This article shows that justice was not served recently when an attempted assassination resulted in...freedom for those would would have killed the Prime Minister of Israel.
According to CNN...the militant cell was later released by the Palestinian Authority.
--------------------------------
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A Palestinian militant cell planned to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a recent visit to the West Bank city of Jericho, Israeli media reported Sunday.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was to be attacked during a trip to Jericho in August, the media reports say.
The plot -- described at an Israeli cabinet meeting Sunday morning -- was foiled after Israeli security services passed on the identities of the militants to the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz reported.
However, the alleged plotters -- all from Fatah, the Party loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas -- have been released, despite admitting to the plot, the newspaper said, citing an Israeli official.
But a spokesman for Tawfiq Tirawi, the head of Palestinian security services in the West Bank, told CNN the men were still in custody and being interrogated.
The suspected plot was set to coincide with a trip by Olmert to meet with Abbas in Jericho on August 6, Haaretz reported.
Word of the foiled plot came to light Sunday morning when Yuval Diskin, head of Israel's domestic Shin Bet security service, gave details during a weekly meeting of the Israeli cabinet.
According to the newspaper, Diskin told the meeting that the militants were planning to intercept Olmert's convoy as it approached the entrance to Jericho. There were no specific details of how they planned to attack the Israeli leader.
Diskin said several suspects were arrested by the Palestinians after a tip-off from the intelligence services, and other members of the cell were arrested by Israeli security forces.
A senior political source in Jerusalem told Haaretz that Israel was incensed by reports that the suspects had been freed last week. The source said Olmert had lodged a complaint with President Abbas.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
BMW's Nazi Past Revealed
Report reveals BMW’s Nazi ties
Major shareholders of German automobile manufacturer made fortune through Nazi concentration camps
By: Eldad Beck
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3455663,00.html
Over the years, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), the German automobile manufacturer, has become a symbol of quality, prestige, and social status. As it turns out, the company has been hiding a dark secret for decades.
The Quandt family - Germany’s richest– is a major shareholder of the leading German automobile manufacturer.
It made its fortune during the Second World War through the Nazi war machine, profiting from the forced labor of thousands at concentration camps.
According to an investigative report that premiered at the Hamburg Film Festival on Sunday, the family managed to escape punishment after the war, and continued building its empire – an empire that has left its members billionaires many times over.
The investigative report, which took five years in the making, reveals for the first time the close ties between members of the Quandt family and the Nazi regime’s leadership.
Günther Quandt, the empire’s founder, was the first husband of Magda Ritschel, who later married Joseph Goebbels, a German politician and one of Adolf Hitler’s closest associates.
According to the report, Quandt’s first son with Magda was raised by the Goebbels, and became one of the managers of his father’s business after the war.
The report also revealed a series of incriminating documents found collecting dust in various archives throughout Germany, which prove the extent of cooperation between the Quandts and the Nazis.
Makers of the investigative report also located survivors of the camps used by the family during World War II, who testified to the horrible conditions they were forced to work under.
The family refused to cooperate with reporters who participated in the investigation.
The Quandt’s have previously denied allegations that they cooperated with the Nazis, and in fact, for years portrayed themselves as victims of the Third Reich.
When the German Forced Labour Compensation Program was established, the family made no contribution, claiming it had nothing to do with the issue.
Major shareholders of German automobile manufacturer made fortune through Nazi concentration camps
By: Eldad Beck
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3455663,00.html
Over the years, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), the German automobile manufacturer, has become a symbol of quality, prestige, and social status. As it turns out, the company has been hiding a dark secret for decades.
The Quandt family - Germany’s richest– is a major shareholder of the leading German automobile manufacturer.
It made its fortune during the Second World War through the Nazi war machine, profiting from the forced labor of thousands at concentration camps.
According to an investigative report that premiered at the Hamburg Film Festival on Sunday, the family managed to escape punishment after the war, and continued building its empire – an empire that has left its members billionaires many times over.
The investigative report, which took five years in the making, reveals for the first time the close ties between members of the Quandt family and the Nazi regime’s leadership.
Günther Quandt, the empire’s founder, was the first husband of Magda Ritschel, who later married Joseph Goebbels, a German politician and one of Adolf Hitler’s closest associates.
According to the report, Quandt’s first son with Magda was raised by the Goebbels, and became one of the managers of his father’s business after the war.
The report also revealed a series of incriminating documents found collecting dust in various archives throughout Germany, which prove the extent of cooperation between the Quandts and the Nazis.
Makers of the investigative report also located survivors of the camps used by the family during World War II, who testified to the horrible conditions they were forced to work under.
The family refused to cooperate with reporters who participated in the investigation.
The Quandt’s have previously denied allegations that they cooperated with the Nazis, and in fact, for years portrayed themselves as victims of the Third Reich.
When the German Forced Labour Compensation Program was established, the family made no contribution, claiming it had nothing to do with the issue.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Mohammed Al Dura...the Never-Ending Lie
"It turns out that the events could not have occurred as they were described by the network's reporter Charles Enderlin, since they contradict the laws of physics… Furthermore, it was not even possible to hit them (the boy and his father) in the place they were hiding according to the report," writes Daniel Seaman, Government Press Office director, concerning the Mohammed Al-Dura incident, filmed by Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, who was working for the France 2 television network.
"The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," continued Seaman.
Seven years after death of Gaza boy captured by France 2 cameraman was blamed on Israel, Prime Minister's Office issues first official document stating incident was staged. The arguments were based on investigations that showed that the angles of the IDF troops' fire could not have hit the child or his father, that part of the filmed material, mainly the moment of the boy's alleged death, is missing, and the fact that the cameraman can be heard saying the boy is dead while the boy is still seen moving.
Shurat HaDin Chairwoman Nitzana Darshan-Leitner has been investigating the incident for years. "Shurat HaDin plans to continue to act in order to bring the truth to light," she was quoted as saying. "Among other things, we plan to petition the High Court of Justice and demand the journalist certificates and other GPO certificates are revoked from all France 2 crew members in Israel – reporters, cameramen, produces, etc – as long as the network does not publicly announce that the al-Dura report was staged and was biased. In addition, Shurat HaDin is considering filing a damages claim for the accumulated damage the report has caused, and specifically for the line of attacks and riots it has led to. This modern-day blood libel has led to the death of hundreds of Arabs and Jews and has ignited hatred solely for the purpose of ratings and poor journalism. We will demand that those responsible for this crime pay for their deeds."
"The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," continued Seaman.
Seven years after death of Gaza boy captured by France 2 cameraman was blamed on Israel, Prime Minister's Office issues first official document stating incident was staged. The arguments were based on investigations that showed that the angles of the IDF troops' fire could not have hit the child or his father, that part of the filmed material, mainly the moment of the boy's alleged death, is missing, and the fact that the cameraman can be heard saying the boy is dead while the boy is still seen moving.
Shurat HaDin Chairwoman Nitzana Darshan-Leitner has been investigating the incident for years. "Shurat HaDin plans to continue to act in order to bring the truth to light," she was quoted as saying. "Among other things, we plan to petition the High Court of Justice and demand the journalist certificates and other GPO certificates are revoked from all France 2 crew members in Israel – reporters, cameramen, produces, etc – as long as the network does not publicly announce that the al-Dura report was staged and was biased. In addition, Shurat HaDin is considering filing a damages claim for the accumulated damage the report has caused, and specifically for the line of attacks and riots it has led to. This modern-day blood libel has led to the death of hundreds of Arabs and Jews and has ignited hatred solely for the purpose of ratings and poor journalism. We will demand that those responsible for this crime pay for their deeds."
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A Dialog with Columbia President Lee Bollinger
By: Paula R. SternBarnard/Columbia graduate, Class of 1982
Columbia President Lee Bollinger and his counterpart at Barnard, Judith Shapiro, are not interested in freedom of speech when it comes to those who oppose the tenure of Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El Haj. In those cases, we Barnard/Columbia alumnae/i are "outsiders." But outsiders were allowed to have a voice at Columbia last week when the university invited the President of Iran to speak. Ahmadinejad is well known for his remarks calling for the destruction of Israel and the denial of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad is known to have the blood of American soldiers on his hands - for selling advanced weaponry used to target Americans and innocent Iraqis, for calling for the destruction of Israel. Bollinger called it an issue of freedom of speech, but that is an excuse. Ahmadinejad had a platform at the UN. He had a platform on 60 Minutes. He had a platform with the national press. He didn't need a platform at Columbia and it is to Columbia's endless shame that they rushed to give it to him.
There was no open microphone at the event - it appears that only dictators and anti-Semites have a platform at Columbia these days. So - following is a dialog that was denied:
Then why was there no open microphone to ask him questions? Why was he given the "right" to speak words that deny history, deny reality, that twist and corrupt...all on our ground, at a university that is supposed to be dedicated to honesty, scholarship, integrity and truth?
And so we ask again...why give this murderer, this supporter of hatred a platform?
To give today's Hitler a platform is to add insult and hurt to the thousands of survivors that remain, and the tens and hundreds of thousands in the next generation who continue to suffer from that dark and horrible period. You shame them and Columbia, by allowing this man a platform from which to continue his denial. Why give this Hitler a platform?
There are mere words, President Bollinger, mere words. The fact is that Columbia has several people on tenure, or up for tenure, that say and feel the same as Admadinejad. Nadia Abu El Haj spouts the same lies and denies Israel's historical past in an attempt to undermine its legitimate place among the family of nations. You invite the devil, you condemn the evil, but you ignore the lies and hypocrisy that already lives at Columbia.
Shouldn't you have gotten the answer to your question BEFORE inviting this little Hitler to speak at Columbia? Before you denied your students the freedom of speech to question him?
This, too, should have been asked BEFORE inviting this man to speak at Columbia. With blood on his hands, you have allowed this man to hurt and shame hundreds of Americans whose brave sons and daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq. This too will be your shame.
We, too, wish you had done better.
Columbia President Lee Bollinger and his counterpart at Barnard, Judith Shapiro, are not interested in freedom of speech when it comes to those who oppose the tenure of Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El Haj. In those cases, we Barnard/Columbia alumnae/i are "outsiders." But outsiders were allowed to have a voice at Columbia last week when the university invited the President of Iran to speak. Ahmadinejad is well known for his remarks calling for the destruction of Israel and the denial of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad is known to have the blood of American soldiers on his hands - for selling advanced weaponry used to target Americans and innocent Iraqis, for calling for the destruction of Israel. Bollinger called it an issue of freedom of speech, but that is an excuse. Ahmadinejad had a platform at the UN. He had a platform on 60 Minutes. He had a platform with the national press. He didn't need a platform at Columbia and it is to Columbia's endless shame that they rushed to give it to him.
