The Armenian genocide of 1914-15

I have been in communique with a Turkish diplomat concerning the recent deplorable actions of President Erdogan, as well as the treatment of the Israeli basketball team, and general Turkish antisemitism. Out of the blue - unprompted by me - he sent me a long article which denied the Armenian genocide. I sent his letter to a friend, who post a Bernard Lewis video, which similarly engaged in a form of denialism. This is my response to her, and to anyone who uses Bernard Lewis as justification for the offensive denial of the Armenian genocide of 1914-15.

I understand and know Bernard Lewis's statements vis a vis the Armenian genocide. (link which discusses Lewis's opinion - please note it is a very leftist site, but it accurately depicts Lewis's positions, which I have read in books he has written) He believes that many people died, but the goal was not genocide, rather, it was protecting the Turks from the Armenians who were fifth columnists. He also claims that it was not planned on the state level, but rather was initiated on the individual level, i.e., individual Turks took it upon themselves to engage in a sort of mob mentality of killing Armenians - but no genocide was planned. Anyway, his statements have been since proven false. It has since been uncovered that Hitler actually thought of of the gas chambers at Aushwitz from the model of the more primative gas chambers during the Armenian genocide. Recent documents have been unearthed which show the actual planning that went on at the state level to engage in a Final Solution of Armenians. Now, it is true that Armenians as a people were trying to form their own state and had been fighting against the Turks. However, none of that can ever justify what was done during the Armenian genocide of 1914-15. The fact that Turkey continues to deny the simple facts of history is simply revolting. The US has acknowledged its crimes against Native Americans, and against African Americans. It is what makes us a more moral and better country than Turkey. Only by acknowledging and learning from the past can you ever hope to not repeat it.

Here are documents concerning the Armenian genocide. Another document.

I happen to find Lewis's statements abhorrent, and blaming the victim. Lewis is a good source for some things, but not everything. He also was and remains an absurd proponent for the Oslo 'peace' process, and is a denialist for the extensive amounts of historical Islamic antisemitism. He has written whole books which deny the very well documented historic Islamic antisemitism, and as such, I look at him as someone who cannot fully be trusted in his writings. He is good as a source up to a limited point only. The fact that Bernard Lewis denies the Armenian genocide is not evidence that it is acceptable for others to do so.

He is a denialist of historical Islamic antisemitism and the Armenian genocide. Please look at his works with a rather jaundiced eye, as I do.

One note to add: I believe Bernard Lewis is sadly a far better historian than the vast majority of 'Middle Eastern studies scholars.' This fact alone should send shudders down the spines of anyone who fancies majoring in 'Middle Eastern Studies' at a major university.

What is to come unless things change - Malmo, Sweden

On Israelly Cool's website, I can across a rather disturbing video of what happened in Malmo, Sweden on January 25, 2009. It was on this day that a peaceful demonstration of support for Israel was interrupted by a violence mob of Arabs who threw rotten eggs, glass bottles, rocks, and even rockets/fireworks at the peaceful lovers of Zion. The peaceful supporters of Israel had a permit to demonstrate, and the violent rocket throwing Arabs did not have such a permit. In response, the police dispersed the entire crowd, including the peaceful and permit-carrying supporters of Israel, shutting down the demonstration. The heckler's veto won, and silenced the force of good in this world. There was of course no condemnation of what happened, and silence in the world media. Likely many in the media believe the peaceful Jews "had it coming" by "daring" to simply show support for the one state in the Middle East which believes in human rights. Or maybe they had it coming by "daring" to be Jews at all. Please see the video yourself to see what hysterical moral relativism and postmodern ideas disbelieving a "right" and a "wrong" exist will ultimately result in. This is where America is heading unless things change.

Objectively, worse than the Nazis.

No, I am not just throwing around the word Nazi for effect - lets look at this objectively.

While the NSDAP (Nazi Party) did not make the extermination of worldwide Jewry a founding principle, Hamas has. Hamas is an organisation that openly declares its intention to wipe out the Jewish people all over the world, and they made this intention clear in their founding charter.

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Read the full charter. Read more about Hamas.

This founding decoration is objectively worse than the Nazis founding documents. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and have ties to Iran - a nation which is also open in its genocidal hatred.

Despite this fact, I am sitting here watching the news coverage on Israel and the Arabs, astounded at how low our media can be in its coverage, presenting Hamas (and the Palestinians who elected Hamas) as victims.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. Hamas may be an openly genocidal, but so are Hezbollah. The mass media did so much to support Hezbollah during 2006, they went past the point of manipulating the news to outright fabrication. Why should I be surprised at the double-standard when we see Ahmadinejad of Iran being invited to present an "Alternative Christmas Message" to the Queen this year?

We can see the hypocracy of people through their double-standards. Notice that there have been no global outcry while Israeli families are being terrorised from barrages of rocket attacks aimed at their towns, cities, schools, hospitals and kindergartens, for years. Notice that right now, there is no talk demanding Sri Lanka halt its operation on the Tamil Tigers, yet Israel is told to stop firing so Hamas can rebuild. These hypocritical double-standards are regularly applied to the Jewish nation.

As far as I am concerned, the way Israel is treated reeks of anti-Semitism. If it makes it any better, I suspect the vast majority of those equating Israel to Hamas, or those calling for Israel to stop defending itself are simply "useful idiots", sheep for the policy makers.

Last night's pro-terror and anti-terror rallies

Last night there was a protest against Israel that essentially was little more than a rally openly in favor of Hamas. Thankfully, Stand With Us was on the case and there was an anti-terror rally across the street. Here is a link to pictures I took on my friend Irina's camera of both rallies. You will note open terror support, including "We support the resistance in Gaza." The Neturei Karta were also out in full regalia. I told them they are a "chillul hashem," aka, a desecration of G-d's name. I nearly got into an altercation with Hamas supporters, who were out and proud of their open Hamas support. I have to repeat: this was not simply a rally against Israel's right to self defense. Rather, these Hamas supporters were openly shouting Hamas and Hizballah slogans and holding up signs in support of terrorism. I thanked every police officer I saw, and told them I loved the NYPD and valued their good work. I added that I hoped they were profiling these terrorists. In the subway home, a group of at least four Hamas members hopped on the subway car, and it quickly got ugly. They shouted at me and we nearly came to blows.

Through it all, I realized: I am so lucky to be Jewish and American. Our side is right and their side is wrong. It cannot be any more simple than that. Anyone seeing the screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth monstrosity that is the Hamas support of the anti-Israel crowd cannot possibly say those cretins are civilized human beings deserving of respect. We are right, they are wrong, and it feels good to walk tall and proud as a Jew, as an American, and as a lover of humanity itself. I am optimistic for the future, as this degeneracy cannot and will not win out.

