
terrorist who killed four American soldiers in Fallujah. The mayor of
Jenin
participated in the anti-American rally and the speakers blessed the
"resistance of the residents of Fallujah" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 4,
2004].

2. USAID funded the building of the Salaf Khalef Sports Center. Salef
Khalef
(Abu Iyad) the head of the Black September terror organization, was
behind
the killing of two US diplomats in Sudan and the 11 Israeli Olympic
athletes. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May, 30, 2004]

3. USAID funded renovations of the Dalal Mughrabi School named in honor
of
Dalal Mughrabi and her terror group, who killed American photographer
Gail
Rubin and 36 Israelis. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 14, 2004]

The following is the article on the naming of Saddam Hussein Street:

"In the Yaabid Municipality. thousands of citizens held a requiem for the
soul of Saddam in the mosque. Following that, a march began in the
streets
of the municipality, that ended at the offices of the Yaabid
Municipality,
where a mourners' tent was opened in his memory. Public figures and the
[Armed] Factions in Yaabid decided to name one of the schools in the
municipality and its most important street after Saddam to immortalize
his
memory and to emphasize the values of Arabness and Jihad, which he
represented."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 4, 2007]

The following is from the PMW archives on the USAID funding:

"The Yaabid Municipality in the Jenin area held a ceremony yesterday for
the
inauguration of a project of the paving of the main street of the
municipality, funded by the United Stated Agency for International
Development (USAID). The project of paving and renovating the main
entrance
to the municipality and some of the inner streets is three kilometers
long
and cost $402,000."
[Al-Ayyam, July 14, 2005]

9. Lawless Law in Israel
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467790364&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

# posted by Steven Plaut : 3:36 AM

1. In-classroom indoctrination at Bar-Ilan?

Bar-Ilan University is usually not high up on anyone's list of centers
for academic sedition and radicalism in Israel. A bit like the plagues of
Egypt passing over the Land of Goshen, leftwing academic extremism is
unusual at Bar-Ilan. Nevertheless, there are some far-leftist
anti-Zionist crackpots on the faculty there.

One Bar Ilan course is the focus of a news item that appeared in the
weekly "Besheva" on Jan 18, 07.

A number of students taking a course on "Social Deviation" in the
School of Social Work at Bar Ilan complained when the examination they
were given contained anti-Zionist political content, in a shallow attempt
at in-classroom indoctrination. One question on the exam required the
students to comment on the writings of one "Dr. Merton", evidently the
extremist anti-Israel leftist Ruhama Merton, who co-authors political
screeds with Neve Gordon accusing Israel of being a terrorist state. The
question on the exam tested whether the students knew why "Dr. Merton"
says that Jewish settlers uproot and vandalize the olive trees of po'
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, given several multiple choice
options written in post-modern gibberish. The exam was prepared by the
lecturer in the course, one Dr. Alan (Aharon) York, not usually on the
radar screen that shows up radicals. Students in the course claim that at
Bar-Ilan, rightwing opinion is political, while leftwing opinion is simply
professional and academic insight. York later apologized.

York's email address is yorkal@biu.013.net.il

2. You will be happy to hear that this past week Israel transferred 100
million dollars to the Hamas-controlled "Palestinian Authority". These
funds will be used to murder Jews.
It is nice to know that Israeli schools and hospitals have a surplus of
funding and so the government decided to dump the extra funds on the
Hamas.

3. Lipstadt on Carter:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1698

4. Brandeis jihadniks cave in:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1695

5. As always, Glick on the Mark:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467765896&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

6. Why can't Israeli politicians understand this?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53842

# posted by Steven Plaut : 2:13 AM

1. The missiles were falling on the Negev, fired from Gaza. The very
top officials in the Israeli Tax Authority were under arrest for
corruption. The Hezbollah was re-arming on Israel's northern border and
Iran was openly threatening genocide. Israel's army chief of staff
resigned in disgrace for the fiasco of the war this past summer.

And what was Prime Minister Ehud Olmert up to in the midst of all
this?

Why, he was getting himself an "eyelid job". In order to change his
image from one of a crooked, beady-eyed political hack, Olmert just
underwent eyelid surgery, to make him look nicer. And who paid for this
cosmetic surgery? The press was not telling. Perhaps it was the same
group of business cronies who were involved in Olmert's shady dealings in
real estate or in the "bank privatization affair," for which Israel's
Attorney General has now decided to indict Olmert.

And just as it looked like Olmert could not mess things up any worse
than he already had, the media broke the story that he and his mates had
been secretly negotiating a deal with Syria. Under the proposed deal
Israel would reward Syria for 70 years of aggression and so would return
to its pre-1967 borders, those same borders once described by Abba Eban as
"Auschwitz borders". Will Olmert now blink his new lids when it comes to
the Golan?

A "deal" for a "return" of the Golan Heights to Syria was almost
signed by Ehud Barak in 2000, in large part the initiative of Israeli
capitulationist diplomat Itamar Rabinovich (currently serving as President
of Tel Aviv University). Had it been concluded, that deal would have
moved Syrian armed forces right up to the shores of the Sea of Galilee,
the Syrian military would have taken up new positions threatening Israel,
and Israel's very existence could have been endangered if a new all-out
war were to break out.

Instead of striking a poorly-conceived deal with Syria to take
attention away from his sleaze, perhaps it would be better if Mr. Olmert
were to stay home and work some more on his eyelids.....