There was no open microphone at the event - it appears that only dictators and anti-Semites have a platform at Columbia these days. So - following is a dialog that was denied:
Bollinger: Second, to those who believe that this event never should haveIf the perspective was reasonable - that it was inappropriate to invite him, he shouldn't have been invited.
happened, that it is inappropriate for the University to conduct such an event,
I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as
reasonable.
Bollinger: Fourth, to be clear on another matter - this event has nothing
whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to
listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.
Then why was there no open microphone to ask him questions? Why was he given the "right" to speak words that deny history, deny reality, that twist and corrupt...all on our ground, at a university that is supposed to be dedicated to honesty, scholarship, integrity and truth?
Bollinger: According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in
Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors. There is more. Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.
And so we ask again...why give this murderer, this supporter of hatred a platform?
Bollinger: In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren.
The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the "debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who
continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory,
which is always virtue’s first line of defense.
To give today's Hitler a platform is to add insult and hurt to the thousands of survivors that remain, and the tens and hundreds of thousands in the next generation who continue to suffer from that dark and horrible period. You shame them and Columbia, by allowing this man a platform from which to continue his denial. Why give this Hitler a platform?
Bollinger: Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and
university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?
There are mere words, President Bollinger, mere words. The fact is that Columbia has several people on tenure, or up for tenure, that say and feel the same as Admadinejad. Nadia Abu El Haj spouts the same lies and denies Israel's historical past in an attempt to undermine its legitimate place among the family of nations. You invite the devil, you condemn the evil, but you ignore the lies and hypocrisy that already lives at Columbia.
Bollinger: According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group
as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the
Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination. My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?
Shouldn't you have gotten the answer to your question BEFORE inviting this little Hitler to speak at Columbia? Before you denied your students the freedom of speech to question him?
Bollinger: In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.” A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy. Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?
This, too, should have been asked BEFORE inviting this man to speak at Columbia. With blood on his hands, you have allowed this man to hurt and shame hundreds of Americans whose brave sons and daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq. This too will be your shame.
Bollinger: I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.
We, too, wish you had done better.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Israel, Electricity, and Gaza
This article was recently posted to http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/electric.htm
Reprinted with permission: Collective Hypocrisy: Justifying Gaza's Rocket War
by Carlos
September 20, 2007 - There has been much hysteria over talk about Israel cutting off electricity to the Gaza Strip. It is time to defuse the hysteria - and also the hypocrisy.
First, it hasn't happened yet. What is actually happening:
For many months now Palestinians in Gaza have been launching rockets against Sderot and Israel's other southern cities, resulting in loss of life and much additional damage. The potential for further damage is very great, with schools and fuel centers within rocket range.
Israel has found itself in a deep dilemma. What is the best response? One response might be an Israeli incursion into Gaza - something Israel's leaders want to avoid if at all possible. As Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated, "the price of a military operation in Gaza is known to all, and in any case conditions are not ripe for this."
Trying to find a measured response, the IsraelI government has declared Gaza a "hostile territory." This could allow Israel to impose sanctions such as limiting supplies of fuel and electricity, restricting the transfer of certain goods (especially anything that might be used in the manufacture of rockets), stopping visits to prisoners, and increasing the monitoring of funds.
The Israeli government rejected an option that would have totally cut off all fuel and electricity to Gaza. Instead, in the words of a senior Israeli government official: "We will reduce the amount of megawattage we provide to the Strip, and Hamas will have to decide whether to provide electricity to hospitals or weapons lathes." There would be exceptions for humanitarian reasons: the flow of power to hospitals for running their generators would not be decreased. Food and medical supplies would be allowed, but other goods restricted, such as pipes that can be used for making rockets. The object is not to make the Palestinian people suffer, but to make it harder for them to continue firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
The official Palestinian response is astonishing. Hamas said of the Israeli plan: "It is a declaration of war and continues the criminal, terrorist Zionist actions against our people." Firing rockets at cities is not an act of war? Gaza has been at war with Israel ever since Israel vacated all of its settlements there.
The response from Fatah was no more coherent. A minister in the government of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated: "It is collective punishment against the people of Gaza, and discourages serious political discussion." Firing rockets at cities is not "collective punishment"? Are those rockets meant to "encourage serious political discussion"?
The sanctions that Israel is contemplating are a way of trying to stop the flow of rockets without a violent response that would endanger Palestinian lives. Right now Israel is supplying Palestinians with the power they are using to run the metal workshops where they make their rockets. The Palestinians would now be given a choice: Here is your electricity, just enough for your people's needs or for killing Israelis. Which will you choose?
Examine the Palestinians' response very closely. If they simply stopped firing the rockets, there would be no need for Israeli sanctions. The Palestinians, who call themselves powerless, are actually in control. They can put a full stop to the sanctions by halting their aggression and returning to the peace process. Therefore all this moaning about "collective punishment" amounts to insistence on the right to keep firing the rockets. What else could it mean? The Palestinians are saying: "We have the right to make war on you, but don't you dare try to stop us or we will complain about human rights violations and war crimes." It's really simple: if the Palestinians don't want these sanctions, then stop firing the rockets.
It may be a simple solution, but you won't hear it on the BBC, and you won't hear it at the UN. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Israeli sanctions would violate international law. "Such a step would be contrary to Israel's obligations towards the civilian population under international humanitarian and human rights law," Ban stated. Do rockets aimed at civilian targets violate international law? Would it be more acceptable to the UN if Israel fired rockets back into Palestinian villages, one Israeli equivalent for each qassam?
But, some demand, Israel should go after only those individuals who are firing rockets, and not take any measures that might affect others as well. Unfortunately this is very difficult when rocket-launching terrorists hide among the general population, using them as human shields. The hypocrisy of the demand is exposed on considering that when Israel does go after specific perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is accused of "targeted assassinations." What country would allow its citizens to be shelled without taking any measures to stop it? Not one. Yet that is expected of Israel.
Suppose you had an electrical generator on your property that was supplying power to your neighbor's house. Suppose your neighbor was using that power to make an electrical bomb to blow up your house. Would you continue supplying that power?
The Palestinians use "occupation" as a justification for everything, including war crimes. I would love finally to see an end to the dilemma of settlements and occupation. I would love to see two states, Jewish and Palestinian, with clearly defined and mutually recognized borders. But how can this happen, given the Palestinian response to any concrete gesture of peace? Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, and the result has been rockets falling on the Israeli south. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and the result was rockets falling on the Israeli north. What will happen when Israel withdraws from the West Bank?
The great obstacle to peace today, greater even than the Israeli settlements, is the determined Palestinian effort to make life in Israel unlivable. This is no secret. The Palestinians have made their intentions clear: "We have decided to make Sderot a ghost town. We are not going to stop launching our rockets until they leave." The term for this is ethnic cleansing. That is what Israel is resisting. If the Palestinians do not like Israeli resistance, they should remove the provocation. Israel is not invading. It is not bombing. It is not shooting rockets back. Instead, for now, Israel is contemplating selective and limited sanctions. It is trying to find a way to stop those lethal rockets with minimum impact on Palestinian civilians. To cry "collective punishment" instead of stopping the rockets and coming to the peace table, to use a transparently phony morality to excuse continuing attacks on Israel's population centers, is not just hypocrisy. It is war.
Reprinted with permission: Collective Hypocrisy: Justifying Gaza's Rocket War
by Carlos
September 20, 2007 - There has been much hysteria over talk about Israel cutting off electricity to the Gaza Strip. It is time to defuse the hysteria - and also the hypocrisy.
First, it hasn't happened yet. What is actually happening:
For many months now Palestinians in Gaza have been launching rockets against Sderot and Israel's other southern cities, resulting in loss of life and much additional damage. The potential for further damage is very great, with schools and fuel centers within rocket range.
Israel has found itself in a deep dilemma. What is the best response? One response might be an Israeli incursion into Gaza - something Israel's leaders want to avoid if at all possible. As Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated, "the price of a military operation in Gaza is known to all, and in any case conditions are not ripe for this."
Trying to find a measured response, the IsraelI government has declared Gaza a "hostile territory." This could allow Israel to impose sanctions such as limiting supplies of fuel and electricity, restricting the transfer of certain goods (especially anything that might be used in the manufacture of rockets), stopping visits to prisoners, and increasing the monitoring of funds.
The Israeli government rejected an option that would have totally cut off all fuel and electricity to Gaza. Instead, in the words of a senior Israeli government official: "We will reduce the amount of megawattage we provide to the Strip, and Hamas will have to decide whether to provide electricity to hospitals or weapons lathes." There would be exceptions for humanitarian reasons: the flow of power to hospitals for running their generators would not be decreased. Food and medical supplies would be allowed, but other goods restricted, such as pipes that can be used for making rockets. The object is not to make the Palestinian people suffer, but to make it harder for them to continue firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
The official Palestinian response is astonishing. Hamas said of the Israeli plan: "It is a declaration of war and continues the criminal, terrorist Zionist actions against our people." Firing rockets at cities is not an act of war? Gaza has been at war with Israel ever since Israel vacated all of its settlements there.
The response from Fatah was no more coherent. A minister in the government of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated: "It is collective punishment against the people of Gaza, and discourages serious political discussion." Firing rockets at cities is not "collective punishment"? Are those rockets meant to "encourage serious political discussion"?
The sanctions that Israel is contemplating are a way of trying to stop the flow of rockets without a violent response that would endanger Palestinian lives. Right now Israel is supplying Palestinians with the power they are using to run the metal workshops where they make their rockets. The Palestinians would now be given a choice: Here is your electricity, just enough for your people's needs or for killing Israelis. Which will you choose?
Examine the Palestinians' response very closely. If they simply stopped firing the rockets, there would be no need for Israeli sanctions. The Palestinians, who call themselves powerless, are actually in control. They can put a full stop to the sanctions by halting their aggression and returning to the peace process. Therefore all this moaning about "collective punishment" amounts to insistence on the right to keep firing the rockets. What else could it mean? The Palestinians are saying: "We have the right to make war on you, but don't you dare try to stop us or we will complain about human rights violations and war crimes." It's really simple: if the Palestinians don't want these sanctions, then stop firing the rockets.
It may be a simple solution, but you won't hear it on the BBC, and you won't hear it at the UN. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Israeli sanctions would violate international law. "Such a step would be contrary to Israel's obligations towards the civilian population under international humanitarian and human rights law," Ban stated. Do rockets aimed at civilian targets violate international law? Would it be more acceptable to the UN if Israel fired rockets back into Palestinian villages, one Israeli equivalent for each qassam?
But, some demand, Israel should go after only those individuals who are firing rockets, and not take any measures that might affect others as well. Unfortunately this is very difficult when rocket-launching terrorists hide among the general population, using them as human shields. The hypocrisy of the demand is exposed on considering that when Israel does go after specific perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is accused of "targeted assassinations." What country would allow its citizens to be shelled without taking any measures to stop it? Not one. Yet that is expected of Israel.