We cannot continue to 'apologize' for being members of humanity. It does a disservice to humanity itself. We need to stop 'engaging' with these Islamonazi thugs who mean to wipe us off the map. These are barely literate buffoons who seek to destroy us. 'Dialogue' will hardly stop this hatred. The only thing that will stop it is pride in country, religion, and ourselves. Am Yisrael Chai and G-d Bless America! Have a healthy and Happy New Year (Gregorian calendar), knowing that we WILL indeed win!

Here again is the link to pictures:

http://picasaweb.google.com/sicat222/StandWithUsRally?feat=email#

The Oxford Chabad

This past weekend was spent in Oxford, England. I was there to visit a friend, and I decided to go to Shabbat services at the Oxford Chabad House. This past weekend also was a weekened where we learned the horrible fate of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg, of blessed memory. But for me, what I witnessed in Oxford was a chilling revelation.

The Chabad House Shabbat dinner started out pleasantly enough. Rabbi Eli Brakman runs a very warm and inviting place, where Jew and nonJew alike feels welcomed to their Shabbat meal. The Rabbi spoke eloquently about the Holtzbergs, who he knew personally, as he studied with them at the 770 yeshiva on Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I enjoyed meeting an interesting assortment of individuals who attended the Shabbat services at Oxford, mostly affiliated with the famed university. But then, the speakers spoke. The topic was Obama and his effect upon the Middle East. The first speaker was a leftist, who apparently wanted Obama to press for 'peace,' whatever that means, for Israel. The second speaker was a Palestinian, who compared Israel to Nazi Germany, and then spoke of the horrors of his two day detention in a West Bank prison, and how he made an Israeli guard break down in tears when he compared the situation to Nazi Germany. He also spoke of the need for Israel to be forced to accept 'peace.' He said he is dismayed that Obama will be too pro-Israel. The third speaker was half Jewish, half Palestinian, and again compared Israel to Nazi Germany, claiming that when a little Palestinian girl wets her bed due to Israeli aggression, it is comparable to the hell his Jewish family has endured in pogroms and Nazi camps. The fourth speaker was Jewish and spoke about the need for Obama to push for a regional peace, but was not optimistic about the chances for such a peace.

None of the speakers were actually experts on Israel, 'Palestine' (a state which does not exist), or the Middle East. They rather were Americans, pushed to speak for reasons I cannot understand.

In short, at the Chabad in Oxford, on the very night that the Holtzbergs were murdered, Israel was compared to Nazi Germany.

You can be sure I was there with a strongly worded comment or five. I spoke of the failure of Camp David, and how it is proof that 'peace' is completely impossible at this stage, and not only is it impossible, but forcing Israel to commit suicide against its will does nothing but encourage more violence. In response, of course, I was told I am a 'fanatic' 'who does not believe in peace.' In short, there was absolutely no substantive response in the slightest given.

I found it interesting that afterwards, when I spoke with the organizer of this event, the explanation given was that somehow all the speakers were zionists, and it was a positive event, in comparison to the usual events at Oxford. I was told that when Shimon Peres (a man who famously stated we need to 'close our eyes for peace,' and who is a leftist and believes in ethnically cleansing Jews from our homeland in Judea and Samaria) came to speak at Oxford, there were riots. There in short is no academic freedom at Oxford. Frankly, if I was not in town and did not complain at the Chabad house, there would be little to no opposition to the extremist positions taken. And yet I was told these were the most pro-Israel speakers to speak in a long time! I was told that true Zionist speakers will not or cannot come to Oxford!

It is very sad, the state of the world we live in. I frankly track the shonda (yiddish for 'shame') which took place at the Chabad house to the Mumbai attacks. If we are afraid to defend ourselves, if we cannot speak out against injustice, then those who seek malice in this world will exploit this. Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." And he was right.

Why is it that at the #1 most 'elite' university in the world, pro-Israel speakers are afraid of literally being physically attacked? What sort of a world do we live in where we are not even allowed the dignity of our own narrative?

Assume, for an instance, that it is completely impossible to know who is right, either the Palestinians, or Israelis and Jews. Assume, for an instance, that 'no one narrative is better than another.' (this is completely a fallacious assumption, as there is such a thing as absolute truth, but we are assuming this for a moment)

Even under that assumption, why must we surrender our narrative to the Palestinians? Why must we give up even our own dignity? In response to blood libels, why must we apologize? This does nothing other than legitimize the blood libels! The Palestinian position has not changed even a millimeter in sixty years; if anything, it has gotten even more extremist. Yet we now live in a world of 'post-zionism,' where we have to 'understand' an enemy which wishes to destroy us.

Why do we have to 'understand' the enemy at all? There is little to no effort being made to 'understand' Jews and Zionism. The Zionist position is completely absent on campus, replaced, as it were, with the delusion of a 'two state solution,' which is little more than Auschwitz borders. Why is it that Alan Dershowitz, certainly no 'right winger,' is put on a pedestal and given a speaking tour, simply because he does not demonize the Jew?

Where is Jewish pride? Where is Jewish dignity? Why must even my own Zionist narrative be stolen from me?

We see there are people out there who seek to annihilate us not because we think one way or another. But rather, simply because we exist. Why have we given up the will to fight? Why do we even humor our enemy, and give them a forum to speak, yet we refuse to even listen to an Aryeh Eldad or Effie Eitam?

Where is our will to survive? Can it ever come back? When will a real Zionist be able to speak at Oxford without fear of physical violence? Will it literally take the moshiach coming?

Why do we so vividly and constantly have to cry about our brothers and sisters being murdered for being Jewish, and we say "never again," yet we fail to do anything substantive about this all?

What will it take for things to change?

Israel at 60 event at radio City Music Hall: Demonstration and Counter-Demonstration!

Greetings! Sorry for not posting in ages! I have been very busy. Last night, I attended the Israel at 60 event at Radio City Music Hall. I was counter-demonstrating outside, and then I received a free ticket!

I was able to hear Matisyahu, he's amazing! The bands inside were amazingly talented, and I was able to hear Governor David Patterson speak. He was amazing! I am now a huge Gov. Patterson fan. :)

Anyway, below are pictures from the demonstration outside against Israel. As you can see, there was open support for terror, and the conflation of the Sean Bell case with the 'Palestinian' cause. I never knew Sean Bell was a 'Palestinian'! You learn new things every day! I told one of the people, a 70+ year old man, that he was associating with terror supporters (a clear fact), and he screamed, at the top of his lungs: "MURDERER! MURDERER! YOU MURDER LITTLE BABIES!" I was so shocked to see this level of hate in his eyes that I nervously laughed, and then walked away. The only surprise for me was the lack of the Neterei Karta presence.

Click here to see pictures of the 'demonstration'!

Samples:

Open terror support!

Then there was our counter-demonstration (yay Andy!). Click here to see some pictures. Am Yisrael Chai!

Samples:

It is clear who is flying American flags and who hopes to take down America.

