November 30, 2006

Jimmy Carter - Animus and Distortions

Redacted from an article by Rick Richman

The Jewish Press, November 24, 2006

Jimmy Carter’s new book - Palestine - Peace Not Apartheid — should, by all rights, be headed for the recycle bin of one’s computer. Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, calls it a “tendentious, dishonest and stupid book.” Norman Finkelstein, one of Israel’s harshest critics, admits the book is “filled with errors small and large, as well as tendentious and untenable interpretations”

But while it may be tendentious, dishonest, stupid, and filled with errors and untenable interpretations, it could still have an impact. Carter says he’s “going to promote [it] pretty widely,” so his tendentious and erroneous assertions may ripple into the public consciousness. Responsible people will ignore Carter’s attempt to tar and feather Israel with the word “apartheid.” Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs live together in peace — a country where Arabs not only vote but serve in the Knesset.

But Carter has done something even worse in his book: He egregiously mis-states both the relevant diplomatic history and the longstanding US diplomatic position, and then he blames Israel for not complying with it — demonizing Israel even more insidiously.

At the end of his book, Carter has a chapter in which he issues his plan for peace. The chapter includes a discussion of the alleged requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the Quartet’s Road Map. Carter states:

The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified try mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories. .. . [As a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace, which espouses exactly the same requirements. (of course, this is itself a flagrant lie and says no such thing, as declared many times by the primary author of Resolution 242 - Eugene Rostow) Jsk

A reader would receive the impression from that paragraph that the 1967 borders are specified in Resolution 242 as Israel’s final borders (perhaps with minor adjustments compensated by land swaps), that the Road Map says the same thing, and that this has been “unwavering U.S. policy.” All of that, as we will demonstrate, is false.

Carter’s false impression is reinforced by the final paragraphs in his book, where he asserts that peace will come only upon Israel’s “Withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Roadmap of the International Quartet.” Carter continually refers to the 1967 borders as Israel’s “legal borders.” He concludes that the “bottom line” is Israel must “comply” with the Road Map and with “official American policy’ by “accepting its legal [1967] borders.” In exchange, he says, all “Arab neighbors” must “pledge” to honor Israel’s right to live in peace.

Abba Eban famously called the 1967 lines “Auschwitz borders,” and he did so for a reason: they are indefensible, and it was precisely their indefensibility that provoked Arab aggression against Israel in the first place. Nor could a “pledge” of peace be enforced by US. or NATO troops (much less UN ones), once Israel moved to indefensible borders — and it would be unreasonable to expect the US. or NATO to commit troops to defend such borders (even assuming an Israeli willingness to place its defense into the hands of others).

But there is an even more fundamental objection to Carter’s plan. Contrary to his repeated assertions about Resolution 242 and the Road Map:
• The 1967 borders are not specified as Israel’s legal borders” in Resolution 242.
• Such borders are neither “espoused” nor “required” nor “prescribed” in the Road Map.
• It has never been “unwavering US. policy” that Israel’s final borders must coincide with the 1967 borders, nor that changes in them be “minor,” nor that any changes be compensated with land swaps.”
• US. policy — both in the past and today — contemplates that Israel’s borders will be where Israel’s security requires, not the place from which the prior war commenced — and the U.S. has officially stated that any Palestinian expectation to the contrary is “unrealistic”

The terms of Resolution 242 do not provide for “land for peace,” much less land for [a pledge of] peace.” Instead, Resolution 242 envisions that land be exchanged for “secure” boundaries (since such boundaries are the only practical guarantee of peace). More over, the drafters of Resolution 242 recognized the 1967 borders were not secure.

The Road Map took this one step further. It did not envision a simultaneous exchange of land for secure borders, but rather a phased-in peace, starting with the dismantlement of terrorist infrastructure (Phase I), followed by a provisional state (Phase II), followed by final status negotiations on borders (Phase III). It did not require that Israel return to the 1967 borders, either at the beginning or the end of that process.