Suppose you had an electrical generator on your property that was supplying power to your neighbor's house. Suppose your neighbor was using that power to make an electrical bomb to blow up your house. Would you continue supplying that power?
The Palestinians use "occupation" as a justification for everything, including war crimes. I would love finally to see an end to the dilemma of settlements and occupation. I would love to see two states, Jewish and Palestinian, with clearly defined and mutually recognized borders. But how can this happen, given the Palestinian response to any concrete gesture of peace? Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, and the result has been rockets falling on the Israeli south. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and the result was rockets falling on the Israeli north. What will happen when Israel withdraws from the West Bank?
The great obstacle to peace today, greater even than the Israeli settlements, is the determined Palestinian effort to make life in Israel unlivable. This is no secret. The Palestinians have made their intentions clear: "We have decided to make Sderot a ghost town. We are not going to stop launching our rockets until they leave." The term for this is ethnic cleansing. That is what Israel is resisting. If the Palestinians do not like Israeli resistance, they should remove the provocation. Israel is not invading. It is not bombing. It is not shooting rockets back. Instead, for now, Israel is contemplating selective and limited sanctions. It is trying to find a way to stop those lethal rockets with minimum impact on Palestinian civilians. To cry "collective punishment" instead of stopping the rockets and coming to the peace table, to use a transparently phony morality to excuse continuing attacks on Israel's population centers, is not just hypocrisy. It is war.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
CNN's "God's Warriors"
Usually, the task of setting the record straight is left to dedicated journalists who seek the truth, investigate and then report. Sadly, all too often, it is as a result of the journalist's work, that we must "set the record straight."
Thus it is with CNN's recent "God's Warriors" series, created, narrated and hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The problem begins with her personal, deep-seated bias that seeps into each program. But that is only the root. From there, the plant grows poison and evil because CNN allowed it, promoted it, and ultimately broadcast it despite deep and obvious flaws.
Many articles on the web are seeking to set the record straight...here is one of them:
Errors in CNN's "G-d's Jewish Warriors" Noted
by Hillel Fendel
CAMERA - the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - has published a detailed, scathing attack on the two-hour television program "God's Jewish Warriors."
CNN's Christiane Amanpour is the creator of a three-part CNN television series entitled "G-d's Warriors." The segment on Jews is the "most poisonously biased and factually shoddy feature to air on mainstream American television in recent memory," writes CAMERA's Executive Director Andrea Levin - and supports her claim with examples and refutations.
Levin begins by attacking the basic premise of the series, which purports to examine how Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious beliefs impact on the Middle East and the world. It is "deeply false," she writes, to equate "Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe... To demonstrate the supposed threat of Jewish fundamentalism, the few cases of Jewish terrorism - a handful spanning decades with each one overwhelmingly denounced by Israeli society and with those involved arrested, tried and jailed - are elaborated on at length and cast as a profound peril."
Illegal, Illegal
Levin then focuses on Amanpour's repeated emphasis on the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria and their supposed illegality - implying that just as extremist Moslems endanger the world with their terrorism, so do the Jews with their "settlements."
"Throughout," writes Levin, "Amanpour hammers the claim that Jewish settlements violate international law, and she seeks to paint this position as a universally accepted view with a lopsided parade of like-minded commentators. [However,] many legal scholars argue these communities are, in fact, legal... Such experts include Meir Shamgar, former Israeli Supreme Court Justice, internationally renowned legal scholar Professor Julius Stone and Former Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, among others. But not one scholar of this viewpoint is given voice in a two-hour feature largely devoted to decrying settlements and their residents."
Levin then moves on to Amanpour's presentation of US presidents speaking against the Jewish towns. "Ronald Reagan [is seen] making a tangential comment framed as agreeing" that "substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal," Levin writes - while in fact, Reagan did not agree at all. Levin quotes Reagan, based on a February 1981 New York Times story, as having said explicitly, "I believe the settlements there... they're not illegal."
More Errors
Others of the report's errors and deceptions noted by Levin:
* Jimmy Carter, whose recent incendiary allegations against Israel have been extensively debunked, declares that no Member of Congress could vote against aid to Israel "and hope to be reelected." Amanpour does not remind him or the viewers of the numerous Members who have opposed aid to Israel and have been repeatedly reelected, including Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd and more than a dozen Representatives.
* Amanpour claims that former Pres. Bush opposed loan guarantees for Israel but collapsed under the weight of Jewish pressure and backed down. In fact, however, when Yitzchak Rabin was elected prime minister, he offered concessions that satisfied the Administration - such that it was Israel that back-tracked, not Bush.
* Amanpour declares that "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." Levin: "Obviously, the modern battle over Jerusalem "began" 60 years ago when the Arabs attacked in 1948 to destroy the newborn state of Israel, seizing the eastern side of Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the old city. Every Jew was expelled or killed and all synagogues destroyed. Thereafter for 19 years, no Jew could pray at the Western Wall, and Christians had limited access to their holy sites."
"CNN needs to correct every error and slander against Israel and its American supporters," Levin demands. "More importantly, it needs to air an accurate and contextual documentary on these subjects, just as lavishly funded and promoted as Amanpour's, that will set the record straight."
Another CAMERA article comparing the "Warriors" programs on Jews and Muslims notes that while the former was heavily devoted to "the influence of pro-Israel activists in America, ... Amanpour utterly neglected to report on the powerful Oil Lobby, primarily Saudi-backed, and numerous other Muslim organizations seeking to influence American public opinion and foreign policy decisions."Four Times MoreCAMERA notes fascinatingly that Amanpour "harps on the phrase 'Jewish warriors,' repeating it 20 times in the first episode," while mentioning "Muslim warriors" only four times in the second program. "Why does she utter the words 'Jewish warrior' five times more often than 'Muslim warrior' when violent Muslims have inflicted thousands of times more death and destruction in the world than violent Jews have?"Furthermore, "There was a noticeably gentler and more cordial tone toward Muslim extremists, in contrast to the often snide and hectoring tone displayed toward pro-Israel Americans and Israeli settlers."
"Amanpour included two apolitical segments with appealing devout Muslim women," CAMERA wrote, "who talked about why they wear a head covering and how Islam enriches their lives. No such apolitical segment about devout Jews appeared in 'God's Jewish Warriors.'"
Thus it is with CNN's recent "God's Warriors" series, created, narrated and hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The problem begins with her personal, deep-seated bias that seeps into each program. But that is only the root. From there, the plant grows poison and evil because CNN allowed it, promoted it, and ultimately broadcast it despite deep and obvious flaws.
Many articles on the web are seeking to set the record straight...here is one of them:
Errors in CNN's "G-d's Jewish Warriors" Noted
by Hillel Fendel
CAMERA - the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - has published a detailed, scathing attack on the two-hour television program "God's Jewish Warriors."
CNN's Christiane Amanpour is the creator of a three-part CNN television series entitled "G-d's Warriors." The segment on Jews is the "most poisonously biased and factually shoddy feature to air on mainstream American television in recent memory," writes CAMERA's Executive Director Andrea Levin - and supports her claim with examples and refutations.
Levin begins by attacking the basic premise of the series, which purports to examine how Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious beliefs impact on the Middle East and the world. It is "deeply false," she writes, to equate "Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe... To demonstrate the supposed threat of Jewish fundamentalism, the few cases of Jewish terrorism - a handful spanning decades with each one overwhelmingly denounced by Israeli society and with those involved arrested, tried and jailed - are elaborated on at length and cast as a profound peril."
Illegal, Illegal
Levin then focuses on Amanpour's repeated emphasis on the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria and their supposed illegality - implying that just as extremist Moslems endanger the world with their terrorism, so do the Jews with their "settlements."
"Throughout," writes Levin, "Amanpour hammers the claim that Jewish settlements violate international law, and she seeks to paint this position as a universally accepted view with a lopsided parade of like-minded commentators. [However,] many legal scholars argue these communities are, in fact, legal... Such experts include Meir Shamgar, former Israeli Supreme Court Justice, internationally renowned legal scholar Professor Julius Stone and Former Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, among others. But not one scholar of this viewpoint is given voice in a two-hour feature largely devoted to decrying settlements and their residents."
Levin then moves on to Amanpour's presentation of US presidents speaking against the Jewish towns. "Ronald Reagan [is seen] making a tangential comment framed as agreeing" that "substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal," Levin writes - while in fact, Reagan did not agree at all. Levin quotes Reagan, based on a February 1981 New York Times story, as having said explicitly, "I believe the settlements there... they're not illegal."
More Errors
Others of the report's errors and deceptions noted by Levin:
* Jimmy Carter, whose recent incendiary allegations against Israel have been extensively debunked, declares that no Member of Congress could vote against aid to Israel "and hope to be reelected." Amanpour does not remind him or the viewers of the numerous Members who have opposed aid to Israel and have been repeatedly reelected, including Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd and more than a dozen Representatives.
* Amanpour claims that former Pres. Bush opposed loan guarantees for Israel but collapsed under the weight of Jewish pressure and backed down. In fact, however, when Yitzchak Rabin was elected prime minister, he offered concessions that satisfied the Administration - such that it was Israel that back-tracked, not Bush.
* Amanpour declares that "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." Levin: "Obviously, the modern battle over Jerusalem "began" 60 years ago when the Arabs attacked in 1948 to destroy the newborn state of Israel, seizing the eastern side of Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the old city. Every Jew was expelled or killed and all synagogues destroyed. Thereafter for 19 years, no Jew could pray at the Western Wall, and Christians had limited access to their holy sites."
"CNN needs to correct every error and slander against Israel and its American supporters," Levin demands. "More importantly, it needs to air an accurate and contextual documentary on these subjects, just as lavishly funded and promoted as Amanpour's, that will set the record straight."
Another CAMERA article comparing the "Warriors" programs on Jews and Muslims notes that while the former was heavily devoted to "the influence of pro-Israel activists in America, ... Amanpour utterly neglected to report on the powerful Oil Lobby, primarily Saudi-backed, and numerous other Muslim organizations seeking to influence American public opinion and foreign policy decisions."Four Times MoreCAMERA notes fascinatingly that Amanpour "harps on the phrase 'Jewish warriors,' repeating it 20 times in the first episode," while mentioning "Muslim warriors" only four times in the second program. "Why does she utter the words 'Jewish warrior' five times more often than 'Muslim warrior' when violent Muslims have inflicted thousands of times more death and destruction in the world than violent Jews have?"Furthermore, "There was a noticeably gentler and more cordial tone toward Muslim extremists, in contrast to the often snide and hectoring tone displayed toward pro-Israel Americans and Israeli settlers."
