Friday, June 03, 2011

Mayor of Omer demands Boycott of Ben Gurion University because of its Tenured Traitors


Friday, June 3, 2011
Mayor of Town of Omar calls for Boycott of Ben Gurion University
because of Treasonous Faculty Members

Above, Hizzoner the Mayor
Most of the faculty members of Ben Gurion University actually live in
the affluent yuppie suburb of "Omer," outside Beer Sheba. This
includes the far-leftist radical haters of Israel, who are so common
among BGU's faculty members. There in Omer they can sit in their nice
yards, sometimes around swimming pools, and complain about how fascist
and racist Israel and Zionism are.

Well, Maariv reports (June 2, 2011) that the mayor of Omer has issued
a call for a boycott of Ben Gurion University because of the
treasonous activities of its radical anti-Israel faculty members.
Hizzoner, Pini (short for Pinhas) Badash, is calling upon Jewish
donors in Israel and abroad to halt all contributions and donations to
the University because the university refuses to take action against
its tenured traitors and its faculty members who are actively working
against Israel.

Hizzoner demands that all support for BGU be frozen until the
university fires its treasonous faculty members who use their
positions at the university to war against Israel.

(open web page for links and illustrations)

2. From the Wall St Journal: How to Block the Palestine Statehood Ploy

Congress can take a cue from Jim Baker in 1989 and threaten to cut
U.S. money for the U.N.


Now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his recent
sparring partner Barack Obama are back in their corners, the next
Arab-Israeli political flash point could be this fall at the U.N.
General Assembly. The Palestinian Authority is lobbying Assembly
members to legitimize its claim to international status as a "state."

Recognizing "statehood" does not mean U.N. membership, but it would
nonetheless be a major Palestinian success. A resolution recognizing a
Palestinian "state" could also declare its boundary to be the 1967
borders (in actuality, merely the 1949 armistice lines), with or
without President Obama's caveat about "agreed upon swaps" of land.

The obvious Palestinian objective is to remove the issues of statehood
and boundaries from the realm of bilateral negotiations with Israel,
making them fait accompli. Last fall, the Palestinians focused on
obtaining a Security Council resolution for this purpose. They
believed, for whatever reason, that Mr. Obama would not order an
American veto, as his predecessors would have done without hesitation.
Many thought the administration might even vote "yes" rather than

When it became clear that U.S. opposition in the Security Council was
likely, on statehood or on U.N. membership, Palestinian attention
shifted to the General Assembly, where there is no veto. General
Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, and that body has no
authority to recognize states, although its actions can be politically
powerful, as the 1975 "Zionism is racism" resolution demonstrated.

This is déjà vu all over again. In late 1988, Palestinians issued a
"declaration of statehood," changing their U.N. observer delegation's
name from "Palestine Liberation Organization" to "Palestine" to sound
more like a state, which scores of countries recognized. The
Palestinians then campaigned to join U.N. bodies like the World Health
Organization, reasoning that since U.N. agency charters allow only
states as members, the admission of "Palestine" would prove that it,
too, was a state.

Ridiculous in the real world but not in the U.N., the PLO effort
gained overwhelming support there. George H.W. Bush's new
administration and Israel protested that "Palestine" manifestly did
not meet customary international law definitions of statehood, such as
having a clearly defined territory and exercising a government's
legitimate domestic and international responsibilities. Third World
countries rallied almost unanimously to the PLO, and Europe's response
was weak. European diplomats believed Washington's opposition was
merely pro forma due to the "Jewish lobby."

Faced with the near certainty of defeat, Secretary of State James
Baker warned publicly: "I will recommend to the President that the
United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to
any international organization which makes any changes in the PLO's
status as an observer organization."

No politician of Mr. Baker's skill would publicize his proposals
unless he knew that the president would accept them, and this reality
was rapidly understood internationally. Although defeating the PLO
campaign required further maneuvering, Mr. Baker's statement was the
death knell of the "statehood" push.

The lesson for today is plain. If President Obama wants to block a
General Assembly Palestinian statehood resolution, he should act
essentially as Messrs. Bush and Baker did. Yet Mr. Obama is highly
unlikely to do anything so decisive, which is why many in America and
Israel remain gravely concerned about this latest Palestinian
diplomatic ploy.

Accordingly, we should turn to Congress, which has a rich history of
dealing with U.N. actions it doesn't appreciate. Rather than wait for
a Baker-like threat, Congress should legislate broadly that any U.N.
action that purports to acknowledge or authorize Palestinian statehood
will result in a cutoff of all U.S. contributions to the offending
agency. If the General Assembly ignored this warning, all funds would
be cut off to the bloated Secretariat in New York, but not to separate
agencies like the World Health Organization, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, and others with their own governing bodies and funding

The logic is the same today as it was in 1989. Moreover, our current
federal budget deficits provide another attractive reason to reduce
U.N. contributions. If political realities make it impossible to cut
off funding completely, perhaps a partial reduction, say 50%, might be
a suitable compromise.

Although the General Assembly will not convene again until September,
there is no time to waste. Fatah's coalition with Hamas already
provides statutory grounds (since the U.S. lists Hamas as a terrorist
organization) to eliminate funding for the Palestinian Authority.
Reducing U.S. funding to the U.N. is the next available, highly
visible, target of opportunity. It presents the U.N. membership with a
fascinating question: Would they rather recognize Palestinian
statehood, or keep America's money?

Mr. Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from
2005 to 2006, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

<< Home

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