Since Carter provides no footnotes in his book, he provides no support for the alleged “unwavering official policy of the United States” that he asserts requires an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. By reviewing published sources, however, it is possible to trace a straight line from (a) President Lyndon Johnson’s policy in 1967 underlying Resolution 242, to (b) President George W Bush’s April 14, 2004 letter to Israel — and the picture that emerges directly contradicts Carter’s assertion.

Resolution 242, adopted November 22, 1967, includes as one of its principles the “[withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” as part of a permanent settlement of the Middle East dispute. But it does not require withdrawal from “all the territories,” nor does it mention the 1967 boundaries. On the contrary, it calls for recognition of “secure” boundaries that will enable Israel to live “free from threats or acts of force.” The omission of the word “all” or “the” from Resolution 242 was neither accidental nor inadvertent, nor the result of imprecise wording. The words “all” and “the” were proposed and rejected in 1967, after being considered at the highest governmental levels.

As Dore Gold, Israel’s former UN ambassador, has explained, “President Lyndon Baines Johnson himself decided that it was important to stick to this phraseology, despite the pressure from the Soviet premier, Alexei Kosygin, who had sought to incorporate stricter additional language requiring a full Israel withdrawal.” Gold notes that Kosygin had written to Johnson on November 21, 1967, requesting that the resolution include the word “the” before the word “territories,” to indicate that a complete Israeli withdrawal was required. But Johnson refused the Soviet request. The Soviet deputy foreign minister likewise tried to insert the word “all” before “territories,” but was rebuffed.

Joseph P Sisco, who would serve as the US. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, commented on Resolution 242 during a Meet the Press interview some years later: “I was engaged in the negotiation for months of that resolution. That resolution did not say ‘total withdrawal.”

George Brown, the British foreign secretary in 1967, summarized Resolution 242 as follows: “The proposal said, ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ not ‘from the territories,’ which means Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Gold notes that both President Johnson and Ambassador Arthur Goldberg made other contemporaneous statements supporting that reading of Resolution 242:

This policy was also reflected in statements by President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz. Reagan himself stated in his September 1, 1982 address that became known as the “Reagan Plan”: “In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”....
Shultz was even more explicit about what this meant during a September, 1988 address: “Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.

In the April 14, 2004 letter from President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the United States reiterated Israel’s right to secure and defensible borders, and expressly noted that a return to the 1967 borders was unrealistic. The letter stated that:“The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself by itself against any threat or possible combination of threats... In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

On June 23-24, 2004, the U.S. Senate and House passed Concurrent Resolution 460 stating that each body “strongly endorses the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004 to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon” — expressly referencing the portions of the letter dealing with Israel’s borders.

Thus Israeli settlements that command the high ground around Jerusalem (such as Ma’ale Adumim) or provide strategic locations in the West Bank (such as Ariel) are a critical part of any ultimate peace agreement, because they are essential to defensible borders. Such settlements do not preclude a contiguous Palestinian state; but they preclude it from serving as a staging area for a new war.

Carter’s book never mentions, much less discusses, the April 14, 2004 letter that assured Israel of the US. commitment to secure, defensible borders; promised the U.S. would not support any plan other than the three-phase Road Map; and placed particular emphasis on Palestinian compliance with Phase I as a condition of peace.

Carter seeks to ignore both Phase I and Phase II of the Road Map, to move instead immediately to Phase III, and to substitute a withdrawal to the 1967 borders for the secure and defensible borders that Resolution 242 envisions and that the April 14, 2004 letter promises — and then Carter repeatedly castigates Israel for its alleged failure to comply with Resolution 242, the Road Map and a specious “unwavering US. policy” that Carter has created himself.

It is hard to imagine a more disingenuous effort than the one Carter has embarked on with his book.

Rick Richman edits “Jewish Current Issues” at http://jpundit.typepad corn

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:59 AM | Comments (0)

November 27, 2006

James Baker, Who?

By Martin Peretz
The New Republic, 11.27.06

The man who has come to rescue U.S. policy in Iraq is actually the man who rescued Saddam Hussein twice. The first time came early during the presidency of George Bush, Sr. It was James Baker who was in charge, tending Saddam's wounds and building up his arms. At that moment, the Baath dictatorship was still reeling from its brutal eight-year war with Iran, a conflict that presaged the uncivil strife occurring in Mesopotamia now. The second time was toward the close of the first Bush presidency, and Baker was still in charge.