UPDATE: Please read the Jewish Week for a summary of the concert last night. Rightly, Gov. Patterson was mentioned as an amazing speaker. He really did stand out.

“Progressive” Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

A worthwile read:

How can there be something “new” about something as old as anti- Semitism? Hostility to Jews—because of their religious beliefs, their social or ethnic distinctiveness, or their imputed “racial” differences— has been around for a long time. But, as this erudite essay by Professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University demonstrates, hostility to Jews has morphed into hostility toward a Jewish state, and that hatred has acquired the ability to leap across national, linguistic, and religious boundaries.

[ Download, Mirror ]

Cute Zionist Octopus!

Elder of Ziyon via Israellycool gave me a smile today with a very cute [and evil] "Zionist Octopus".

Here he is!

"We urge the Muslim and Arab nations to act decisively against the Zionist octopus that threatens the security of Arab and Muslim countries," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said.

*Grins*

The dehumanizing antisemitic octopus imagry is not new, as evidenced by two famous examples below:

[ Source ]

[ Source ]

The History of Antisemitism

I have posted on a message board for many years about the dual subjects of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and politics. (Yes, really.) On that message board, the subject of antisemitism came up, and the following things were claimed...

1. Jews were in some way responsible for antisemitism throughout history, via the laws of 'family purity,' and separation.
2. Antisemitism as such is not that big a deal today, in the modern world, and other forms of racism are bigger deals.
3. Antisemitism was not really a bigger deal throughout history than anything else.

So I wrote this in reply...

---

You are basing your responses on so much misinformation I do not even know where to begin.

I will begin with this. You begin with the premise that maybe maybe maybe Jews "did something" to instigate the Holocaust. No one is completely innocent, eh? So they "did something;" they enforce ritual purity and live separately and despise the "goyim," and so therefore, they brought on the antisemitism themselves.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jews were forced to live in ghettos of Europe (and also the Mideast, via 'dhimmi' laws) for centuries. They had no CHOICE in the matter. They were literally forced to live separately, they were barred from owning land, and they were barred from most professions. (see link on Jews of Middle Ages) As a result, some Jews - a small minority of them - went into finance only because it was one of the only professions open to them. Thus begun the nonsensical lie about Jews controlling the banks. But I have more. Kings knew that Jews were an easy target, so they made them tax collectors. Therefore, when it came time to pay taxes, "don't blame me, BLAME THE JEW!" Then there is the Christian antisemitic liturgies; Jews blamed for killing Christ, and "replacement theology." I forgot to add that Jews have the religious ritual of washing hands; as a result, they were dying less during the Black Death; this was held as "proof" that Jews were "witches" and/or responsible for starting the Black Death.

So this is the background; Jews were forced to live separately and despised for their Jewishness. They were called witches at different times of history and there were pogroms and mass murders. Jews were forced to flee country after country; thus there was the canard of the "wandering Jew." Then, in the early 1800s, Napoleon set about a sort of "Sanhedrin" council, and sought to free the Jews from the ghetto walls. He asked Jews: "Are you French, or are you Jewish?" And Jews answered that they were French. This led to the dawn of Reform Judaism, which rejects much of Halacha (Jewish law) in favour of "fitting in." They rejected the very laws you 'claim' were a 'factor' of the Holocaust.

And the Jew who simply wanted to live their lives and fit in was the Jew of Germany in the 1930s. The German Jew was generally the Reform Jew. So the very basis of your argument is ignorant at best.

But I will go on.

Hitler then targeted the Jews as a RACE. It was not about the Jewish religion. Orthodox Jews and atheist Jews were sent to the gas chambers alike. Hitler based the definition of Jew on whether there was a single Jewish grandparent. Christopher Hitchens, as an example, would be considered a Jew. Under that definition. Hitler saw Jews as a race that was clouding the superior "Aryan" race, and wanted to first expel them...but where to? None of the other "Western" and "enlightened" countries of the world would have them. Where would they go? 'Palestine' was thought to be an option at the time, except it was not an option, because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem - Haj Amin al Husseini (involved in the founding of the PLO) - was an ally of Hitler's. He wanted 'Palestine' to be Judenrein, rather than as a safe haven for Jews. And he was an architect, with Eichmann, of the "Final Solution".

"Antisemitism" is not a hatred of the Jewish religion. "Antisemitism" is a hatred of the Jewish people (genetically). The term itself was made up by a German 'scientist' to coin an ideology that he felt should be spread.

But then that is the Holocaust. What about present day?

Let's examine present day. Let's examine the fact that in England - YOUR HOME COUNTRY - synagogues across England are not safe. And so there is an organization called CST - Community Service Trust - set up to protect Jews in ENGLAND. (not Iran, not Lebanon, not Morocco - ENGLAND) Let's talk about the fact that Jews - today - 2008 - suffer more hate crimes per capita than any other group in England. Let's talk about the fact that the number of hate crimes against Jews is actually rising. Let's talk about Ilan Halimi - the French Jew who was brutally massacred by Moroccan Muslims a few years ago for the 'crime' of being Jewish. Let's talk about the synagogue and graveyard desecrations. About the fact that there is a whole community of French Jews in New York, Israel, and Miami Beach who are there because they are fleeing France. Because they do not feel safe in France - 'enlightened' France. And let's ask ourselves who is behind these hate crimes. It quite simply are the 'aggrieved' "Asians" you speak of. THEY are the ones who are behind these hate crimes. There is a new antisemitism in Europe. And it is Islamic antisemitism. They use the old Christian antisemitic images and themes and make them Islamic. Or maybe it is not 'new,' insofar as it builds upon an alliance that existed during Hitler's era; alliances such as between the Grand Mufti, the Ba'ath party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hitler.

Then let's talk about a friend of mine - a Lebanese Jew - who is on Nasrallah's death list. His 'crime' is being Jewish. He saw his cousin tortured to death by Syrian agents in front of his very eyes. And he decided that he had to refurnish and protect the Jewish graveyard that was vandalized - because his cousin, his sister, his uncle - his whole family - were buried there. So he protected and refurnished the graveyard. That was his 'crime.' And for that he had to flee Lebanon for his very life. Then let's talk about the fact that Lebanese Jews live in hiding in Lebanon. They LOVE the Land of Cedars and only want to live and let live. But Nasrallah and his Final Solution goons want to literally kill every single Jew of Lebanon. For the 'crime' of being Jewish. He also wants to kill every Jew on earth.

This is the mentality of the enemy that Israel faces. Israel faces an enemy that seeks to drive it into the sea, and has tried, non-stop, since its very foundation. And yet despite that, Israel has been more restrained than any other nation on earth in the history of the world in fighting these threats to its very existence. But that is not good enough. Because somehow, there is one standard given to Israel in how it should respond to threats, and another standard given to the rest of the world. Israel is asked to lay down and commit suicide. Unless Israelis walk softly to the gallows, they are committing some sort of a 'genocide'. That ideology is a latent antisemitism.