(More to follow)

2. The ADL is an organization of fundamentalist liberals. They are
suddenly discovering anti-Smitism exists among the liberals:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/31388/format/html/displaystory.html

3. Blog Story of the Day:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2007/01/urban-outfitters-announce-their-latest.html
See also
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467767600&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

4. Rabbi Dingbat A:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4025
Rabbi Dingbat B:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/31383/format/html/displaystory.html

5. That OTHER Afghan war:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=26062

6. The Friends of Goobers:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119587

7. For Hebrew readers: Dr. David Bukay accuses Ilan Pappe of being a
"Kapo out of Desire": http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/158547

8. Can "Middle East Studies" be rescued from the Moonbatocracy?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26515

9. Goobers the Pogromchik:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26501

10. The Jihadnettes file a complaint against the Jews:
http://www.volokh.com/files/namawcomplaint.pdf

# posted by Steven Plaut : 2:49 AM

Two Completely Different Proposals
By Steven Plaut

I. We are the Aryan Neo-Nazi Party. We strive for the complete
destruction of Israel and of the Jewish people. We think that this
destruction can be achieved in total, even if it is implemented in stages.
We hate Jews and want to see an end to Jewish history and Jewish
existence.

Accordingly, we have prepared a master plan for achieving our goal of
total annihilation of Israel:

1. Israel must withdraw as a first step to its pre-1967 border and it
must set up an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip.
2. The Hamas organization must then be the party in control of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip.
3. Israel must refrain from all retaliation against Palestinians, no
matter what. The entire world must exert pressure on Israel NOT to use
force against Palestinian armed forces.
4. Israel must conduct negotiations even while it is under fire.
5. Israel must never retaliate for rockets being fired into the
Negev.
6. Israel must end all attempts at assassinating Palestinian leaders
or militia commanders.
7. Israel must allow Israeli Arabs to set up their own national
institutions inside Israel, including their own parliament, shadow
government, fiscal institutions, and school system, and where Israeli
Arabs fly the Palestinian flag over all their institutions and gatherings.
8. Israel must institute affirmative action preferences to ensure
that Arabs hold positions of power in all areas.
9. Israel must release all imprisoned Arab terrorists and murderers
without any conditions.
10. Israel must turn the Golan Heights over to Syria and allow the
Syrian military to take up positions there.
11. Israel must abandon the Shabaa Farm on its Lebanese border.
12. Israel must slash its military budget by an enormous percent and
transfer the funds to social spending.
13. Israel must never attack the Hezbollah under any circumstances.
14. Israel must unilaterally foreswear development and use of nuclear
weapons.
15. Israel must refrain from using any weapons that are controversial,
such as cluster bombs.
16. Israel must remove all Jewish symbols from its flag and national
anthem.
17. Israel must agree to an unrestricted "right of return" for Arabs
wishing to return to pre-1967 Israel.
18. Israeli schools must refer to Israel's creation as the Naqba or
catastrophe (in Arabic).
19. Israel must pay compensation to any Arab ever injured, or who lost
property, as a result of the Middle East conflict.
20. Israel must set up an Arab-language university for its Arab
student population, in which Arab nationalism will be the focus of
instruction.

II. We are the Israeli Professors for a Compassionate Peace. We want
an end to the Middle East conflict. We believe in peace and equality.
We strive for justice. We hate violence. We are patriots who love our
country. All we want is a fair and peaceful resolution to the Middle
East's problems.

Accordingly, we have prepared a master plan for achieving our goal of
peaceful resolution for Israel and its neighbors:

1. Israel must withdraw as a first step to its pre-1967 border and it
must set up an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip.
2. The Hamas organization must then be the party in control of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip.
3. Israel must refrain from all retaliation against Palestinians, no
matter what. The entire world must exert pressure on Israel NOT to use
force against Palestinian armed forces.
4. Israel must conduct negotiations even while it is under fire.
5. Israel must never retaliate for rockets being fired into the
Negev.
6. Israel must end all attempts at assassinating Palestinian leaders
or militia commanders.
7. Israel must allow Israeli Arabs to set up their own national
institutions inside Israel, including their own parliament, shadow
government, fiscal institutions, and school system, and where Israeli
Arabs fly the Palestinian flag over all their institutions and gatherings.
8. Israel must institute affirmative action preferences to ensure
that Arabs hold positions of power in all areas.
9. Israel must release all imprisoned Arab terrorists and murderers
without any conditions.
10. Israel must turn the Golan Heights over to Syria and allow the
Syrian military to take up positions there.
11. Israel must abandon the Shabaa Farm on its Lebanese border.
12. Israel must slash its military budget by an enormous percent and
transfer the funds to social spending.
13. Israel must never attack the Hezbollah under any circumstances.
14. Israel must unilaterally foreswear development and use of nuclear
weapons.
15. Israel must refrain from using any weapons that are controversial,
such as cluster bombs.
16. Israel must remove all Jewish symbols from its flag and national
anthem.
17. Israel must agree to an unrestricted "right of return" for Arabs
wishing to return to pre-1967 Israel.
18. Israeli schools must refer to Israel's creation as the Naqba or
catastrophe (in Arabic).
19. Israel must pay compensation to any Arab ever injured, or who lost
property, as a result of the Middle East conflict.
20. Israel must set up an Arab-language university for its Arab
student population, in which Arab nationalism will be the focus of
instruction.

2. Fabricating the news:
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20394/Beyond_Bias%3A_Media%2DFabricated_News.html

3. Kramer's not the only bigot on the Seinfeld Show:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119727

# posted by Steven Plaut : 8:09 AM