Iraq had been forced back from the invasion of a country it had intended to annex. The logic of the victory should have suggested unseating the aggressor--a man at once reckless and conniving, hated by (most of) his countrymen and feared by (all of) his neighbors. But that logic never penetrated the victors, who maintained Saddam in Baghdad with the goal of keeping him on a tight rope and constraining his economy by a regime of sanctions. Such a regime has rarely worked. He turned out to be especially adept at manipulating it against his longtime domestic victims and for his sectarian, familial, and geographical allies. This suffering was neither here nor there for the especially visible members of the coalition that had defeated him. Arab solidarity does not cut across doctrinal lines. This was only one reason why pan-Arabism turned out to be a roaring tiger but one without teeth.

The primary consideration of Saudi Arabia, for example, was that a Sunni government of one sort or another--like the ones that had been in place since Gertrude Bell (the T.E. Lawrence of the north) installed the Emir Faisal as king in Baghdad 70 years earlier--not be displaced. This meant a permanent minority was to be in power. And, if history was an accurate predictor, it would be a brutal minority at that. A neighboring Shia state would be an enormous discomfort for the royals in Riyadh. I don't want to be cavalier about this, since, to say the least, nationhood is not a fully matured notion among the Arabs. And, if I were a responsible Saudi official, I, too, would worry greatly if adjacent Iraq became an official Shia state, especially given how the Shia minority fared under Sunni rule of the Arabian peninsula.

Almost uncannily, Baker's instincts and convictions meshed (and mesh still) with the House of Saud. Forgive me for appearing like a Marxist--a vulgar Marxist, no less. But the Carlyle Group of which Baker has been a top factotum is much at home with the Sunni princely and investor dynasty. Their compatibility is almost primordial--and also very practical.

Let's face it: The Baker-Hamilton Commission is a desperate rescue operation for the Iraqi Sunnis. George W. Bush has gotten us all into trouble, and he will now be taken to the woodshed by his father's faithful but resentful lieutenant. George W. never really liked Baker. (But who actually does?) The president might even muse to himself that, had Baker--and his dad--not saved Saddam 15 years ago, he would not have had the chore to do for himself. He probably wouldn't relish the irony of reading a speech by then-Senator Al Gore on September 29, 1992, lambasting the first Bush administration--and Baker, in particular--for leaving the despot-aggressor in power.

Michael Kinsley has written a characteristically hilarious and insightful column in Slate, "bake me a cake, baker man: why the baker commission won't fix iraq." It focuses on the predictably "blue-ribbon" members of this gathering of senior citizens. Or, as Mike writes, "This is one torch that has not been passed to a new generation, although former Virginia senator and presidential son-in-law Charles Robb (age 67) is a fresh face in the pool of Washington Wise Men." But perhaps he forgot that, aside from Baker, two other members of the commission have sins to atone for with regard to Saddam as well: Larry Eagleburger and Alan Simpson, who, in April 1990, lectured the "haughty and pampered" Western press that dared report Baathist abuses. And what, by the way, is Vernon Jordan doing on this particular commission of sages?

The truth is that commissioners rarely do the real work of the commission. That is done by its subalterns. It is true that this group is numerous and various. But several names ring alarms: Chas Freeman, Shibley Telhami, William Quandt, Phebe Marr, Marina Ottaway, Augustus Richard Norton--all fading apologists for the exhausted Sunni solution to everything.

What I fear is that the thrust of the moment is to restore as much of the old orthodoxies as possible. They haven't worked for more than two decades, even as superficially as they did before, when resentments were festering not only among the Shia, but among ever more pious--and, yes, fanatical--Sunnis as well. Their ranks, too, are swelling.

Sorry! Give George W. Bush his due. He took down the Taliban. And he also took down the savage Caesar. These are achievements. What he did not grasp--and what, for that matter, Baker and those for whom he speaks also do not grasp--is the sheer and relentless butchery of which both Sunni and Shia are capable. The fiendish barbarism of decapitated heads and mutilated bodies is now a reflex of the warriors and nothing exceptional, a commonplace. Even the bare rudiments of civilization will not soon come back to the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates.

