Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Mikey Lerner now in the Assassination Business

1. Baruch Kimmerling, a fourth rate anti-Zionist sociologist from the
Hebrew University, has a malicious Op-Ed smearing Bernard Lewis, who is a
first-rate world-class Middle East scholar:

2. Tikkun Magazine's pro-LSD anti-Israel New Age Pseudo-Rabbi publisher,
Mikey Lerner, has a new cause for all caring and loving Jews interested in
peace and environmnetalism = it is to kill Alan Dershowitz.

To Kill an Alan Dershowitz
By Alan M. Dershowitz September 27, 2006

Last month I wrote an article called .Norman Finkelstein.s Obscenities,. a
response to Finkelstein.s latest screed, .Should Alan Dershowitz Target
Himself for Assassination?. As the title of the article suggests,
Finkelstein puts forward in his article what he believes to be a
justification for my assassination as a war criminal, based on my support
for Israel.

Nor was this the only obscenity in the article. Not by a long shot. As I
wrote in my article, Finkelstein piece was accompanied by a:

cartoon drawn by .Latuff., a frequent accomplice of Finkelstein. The
cartoon portrayed me as masturbating in rapturous joy while viewing images
of dead Lebanese civilians on a TV set labeled .Israel peep show,. with a
Jewish Star of David prominently featured.

I found out recently that Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder and editor of
Tikkun magazine, has been circulating the Finkelstein article from his
Tikkun e-mail account and under Tikkun letterhead. Lerner apparently
didn.t have the stomach to attach the cartoon, despite the fact that the
inspiration for the disgusting cartoon comes directly from what
Finkelstein writes in the article circulated by Rabbi Lerner, as I showed
in my previous article:

The cartoon aptly represents the content of Finkelstein.s piece, which
accuses me of being a .moral pervert. who .missed the climactic scene of
his little peep show.. He also claims quite absurdly that I .sanction mass
murder. and .the extermination of the Lebanese people.. (I.m surprised he
hasn.t accused me of kicking of puppy dogs, scowling at little children,
and parking in handicapped spaces.)

This is from a rabbi who modestly purports to devote himself .to peace,
justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion.. This is
a rabbi who purports to observe the Jewish commandments against evil words
(.lashon harah.) and bearing false witness. This is a man who ardently
opposes Israel.s targeted assassination of Hamas leaders, but who
apparently has no qualms about the assassination of pro-Israel academics.
That.s a rather peculiar definition of .peace, justice, and non-violence.
Rabbi Lerner is employing.

This is not the first time that Lerner has served as a megaphone for
Finkelstein.s hate speech. Lerner published an article-length version of
one of Finkelstein.s screeds in Tikkun, complete with Finkelstein.s
hateful thesis: .Alongside Israel [American Jewish elites] are the main
fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today. They need to be stopped..
(Finkelstein had previously called American Jews .parasites..) In the
same book that Lerner was promoting, Finkelstein invoked some of the most
crass anti-Semitic caricatures found in contemporary America, .Should
people like Abraham Foxman, Edgar Bronfman, and Rabbi Israel Singer [who
are prominent Jewish leaders] get a free ride because they resemble
stereotypes straight out of Der Sturmer?. Can you imagine a professor
issuing a similar description of a woman or a Muslim, or describing the
Pope according to an anti-Catholic stereotype? Can you imagine Tikkun
publishing an author who falsely described Rabbi Lerner as resembling a
stereotype .straight out of Der Sturmer.?

Lerner tried to weasel out of what he had done by saying the he forwarded
the Finkelstein article because I had called him .an anti-Semitic rabbi.
in one of my books. (What I actually wrote is that .even a rabbi can
support anti-Semitic actions. . as Lerner did when he supported divestment
from Israel and only Israel . which is quite different from calling him
.an anti-Semitic rabbi,. but never mind.) As a defense lawyer, I would
recommend to Lerner that he would be better situated to defend against
those charges if he didn.t so eagerly associate with anti-Semites and
publish Jew-hating rants.

Through his nefarious association with Norman Finkelstein, who is a
genuine Jew-hater, Michael Lerner has forever disqualified himself from
being taken seriously on matters of Jewish concern, the Jewish community,
or Israel.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is
Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006).

3. Auto-defeat:

4. NK stands for Neo-Kapos:

5. A Worm in the Big Apple

September 22, 2006; Page W13

Hear the phrase "human-rights violator" and one usually thinks of Slobodan
Milosevic or some other thuggish despot. In New York City these days,
though, the phrase might apply to an advertising executive whose firm
hasn't hired enough African-American managers or to the makers of an
"insensitive" video game.

For this astonishing development, blame New York's Commission on Human
Rights, an agency that investigates and prosecutes violations of the
city's very liberal civil-rights laws. Such laws target not only racial
and religious discrimination but bias against women, the elderly, the
disabled, noncitizens, gays, ex-cons, the transgendered, victims of
domestic violence and other protected classes. And of course the
commission interprets "discrimination" in the most extraordinary ways.

The half-century-old commission began with a push from New York mayor
Robert Wagner Jr., who, at a time of little federal or state civil-rights
enforcement, believed that a permanent city agency was needed to fight
local racial and religious bigotry. For some years -- especially after
gaining extensive new powers during the mid-1960s -- it energetically
monitored discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing.
By the late '90s, it had nearly faded away. The vast majority of the
several hundred or so cases that it heard each year had wound up dismissed
either because they were groundless or because the plaintiff didn't show
after filing a complaint. Most of the rest were settled for derisory sums.