Antisemitism in fact does exist, and it is not merely some cute thing of the past. Israel has a duty to its citizenry to defend itself. And those who know better who claim Israel is acting 'contrary to international law' in simply defending its borders against genocidal monsters who wish to kill every Jew are guilty of antissemitism. And that is why, in response to that ideology, I say two words.

Never again.

The future of Iraq; what is the position of the American-backed Iraqi government?

On November 27, 2007, I heard the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, Hamid Al-Bayati, speak at the infamous Columbia University.

That is a picture of Mr. Al-Bayati, taken from the event. (proof I was really there!)

While at this event, I took copious notes of all that was said so I could report it on C4A, and then I got lazy and did not do anything about this. So in any case, here is exactly what was said...

Mr. Al-Bayati first posited whether it is worth it for 162,000 American troops to be in Iraq. He responded that few Americans actually listen to Iraqis, and that negative news sells papers. He said that the Iraqi government has come a long way from where it was in 2004, but has a long way to go. He went on to note that life under Saddam was a prison. If you desserted the army, you would have your ear cut off, and the ear cutting would be shown on TV. He said Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, and 5,000 people died in one attack. (we know this - the Kurds) He said Saddam killed 6500 Kuwaitis and committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. He went on to say that Zarqawi was a terrorist who assassinated a US diplomat in Jordan with Saddam's backing, and attempted to assassinate Bush Senior in 1991. He stated that the UN cannot account for large numbers of WMD's, and in any case, Iraq now will never develop WMD's.

Mr. Al-Bayati was asked if he backed the war in 2003, and he said that he did not back the war back then, but he wanted Saddam to instead be tried for war crimes. In any case, while war might not have been necessary in 2003, it has happened and needs to now be supported for terror concerns and humanitarian concerns in Iraq. Since 2003, the Iraqi people are jubilant regarding the fall of Saddam. The new democracy in Iraq needs the support of the world, and he is frustrated over the US divide over the American presence in Iraq. It hurts troop morale. Al-Bayati stated that the American mission in Iraq is noble, and Iraq will be a model democracy to the rest of the world. In the Iraqi constitution, 25% of representatives are women, and 50% of diplomatic missions are staffed by women. He said that an example of progress in Iraq is the oil sharing legislation that passed.

When asked about the Sunni/Shia divide, Al-Bayati stated that the attacks are not really sectarian. Zarqawi sought to bring a sectarian war (attack on Shina shrines in 2006 - this caused attacks in return) He said "insurgent" is a misleading term, as Al Queda thought it best to fight Americans in Iraq. He said foreign fighters are the most brutal, and more than 50% of serious acts of terror come from "one Arab country in the region" (he obviously meant Saudi Arabia), fighting Americans. Al-Bayati said that Al Queda wants Iraq to be a safe haven for them, and there is some truth to Bush's statement "We fight them there, so we don't fight them here."

Al-Bayati stated that peace in Iraq is possible, but will take time. He also stated that the notion that the war in Iraq was fought purely for oil is disproved by the fact that Saddam exported more than 50% of Iraq's oil to the US. (RT: not sure about that one, but it was in my notes as having been said by Al-Bayati) He also said that in any case, oil is the lifeline of the world economy, and not a trifling matter.

When asked about the UN, Al-Bayati said the UN will play a larger role in Iraq, via Resolution 1770, which deals with humanitarian aid for displaced people.

Critically, Al-Bayati said that the Iraqi government believes in engaging Iran, rather than isolating it. It believes that Iran has a key role in helping with security, and he does not believe there is real evidence that Iran is interfering with internal Iraqi affairs. (!!!!)

When asked whether he considers American troops 'occupiers,' he said that it is the opposite, as there are still troops in Germany from WWII, and no one considers the US 'occupiers' of Germany.

Al-Bayati also stated that he is extremely bothered by the Arab lack of support for Iraq. He said they refuse to reconsider the debt Saddam owed to these nations, and now 5% of Iraqi revenues is going to pay for Saddam's invasion of Iraq. (this is an old story: see the Arab treatment of 'Palestinians') It should also be noted that Al-Bayati was castigated by a Columbia student for being too pro-American. (yes, really)

Critical areas he sees for the future are electricity and drinking water, but the education sector is strong in Iraq.

---

This is what Al-Bayati stated back in November, 2007. What does that mean today?

It means that the Iraqi government is relatively 'pro-Western' in some ways, but is 'anti-Western' in a most critical way of supporting Iran. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN think it is 'inconclusive' that Iran is supporting terrorists within Iraq. He thinks it best to 'engage' the Iranians. How exactly can the US claim to be gung ho against Iran getting nukes when they are supporting an Iraqi government that has this agenda? I am deeply troubled by this.

Then, today, I saw a post on Michael Totten's blog that was accompanied by the following photograph:

Please note the 'Palestinian' 'kaffiyeh' affixed to the neck of this 'soldier.' At first I was unable to tell if this was an undercover marine, since it did not look like an Iraqi, and I emailed Michael Totten as to the identity of that individual: was he American or Iraqi? Indeed, he was Iraqi. But what does that mean? I see it as a clear sign of Iraqi identification with the 'Palestinian' cause. Imagine, if you will, if the Iraqi police officers walked around with swastikas. It would be an outrage! But it is completely acceptable for them to walk around with kaffiyehs. Just as it is completely acceptable for the Iraqi government to 'engage' Iran. Who are we kidding? The US government has no coherent position on Iran, and I cannot imagine, at this point, the US government taking actual, serious action on Iran.

What do real Iraqis think of Israel and where will this country go? The Iraqi government, in their UN votes, are very clearly are supporting the broader Arab goals of demonizing Israel. At the same time, they are clearly not supporting terror in the way Saddam was.

Is this an improvement from Saddam? Was it worth going into Iraq? I honestly do not know. This is a very complicated situation with no easy answers. Is America doing anything to reverse antisemitism in Iraq? Is there antisemitism in Iraq to the extent it is found in other Arab states? Again, I really do not know answers to these questions, but when you hear the Iraqi ambassador to the UN speak about 'engaging' Iran, a nation whose president seeks to wipe Israel off the map... ...You really have to wonder.

In any case, Michael Totten did write a great article about the Kurds of Iraq. Their cause seems more clear cut and just; they are friends to Israel. (at least more than most other parties in the region) An unknown side fact: Kurds also are some of the last people in the world to speak Aramaic, along with Lebanese Jews. The Middle East is a complicated place with no easy answers. I do hope that, regardless, this report shed some light on more of what makes the Middle East so complicated.

Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.

I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.

The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?

Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)

Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.

If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.