So what is to be done? Inevitably, Baker will deploy the only trick he knows: force Israel to retreat to the 1967 lines. OK, it can't be forced. Then at least hold a peace conference. The 1991 peace conference actually accomplished nothing, except to pay Bush-Baker's debt to their partners in the Kuwait coalition. And the Oslo accords--also nothing. In any case, although many people believe a resolution of the Palestine question is the key to everything, it is actually a key to nothing but itself. It would not affect the bloodshed in Iraq. It would not even affect the strife in Lebanon. It also would not calm the anxieties of the Saudi monarchy. Or the clamor for freedom in Egypt. Well, if a peace settlement doesn't douse these fires, another blue-ribbon panel surely will rise to the challenge.

MARTIN PERETZ is editor-in-chief of The New Republic.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:41 PM | Comments (0)

November 25, 2006

A gross Israeli error in desperate need of correction

Redacted from an article by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Jewish Press

Why Israel’s war in Lebanon? I would like to offer a deeper understanding of why Israel was fighting for its survival in Lebanon, a country where Hezbollah -far from being a mere militia -has all the attributes of a state. Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon and has an army more powerful than the Lebanese army.

Hezbollah is more than a proxy of Iran. There are branches of Hezbollah in 20 states. But it is the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah that constitutes the spearhead of Iran ’s ambition to be a superpower and dominate the Middle East. Israel stands in the way of that ambition. Hence, Israel must be destroyed.

Israel is at war today because Israeli prime ministers not only lacked the ambition to make Israel a superpower, but also pursued a policy of so-called peace, that has truncated Israel by undoing the miracle of the Six-Day War. They failed to translate that miracle into public policy — which would have made Israel a superpower and the only way Israel will survive in the Middle East.

Over 2000 years ago, Rome recognized Israel (Judea)as a superpower, but today ’s Israeli historians simply regard Israel as an object of study. Historian Michael Oren ’s book, Six Days of War, notes that on day one, in little more than half an hour, the Israel Air Force destroyed 204 planes - half of Egypt ’s air force. They accomplished this while destroying six Egyptian air fields, four in Sinai and two in Egypt.

Oren writes: “The Israelis were stunned. No one ever imagined that a single squadron could neutralize an entire air base.” Oren turns to day two and quotes Col. Avraham Adan who, while watching the rout of the Egyptian army, "was stupefied.” Oren quotes Moshe Dayan, who was no less “puzzled.”

“Though Israel had gained command of the skies, Egypt ’s cities were not bombed and the Egyptian armored units at the front could have fought even without air support.” Oren then cites the words of Gen. Avraham Yoffe:
“Nobody believed that we could have accomplished more or that the Egyptian collapse would be so swift.” Surely, Oren could have added that religious people would regard all this as a miracle. He says nothing. Far be it for this historian to quote Leviticus 26:8:“Five of you shall chase away a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight.”

In June 1967 the United States was bogged down in Vietnam and was very much concerned about Soviet expansion in the Middle East, especially Soviet penetration of the oil-rich Persian Gulf on which the entire economy of the West depends. Recall that Egypt, Syria and Libya were then Soviet clients, and that Egypt had sought to gain control of strategically situated Yemen.

Israel ’s Six Day War miracle awakened Washington to Israel ’s strategic value, especially when it resulted in the closing of the Suez Canal to the Soviet Black Sea fleet. Israel ’s superb air force could also help protect NATO ’s southern flank in the eastern Mediterranean. America needed a strong and stable ally in the volatile region of the Middle East. A miniature Israel, confined to its precarious 1949 armistice lines, could hardly serve this function.

In a memorandum dated June 27,1967, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that Israel retain control of the Judean and Samarian mountain ridges overlooking its vulnerable population centers on the coastal plain, as well as control of Gaza, the Golan Heights, and a portion of the southern Sinai to secure Israel ’s access to the Red Sea through the Strait of Tiran.

