Zionist Conspiracy

1. I wanted to ask you for help. Attached along with this email is a
leaflet/poster for Isracampus.org.il. I wanted to ask your assistance in getting exposure for Isracampus. Would you be willing to print the leaflet off and post it wherever you think it could be effective – on bulletin boards in synagogues, university bulletin boards in Israel, Jewish Centers, Jewish organizations, telephone poles in Jewish neighborhoods, doors to Jewish federation offices, Michael Lerner's forehead, etc. etc.? If you have contacts with Jewish weeklies or newsletters whom you think might run it, please pass it on to them as well and ask that they post it. Similarly, Jewish bloggers are invited to post it.

Thanks!

Here is the text, in case you cannot open the attachment:

Beware

Sedition in Israel's Ivory Towers!

Are you aware of what is taking place inside Israeli campuses??

Did you know?

Professors & Lecturers at Israeli Universities & Colleges:

· Endorse terrorist attacks against Jews

· Call for international boycotts against Israel

· Misuse their classrooms for anti-Israel indoctrination

· Collaborate with Anti-Semites

· Denounce Israel as an apartheid, colonialist, fascist country

· Promote lawbreaking & violence

· Organize mutiny among Israeli soldiers

· Engage in violent protests

· Fabricate imaginary "atrocities" committed by Israel

· Openly call for Israel's destruction

Learn more about the misuses of contributions and funds received by Israeli universities!

For more details, go to www.isracampus.org.il (POB 6652, Haifa 31066) or email isracampus@gmail.com

2. Leave it to Haaretz, the Palestinian newspaper published in Hebrew, to
figure out a way to turn the Mumbai story into one in which Israelis who
go to Chabad houses are bashed.

The piece crayoned by Avirama Golan in Haaretz Dec 1,08 devotes the space
she is over-allotted to whining about how the Israeli television spends
too much of its coverage of the Mumbai events on Israelis who travel to
India and on their concerns. She bitches that Israelis who go to India do
not spend enough time getting to know the real Hindu civilization.
Instead Israeli young people just travel around with their Israeli
friends, speaking Hebrew and all, and even go to Chabad houses, where they
eat Israeli food and sing Jewish songs, something Avirama would never be
caught dead doing. But then she adds her own supershrew touch to the
piece:

"Alon Ben Dor (TV news guy), with the same serious expression, said that
the state of Israel will need to think about how to protect Chabad houses
around the world. What an absurd circle! These guys (young Israelis) who
stood at army checkpoints and guarded those settlers in Hebron run off to
India to detach themselves. But there the representatives of the
Lubavitcher Rebbe stalk them unto what appears to them as the ends of the
earth, all this to protect them from drugs and sexual lewdness and to
return those lost children from their false patriotism to Yiddishkeit and
religion. A radical Islamic group tries to start a fire between India and
Pakistan and at the same opportunity to hurt Jews and suddenly Israelis
want to go protect the Chabad houses!"

3. Well, the good news is that the police arrested the anti-Israel extremist "journalist" Amira Hass when she exited Gaza, having arrived there 3 weeks ago on board that "Solidarity with the Hamas" boat that "broke the Israeli blockade" of Hamastan, organized by the Eurotrash and the Israeli lobby for the Hamas. They took her to Sderot for questioning. The bad news is that they released her. The above Avirama Golan came and bailed her out.