'Masked' the play

Last night, I saw something that had me very deeply disturbed. I saw a play called 'Masked,' about three Palestinian brothers. This was written by Ami Dayan, Moshe Dayan's nephew. One of the brothers is a suspected 'collaborator' with Israel, one is an Arafish stooge, and one is young and impressionable - the question is where he will go in the future. The play ignored several key parts to the 'Palestinian' question, namely, Islam and jihad. The word 'jihad' was not mentioned once. Moreover, the suffering of the Israelis at the hands of these 'Palestinians' was not mentioned at all. I also saw the choice of the 'collaborater' brother as a false one. Given how leftist Barak basically left a number of the Southern Lebanese army to die after the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000...why would ANYONE want to risk their life to be a 'collaborator' if they get little to nothing in return?

But anyway, that was only half of my criticism. The brunt was aimed at one of the members of the panel discussion after the play, Elik Elhanan. He said that he lost his sister, and he blamed the death of his sister on the 'cycle of violence' caused by 'the occupation.'

I raised my hand and said "With all due respect, Mr. Elhanan, but there is no cycle of violence. Arafat was offered all that Israel could be willing to give in 2000, and he answered that with the Intifada."

In response, Elhanan said "Oh, but you don't know what was offered, have you seen maps?"

I said "Yes, I have. Dennis Ross wrote a book about this."

Then he incredibly said that you cannot trust Dennis Ross! Abram Epstein, an old and tired leftist Jew also on the panel, responded that his 'Palestinian' friends would say this was all about East Jerusalem. I responded "With all due respect, this was not about East Jerusalem. This was about the 'right of return,' which everyone knows is a ploy to destroy Israel. And moreover, when Israel does not return fire, they get MORE fire, not less. There is absolutely no cycle of violence."

Then some other audience members had a few other comments to make, and Epstein had the gaul to say that Hamas does not have to recognize Israel, as that would be like having the Native Americans recognize America. The most we could expect is they will renounce violence. I responded (shouting out in the audience), "Oh, you mean a hudna." He got very angry at that suggestion, and said "No, I mean long term peace." I laughed at him when he said that. It should be noted that Native Americans recognize America, and certainly have no terror campaign as the 'Palestinians' do.

Finally, it was down to closing comments. Blah, blah, blah. Then down to Elhanan. My friend sitting next to me whispered "Watch him say occupation!" Next thing you know, Elhanan, in his sinister way, said "Really, this is all about the occupation. My sister died due to the occupation. Little children on all sides have died due to the occupation. The occupation is the cause of all the troubles, and drives the 'Palestinians' to commit their terror!" (talk about soft bigotry of low expectations!) My friend and I laughed out loud, right in front of him, as he uttered such tripe.

What a travesty. Little old ladies thanked me afterwards, for stating FACTS in the midst of Jewish self hating LIES. It was disgusting to see such lies propagated to an audience who maybe does not know so much about the conflict, and now might buy into the garbage. Very sinister.

I would like to add that Elhanan stated that he and his cronies, 'Combatants for Peace,' go into 'Palestinian' areas and 'protect' the 'Palestinians' from Israeli bulldozers and IDF action. This is Rachel Corrie-esque. I hence view Elhanan, who organizes far leftist soldiers to not fight in the 'territories,' and 'protects' the 'Palestinians' from IDF action to be a traitor to Israel and the Jewish nation. I wanted to spit at him, I was so furious to see him. He should honestly be tried and convicted of treason, for the activities he has done.

What makes it the most tragic is that he lost his sister, killed by 'Palestinians.' Instead of blaming the right source, he and his family blamed ISRAEL! They blamed the victim! I sort of understand this mentality, as it is twofold. On the one hand, he must think that if people hate Jews so much, they have to have a reason! Many Jews turned to self hatred from this respect, during and after the Holocaust. On the other hand, it is much easier (and safer) to rail against Israel than it is to rail against the corrupt Jew-hating thugs which make up the 'Palestinian' leadership and media (indoctrinating all 'Palestinians' to hate) It gives him hope to rail against Israel, as Israel is a democracy, and responsive to his hate. In contradistinction, the 'Palestinians' would not stop their butchery of Israeli civilians due to Elhanan's action or inaction.

So sad. There was a British man on the panel, Glemore Trenear-Harvey, and as soon as I heard his British accent, I figured he would be a dhimmi. (due to recent British politics) While he most certainly was misguided, he actually was less misguided than the Jews on the panel!

If that does not sum up what is wrong with modern leftist Jews in a nutshell, what does?

UPDATE:

Carl in Jerusalem supplied information about Elhanan's mother. Evidently she was a speaker at a UN-sponsored conference of hate against Israel. With parents such as those, it is no wonder he came out as he did.

Peace, Debate, and Dialogue

I was thinking about this the other day...

I am offended by the word "peace." Why should the VICTIM have to worry about 'peace'? Groups such as "Peace Now", and "Jewish Voice for Peace" claim to be even handed and claim to want peace... but by their very focus on ISRAEL as the source of problems guarantees there will NOT be peace. If you look at the history of the Mideast conflict, almost every time, Israel acted either defensively or in retaliation for slaughter of its citizens. Whether it acted in the right way is debateable, what is not debateable from a historical REALITY perspective is WHY Israel has acted. Many people do not actually live in reality and prefer to deny history; we both know that historical reality is not a friend to Arabs as well as Arab apologists. But still, the facts are the facts.

Those who advocate for 'peace' would really ONLY be advocating it from the perspective of putting the onus on Palestinians to stop their low-grade constant conflict and stop teaching hate to their children. The checkpoints did not exist until the Intifada; people forget that. The 'wall' did not exist until the Intifada; again, people forget that. The entire 'occupation' (what a loaded word!) exists solely due to Israel's defensive Six Day War.

'Peaceniks' who really are peaceful would realize Israel has a right to defend itself and stop pretending that settlers are per se evil and the reason for the problems. They would see the root of the problem and demand an end to it. The 'peace' groups I cited, in their failure to do this, necessarily promote war. They make 'peace' an offensive word. Don't sell that 'peace' to ME or to Israel - sell it to those who are preventing peace.

This brings me to a question of dialogue and debate. I believe that dialogue and debate will be counterproductive. I thought about it, as a result of dialogue and debate over the course of a year and a half online, I have become actually more set in my political opinions, and more convinced than ever that the other side are either brainwashed or antisemites, and basically not reachable. Let me put it this way; the other side is not merely claiming "Israel, you overreacted in this situation/that situation." They say "Israel, you are rotten to the core and have no right to exist!" So what "dialogue" is there with them? What "debate" is there with them? How do you "debate" your own existence?