Ten days after the Six Day War, the Israeli government naively transmitted a proposal to Cairo and Damascus, offering to return to the pre-war borders for a peace agreement! No wonder so many people throughout the world are oblivious of the fact that Israel has valid legal claims to this land, apart from its having been regained in a war of self-defense .

Having failed to translate the miracle of the Six-Day War into Israel ’s national policy, it was inevitable that subsequent Israeli governments would undo that miracle. Israel can hardly be a superpower under the Oslo Agreement, which entails the surrender of Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This defeatist policy - this betrayal by the nation of what many believe is G-d ’s miracle has encouraged Iran and now Syria to conquer Israel via Hezbollah, the “party of (their) G-d ”.

How to correct this fatal Israeli defeatist mind-set? For starters, perhaps a Commission of National Inquiry (not appointed by Ehud Olmert! jsk)should examine the curriculum of Israel ’s Command and Staff School which has embraced a policy of self-restraint, as a guiding military principle, (Is there an Arab army that has embraced such a policy? jsk).This naive principle of self-restraint was employed by Rabin, Barak, and Sharon against Arab terrorists. Furthermore, all of these generals advocated a Palestinian state.

That is the crux of all of Israel ’s political and military problems and now, along with the surrender of the former Lebanese Security Zone and the abandonment of its Christian Lebanese allies, has brought Israel into the present proxy war with Iran.

It is far past time for the Israelis to wake up and elect a Prime Minister who will stop surrendering Israeli territory to an insatiable enemy and to stop burning incense to a “ peace process ” that never existed in the first place!

Professor Paul Eidelberg teaches at Bar Ilan University in Israel and is the director of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:24 PM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2006

The Skinny on Global Warming

November 2, 2006

Two scientific events of note occurred this week, but only one got any media coverage. Therein lies a story about modern politics and scientific priorities.

The report that received the headlines was Monday's 700-page jeremiad out of London on fighting climate change. Commissioned by the British government and overseen by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, the report made the intentionally shocking prediction that global warming could eliminate from 5% to 20% of world economic output "forever." Meanwhile, doing the supposedly virtuous thing and trying to forestall this catastrophe would cost merely an estimated 1% of world GDP. Thus we must act urgently and with new taxes and policies that go well beyond anything in the failed Kyoto Protocol.

The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries--including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.

We invited Mr. Lomborg to address the Stern report, and he takes apart its analysis brick-by-brick here. To our reading, there isn't much left of this politicized edifice. But we'd stress a couple of points ourselves.

The first is that the Stern review almost surely understates the real costs of combating climate change. The International Energy Agency has estimated that the world must spend $16 trillion on infrastructure from 2001 to 2030 just to meet growing energy demand. That by itself would be 1% of GDP over that period. And that doesn't include the cost of moving to carbon-free power from fossil fuels, or the financial "incentives"--i.e., global subsidies from Western taxpayers--that China and India would need if the Stern report's policies were to have any chance of being implemented.

The Stern review also calls for substantially increasing taxes, which we know from experience would also reduce global GDP and thus leave fewer resources to fight the consequences of any warming.

The second point is that the Stern report barely mentions the potential benefits from warming in the world's cold-weather regions. Al Gore and others warn about the damage from coastal flooding and changing weather patterns, among other horror scenarios. But the world is large and its climate diverse, and a longer growing season in Siberia or Canada is at least one possible benefit of warming. The Stern report also dismisses any chance of moderate warming (meaning temperatures in 2100 only two to three degrees Celsius higher than in 1900), even though many climate models say this is in fact the most likely outcome.

Unlike the Stern report and its patrons, those of us who take a skeptical approach to these doomsday climate scenarios aren't trying to end the discussion. The Earth is warmer now than it was in the recent past, and this may be partly attributable to human behavior. But everything else--from how much warmer, to the extent of mankind's contribution, to the cost of doing something about it--remains very much in dispute.

Some of the Stern review's recommendations, such as carbon trading rights, are also worth debating. But most of its proposals are merely openings for government to expand its role in allocating investment, raising taxes and otherwise controlling economic decisions. Socialism was supposed to have died with the Soviet Union, but it is making a comeback under the guise of coping with global warming.

