Wednesday, April 04, 2007

British Scary Leaders vs. Israeli Pusillanimous Ones

1. It is there in the headlines. The Iranians released the British
hostages because they are afraid of the British. The Brits were not about to
respond to Iranian atrocities by lecturing their own people about being
sensitive to The Other. The Brits were not going to offer to take the
cross off their flag in order to gain understanding with the

The Brits do not believe in strength through weakness, in courage through
cowardice, in victory through capitulation.

Gosh, how backward of them. Maybe they need Shimon Peres tro educate them
in the correct way.

Israeli soldiers remain in captivity because Israel pursues peace through
weakness and capitulation.

2. God's Passover Cleaning:

And then the fire came and burned the staff that had beaten the dog
who had bitten the cat who had eaten the goat while visiting the Iranians
on a Holocaust Denial junket:

Fire destroys Neturei Karta synagogue, rabbi's residence in NY
By The Associated Press

A fire deemed suspicious destroyed a New York suburban synagogue of an
anti-Zionist Jewish group heavily criticized for attending a conference
last year where participants debated whether the Holocaust occurred.

No one was injured in Sunday night's fire in the town of Monsey. A senior
Neturei Karta rabbi and his family, who lived on the top floor of the
three-story structure, were not home.

"It may in the future be found to be accidental, but at this time we're
treating it as a suspicious fire and we're investigating it as such," said
Sgt. Daniel Hyman of the Ramapo Police Department, which provides services
to Monsey, about 35 miles (55 kilometers) north of New York City.

The Neturei Karta has been the target of threats in the recent past
because of their involvement in the anti-Zionism movement. The group has
been widely criticized by other Jewish groups.

"Anybody who would like to reveal to the world their opposition to this
political, national movement of Zionism is attacked," said Rabbi Yisroel
Dovid Weiss of the Neturei Karta.

"A call of a fire in the kitchen area of the three-story structure came in
to authorities at about 8:12 P.M. Sunday," Monsey Fire Chief Douglas Perry

He said that when firefighters arrived, one side of the house was engulfed
in flames and power lines had come down. "It was too dangerous for any
entry," he said, and the fire had to be fought from the outside.

"It's totaled," Perry said. "I would deem it dangerous to even go inside."

Weiss said that the group suspects arson because of previous threats.

3. DePaul Passes Over Finkelstein on Passover:

4. Rosie Goes Chamishist?

4. Alan Dershowitz:

'Norman Finklestein should be denied tenure because of the substance,
not the tone of his so-called scholarship. He should be denied tenure not
because I say so but because numerous objective scholars have reviewed his
work and have determined that it does not meet even the most minimal
standards of authentic scholarship. Listen to the words of University of
Chicago Professor Michael Novick, the very man who Finklestein claims was
the .initial stimulus. for him to write his nearly universally condemned
screed, The Holocaust Industry:

.As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning
reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate
response is not (exhilarating) .debate. but (tedious) examination of his
footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are
pure invention. [.] No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to
be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be
accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the
sources he cites..

Another distinguished scholar, Omer Bartov of Brown University,
characterized The Holocaust Industry as .irrational and insidious,. a
.conspiracy theory,. .verg[ing] on paranoia,. full of .dubious rhetoric
and faulty logic,. .indifference to historical facts,. and .sensational
.revelations. and outrageous accusations..`Then read the letter I wrote at
the request of the former chairman of the Political Science Department at
DePaul University documenting numerous instances of alleged quotes that
were simply made up; alleged facts that were entirely fictional; and
alleged citations that are non-existent. ( This is
academic fraud, not scholarship. The reality is that Norman Finklestein.s
alleged scholarship does not exist. All he writes is ad hominem attacks on
his ideological enemies. His tone is his substance! As I wrote in my
letter .Although he claims to be a .forensic scholar,. he limits his
defamations to one ideological group and never applies his so-called
.forensic. tools to his own work or to those who share his ideological
perspective. One does not deserve the title of .forensic scholar. unless
he is prepared to apply that science equally across the board. Finkelstein
merely uses forensic tools available to any first-year college student to
defame his ideological enemies. That is not forensic scholarship; it is

Nasty tone alone should neither disqualify a scholar from tenure, nor
should it qualify a non-scholar for tenure.'

Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, at 4:41 pm EDT on
April 4, 2007

5. A Palestinian "Right of Return"?
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, April 4, 2007

One of the most annoying quirks of our major media outlets involves their
consistently misleading characterization of the current debate about
demands for a Palestinian "right of return."