And so I believe that the topic of Israel should simply not even be debated with these cretins, thugs, and brainwashed masses. We will NOT change them, and if anything, make them worse. Instead, I believe the best AND ONLY topic to discuss with Arabs is Lebanon. A secondary topic is possibly Iran. Lebanon is a country on the brink; anyone who actually believes in a future for the Lebanese is against a common (and existential) enemy of Israel's: Hezbollah and Syria. There are banners all over Lebanon that say "I love life." So, promote THAT. Promote an anti-Hezbollah culture of Lebanon, promote love of life and anti-hate; do not even discuss Israel as it will simply enflame passions and lead to nothing. Then maybe have a debate about the way to bring about peace in Lebanon. Bring together a broad spectrum of Lebanese and Arab society that is devoted against the hate. Then, maybe once they are anti-Hezbollah hate, they will start to be pro-Israel. But it has to be side-strike. The same goes with Iran; the Iranian mullahs are anti-Israel, but more than that, they are anti-Iranian. So bring together a broad spectrum of people who again love life and are devoted against the mullahs.

If you do a survey of the Mideast, other than Israelis, the only other countries filled with sophisticated people who love life are Lebanon (at least Sunni/Druze/Maronites, and a minority of Shia) and Iran. They can be reached, and should be reached. And the debate should not be Israel's existence or whether Israel leads a vast cabal controlling world foreign policy, as that debate will lead to nowhere. It should be over the future of a free, just, and pluralistic Lebanon and Iran.

Thoughts?

Cindy Sheehan in Union Square, NY

On Friday, I saw Cindy Sheehan protesting in Union Square. You can read more about the protest right here. At the protest, there were utter moonbats, screaming that Bush and Cheney will be impeached, and Sheehan will be the next president of the US. Yes, you read that right. I hope I did not cause you to spit out your coffee! The protest also drew many 9/11 "troofers."

I was with a friend from Israel on Friday, and my friend asked me "Who are they?" I answered: "Don't worry about that. It's just a bunch of antisemites (they believe we fight only for Israel and Israel was behind 9/11). They prove America is a great and free nation, as they are saying the worst sorts of things, that America is behind 9/11, and yet do not face any sort of punishment."

Many people claim that mocking Cindy Sheehan is in poor taste, as this woman lost her son, and should be shown respect. I have the following to say to them:

Cindy Sheehan does not respect her son, and in fact she should be ashamed of the mockery of a human being she has become.

Her son fought and died for this country, and in response, she meets with those such as Hugo Chavez, who seek to destroy America. Her son is turning in his grave, at the way his mother is dishonoring his memory.

The fact that she is a mother and is so dishonoring her son is a double insult; it makes her the worst sort of a person out there. She is the sort of person who lets her son's grave go without a headstone, so she can use the money allocated for the headstone to protest against the country he fought and died for. She does this all while pretending to be acting in his memory, when really she was a communist and anti-American activist prior to her son going off to Iraq.

Remember these words next time someone castigates you for reeming into Sheehan. The fact that her son died in Iraq is exactly the reason that it is so deplorable that she does what she does. She is actively defaming her son's name, she knows she is defaming his name, and she does not care.

Read more about Sheehan right here.

Continuing the theme of getting OUR OWN house in order first...

A few days ago, the Jerusalem Post wrote of a Canadian court case that upheld the ban on listing the birthplace of Canadian citizens born in Jerusalem as "Jerusalem, Israel." Feel free to read more about this case right here.

A federal policy that bans Canadians from listing Jerusalem, Israel, as their birthplace on their passport does not violate the Charter of Rights, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal has ruled.

In 2006, Eliyahu Veffer, a 19-year-old Canadian citizen born in Jerusalem, requested that the minister of foreign affairs list Israel as his country of birth on his Canadian passport. His request was rejected, and last week a three-judge panel ruled against his appeal.

"Mr. Veffer has not been discriminated against in that his human dignity has not been invaded," the judges wrote. "Mr. Veffer still maintains the freedom to express his faith and his subjectively held views as to the status of Jerusalem, he is just not able to do so in his Canadian passport."

The decision maintains that the ban on listing Israel as the birth country alongside Jerusalem is not discriminatory, despite the fact that Israel is the only country that is banned from being listed when cities in disputed territories are concerned.

It is easy to be mad at Canada. I was ready to get in line to sing the "Blame Canada" song with everyone else, but then I thought...how can I blame Canada when in fact the same situation exists in the United States? How can I blame Canada when this issue receives so little attention to begin with, and any concern about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and U.S. passports has pretty much been swept under the carpet?

I was researching this issue, and I found a wonderful article concerning the U.S. legal status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Please read this. An excerpt:

In his first campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush repeatedly promised to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the capital city of Jerusalem - a move long sought by the Jewish state.

Moreover, he said, he would do this immediately upon assuming office. He was courting the Jewish vote, to be sure - but he was also following an overwhelming mandate from Congress, where, as far back as 1995, an almost-unanimous bipartisan majority had voted in favour of the transfer.

Whether Bush's actions amount to a flip-flop is for the political pundits to decide, but it is a fact that Bush has never made good on his promise. For a president who appears to be uncompromising when it comes to refusing to coddle Palestinians, the question remains: why?

The article goes on...

Even then the department pushed a stubbornly biased policy of refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

One bizarre result was that U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem have never been able to carry passports showing their birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel - only Jerusalem.

The situation continues today, even after G.W. Bush signed a law explicitly to change this, because, you guessed it, Bush flip-flopped on the matter. Surprisingly, the BBC has a great article on this issue. (maybe because Bush does not look so favourable?)

There is the political will to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and change the place of birth for US citizens born in Israel (or at least was at various points during Bush's presidency). And yet, nothing happened.

The status quo remains, and yet many American Jews have the gall to blame Canada???

No. As an American, I say that we need to clean our own shop before we lecture ANYONE about theirs.

'Jon the Antizionist Jew'

I know I have been away for too long, but I have been struggling to figure out what I should write. What is my unique voice in this blogosphere?

I found something incredibly important to write about today.

Please read the following link.

The man 'Jon the Antizionist Jew' (what an abomination!) supports the man who gave away Israel's nuclear secrets to a British paper. He sees him as a fine individual, even a hero!

Secondly, he said this about the citizens of Sderot...

Now, please do not get me wrong; I have no ill will towards the people of Sderot or any other Israeli town or city; I wish no one to suffer, Israeli or Palestinian and I gain no joy when one does. But as someone that is a part of a Solidarity movement, I do have a problem with this event. Just look at the intent, that the people of Sderot should live just live the 'safe' citizens of Tel Aviv. I can imagine that the Euro-American settlers felt much the same way on the constantly expanding borders of the American frontier, vulnerable to attacks from the 'barbaric' violence of the natives, which of course, they were just defending themselves from, of course. But that is the way of the colonial settler society; the central, thoroughly ethnically cleansed homeland is much less risky than the rough borders of such activity, whether we are talking about Sderot and Tel Aviv or Little Bighorn and New York City. The problem in Israel/Palestine, of course, is that the hegemonic center and the frontier are right next to each other, and the monopoly of violence by the occupier/colonizer is not absolute like in the days of old (the solution- build a wall, lots of walls!).