Meanwhile, there are far more urgent, and far less speculative, problems that we know how to solve with the right policies. That message may not get scary headlines, but it would improve the lives of more human beings around the world.

Reader's commentary:

Various sources, quoting Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, note that the ancient Sidonians charted the coasts of Antarctica thousands of years ago and their charts do not show the ice shelves that are today shrinking. The people who fear that mankind is causing global warming point to the shrinking of the ice shelves as one of the proofs.

Skeptics of global warming point out that the manmade contribution to greenhouse gasses amounts to only 5%. All the rest comes from natural sources. Granted that five percent can be the difference between winning and losing or a business showing a modest profit as opposed to a modest loss. Nevertheless, it should give rise to clear headed investigation.

I have the feeling that big business, big government and international organizations are playing a “chicken little” number on us: “Run, run! The sky is falling in.” On the other hand, “if you give us a mere 1 or 2 % of the global GDP, a mealy couple of trillion dollars a year and let us regulate your economies, we can save the world from the sky falling in.”

What if they fail? What if the global warming is simply a normal warmer cycle that the earth goes through from time to time, which they can do nothing to change? Will they relinquish their control over the world’s economic activity and cut off the programs that generously enrich them? Sure they will. And I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

Jack Golbert


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)

November 20, 2006

Allah’s England

A small redaction from a marvelous article by Daniel Johnson
Commentary November 2006. Please read in its entirety.

What will it mean for the Atlantic alliance if the British people in general and the Labor party in particular have indeed given up on the war against terrorism, and if the Tories mean to exploit their new political opportunity by appeasing Islamic radicalism?

Pope Benedict XVI’S brief critique of the doctrine of jihad, a critique whose validity was immediately confirmed by the hysteria and violence it evoked in the Muslim world. Leaving aside the question of what exactly Benedict meant by quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus on Muhammad’s “evil and inhuman … command to spread, by the sword, the faith he preached,” his words put European Christians on the spot

For too long, Christians have passed by on the other side as their own co-religionists have been persecuted in Muslim lands. They have hidden behind the pretense that, in David Cameron’s words, Islamist terrorism is “a wholly incorrect interpretation—an extreme distortion—of the Islamic faith.” No doubt the Muslim demonstrators outside Westminster Cathedral who demanded the Pope’s execution, and who held up banners proclaiming “Islam will conquer Rome,” were indeed extremists. But they were also one end of a continuum of intolerance that embraces much of Islam.

The numberof Catholics suffering persecution in Muslim countries has been estimated at more than 100 million. By speaking out, the Pope ran the risk of making their situation even worse. But now that he has spoken out, European Christians in general and Catholics in particular have a duty to decide where they stand on freedom of speech and religion.

At virtually the same time, Abu Izzadeen, a Jamaican convert to Islam living in London, advised a British audience in public forum that, “Britain does not belong to the English or the Queen or to the British government, but to Allah. He has put us on earth to implement shari’s law.”

Indeed, Abu Izzadeen’s attempt to claim the East End of London as an exc1usively “Muslim area” may not be mere fantasy. In 2012, the East End will host the Olympics. Waiting to be built, in a spot adjacent to the Olympic village, is the largest place of worship in Europe; the London Markaz, part of a vast complex projected to cost £100 million, most of it coming from Saudi Arabia. The organizational backer for this project is Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary group that the FBI has labeled a recruiting ground for al Qaeda.

London, with over 1,000 mosques, is already Europe’s unofficial Muslim capital. Its status will be enhanced immeasurably by the Markaz, whose size - it is projected to hold 70,000 worshippers - will dwarf St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. To contemplate the building of so potent a symbol of Islamic triumphalism over Europe’s Christian heritage is all but incredible.

Will it happen? Britain today is a nation torn between defiance and appeasement, led by a political elite that with few exceptions seems to be intimidated by Islam and reluctant to address—when it is not complicit in—anti-Semitism. The British people are not lost to the West, but the battle to preserve liberty in their country is only just beginning. Which makes it all the more fitting is that the immediate battleground should be the East End, the original Jewish area of London created upon Oliver Cromwell’s declaring freedom and tolerance with the re-admission of the Jews in 1290. This East End has now become a Muslim stronghold and the site designated for the building of the Markaz complex.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:29 PM | Comments (0)

November 17, 2006

‘Rachel Corrie’ is a Liar!