The fact that someone like Hass, who is an open lobbyist for the Hamas and for Israel's annihilation, operates as a "reporter" for Haaretz tells you all you need to know about journalistic standards there. (For more, see this: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042709.html )

4. Hornik on the war: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E58E7742-6274-413F-A42B-5CABA3BC410E

5. Prager on the Mumbai Nazis: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2F38F605-6312-4DF8-92E0-12E747AE6374

6. Chesler on Islamofascism: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=256AC34C-2C8C-404A-9F1E-48EA78809B5F

7. Media Narratives Feed Terrorist Fantasies By BRET STEPHENS

For purposes of self-justification, Azam Amir Kasab, the only terrorist
taken alive in last week's Mumbai massacre, offered that the murder of
Jews in the city's Chabad House was undertaken to avenge Israeli
atrocities on Palestinians. Two other terrorists cited instances of
anti-Muslim Hindu violence as the answer to the question, "Why are you
doing this to us?" before mowing down 14 unarmed people at the Oberoi
Hotel. And if dead terrorists could talk, we would surely hear Abu Ghraib
mentioned as among their reasons for singling out U.S. and British
hostages.

David KleinOne suspects the terrorists spent far too much time listening
to the BBC World Service.

Let's hasten to add that by no means should the BBC alone be singled out.
When it comes to terrorists and their grievances, nearly all the Western
media have provided them with a rich diet on which to feed.

In the spring of 2005, Newsweek ran with a thinly sourced item about the
Quran being flushed down a Guantanamo toilet. Result: At least 15 people
were killed in Afghan riots.

Newsweek later retracted the story, which was the right thing to do but
also, in its way, exceptional. Compare that to the refusal of French
reporter Charles Enderlin and his station, France 2, to retract or even
express doubt about his September 2000 report on Mohammed al-Durrah, the
12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli soldiers during an
exchange of gunfire in the Gaza Strip -- an exchange Mr. Enderlin did not
witness.

In an exhaustive piece in the June 2003 issue of the Atlantic, James
Fallows observed that the evidence that the boy could not have been shot
by an Israeli bullet is overwhelming, while the evidence that the entire
incident was staged is, at the very least, impressive. In France, the
story has been the subject of various lawsuits. In Israel, however, and
throughout the Muslim world, Durrah became the poster child for a
five-year intifada that took several thousand lives.

Maybe Durrah was somewhere in the minds of the Mumbai killers. If not,
there was no shortage of other Israeli "atrocities" for them to choose
from, mostly fictitious or trumped up and all endlessly cited in Western
media reports: the "siege" of Gaza; the 2002 Jenin "massacre"; the 1982
massacres (by Lebanese Phalangists) in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps
in Beirut; the execution of Egyptian POWs in 1967.

All these fables have real-world consequences, and not only for Israelis.
In July 2006, an American named Naveed Afzal Haq ambled into the offices
of the Seattle Jewish Federation and shot six people, killing one. One of
the survivors testified that Mr. Haq "stated that he was a Muslim, [and]
this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration
for giving money to Jews, and for us Jews for giving money to Israel,
about Hezbollah, the war in Iraq." Wherever did he get those ideas?

As it turns out, often from terrorist
suspects themselves, offering their testimonials of Israeli or U.S.
malevolence to a credulous Western media. In the Quran-in-the-toilet
imbroglio, for instance, the Nation's Ari Berman filed a piece titled
"Newsweek Was Right," which cited accounts by former Guantanamo detainees
of how their captors abused the Holy Book. Unmentioned in any of this were
the instructions contained in al Qaeda's "Manchester Document," obtained
by British police in 2000, that told followers to "complain of
mistreatment while in prison" and "insist on proving that torture was
inflicted on them by State Security."

Or consider the tale of Ali Shalal Qaissi, the subject of a New York Times
story in March 2006. Mr. Qaissi, founder of the Association of Victims of
American Occupation Prisons, claimed to be the black-hooded man standing
on a box, attached to wires, ghoulishly photographed by the Abu Ghraib
jailers. The Times thought enough of his story to put it on page one,
until it turned out he wasn't the man. A March 18, 2006, "Editor's Note"
tells us something about how these stories make it to print:

"The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was
the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast
and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without
challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him.
Human rights workers seemed to support his account."