"Amanpour included two apolitical segments with appealing devout Muslim women," CAMERA wrote, "who talked about why they wear a head covering and how Islam enriches their lives. No such apolitical segment about devout Jews appeared in 'God's Jewish Warriors.'"
Friday, August 31, 2007
Israel's Record on the Darfur Refugees
A newspaper in Oregon has the headline “Israel Spurns Darfur Refugees”. As usual this couldn’t be further from the truth. Following, are three sample stories of many that show what is happening in reality. Ynet news reports Sudanese Refugees to Study in Israeli Schools Seventy-six Sudanese refugees, ages four and up, will be integrated into the Israeli school system during the coming academic year, according to an announcement by Education Minister this week.
The Sudanese children will be enrolled in Israeli grade schools and high schools despite the fact that their parents are in the country under refugee status, and without permanent housing.
Then from the Washington Post Flight from Darfur Ends Violently in Egypt Israel has up to 50 African refugees crossing its border a day, according to the UN refugee agency. The Israeli government earlier this year allowed a few of the Sudanese refugees to take jobs inside Israel. But that decision may have inadvertently encouraged this summer's influx, the refugees said. Egypt regards its border with Israel a military zone, and anyone trying to cross it is considered an infiltrator. Since July, Egyptian border guards have repeatedly used lethal force on the unarmed refugees
Meanwhile from Israel 21C Darfur refugees seeing things more clearly, thanks to Israeli eye initiative Israeli ophthalmologist Dr. Drora Zarfati has just returned from a refugee camp in northern Kenya where she and a colleague treated hundreds of Sudanese refugees from Darfur. The team gave examinations to detect eye diseases, and performed surgery for cataracts and droopy eyes. Amid difficult conditions and dangerous floods, Zarfati found that this was not just the most difficult mission she had ever undertaken, but also the most rewarding.
Report from: Israeli Citizens Action Network
The Sudanese children will be enrolled in Israeli grade schools and high schools despite the fact that their parents are in the country under refugee status, and without permanent housing.
Then from the Washington Post Flight from Darfur Ends Violently in Egypt Israel has up to 50 African refugees crossing its border a day, according to the UN refugee agency. The Israeli government earlier this year allowed a few of the Sudanese refugees to take jobs inside Israel. But that decision may have inadvertently encouraged this summer's influx, the refugees said. Egypt regards its border with Israel a military zone, and anyone trying to cross it is considered an infiltrator. Since July, Egyptian border guards have repeatedly used lethal force on the unarmed refugees
Meanwhile from Israel 21C Darfur refugees seeing things more clearly, thanks to Israeli eye initiative Israeli ophthalmologist Dr. Drora Zarfati has just returned from a refugee camp in northern Kenya where she and a colleague treated hundreds of Sudanese refugees from Darfur. The team gave examinations to detect eye diseases, and performed surgery for cataracts and droopy eyes. Amid difficult conditions and dangerous floods, Zarfati found that this was not just the most difficult mission she had ever undertaken, but also the most rewarding.
Report from: Israeli Citizens Action Network
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Israel and the Darfur Refugees
How many Sudanese refugees have been admitted to the United States and countries in Europe?
Israel has accepted more than 3,000 already and more are trying to come here. To get to Israel, they risk much. Egyptian soldiers threaten them, beat them, and in at least one case that was witnessed by Israeli soldiers (who attempted to help the refugees and were pushed back at gunpoint), the Egyptians have even committed murder.
By comparison, Israel has housed them, fed them and offered them political asylum and even retraining. How is this treated in the media? The answer is - it isn't...until today when Israel announced a new policy
"Israel turns away Darfur refugees" reports CNN.
CNN begins the report by explaining that "Israel on Sunday rejected 50 Africans -- most of them reportedly from Sudan's Darfur region -- who had illegally entered the country from Egypt, a government official said."
The CNN report goes on, "Israel has been struggling with how to cope with an increasing number of Africans, including some from Darfur, who enter the country through Israel's southern border with Egypt. According to Israel's Haaretz newspaper, the refugees were arrested Friday evening as they tried to cross from Egypt into Israel. They were held at a military base in southern Israel before being driven back to Egypt on Sunday, the newspaper reported. The nationalities of the 50 sent back Sunday were not released, but the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, citing figures from the Israeli military, said nearly all of them had escaped the genocide in Darfur."
Rather than praise Israel for admitting thousands of people from an anti-Israel country, the CNN report continues to use negativity, "Israeli law denies asylum to anyone from an enemy state, AP reports. Sudan's Muslim government is hostile to Israel and has no diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. "
Only later on does CNN begin to show the true picture, "Dozens of Israeli lawmakers recently signed a petition urging the government not to deport Sudanese refugees. Arab militias supported by Sudan's government have committed numerous human rights atrocities, U.N. officials say, including the slaughter and gang rape of civilians, destruction of water sources, looting and burning of buildings and crops. Earlier this month, Israel's Channel 10 interviewed Israeli soldiers who said they had witnessed Egyptian security officers executing several Darfur refugees. According to Channel 10, their testimonies were backed up by Israeli military security cameras that showed Egyptian soldiers shooting and killing several asylum-seekers."
Citing a major Israeli newspaper, CNN continued, "According to Haaretz, one of the asylum-seekers 'jumped on the wire fence in an attempt to make it over to the Israeli side, but was reportedly dragged back and bludgeoned to death by the Egyptians.' Responding to the report, Human Rights Watch called on Egypt to investigate the reported deaths."
Only near the end, does CNN finally get around to explaining, "Since the beginning of the year, nearly 3,000 Africans have crossed from Egypt into Israel -- nearly half of them from Sudan, many traveling on foot. Many Sudanese refugees end up in Israeli prisons waiting for the government to decide what to do with them. Israeli volunteers -- outraged at the incarcerations -- have helped many Sudanese find work in Israel's agricultural communities and temporarily live in family homes across Israel."
And so we return to the main issue - how many Sudanese refugees have been taken in and given shelter and housing? We know they aren't being welcomed in Egypt. To set the record straight, CNN should investigate other countries as well.
Israel has accepted more than 3,000 already and more are trying to come here. To get to Israel, they risk much. Egyptian soldiers threaten them, beat them, and in at least one case that was witnessed by Israeli soldiers (who attempted to help the refugees and were pushed back at gunpoint), the Egyptians have even committed murder.
By comparison, Israel has housed them, fed them and offered them political asylum and even retraining. How is this treated in the media? The answer is - it isn't...until today when Israel announced a new policy
"Israel turns away Darfur refugees" reports CNN.
CNN begins the report by explaining that "Israel on Sunday rejected 50 Africans -- most of them reportedly from Sudan's Darfur region -- who had illegally entered the country from Egypt, a government official said."
The CNN report goes on, "Israel has been struggling with how to cope with an increasing number of Africans, including some from Darfur, who enter the country through Israel's southern border with Egypt. According to Israel's Haaretz newspaper, the refugees were arrested Friday evening as they tried to cross from Egypt into Israel. They were held at a military base in southern Israel before being driven back to Egypt on Sunday, the newspaper reported. The nationalities of the 50 sent back Sunday were not released, but the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, citing figures from the Israeli military, said nearly all of them had escaped the genocide in Darfur."
Rather than praise Israel for admitting thousands of people from an anti-Israel country, the CNN report continues to use negativity, "Israeli law denies asylum to anyone from an enemy state, AP reports. Sudan's Muslim government is hostile to Israel and has no diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. "
Only later on does CNN begin to show the true picture, "Dozens of Israeli lawmakers recently signed a petition urging the government not to deport Sudanese refugees. Arab militias supported by Sudan's government have committed numerous human rights atrocities, U.N. officials say, including the slaughter and gang rape of civilians, destruction of water sources, looting and burning of buildings and crops. Earlier this month, Israel's Channel 10 interviewed Israeli soldiers who said they had witnessed Egyptian security officers executing several Darfur refugees. According to Channel 10, their testimonies were backed up by Israeli military security cameras that showed Egyptian soldiers shooting and killing several asylum-seekers."
Citing a major Israeli newspaper, CNN continued, "According to Haaretz, one of the asylum-seekers 'jumped on the wire fence in an attempt to make it over to the Israeli side, but was reportedly dragged back and bludgeoned to death by the Egyptians.' Responding to the report, Human Rights Watch called on Egypt to investigate the reported deaths."
Only near the end, does CNN finally get around to explaining, "Since the beginning of the year, nearly 3,000 Africans have crossed from Egypt into Israel -- nearly half of them from Sudan, many traveling on foot. Many Sudanese refugees end up in Israeli prisons waiting for the government to decide what to do with them. Israeli volunteers -- outraged at the incarcerations -- have helped many Sudanese find work in Israel's agricultural communities and temporarily live in family homes across Israel."
And so we return to the main issue - how many Sudanese refugees have been taken in and given shelter and housing? We know they aren't being welcomed in Egypt. To set the record straight, CNN should investigate other countries as well.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
When Innocent is Guilty and Murder is the Truth
When a "Quiet Boy" is Really a Would-Be Murderer
On Friday, August 10th, Ahmad Mahmoud Khatib, a 29 year-old Israeli Arab left his pregnant wife and small child - to commit murder. He entered the Old City of Jerusalem, just a few hundred meters from the location that three major religions call holy, and grabbed a security guard's gun. 
Well-trained guards were able to quickly stop his rampage, leaving Khatib dead and as many as 10 innocent bystanders and the guard wounded. Almost immediatly, Khatib's family attempted to suggest that it was a plot and that their son was merely a quiet boy who had done no wrong. Even some Arab witnesses, suggested that Khatib had been shot while already laying on the ground and some even suggested that the guards were at fault.
To set the record straight, Israeli police have released closed circuit video footage of the terrorist incident in Jerusalem's Old City on Friday which clearly shows that the terrorist grabbed a security man's gun, fired on a security guard from close range, and was not the victim of an execution-style gunshot at close range.
Thus a "quiet boy" was really a cold-blooded killer, perpetrating a premeditated attack against the security guards and anyone else he could reach. Initially, many local and international media cooperated with the family, rather than focusin on the brave security guard whose heroism saved the day.
Thanks to carefully placed cameras that operate 24-hours per day, the record has been straight, the security guards not only exhonerated but honored, and Ahmad Mahmoud Khatib to be remembered for his evil actions.
Who/What Killed Yasir Arafat?
When Yasif Arafat was very sick and dying in Paris - so many different people accused Israel of making him sick. His wife, his aides, Palestinian leaders were quick to suggest that Israel had poisoned him...but no poison was found. They said Israel had given him cancer...but no cancer was found. There were hints, even than, that something else had caused his death...it has taken many years, and much secrecy, but the truth has come out...as it is most often likely to do.