But shortly after taking office in 2002, Mayor Michael Bloomberg boosted
the commission's investigative and legal staff to 28 from 11 and tasked
former city prosecutor Patricia Gatling with transforming the agency into
a muscular law-enforcement office. Under Ms. Gatling, the commission has
dramatically increased the percentage of cases in which it finds probable
cause for prosecution and hiked both the number of cases settled and the
average cash settlement. Each city borough now boasts a commission office
staffed with -- as the agency's 2005 annual report has it -- "a dedicated
team of Human Rights Specialists." Ready to serve your every human-rights

It's easier to find discrimination if you've got an expansive notion of
it, of course, and the current commission has expanded its definition to
the point of absurdity. Ask New York's advertising firms. In early
September, the commission trumpeted that it had reached agreements with
several top agencies, forcing them to recruit and promote more blacks. The
companies, seeking to avoid fines of up to $250,000 and litigation, will
set numerical goals -- quotas -- for increasing black representation,
establish "diversity boards" and submit to three years of monitoring.

Naturally, the commission offers zero evidence that racism is to blame for
minority "under-representation" in advertising firms. An advertising
executive quoted in the New York Times gives a far more plausible
explanation: "Minorities are targeted broadly by everyone: Wall Street,
Fortune 100 companies. Your top minority students have lots of
opportunities outside advertising." The notion that New York advertisers
are bigots who won't voluntarily hire and advance qualified blacks is
preposterous in this day and age. It's the commission's retrograde
racial-preference mandate that's truly racist, since it likely will
require the ad firms to hire certain job candidates -- and reject others
-- simply because of their skin color.

The threat of a commission investigation a while back was sufficient to
get Take-Two Interactive Software, makers of the video game Grand Theft
Auto, to promise to remove an instruction -- "Kill the Haitians" -- from
one version of the game. "I believe that this New York City-based company
has gained a greater appreciation for the diversity which makes this city
great," Mr. Bloomberg announced. You don't have to be a fan of Grand Theft
Auto to find in such intimidation less protection of a human right than
violation of the First Amendment.

The Commission on Human Rights doesn't just do law enforcement. It also
seeks to educate the public by issuing ginned-up reports. A recent one was
especially implausible. One remarkable thing about New York after 9/11 is
how tolerant the city has been of its own Muslim community after fanatics,
acting in Islam's name, destroyed the World Trade Center and killed
thousands of innocent people. Read "Discrimination Against Muslims, Arabs,
and South Asians in New York City Since 9/11," however, and you'd almost
think the real victims of 9/11 are Gotham's Muslims, 69% of whom, the
report reveals gravely, "believed they were the victim of one or more
incidents of discrimination or bias related harassment" in the years since
the attack. What's needed to end this injustice? You guessed it: lots more
government activity, including the hiring of more Muslims for
"public-service positions."

There are human-rights commissions in other cities -- like San Francisco
and Seattle -- but New York's, under Mayor Bloomberg, has taken its
mandate into new reaches of nanny-state bullying. What is more, the
commission is unneeded. All sorts of antidiscrimination mandates are
embedded within government statutes, programs and agencies -- think only
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- and the private tort bar
stands ready to punish true instances of harm.

As it is, New York's Commission on Human Rights itself does harm: forcing
private firms into quota programs, threatening free speech and issuing
nonsensical surveys that purport to find racism and bigotry where none
exists. By doing so, the commission damages the harmonious "One City" it
claims to desire and, just as important, trivializes the idea of human

Mr. Anderson is senior editor of City Journal and author of "South Park

6. Olmert's Wonderland:

7. Idea for Court reform that should be tried in Israel:
September 27, 2006

The Threat to Judicial Independence

September 27, 2006; Page A18

In November, South Dakotans will vote on a state constitutional amendment
being advocated by a national group called "JAIL 4 Judges." If the
amendment passes, it would eliminate judicial immunity, and enable a
special grand jury to censure judges for their official legal
determinations. Although the amendment's supporters claim they seek a
"judicial accountability initiative law" (JAIL), they aspire to something
far more sinister -- judicial intimidation. Indeed, the national Web site
of JAIL 4 Judges boasts with striking candor that the organization "has
that intimidation factor flowing through the judicial system."

It is tempting to dismiss this proposed amendment as merely an isolated
bout of anti-judge angst. But while the JAIL 4 Judges initiative is
unusually venomous, it is far from alone in expressing skepticism of the
judiciary. In addition to South Dakota, this election cycle has witnessed
efforts in at least three other states that are designed to rein in judges
who have supposedly "run amok."

Not to be completely outdone, Congress also has engaged in recent efforts
to police the judiciary. Seeking to constrain the legal sources that are
available to judges, some members of Congress have advocated measures that
would forbid judges from citing foreign law when they are interpreting the
Constitution. In addition, bills have been introduced in both houses of
Congress supporting the creation of an inspector general to investigate
and monitor the federal bench. Finally, the House of Representatives
passed legislation over the summer that would prohibit the Supreme Court
from considering whether the Pledge of Allegiance's inclusion of the words
"under God" violates the First Amendment.

<< Home

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