Of course, it's always possible to fall for a well-told lie. But it's
worth wondering why a media that treats nearly every word uttered by the
U.S., British or Israeli governments as inherently suspect has proved so
consistently credulous when it comes to every dubious or defamatory claim
made against those governments. Or, for that matter, why the media has
been so intent on magnifying genuine scandals (like Abu Ghraib) to the
point that they become the moral equivalent of 9/11. Some caution is in
order: Terrorists, of all people, might actually believe what they read in
the papers.

8. If this Isn't Terrorism, What Is?
By TOM GROSS

Last week in Mumbai we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass
terrorism as we are ever likely to see.

The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way.
The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during
their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring
international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic Web
sites. It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at
civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading
tourist restaurant and a Jewish center.

Reuters
Murder in Mumbai: The work of 'practitioners.'
There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff.
The terrorists didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many
Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other "infidels" as they could, and
in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the
female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.

So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the
perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected
TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai
terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors?

Why did Britain's highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the
"militants" showed a "wanton disregard for race or creed" when exactly the
opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected. Why
did the "experts" invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the
state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the
world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron
shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in
living memory?

Unfortunately in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying
their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism
poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on
communist atrocities. But now even conservative media may be doing it too.

What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language -- such
as going out of their way to refer to terrorists as "militants," as one
Mumbai story on yesterday's Times of London Web site seemed to do? Do they
somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make
their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively
confront terrorists when we can't even identify them as such?

But then the terrorists in Mumbai didn't need to make any public
announcements. They knew that many deluded Western journalists and
academics will do that job for them, explaining that the West is to blame,
especially the Zionists.

We have started seeing this already on the BBC -- the world's largest TV
and radio network, which broadcasts in dozens of different languages
around the world and is lavishly funded by the British taxpayer.

You would be hard pressed to find any talk of radical Islam on the BBC in
recent days, or mention of the fact that Islamists think India should be a
Muslim country. Instead the BBC continues to try to persuade its massive
global audience that "it is a local Indian problem," that "the
subcontinent has a history of unrest," and so on.

Even the Pakistani angle has been presented as some kind of local
Pakistan-India dispute rather than as a problem with radical Islam -- this
despite the fact that according to numerous reports the Mumbai terrorists
themselves were screaming "Allah Akbar" (Allah is the Greatest) as they
murdered "the Jews and the infidels" in line with bin Ladenist ideology.

For some time, many have argued that an element of anti-Semitism has
distorted the way the BBC covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But
now, following the Mumbai events, we can perhaps see that anti-Semitism
may even be at work in the way the BBC covers foreign news in general. For
much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting
that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one
point viewers were told that "an office building" had been targeted
(referring to the Jewish center as such).

Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the
besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world.
Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from
helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite
opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers
could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While
Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC
World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center
-- even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under
attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque
instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?

Meanwhile -- perhaps even more disgracefully -- a New York Times report on
the last day of the siege stated: "It is not known if the Jewish center
was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."

Has the New York Times learned anything since the Holocaust, when, even
after the war ended in the spring of 1945, the paper infamously refused to
report that the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and so on killed in
the camps had been Jews, and killed as Jews?

Dozens of eyewitness accounts by local Indians said the gunmen shouted
"Allah Akbar" from the Jewish center. It is housed in a nondescript block
and is not obviously marked from the outside as a Jewish center. It is the
one Jewish building in a densely crowded city of millions. And the Times,
the self-proclaimed paper of record, wants to let readers think it might
have been an accidental target?

Even the Times's British equivalent, the Guardian, began its news story:
"The inclusion of the headquarters of an ultra-orthodox Jewish group was
obviously intended to send its own message." Does the New York Times think
that the seeking out and murder by Muslim terrorists of the only New York
rabbi in Mumbai and his wife was "an accidental target"?

There was nothing accidental about any of the seven sites that the
terrorists attacked. And it was no accident that Mumbai was hit. It is the
most multireligious city in India -- with Hindus, Muslims, Christians,
Parsees and Jews living in relative harmony.

Mr. Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.