And let's also not forget that this is not new; Sderot was built on/next to the ruins of the ethnically cleansed Palestinian village of Najd, and has, like many areas bordering Gaza and the OPT, has felt its share of violence from the conflict. But this is not surprising, just read the words of Moshe Dayan by the Gates of Gaza, who was a very logical Zionist of the old socialist-secular variety, but a colonizer like the rest;

Conclusion...

Jon the antizionist Jew is 'anti-violence,' but understands and condones the violence against citizens of Sderot. Israel itself is a colonialist nation, anti-democratic and evil to its core, and so this is what you can expect. And anyone who takes steps to bring down the state (Mordechai Vanunu, who gave nuclear secrets of Israel's) is a hero, and he is only a 'political prisoner' in Israel.

How do you combat this? We are not talking about logic. We are not talking about someone who uses reason. Isn't the only way to combat this to simply stop those without opinions (or weak opinions) from becoming another Rachel Corrie, or "Jon the Antizionist Jew"?

There is simply no dialogue with people of this ilk. There is only screaming and yelling. The ONLY way to combat these idiots is to, when they appear to have a point, show how they are wrong, systematically, point by point. Debunk and "fisk" them, line by line, showing where they are wrong. But do not do it with any hope of changing their mind...but rather, preventing the new generations of Corries and 'Jon the Antizionist Jews.'

My meeting with Elliott Abrams

As mentioned previously, I met with the Deputy National Security Advisor to the United States, Elliott Abrams, a few weeks ago. He was at a local area synagogue, and spoke after Friday night services. The main subject of his talk was Jews in government. Essentially, his claim was that from the 1960s-1990s, it was basically a nonissue to see a Jew in government. However, with the Walt and Mersheimer paper, suddenly, the outside community (not the Bush administration) sees it as a problem that Jews are in government. He said that there are now college courses at elite universities that look at whether the "Israel lobby" and AIPAC control US foreign policy. The Walt/Mersheimer paper is read, and then the Dershowitz response paper is read. Both are 'debated,' to determine the 'truth' of whether AIPAC and the "Israel lobby" control foreign policy. Imagine that. Imagine if there was a class where Holocaust denial literature was read on par with Elie Wiesel's books, and the "truth" of it were debated. Such is the state of modern American academia. Truly frightening. Abrams said that he feared for the future generations, saying he saw antisemitism on the rise not just abroad, but here on American soil, in American academia.

After his talk, there were many questions and answers posed. I raised my hand and asked the first question. My question was: "In light of the fact that Yassir Arafat's uncle was a Nazi who was an architect of the Final Solution, and that Fatah's roots are indeed in Nazism (and there is no indication that Abbas/Abu Mazen thinks any differently)...why is Israel and the US fooling itself by pretending that somehow Abu Mazen is 'moderate' and should be 'negotiated with'?"

Abrams's response was very instructive. He said that Abu Mazen may not be a moderate by "our standards," but he was someone who at least "wanted to talk." However, Abu Mazen has little power, and so it's basically pointless to speak to him until and unless he does have power. He then went on a long sidenote about how moderates rarely do end up in power in these sorts of nations. According to this 'logic,' then it would be up to the US and Israel to do all that is possible to empower Abu Mazen.

But here is where you kind folks will be enlightened. After the talk, a little birdie told me that some people close to Elliott Abrams completely disagree with his characterization of Abu Mazen as "someone who wants to talk," and a "relative moderate," but could not say so publicly. This little birdie also thanked me for saying what I said publicly.

Interesting, no?

Other tidbits from Abrams...

He spoke of Iran and its nuclear threat, and then said that the Democrats wanted to put language into a bill that would take the military option OFF the table for Iran. He said (and I agree with him) that the only way to be effective with Iran is to keep the military option on the table, and he admonished many Jewish organizations who remain silent about this. He also spoke support of the democracy project in these Muslim nations. He believes that democracy is ultimately the answer, since no democracy is a threat to the world.

Afterwards, I privately approached Mr. Abrams. I said to him "Mr. Abrams, respectfully, how can you say that democracy is the answer, when in Egypt, if there were fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would be elected TOMORROW? And the same is true in most of the Muslim world. Democracy? What about Indonesia, where the "democratically" elected president said the Holocaust never happened? What about Iraq, where it looks likely that there will be sharia law? Islam itself is both a political system and a religion. Isn't THAT the problem?"

His response was basically that Egypt is in the state it is in because Mubarak (president of Egypt) has suppressed all opposition parties, and hence the ONLY choice now is the Muslim Brotherhood. He said democracy is a long term, not immediate solution there. Then he said that the Indonesian PM who denied the Holocaust was, after all, voted OUT. He spoke ultimately a line about optimism. And he did so privately - with no one else nearby to even listen in. In short, this is what he really believes. I also mentioned Sandmonkey (with regards to democracy in Egypt) - and yes, Mr. Abrams has heard of him.

There you have it, folks. An inside track into the mind of a top official in the Bush administration, and my interaction with him. I hope you enjoy this read.

I should say that after the talk with Mr. Abrams, I spoke with a director from the Obsession movie (who attended this event), about radical Islam and the like. It was interesting that he did not know much to anything about India. He also thought Robert Spencer's words were "extremist," but he has read his books.

My next post will be a detailed rendering of my attendance at the US-Indian-Israeli relations event.

Anti-Israel hatred at universities

I attended a top-notch undergrad school. At my undergrad school, I was simply apolitical and apathetic with regards to Israel. The four memories I have concerning Israel are as follows...

• During my last semester at college, I took a writing class concerning the theory of space. The prof would mention Israel with regularity, calling Sharon some sort of a monster.
• I remember having a conversation with a "progressive" back in 2000 or so, and telling her I wouldn't vote for Nader in part because he was anti-Israel. This "progressive" said she was pro-Palestinian, and this was a positive position of Nader's.
• Hanan Ashrawi, a spokesperson for the PLO, came to speak at my alma mater. I didn't pay attention to this, but I recall there were Hillel groups who were upset with her. (Please note the Camera link about this woman)
• Many undergrads were applying to go to Birthright Israel, a free trip to Israel, but at the time, pre-Intifada, (I am oooold), Birthright had a massive waiting list! During the Intifada, no one wanted to go, sadly.