The latest Arab League peace proposal, recycled with much fanfare from a
2002 Saudi plan, includes a requirement that Israel should accept untold
millions of Palestinians who would relocate into Israel itself, rather
than making their homes in the newly created Palestinian State. Leading
newspapers invariably describe this demand in terms that suggest that
refugees would get "the right to return to their original homes inside
Israel." (New York Times, front page, 3/31/07). Of course, this endlessly
repeated phraseology sounds fair, compassionate, appropriate.conjuring up
images of patient, oppressed, long-suffering innocents, finally able to
return to their ancient roots and ancestral lands, shedding tears of joy
as they renew and rebuild the "homes" they lost nearly sixty years ago.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, left, jokes with former Prime Minister
Ehud Barak, right, at the 10th memorial service in Jerusalem's Mt. Herzl
Cemetery for former President Haim Herzog, Wednesday, March 28, 2007. Arab
leaders opened a summit Wednesday to revive a plan for peace with Israel,
with U.S. allies trying to enlist other Arabs in efforts to win Israeli
and Western acceptance of the deal. (AP Photo/Jim Hollander, Pool) Even
worse, America's Journal of Record (and nearly all other publications and
news sources) summarize Israel's objection to this "right" as a "fear that
admitting large numbers of Palestinians would undermine the Jewish nature
of the state."

Unfortunately, this ridiculously distorted description of Israel's point
of view carries the connotation that the objection is purely racist: that
the Israelis feel that the continued existence of their "Jewish State" is
so precarious that they can't even consider admitting non-Jews (Actually,
thousands of non-Jews arrive in Israel every month, prominently including
workers from Thailand, the Philippines, Rumania and other nations).

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently re-enforced the impression of Israeli
intransigence and anti-Palestinian racism with an unequivocal Passover-eve
interview with the Jerusalem Post. "I'll never accept a solution that is
based on their return to Israel, any number," he declared. "I will not
agree to accept any kind of Israeli responsibility for the refugees."

Without doubt, overwhelming majorities of Israelis agree with the Prime
Minister in rejecting the "right of return" concept, but his inability to
express the proper basis for that rejection helps explain why his approval
rating in polls has fallen lower than that of any prior leader in Israeli

The ongoing dispute over the fate of the refugees actually proves that the
basis for the Arab-Israeli struggle hasn't changed in 60 years. The "War
of Independence" began in 1948 because the Palestinians and their Arab
supporters refused to accept the idea of an independent Jewish state in
their midst, regardless of its borders or the clear-cut Jewish majority in
the land originally mandated by the UN. Today, the insistence on a "right
of return" shows that the Arabs still refuse to accept Israel as a
sovereign nation, entitled to control its own destiny.

After all, they demand not only a right for any Palestinian to make his
home in the new Palestinian State that the peace plan proposes, but they
insist on an equal right for Palestinians to live in Israel proper. In
other words, they demand not one Palestinian homeland, but two: one of
them east of the Jordan, and the other one west of the Jordan. As part of
the ludicrous "peace proposal," Israel would give up two of the basics of
national existence: the right to control entry into the country, and to
define citizenship. (And yes, as I've long acknowledged, immigration
activists in the US are right to insist on our need to similarly control
our own borders and to limit and regulate who gets the chance to live
here. Without that ability . for Israel, or for the United
States.sovereignty is hollow and meaningless).

Tzipi Livni, Israel's popular Foreign Minister, articulates the core issue
far more clearly than Prime Minister Olmert. "Just as Israel is the
homeland for 800,000 Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from Arab
countries," she says, "so a new state of Palestine should be the homeland
for Palestinian refugees."

Actually, the Arab League and the United Nations currently count some 4.3
million Palestinians as "refugees" or the descendants of refugees . a
hugely inflated figure which, if nothing else, gives the lie to claims of
Israeli "genocide." After all, if 700,000 Palestinian refugees of 1948-9
have now become 4.3 million . multiplying by some 600% in less than 60's hardly an indication of genocide. Few populations on earth .
certainly not American or Israeli . have boasted that sort of explosive
growth during this period. Moreover, only a small minority of the refugees
(and of the Palestinian population in general) were actually land-owners.
Most were tenant farmers or "fellahin" or urban tradesmen, and most had
arrived only recently in the area from their homes in Egypt, Syria, Iraq
and elsewhere, lured by the economic opportunities presented by the
surging Jewish population in the 1920's and '30's. The idea that the
great-great-grandchildren of such arrivals possess some inviolable
connection to specific landscape in today's bustling Tel Aviv or Haifa is
both illogical and altogether unenforceable.

The Israeli position may sound harsh in Prime Minister Olmert's
formulation, but it remains eminently reasonable: if the Palestinians will
negotiate peace, they get to decide who lives in their new state, but they
don't get to decide who lives in the neighboring state of Israel. What's
the sense behind the very idea of a "two state solution" if the
Palestinians insist upon a similar "right" to live in both states?

No, the debate isn't about compassion for refugees, or protecting the
"Jewish character of Israel" (a phrase that brings up the old, discredited
"Zionism-is-racism" charge), or ethnic cleansing, or any other distracting
issue cited by the American press.

The issue, as always, is Arab refusal to accept Israel's existence and
sovereignty. Until the Palestinians and their Islamic allies come to terms
with the reality and permanence of a restored state on the ancient
homeland of the Jewish people, and drop the ludicrous demands about a
"right to return," peace negotiations will go absolutely nowhere.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?