Yasir Arafat died...not of anything that Israel did...but of AIDS he contracted under circumstances that are not clear...to say the least. Loyal to the end, his private doctor is willing to ignore all evidence and logic in order to maintain that Israel poisoned Arafat...in addition to the AIDS.
Senior US intelligence official James J. Welsh, the National Security Agency's former PA analyst, told WorldNetDaily:
Yasir Arafat died...not of anything that Israel did...but of AIDS he contracted under circumstances that are not clear...to say the least. Loyal to the end, his private doctor is willing to ignore all evidence and logic in order to maintain that Israel poisoned Arafat...in addition to the AIDS.
Arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat’s doctor has confirmed the long-circulating rumors
that the PLO chairman had AIDS – though the doctor insists Israel poisoned
Arafat as well, causing his death. Rumors have long circulated in both Israel
and the Palestinian Authority that Arafat’s symptoms prior to his death were
caused by AIDS. Within the PA, Israel has always been accused of poisoning the
PLO chairman.
Now, Arafat’s private doctor has joined other PLO officials in acknowledging that Arafat had the HIV virus, but is holding on to the claim that Israel was responsible for his ultimate demise, in a French hospital..
Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi told the Jordanian Amman News Agency that Arafat
did, in fact, have AIDS – but insisted that the HIV virus was injected into the
chairman’s bloodstream, and not the result of illicit sexual activity
Senior US intelligence official James J. Welsh, the National Security Agency's former PA analyst, told WorldNetDaily:
"One of the things we looked for when we were intercepting Fatah communications were messages about Ashbal [Lion cub] members who would be called to Beirut from bases outside of Beirut. The Ashbal were often orphaned or abandoned boys who were brought into the organization, ostensibly to train for later entry into Fedayeen fighter units.
Arafat always had several of these 13-15 year old boys in his entourage. We figured out that he would often recall several of these boys to Beirut just before he would leave for a trip outside Lebanon. It proved to be a good indicator of Arafat's travel plans. While Arafat did have a regular security detail, many of those thought to be security personnel - the teenage boys - were actually there for other purposes."
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Deny Nadia Abu El Haj Tenure
Nadia Abu El Haj is a candidate for tenure not because she is an accomplished scholar - she is demonstrably not . El Haj work is of the kind that would be regarded as crank scholarship if not for the fashionably post-modern verbiage in which it is dressed.
The premise of her sole book is that the ancient Israelite kingdoms are a "pure political fabrication," invented, not discovered, by dishonest archaeologists. Because such an assertion cannot be proven using evidence, she ignores almost all actual archaeological evidence, turning instead to repeated and unsubstantiated assertions of fact based on conversations she claims to have had with "student volunteers" at archaeological digs and with "archaeologists" she does not name.
Even without the security of tenure El Haj has signed the petition urging Columbia to divest form Israel, and a petition alleging that Israel planned to carry out a brutal and massive ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians at the start of the Iraq war. There was no evidence of such a plan, just as there is no evidence for the absured allegations found in her book. (Such as her allegation that in the year 70, Jerusalem was destroyed not by the Roman Army, but by a Marxist-style rebellion of lower-class Jews targeting upper-class Jews. The book is filled with risible pseudo-history of this type.)
Some of the shortcomings with Abu El Haj's work are outlined in the petition. To sign the petition, please go to: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/barnard/
Further information is available on: www.PaulaSays.com.
I urge you to sign this petition and forward it as widely as possible. While the goal is Barnard and Columbia graduates in particular, please feel free to send it to anyone that you believe will sign it.
The premise of her sole book is that the ancient Israelite kingdoms are a "pure political fabrication," invented, not discovered, by dishonest archaeologists. Because such an assertion cannot be proven using evidence, she ignores almost all actual archaeological evidence, turning instead to repeated and unsubstantiated assertions of fact based on conversations she claims to have had with "student volunteers" at archaeological digs and with "archaeologists" she does not name.
Even without the security of tenure El Haj has signed the petition urging Columbia to divest form Israel, and a petition alleging that Israel planned to carry out a brutal and massive ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians at the start of the Iraq war. There was no evidence of such a plan, just as there is no evidence for the absured allegations found in her book. (Such as her allegation that in the year 70, Jerusalem was destroyed not by the Roman Army, but by a Marxist-style rebellion of lower-class Jews targeting upper-class Jews. The book is filled with risible pseudo-history of this type.)
Some of the shortcomings with Abu El Haj's work are outlined in the petition. To sign the petition, please go to: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/barnard/
Further information is available on: www.PaulaSays.com.
I urge you to sign this petition and forward it as widely as possible. While the goal is Barnard and Columbia graduates in particular, please feel free to send it to anyone that you believe will sign it.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Barnard’s Shame and Columbia’s Dirty Deal
By: Paula R. Stern
B.A., Barnard College, 1982
When a college of international renown hires a professor of questionable ethics and scholarly practice, it is to be hoped that the college will realize its error before reaching the stage where it would offer that professor tenure. This was the case many Barnard graduates hoped to find themselves in a few months ago when protests were made over the offer to grant Nadia Abu El Haj tenure.
Abu El Haj is not an anthropologist in the tradition of Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, scholars who went into the field, learned the language, and interacted with the people they wrote about. Nadia Abu El Haj does none of this. She has written an anthropology of the role of archaeological knowledge in Israeli society based almost exclusively on published sources in English. She doesn’t exhibit any familiarity with the vast literature in Hebrew on the subjects she wrote about, or give any evidence that she has a working knowledge of Hebrew, a critical flaw in someone supposedly determined to write a scholarly work on anthropology and archeology in Israel.
To make matters even more absurd, her anthropology of Israeli archaeology is based on a single, one-day visit to a single dig, visits to a handful of archaeological museums in Jerusalem, and a standard tourist walking tour of the Old City - Abu El Haj cites the walking tour guide repeatedly. Her great scholarly work…is limited to one book – her dissertation, hypocritically called “Facts on the Ground.”
Abu El Haj scorn for evidence-based scholarship is explicit. In her own words, she writes within a scholarly tradition that "Reject(s) a positivist commitment to scientific methods…" Rather, her work is "rooted in… post structuralism, philosophical critiques of foundationalism, Marxism and critical theory… and developed in response to specific postcolonial political movements."
Barnard’s administration rejected comments from many alumnae who protested Barnard’s offering tenure to this young, clearly biased woman.
The protests were not based on the fact that Abu El Haj is a Palestinian American, but on her inability to follow correct scholarly procedures and actually document anything of truth or value. "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided." So says, Alexander H. Joffe, Lecturer in Archaeology, Purchase College, SUNY who has dug for several seasons at Meggido, Israel.
Other experts have been equally harsh: "Alas, a detailed reading reveals that this book is a highly ideologically driven political manifesto, with a glaring lack of attention both to details and to the broader context. So says, Aren Maeir, Professor of Archaeology, Bar Ilan University and one of the most distinguished archaeologists now digging in Israel.
“The politicization of archaeology is nothing new. What is new in Facts on the Ground, is the length to which author Nadia Abu El-Haj of the Columbia University Anthology faculty has gone to ignore, distort, revise, imply and assert the inaccuracy of historical fact. Her political motive is to deconstruct the legitimacy of the State of Israel.” So says, Dr. Sondra M. Rubenstein, PhD in International Relations, Columbia University and currently a Distinguished Professor at Haifa University. Dr. Rubenstein continues “Facts on the Ground reverses standard academic practice. It is highly politicized where it should be disinterested, and, worse, the author begins with a an apparently dogmatic belief, that archaeology is a process "through which ‘facts' are actually made and agreed upon," (p. 9) to support the inherently illegitimate "precise claims and conceptions of Jewish nationhood,"(p.6) and goes about picking and choosing evidence to support her beliefs.”
An international campaign among Barnard graduates was ignored. We were called “outsiders” because we dared to express our view that it is morally unacceptable and completely unethical to accept someone of El-Haj’s obviously low quality.
“Nadia El Haj's work is a thinly veiled attempt to thrust her political agenda on Barnard by hiding it in the guise of academic freedom and terminology” I wrote to the Tenure Committee several months ago. “She denies me my past in an attempt to steal my future. She justifies the desecration of archeological sites by Arabs while falsely accusing respected Israeli scientists of flagrantly and intentionally demolishing historical sites. She absurdly attempts to suggest that the Jews destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 CE, in direct contradiction to the only historian who was there at the time.”
Despite the many letters and calls, Barnard voted to give Nadia El Haj tenure and now the process moves to Columbia University for approval. If Columbia denies the deal, El Haj will not get tenure; if they uphold Barnard’s decision, she will. This is where Barnard’s shame turns into Columbia’s dirty deal.
Joseph Massad is a professor of in Columbia’s Middle East department. According to reliable sources, “Prof. Massad has openly supported Islamist terrorism against Israel, including suicide bombings of civilians. In his class on Israeli-Palestinian politics, Massad openly engages in conspiracy theories, teaching students about the connections between Nazis, Rothchilds, international bankers, and a host of other nefarious characters… Massad has also come close to belittling, if not denying the Holocaust outright.” In short, Joseph Massad is a major political embarrassment, and he too is up for tenure.
Some would argue that Abu El Haj is not a major political embarrassment because she has not attracted a fraction of the attention that Massad has. So, Columbia has cut a deal with the out-going president of Barnard in which Barnard and Columbia will grant tenure to El Haj in exchange for financial backing. This money will go towards the financing of a new student center replacing MacIntosh Hall where the fundraising is not going well. This tenure, despite whatever “small” controversy will result, will give Columbia the political cover to deny tenure to Joseph Massad. The expected loss in income from horrified and furious alumae will be compensated for by the grant from Columbia.
By voting to grant tenure to Nadia Abu El Haj, my alma mater has chosen to give one of its highest honors to a woman who rejects the principle that scholarly research must be based on evidence. We are not outsiders - no matter what anyone claims, even the outgoing President of Barnard. We are the ones who attended Barnard, the ones who graduated from there and have hopefully gone on to make lives that better the name of the alma mater we love.
We have the right - even the obligation - to speak out now. This was never an issue for the scholars alone to decide because scholarship was left behind when "Professor" Nadia Abu El Haj turned what should have been a scholarly work into a political tool to get her agenda published.
Columbia’s dirty deal has to be stopped.
If you are a Columbia graduate, a Barnard graduate…or simply someone who believes in the ethics of academia, now is the time to protest. Write to Columbia University, call the administration, write to your local newspapers. Joseph Massad may be an embarrassment to Columiba, but Abu El Haj is a disgrace to Barnard.
B.A., Barnard College, 1982
When a college of international renown hires a professor of questionable ethics and scholarly practice, it is to be hoped that the college will realize its error before reaching the stage where it would offer that professor tenure. This was the case many Barnard graduates hoped to find themselves in a few months ago when protests were made over the offer to grant Nadia Abu El Haj tenure.