These are the totality of my memories concerning Israel, as an undergrad. My impression is that things have radically changed in the years since I have graduated. Please read the following article about 'Palestine Awareness Week" at Saint Louis University. You will see how there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate students into hating Israel, and blaming the Jews for the world's problems. This is hardly an isolated incident. Columbia University is an Ivy League school that is widely seen as one of the best in the world. Note who the Chairman of the Mideast Studies Department is - Rashid Khalidi. This individual also has served as the President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1994. Mr. Khalidi publishes the Journal of Palestine Studies, a Palestinian propoganda journal that regularly refers to the creation of Israel as "an-Nakba," (catastrophe in Arabic) Mr. Khalidi famously said "the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend” to “American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts” because it “enabled them to draft the United States to help fight Israel’s enemies.” (source) In addition, Mr. Khalidi is responsible for gross plagiarism of his 'academic' works. (source) Essentially, Mr. Khalidi, who is the Chair of Columbia's 'Mideast Studies' Department, was Arafat's minion. (source) Juan Cole was the most recent president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America. Juan Cole is, like Khalidi, a propogandist. He has been known to bend the truth to his liking when it suits him, including the absurd claim that Ahmedinejad (aka Dinnerjacket) never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. (source) Mr. Cole also stated some of the following things...

The Neocons wanted to knock down Saddam, Khamenei and al-Asad in hopes that those countries would be so weakened and preoccupied with internal power struggles that Sharon would have an unimpeded opportunity to pursue his dreams of Greater Israel.” (source)

It may be that the powerful Likudniks inside the US government are deliberately engineering a diplomatic rift in NATO, so as to ensure that Paris and Moscow cannot position themselves to influence Washington’s position (usually supine) toward Sharon’s excesses.” (source)

Paul Wolfowitz’ attitude to NATO allies is “so gratuitous and immature that one can only guess something else lay behind it,” that something being a wish to create bad blood between the U.S. government and states that are, in Cole terms “no longer a knee-jerk supporter of Israeli militarism and expansionism.” (source)

For more on Juan Cole, please read here. Mr. Cole is a professor in the Mideast Studies Department at another prestigious school - the University of Michigan. And for the creme de la creme of academia, Harvard, Culture for All already covered the firing of president Lawrence Summers for noting the anti-Israel bent of academia! The anti-Israel entrenchment of academia runs far and wide. Remember, I am not citing junior professors. I am citing some of the top professors in the field. And this is just the US. At Oxford, for example, Tariq Ramadan is teaching - a known propogandist for the Muslim Brotherhood. And lest we forget, Culture for All already profiled Karen Armstrong. What should be done? There is no clear answer. It is troubling to see lies taught as fact in universities across the world. It makes one wonder what sort of primrose path the world is heading down.

'Israeli apartheid' week comes to NYC

The useful idiots are out there again, with their "Israeli Apartheid" Week in NYC. I would attend one of those events, to videotape and document it all for you kind folks, except my time now is spent looking for apartments (as I already wrote). In any case, if any of you would like to attend of these events in order to document the antisemitism in NYC, here is the listing of events. The antisemitism of the far-left is there for the world to see...if you want to see it.

Emma Thompson Joins Group Devoted to Israeli Hatred

An actress I formerly greatly admired has joined the muck and mire that is the political leanings of her compatriots, Alan Rickman and Vanessa Redgrave.

This actress is Emma Thompson. In the wake of the Eilat bombing, seeing another such esteemed actress showing her side of hate (by joining the group "ENOUGH")...just...no words. Well, I will just quote Emma's 'words.'

The launch will come only days after a report, funded by the British government, warned that Israel's separation wall (a wall of defense that has been largely, though no totally, successful in blocking terror attacks) is trapping 250,000 Palestinians. (of course, the lives of Israelis are meaningless) The report on Israel's separation wall was produced by the Israeli planning and rights organisation Bimkom. The report says the wall is cutting off Palestinians from employment, education, healthcare needs, undermining social and family life and isolating farmers from markets. (end terror, end the need for wall - that's simple!)

Ms Thompson said: "This report cites the devastating effects on Palestinians' health and livelihoods of Israel's separation wall. It shows the vital need for our ministers to make fresh moves for a just peace. It is high time the UK government matched its rhetoric with action which can save Palestinians and Israelis from another 40 years' conflict."

That's all fine and dandy. Except the tag for the group "ENOUGH" is "End Israel's Occupation, Peace and Justice for Palestinians."

I slogged through the website of "Enough!" to see exactly what they stand for. Let me Fisk it all for you...

2007 marks the 40-year anniversary of the Six Day War, in which the Israeli army took military control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem. (this ignores the fact that Israel fought a defensive war against annhilation and immediately offered the land right back, after it won the land, only on condition of recognition and peace - which was refused!) Since that time the government of Israel has built 'settlements' in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (loaded term!) and assisted its citizens in setting up homes and businesses using land and resources stolen from the Palestinian people. (LIE!) This situation has continued to the current day despite Israel being in violation of international humanitarian law and over 60 UN resolutions. (let's ignore all of the wrongs of Hamas/Fatah/etc, or the fact that the UN is a feckless, corrupt, terror enabling organization!)

This wonderful organization goes on to explain what it stands for...

The Occupation has created serious poverty for the Palestinians, as well as severe human rights violations. (WRONG, terrorism creates the 'occupation!') But Palestinian suffering dates back further to 1948, when the state of Israel was created and 750,000 Palestinians were driven or fled from their homes. (WRONG, Arab Israelis fled on their own (which was commonly known, until Benny Morris made up history), and were most certainly not called 'Palestinian' (a made up ethnicity) by this point in time) The United Nations asserted the refugees' right to return home in 1948, but Israel has refused to allow this. (LIE: see 20% of Israelis are Arab Israelis, and moreover, these 'refugees' in fact left to wage war on Israel! Moreover, most of Israelis are themselves refugees, a conveniently ignored fact!) Meanwhile the refugee population has grown to over four million, one of the largest in the world, many of whom live in camps waiting for international law to be upheld. (Yes, that is only because Palestinians are allowed to consider fourth generation 'refugees' to be refugees, and moreover, it is also because of the pathetic definition of 'Palestinian,' as someone with two years of ties to the land!)

This 'organization' goes on...

Britain bears a particular responsibility for this suffering. (that I agree with, see, the White Paper, amongst many other things!) From 1917 to 1948 Britain controlled Palestine. Along with the US and many EU countries, the UK government is today involved in a close military, economic and political relationship with Israel, and fails to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people. (What is that supposed to mean? Standing up for the Palestinian people means standing AGAINST the Nazi PLO, which Britain is ostensibly doing!)

Finally, this organization concludes with 'pearls'...

We say Enough! We are a group of charities, trade unions, faith (Islamist and Dhimmi, I am sure!) and other campaign groups. We have come together because we want peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. (hahahaha, riiiiight, they really care about Israelis!) This can only be built on justice, equality and freedom. (True, except, this group does not stand for justice, equality, or freedom.) In order to achieve this goal governments like the British government must stand up for international law and human rights. (Yup, which means standing with Israel and against murderous thugs who are killing not only Israelis, but Palestinians alike.)

What a total and complete joke. I just frisked through almost every single word of the organization's website, an organization that an actress of Emma Thompson's calibre thought it fit to join.

Sad. Seems Emma Thompson has joined the ranks of the useful idiots.