Abu El Haj is not an anthropologist in the tradition of Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, scholars who went into the field, learned the language, and interacted with the people they wrote about. Nadia Abu El Haj does none of this. She has written an anthropology of the role of archaeological knowledge in Israeli society based almost exclusively on published sources in English. She doesn’t exhibit any familiarity with the vast literature in Hebrew on the subjects she wrote about, or give any evidence that she has a working knowledge of Hebrew, a critical flaw in someone supposedly determined to write a scholarly work on anthropology and archeology in Israel.
To make matters even more absurd, her anthropology of Israeli archaeology is based on a single, one-day visit to a single dig, visits to a handful of archaeological museums in Jerusalem, and a standard tourist walking tour of the Old City - Abu El Haj cites the walking tour guide repeatedly. Her great scholarly work…is limited to one book – her dissertation, hypocritically called “Facts on the Ground.”
Abu El Haj scorn for evidence-based scholarship is explicit. In her own words, she writes within a scholarly tradition that "Reject(s) a positivist commitment to scientific methods…" Rather, her work is "rooted in… post structuralism, philosophical critiques of foundationalism, Marxism and critical theory… and developed in response to specific postcolonial political movements."
Barnard’s administration rejected comments from many alumnae who protested Barnard’s offering tenure to this young, clearly biased woman.
The protests were not based on the fact that Abu El Haj is a Palestinian American, but on her inability to follow correct scholarly procedures and actually document anything of truth or value. "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided." So says, Alexander H. Joffe, Lecturer in Archaeology, Purchase College, SUNY who has dug for several seasons at Meggido, Israel.
Other experts have been equally harsh: "Alas, a detailed reading reveals that this book is a highly ideologically driven political manifesto, with a glaring lack of attention both to details and to the broader context. So says, Aren Maeir, Professor of Archaeology, Bar Ilan University and one of the most distinguished archaeologists now digging in Israel.
“The politicization of archaeology is nothing new. What is new in Facts on the Ground, is the length to which author Nadia Abu El-Haj of the Columbia University Anthology faculty has gone to ignore, distort, revise, imply and assert the inaccuracy of historical fact. Her political motive is to deconstruct the legitimacy of the State of Israel.” So says, Dr. Sondra M. Rubenstein, PhD in International Relations, Columbia University and currently a Distinguished Professor at Haifa University. Dr. Rubenstein continues “Facts on the Ground reverses standard academic practice. It is highly politicized where it should be disinterested, and, worse, the author begins with a an apparently dogmatic belief, that archaeology is a process "through which ‘facts' are actually made and agreed upon," (p. 9) to support the inherently illegitimate "precise claims and conceptions of Jewish nationhood,"(p.6) and goes about picking and choosing evidence to support her beliefs.”
An international campaign among Barnard graduates was ignored. We were called “outsiders” because we dared to express our view that it is morally unacceptable and completely unethical to accept someone of El-Haj’s obviously low quality.
“Nadia El Haj's work is a thinly veiled attempt to thrust her political agenda on Barnard by hiding it in the guise of academic freedom and terminology” I wrote to the Tenure Committee several months ago. “She denies me my past in an attempt to steal my future. She justifies the desecration of archeological sites by Arabs while falsely accusing respected Israeli scientists of flagrantly and intentionally demolishing historical sites. She absurdly attempts to suggest that the Jews destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 CE, in direct contradiction to the only historian who was there at the time.”
Despite the many letters and calls, Barnard voted to give Nadia El Haj tenure and now the process moves to Columbia University for approval. If Columbia denies the deal, El Haj will not get tenure; if they uphold Barnard’s decision, she will. This is where Barnard’s shame turns into Columbia’s dirty deal.
Joseph Massad is a professor of in Columbia’s Middle East department. According to reliable sources, “Prof. Massad has openly supported Islamist terrorism against Israel, including suicide bombings of civilians. In his class on Israeli-Palestinian politics, Massad openly engages in conspiracy theories, teaching students about the connections between Nazis, Rothchilds, international bankers, and a host of other nefarious characters… Massad has also come close to belittling, if not denying the Holocaust outright.” In short, Joseph Massad is a major political embarrassment, and he too is up for tenure.
Some would argue that Abu El Haj is not a major political embarrassment because she has not attracted a fraction of the attention that Massad has. So, Columbia has cut a deal with the out-going president of Barnard in which Barnard and Columbia will grant tenure to El Haj in exchange for financial backing. This money will go towards the financing of a new student center replacing MacIntosh Hall where the fundraising is not going well. This tenure, despite whatever “small” controversy will result, will give Columbia the political cover to deny tenure to Joseph Massad. The expected loss in income from horrified and furious alumae will be compensated for by the grant from Columbia.
By voting to grant tenure to Nadia Abu El Haj, my alma mater has chosen to give one of its highest honors to a woman who rejects the principle that scholarly research must be based on evidence. We are not outsiders - no matter what anyone claims, even the outgoing President of Barnard. We are the ones who attended Barnard, the ones who graduated from there and have hopefully gone on to make lives that better the name of the alma mater we love.
We have the right - even the obligation - to speak out now. This was never an issue for the scholars alone to decide because scholarship was left behind when "Professor" Nadia Abu El Haj turned what should have been a scholarly work into a political tool to get her agenda published.
Columbia’s dirty deal has to be stopped.
If you are a Columbia graduate, a Barnard graduate…or simply someone who believes in the ethics of academia, now is the time to protest. Write to Columbia University, call the administration, write to your local newspapers. Joseph Massad may be an embarrassment to Columiba, but Abu El Haj is a disgrace to Barnard.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
BMJ Proposes a Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions
Joining a few other British institutions, the BMJ is pollings its members and others as to whether it would be proper to institute a boycott against Israel. At present, the answer is overwhelmingly NO.
Reasons cited include:
With little hope that the organization will actually listen, Setting the Record Straight lists its own readers' comments in hopes that others will read and remember...hatred and bias have no place in the world of intellect and academia. We challenge BMJ to remember and to examine their own reasons for pushing this boycott.
Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/335/7611/124
--------
Israel is foremost in the world in Medical innovation. Arab patients in Israeli hospitals are treated no differently from Israeli patients. In my hospital in Netanya Israel There are Arab doctors and nurses. There is no honest reason for a boycott, only hate.
--------
Most of the best and advanced research comes from the hard work and diligence that Israeli acedemia put out each year. Should we be foolish to ignore these hard working people, it would be the same as a dying man choosing to ignore a lifesaving heart surgery because of the race or creed of the surgeon operating on him. Personally, I am not a jew or an Israeli, but I have high regard for a nation of people who go up against terrorists every day and still find the time to produce the most qualified medical and technological research the world has to offer. They have the most Nobel Prizes then any other peoples of the world. Considering how small the Jewish nation is in comparison to the worlds population. I stand up for them and cheer them on. We should emulate them, not berate them or boycott the very foundations that they create to help us in our daily lives. It is like biting the hand that feeds us. A foolish move.
-----------
A boycott is a one sided solution to a two sided issue. If Israel is the only country the approach is being used against then the principle is racist/antisemitic.
----------
Why boycott Israel and not the many countries who are not observing Geneva conventions or are listed by the International Red Cross as not following human rights.
----------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is just plain wrong. It will be an anti-Semitic action by its nature if not in its intent. You would block those who agree with your political views as well as those who disagree with your views. If you want to boycott, then boycott based on principles. Boycott institutions from countries committing genocide like Sudan and Congo. Boycott institutions from countries that have unequal treatment for men and women - including beatings when women step out of line - like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gaza Strip. Boycott institutions from repressive regimes like Cuba, Russia, Belarus, Libya. Boycott institutions from countries that do not let non-ethnic natives become citizens like...Germany. Do you see how idiotic it is to boycott just Israel while ignoring the others.
---------
To single out Israeli academics among all the parties in the Middle-East conflict is unfair. Israel is the most Western of the countries in the region, and most sensitive to this type of boycott. But the behavior of Syria and Iran, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are far worse. The University and Colleges Union has no leverage against other groups and countries in the region- but that is no reason to single out Israeli academics.
---------
I cannot believe that people as highly educated as doctors and medical researchers, from Great Britain no less, could be so ignorant and malevolent as to boycott their Israeli colleagues. I am thoroughly disgusted. M. Grossman, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA
---------
Israeli academics in general and the medical profession in Israel in particular have always worked to ensure the civil and human rights of Israelis and Palestinians whether Jew or Arab. Much of the news reported from Israel is inaccurate and any decision about a boycott would be based on misinformation and prejudice. If the BMJ were to restrict itself purely to medicine it would do more good for Arabs and Jews because when it comes to the hospital or the clinic all the patients are treated by all the doctors equally. Some of the doctors' knowledge does come from academic links and journals. Boycotting those links would just harm patients.
----------
I feel the boycott of Iraeli academics and academic institutions will not actually achieve anything. In many respects it appears to be anti-semetic - why pick on Israel when other countries commit far greater crimes against humanity (Zimbabwe, China, North Korea the USA to name a few). One needs to ask how much influence academics have over government. The answer is very little. Thus - a boycott will achieve nothing except to alienate those individuals in Israel who could make a real difference.
---------
Taking sides in a longstanding political and ideologic battle is not academic. It is pure and simple bias, hatred, and yes truly antisemitic (or more specifically anti-Jewish). Singly out Israel, the only real democracy (amid several nations which are fascist dictatorships that abuse their own people-including the palestinian authority and Hamas- deny their people any rights, threaten them with death or dismemberment if they speak anything but the party line, send their women and children to blow themselves up) Israel has done more for science, medicine, technology, the arts, advancing techniques that have saved lives than any other nation given its population size. IN addition, they have consistently tried to broach peace agreements-only to be met with more war, hatred and killing from their Arab and yes, muslim neighbors. Fundamental islam and wahabiism is at the forefront of this hatred and violence-perhaps that would be a better use of their boycott and their time to fight this growing movement in the world (they are the true enemies of a democratic world)
-------------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and free discourse. To artificially suppress the opinion or viewpoint in an argument, conflict, or academic discussion is to render any resulting conclusion biased, unfair, and inaccurate. To boycott Israel in any way is to not only unduly push a particular political agenda, but to destroy any chance of fair representation in the political arena. The boycott also makes the base assumption that Israeli academics not only unconditionally support the actions of their government, but that they have some affect upon those actions and may play a controlling roll in them. To boycott Israeli academic institutions is to unfairly punish people who have little or nothing to do with the actions that the boycott seeks to protest. It also may cause undue harm to parties completely uninvolved in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The advances of Israelis in the fields of medicine, computer technology, agriculture, and other peaceful, non-political spheres would be affected by an academic boycott. This may deprive the world of advances in these fields that may improve or even save lives.
---------------
yet again,the bmj uses its pages to allow a "debate" over the policies of israel,the only jewish state in the world. the idea of the academic boycott and all other boycotts by trade unions is a chance for those who want to destroy the only democratic country in the middle east. the arabs have failed to destroy it by force;that is still their stated aim and now we have the odious comparison of israel as an apartheid state.
if the boycotters had any any decency they would not use computers with intel chips made in israel,or use drugs developed in israel.
i am concerned that the bmj,a respectable scientific journal,has dumbed itself down to a poll that allows anyone to vote and to vote as often as one wants on a subject that does not deserve the publicity generated.
it would appear that the editor has not learned from the uproar caused by previous anti-israel and anti-jewish articles from derek summerfield et al (quoted yet again by hickey)
Competing interests: i am a jew and a doctor.i am sick of the likes of tom hickey being given a platform for their racist anti-semitic views in a respectable journal
------------------
Tom Hickey portrays a Palestinian nation which is subugated and oppressed. He paints an Israeli society where there is intimidation of anyone who dares oppose state policy. He glosses over genocides in Darfur and government policy intended at causing mass death by starvation in Zimbabwe. He places any equivocation of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism as an attempt to international stiffle debate. He uses these as his argument in favour of boycotting the academia of Israel and then tries to create a world in which this boycott would only affect institutions and not individuals.
Tom Hickey is clearly an articulate author who manges to constructively build his arguments into a natural conclusion.
Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge the huge amounts of international aid regularly passed to the Palestinians, more per head than any other UN recipient group. Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge that contributions to this aid was withehld by both the USA and EU for many years because of the abuse of this money to use it towards military objectives rather than the humanitarianism it was intended for.
Tom Hickey tries to portray Israeli society as intimidated against free speach by an authoritarian soviet style leadership where nothing could be further form the truth. Indeed it is this free speech which allows internal objections to government policies to reach the international arena.
It is unequivocal. Israel is a democratic inclusive society which has been subjected to attrition and war and state sponsored terrorism from its neighbouring states since its independence in 1948. Israel is not protected by the comfort zone of seas and friendly like-minded nations from those who are hostile to its existence in the way England or the USA are protected.
Israel is not a perfect nation state. Mistakes are made and, as anywhere, individuals exist who abuse the trust their position expects of them. Israel has an internal infrastructure that allows for decisions and actions of its officials to be challenged and, when found guilty punished.
This is very much unlike the Palestinian militias. Tom Hinkley, when did you last here a report of a suicide bomber being condemned for blowing up the wrong target and creating civilian casualties? or a rocket attack across a border being targetted on appartment blocks and not an army camp?
Israel has to take steps which are fair reasonable and proportionate to defend its democracy and its freedoms just as England is doing in its way now. Tom Hinkley's arguments are built on castles of sand. That sand will be washed away by those individuals determined on extending their perverted unchallengable interpretations of religion and politics into the worlds which allow Tom Hinkley the freedoms to mix with peoples of other races cultures and thoughts that oppose his own. They will hitch hike onto his stance and debate and, when they acheive their targets ignore without compunction or feeling his protestations at their excesses.
Competing interests: I am a Jew I am a doctor of medicine I am a GP Program Director
___________
have no objection to the BMJ's pages being used for critical discussion about the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel. However, I continue to be baffled as to why it is only Israel that receives all this attention. If the criterion is "non-Arab country with worst recent record in relation to the Palestinians", then Israel is indeed the probable winner. But I would respectfully suggest that you give a proper airing to a number of different possible criteria by which we might fairly and squarely decide who to boycott:
1. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in relation to Palestinians (possibly not Israel).
2. Middle Eastern country that has killed the most Palestinians (not Israel).
3. Middle Eastern country that most disenfranchises people living and working within its borders (not Israel)
4. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in denying rights to Arab women and children (not Israel).
5. States that have killed the most Arabs latterly (we might just have to boycott ourselves and the USA).
6. States that have killed the most foreign nationals latterly(time to look in the mirror again)
7. States that most brazenly abuse human rights (lets see if we have the courage to boycott China now)
So I have no problem with discussing a boycott of Israel. But if we discuss only Israel, then the charge of anti-semitism is both inevitable and also well deserved.
----------------
Reasons cited include:
- Israelis incredible contributions in the field of science, invention, medical research etc.
- Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East
- The absurdity of singling out only Israel, and not Sudan, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. and much more.
With little hope that the organization will actually listen, Setting the Record Straight lists its own readers' comments in hopes that others will read and remember...hatred and bias have no place in the world of intellect and academia. We challenge BMJ to remember and to examine their own reasons for pushing this boycott.
Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/335/7611/124
--------
Israel is foremost in the world in Medical innovation. Arab patients in Israeli hospitals are treated no differently from Israeli patients. In my hospital in Netanya Israel There are Arab doctors and nurses. There is no honest reason for a boycott, only hate.
--------
Most of the best and advanced research comes from the hard work and diligence that Israeli acedemia put out each year. Should we be foolish to ignore these hard working people, it would be the same as a dying man choosing to ignore a lifesaving heart surgery because of the race or creed of the surgeon operating on him. Personally, I am not a jew or an Israeli, but I have high regard for a nation of people who go up against terrorists every day and still find the time to produce the most qualified medical and technological research the world has to offer. They have the most Nobel Prizes then any other peoples of the world. Considering how small the Jewish nation is in comparison to the worlds population. I stand up for them and cheer them on. We should emulate them, not berate them or boycott the very foundations that they create to help us in our daily lives. It is like biting the hand that feeds us. A foolish move.
-----------
A boycott is a one sided solution to a two sided issue. If Israel is the only country the approach is being used against then the principle is racist/antisemitic.
----------
Why boycott Israel and not the many countries who are not observing Geneva conventions or are listed by the International Red Cross as not following human rights.
----------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is just plain wrong. It will be an anti-Semitic action by its nature if not in its intent. You would block those who agree with your political views as well as those who disagree with your views. If you want to boycott, then boycott based on principles. Boycott institutions from countries committing genocide like Sudan and Congo. Boycott institutions from countries that have unequal treatment for men and women - including beatings when women step out of line - like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gaza Strip. Boycott institutions from repressive regimes like Cuba, Russia, Belarus, Libya. Boycott institutions from countries that do not let non-ethnic natives become citizens like...Germany. Do you see how idiotic it is to boycott just Israel while ignoring the others.
---------
To single out Israeli academics among all the parties in the Middle-East conflict is unfair. Israel is the most Western of the countries in the region, and most sensitive to this type of boycott. But the behavior of Syria and Iran, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are far worse. The University and Colleges Union has no leverage against other groups and countries in the region- but that is no reason to single out Israeli academics.
---------
I cannot believe that people as highly educated as doctors and medical researchers, from Great Britain no less, could be so ignorant and malevolent as to boycott their Israeli colleagues. I am thoroughly disgusted. M. Grossman, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA
---------
Israeli academics in general and the medical profession in Israel in particular have always worked to ensure the civil and human rights of Israelis and Palestinians whether Jew or Arab. Much of the news reported from Israel is inaccurate and any decision about a boycott would be based on misinformation and prejudice. If the BMJ were to restrict itself purely to medicine it would do more good for Arabs and Jews because when it comes to the hospital or the clinic all the patients are treated by all the doctors equally. Some of the doctors' knowledge does come from academic links and journals. Boycotting those links would just harm patients.
----------
I feel the boycott of Iraeli academics and academic institutions will not actually achieve anything. In many respects it appears to be anti-semetic - why pick on Israel when other countries commit far greater crimes against humanity (Zimbabwe, China, North Korea the USA to name a few). One needs to ask how much influence academics have over government. The answer is very little. Thus - a boycott will achieve nothing except to alienate those individuals in Israel who could make a real difference.
---------
Taking sides in a longstanding political and ideologic battle is not academic. It is pure and simple bias, hatred, and yes truly antisemitic (or more specifically anti-Jewish). Singly out Israel, the only real democracy (amid several nations which are fascist dictatorships that abuse their own people-including the palestinian authority and Hamas- deny their people any rights, threaten them with death or dismemberment if they speak anything but the party line, send their women and children to blow themselves up) Israel has done more for science, medicine, technology, the arts, advancing techniques that have saved lives than any other nation given its population size. IN addition, they have consistently tried to broach peace agreements-only to be met with more war, hatred and killing from their Arab and yes, muslim neighbors. Fundamental islam and wahabiism is at the forefront of this hatred and violence-perhaps that would be a better use of their boycott and their time to fight this growing movement in the world (they are the true enemies of a democratic world)
-------------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and free discourse. To artificially suppress the opinion or viewpoint in an argument, conflict, or academic discussion is to render any resulting conclusion biased, unfair, and inaccurate. To boycott Israel in any way is to not only unduly push a particular political agenda, but to destroy any chance of fair representation in the political arena. The boycott also makes the base assumption that Israeli academics not only unconditionally support the actions of their government, but that they have some affect upon those actions and may play a controlling roll in them. To boycott Israeli academic institutions is to unfairly punish people who have little or nothing to do with the actions that the boycott seeks to protest. It also may cause undue harm to parties completely uninvolved in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The advances of Israelis in the fields of medicine, computer technology, agriculture, and other peaceful, non-political spheres would be affected by an academic boycott. This may deprive the world of advances in these fields that may improve or even save lives.
---------------
yet again,the bmj uses its pages to allow a "debate" over the policies of israel,the only jewish state in the world. the idea of the academic boycott and all other boycotts by trade unions is a chance for those who want to destroy the only democratic country in the middle east. the arabs have failed to destroy it by force;that is still their stated aim and now we have the odious comparison of israel as an apartheid state.
if the boycotters had any any decency they would not use computers with intel chips made in israel,or use drugs developed in israel.
i am concerned that the bmj,a respectable scientific journal,has dumbed itself down to a poll that allows anyone to vote and to vote as often as one wants on a subject that does not deserve the publicity generated.
it would appear that the editor has not learned from the uproar caused by previous anti-israel and anti-jewish articles from derek summerfield et al (quoted yet again by hickey)
Competing interests: i am a jew and a doctor.i am sick of the likes of tom hickey being given a platform for their racist anti-semitic views in a respectable journal
------------------
Tom Hickey portrays a Palestinian nation which is subugated and oppressed. He paints an Israeli society where there is intimidation of anyone who dares oppose state policy. He glosses over genocides in Darfur and government policy intended at causing mass death by starvation in Zimbabwe. He places any equivocation of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism as an attempt to international stiffle debate. He uses these as his argument in favour of boycotting the academia of Israel and then tries to create a world in which this boycott would only affect institutions and not individuals.
Tom Hickey is clearly an articulate author who manges to constructively build his arguments into a natural conclusion.
Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge the huge amounts of international aid regularly passed to the Palestinians, more per head than any other UN recipient group. Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge that contributions to this aid was withehld by both the USA and EU for many years because of the abuse of this money to use it towards military objectives rather than the humanitarianism it was intended for.
Tom Hickey tries to portray Israeli society as intimidated against free speach by an authoritarian soviet style leadership where nothing could be further form the truth. Indeed it is this free speech which allows internal objections to government policies to reach the international arena.
It is unequivocal. Israel is a democratic inclusive society which has been subjected to attrition and war and state sponsored terrorism from its neighbouring states since its independence in 1948. Israel is not protected by the comfort zone of seas and friendly like-minded nations from those who are hostile to its existence in the way England or the USA are protected.
Israel is not a perfect nation state. Mistakes are made and, as anywhere, individuals exist who abuse the trust their position expects of them. Israel has an internal infrastructure that allows for decisions and actions of its officials to be challenged and, when found guilty punished.
This is very much unlike the Palestinian militias. Tom Hinkley, when did you last here a report of a suicide bomber being condemned for blowing up the wrong target and creating civilian casualties? or a rocket attack across a border being targetted on appartment blocks and not an army camp?
Israel has to take steps which are fair reasonable and proportionate to defend its democracy and its freedoms just as England is doing in its way now. Tom Hinkley's arguments are built on castles of sand. That sand will be washed away by those individuals determined on extending their perverted unchallengable interpretations of religion and politics into the worlds which allow Tom Hinkley the freedoms to mix with peoples of other races cultures and thoughts that oppose his own. They will hitch hike onto his stance and debate and, when they acheive their targets ignore without compunction or feeling his protestations at their excesses.
Competing interests: I am a Jew I am a doctor of medicine I am a GP Program Director
___________
have no objection to the BMJ's pages being used for critical discussion about the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel. However, I continue to be baffled as to why it is only Israel that receives all this attention. If the criterion is "non-Arab country with worst recent record in relation to the Palestinians", then Israel is indeed the probable winner. But I would respectfully suggest that you give a proper airing to a number of different possible criteria by which we might fairly and squarely decide who to boycott:
1. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in relation to Palestinians (possibly not Israel).
2. Middle Eastern country that has killed the most Palestinians (not Israel).
3. Middle Eastern country that most disenfranchises people living and working within its borders (not Israel)
4. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in denying rights to Arab women and children (not Israel).
5. States that have killed the most Arabs latterly (we might just have to boycott ourselves and the USA).
6. States that have killed the most foreign nationals latterly(time to look in the mirror again)
7. States that most brazenly abuse human rights (lets see if we have the courage to boycott China now)
So I have no problem with discussing a boycott of Israel. But if we discuss only Israel, then the charge of anti-semitism is both inevitable and also well deserved.
----------------
Friday, July 6, 2007
Welcome to Setting the Record Straight
This is a blog that will focus in the weeks and months and hopefully years to come, on setting the record straight. It is natural, in any conflict, for one side to claim the other party is at fault. This is the way of humanity. Each person, each society, sees its own needs and will place those needs above others. When the needs require twisting facts and lying, it is time to set the record straight. That is the goal of this blog.
Our first story is comes from a minor report issued by Palestine Solidarity Campaign member, Joanne Moston, who chose to play with the truth by writing that Israel had cut the water to Bethlehem. One could argue that Joanne was simply misguided, rather than intentionally attempting to mislead, but note her ascertain below that, "There is NO WATER IN THE CAMP!" and her conclusion that this is a breach of human rights. After her initial claim, it was carefully investigated and proven to be completely false. Israel did NOT cut the water to the residents of Bethlehem - in fact, the municipality, under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority cut the water.
Not one to readily admit she was wrong, Ms Moston went on to attempt to correct part of her mistaken claim...by twisting reality yet again to find some way, some desperate means to blame Israel for something. That after all, is clearly HER agenda. Take a moment to read Joanne's initial claim, the evidence that was presented to her, and her attempt to place spin on her original claim. After doing so, one can only conclude that her personal agenda so blinds her to the realities of the situation as to make her all but useless as anything but a mouthpiece for whatever words are put in her mouth. One wonders if Joanne even understand the concept of justice...or peace as she claims to so desperately want. Certainly, she doesn't understand the concept of investigating claims before asking people for money.
Ms Moston's original call to arms:
So, here we are to help by SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
No, Israel most definitely did NOT cut the water to Bethlehem.
Our first story is comes from a minor report issued by Palestine Solidarity Campaign member, Joanne Moston, who chose to play with the truth by writing that Israel had cut the water to Bethlehem. One could argue that Joanne was simply misguided, rather than intentionally attempting to mislead, but note her ascertain below that, "There is NO WATER IN THE CAMP!" and her conclusion that this is a breach of human rights. After her initial claim, it was carefully investigated and proven to be completely false. Israel did NOT cut the water to the residents of Bethlehem - in fact, the municipality, under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority cut the water.
Not one to readily admit she was wrong, Ms Moston went on to attempt to correct part of her mistaken claim...by twisting reality yet again to find some way, some desperate means to blame Israel for something. That after all, is clearly HER agenda. Take a moment to read Joanne's initial claim, the evidence that was presented to her, and her attempt to place spin on her original claim. After doing so, one can only conclude that her personal agenda so blinds her to the realities of the situation as to make her all but useless as anything but a mouthpiece for whatever words are put in her mouth. One wonders if Joanne even understand the concept of justice...or peace as she claims to so desperately want. Certainly, she doesn't understand the concept of investigating claims before asking people for money.
Ms Moston's original call to arms:
Ms Moston was sent the following letter:I had a text message from my friend in Deheisheh camp, Bethlehem, today, and heard that the water in the camp has been turned off now....by Israel....for 10 days. There is NO WATER IN THE CAMP! I don't know about elsewhere in the West Bank, but for sure other places will be affected.
Is there anything that we can do from here? I have told him to buy a tanker load, which costs 300 NIS which he hasn't got, ( £37.50 ) so I have arranged a loan from a money changer for him to order 2 tankers, so that his family have water, and there will be enough to share with is neighbours. The temperature has been over 40 C for the past week or so. Surely this is a breach of human rights, apart from the fact that the Palestinians have to pay 4 times as much as the Israelis for water, and it is their own water, from under the West Bank that they are paying for. Am I angry?? YES I AM!! Perhaps I should send this to our new envoy for the Middle East!?
Joanne
Not one to readily admit her error, it seems, Ms. Moston did not respond directly to the people who took the time to explain how wrong she was. Instead, she sent the following note to her colleagues:Following the claim that water has been "cut off", a spokesman for the
Co-coordinator of Civilian Activities in the Territories had the following to
say:a) Israel - i.e. the Coordinator in the Territories is not aware and
does not know of any suspension in the water supply to Dehaisha.b) The claim that water supply has been cut has been checked with both the Palestinian Authority and with UNWRA. Neither are cognisant of any problem.
c) Dehaisha and the rest of Bethlehem is located in Area "A" in which the Palestinian
Authority is totally responsible for all civilian matters including the regularity of water supply.
d) Israel's responsibility to supply water stops at the municipal boundary.
e) Water supply and distribution of water within Bethlehem including Dahaisha [as well as in the other Palestinian towns located in Area A] is not in Israel hands.
f) Under the Interim Agreement on Self Government, Israel is responsible for supplying a 4% increase in the amount supplied last year. In reality, Israel has supplied 20% in excess of last years supply.
g) There is a very high probability that the infrastructure in Bethlehem and Dehaisha is defective or has been tampered with. Experience in Hebron has shown that water losses amount to 40% of the amount supplied- due to leakage resulting from a lack of infrastructural maintenance and more significantly by water theft. Holes are made in the supply pipes and water is drained off by the inhabitants in order to avoid paying for the water consumed.
h) Water wells around Bethlehem have been approved and supply pipes
have been laid.
i) There was indeed a cut in the water supply for a couple of days to a small Palestinian settlement near Nablus (Shehem). This was caused by deep -ploughing which punctured the underground supply line and the farmer responsible covered up the damage- leaving the Israel Water Authority to discover where the leak was- which took time.
j) Israel also supplies water to Gaza well in excess of anything they are entitled. Gaza is served by wells in the Gaza aquifer and this has been over exploited by the Gazansk) There has been wildcat drilling of the order of 100's of illegal wells.
l) In contrast to Israel- the Palestinians DO NOT RECYCLE THEIR WASTE WATER.The Israel settlements in the Gaza strip which Israel vacated 2 years ago already, each had a water recycling plant which was left in good order. Not a single plant is in operation since Israel's withdrawalm) Waste water and sewerage is left untreated within the West Bank and Gaza and is allowed to percolate into the ground causing pollution to the ground water.
To all concerned re WATER in Deheisheh Camp.
I have had a long conversation with a friend in Deheisheh Camp, to find out
the exact situation so that I can pass it to anyone who has shown concern about
this problem.
1. I know I said the water was turned off by 'Israel' and that is how the people there see it, because the water is controlled by Israel, and it is never enough, and is often cut duing the summer because it's hot, and this year during the past few weeks there has been a heatwave. However, the water has been cut off for 16 days in total, and IT CAME ON AT 1AM THIS MORNING! Because it had been on for 3 days some of the inhabitants of the first 2 rows in the camp, had some water, so it did go quickly to the 3rd and other rows. The water was turned off by the Bethlehem Municipality, as I said previously, in order to ration it. Yes, there are problems with the infrastructure, because funds have been cut to Palestine, because they voted for the 'wrong people.'!!! If the water supplied by Israel is not enough, so it has to be rationed / or cut off, it would obviously be seen to be done by Israel as they are in control of it....although the municipality had their hand on the tap!
2. UNWRA did know about the lack of water in the camp, though they seem to be denying it.
3. It is very likely that the pipes are damaged as the road has often been severely damaged by tanks. Apparently there has been a recent problem with supply in parts of Bethlehem due to structural damage. This happend here in Britain...millions of gallons lost due to leaks, but one section of our population does not have their water turned off for 16 days. I am making no apology for publicising my concern about the water cuts. It happens every year in summer, and is considered a war crime for an occupying force to deprive anyone of water, though is is 'indirectly' in this case. My concerns are purely humanitarian. I don't want people to suffer by deprivation of everyones right to water, food and shelter. If I can do anything to help those people, I will. Now they have water....until the next time, in 2 or 3 wks, when it goes off again. I have been buying water in tankers for some years now, but this year it was a much worse situation. Thank you to all those who have sent donations so that I could authorise a supply in tankers. Every penny sent, will be used for water bills, this time, and any over will be kept for next time this emergency occurs.
Praying for Peace with Justice, Joanne
So, here we are to help by SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
No, Israel most definitely did NOT cut the water to Bethlehem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)