By Jonathan Tobin

International Jerusalem Post, November 9, 2006

The deplorable state of Middle East Studies on college campuses has been a topic of grave concern for many of those who follow the declining fortunes of American scholarship. That an entire field of academic study has grown up in the last quarter-century that seeks to de-legitimize Zionism and Israel is not news. But, efforts to do something about it are worth mentioning.

How bad is the situation? Bad enough that Gratz College, a non-denominational Jewish institution here in the Philadelphia area, feels that it’s worth it to create a new institute specifically designed to be an academic answer to Middle East Studies departments that are hotbeds of anti-Zionism. Speakers at a local dinner that sought to galvanize support for the project noted that pervasive bias in academia against Israel that is the hallmark of intellectual discourse at campuses around the country needs an academic response rooted in scholarship.

But how is it that supposedly intelligent people have bought in to the notion that the presence of Jews in their ancient homeland and their attempts to defend their presence are an offense to Arabs? As it happens, you needn’t go back to college to observe how the conversation among the elites about Jewish topics is changing. Instead, a visit to a performance of a much acclaimed British play that opened at an off-Broadway theater in New York City this week will give you an indication of which way the wind is blowing.

The play is My Name is Rachel Corrie, an adaptation of the letters and e-mail messages of a member of the International Solidarity Movement, a group that proclaims its opposition to Israel’s existence and whose members actively seek to prevent the Israeli army from acting against terrorist targets.

(By the way, The International Solidarity Movement, was founded by a former Seeds of Peace camp - the darling of uninformed Jews - program director, Adam Shapiro from Brooklyn, NY and his fellow counselor, Arab bride, Hawaida Affaf from Roseville, MI.)

See Israel Commentary article: http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2004_12.html#000396) Jsk

Corrie, a 23-year-old American from Everest, Washington, was one of the “internationals” planted in the border town of Rafah, where the IDF was seeking to demolish tunnels that were used by the Palestinians to bring arms and explosives into the Gaza Strip to use against Jewish targets (a practice that continues to this day). In the course of one such Israeli attempt to knock down a structure shielding one of the tunnels that ran from Egypt into Gaza in March 2003, she placed herself in front of an Israeli bulldozer. But she slipped on a mound of dirt and was killed in what the IDE determined was an accident, but her cohorts charged was murder.

It was like all the deaths that have resulted from the Palestinian war to destroy Israel, a pointless waste of life. But for left-wing activists like acclaimed British actor Alan Rickman and former Guardian editor Katherine Vine; Corrie’s life and death was perfect fodder for a work designed to further the cause for which she gave her life: the de-legitimization of the State of Israel.

We needn’t waste time discussing the artistic merit of the piece. Despite the praise it got in London, the Corrie play is one-women rant, devoid of drama or literary appeal that is as likely to put its audience to sleep, as it is to send them to the barricades. But, My Name Is Rachel Corrie is a polemic with a dear purpose: the creation of a secular saint, and not just an ordinary saint. It is a hagiography of a particular kind of saint, the victim of a Jewish blood libel.

The seemingly endless first half of the play is devoted to her life back home in Washington. But the presentation of her banal observations about an ordinary life has a motive. The Rachel Corrie we are shown is a New Age, non-Jewish Anne Frank. She is portrayed as a sensitive American kid who went off to Gaza, where she wound up questioning her belief in the humanity of the Israelis who were battling her Palestinian pals. Seen through Corrie’s peculiar tunnel vision, Israel is an evil power whose only purpose seems to be to make non-violent Palestinian Arabs miserable.

In her version of Gaza, terror groups were invisible. The Palestinian decision to launch the Intifada, which created the fighting she witnessed, never happened. All she sees is a Palestinian population resisting Israeli “oppression” with “Gandhian” forbearance. The Israel that Corrie passes briefly through on her way to Gaza is a blank slate. Though she disavows anti-Semitism, the Jewish state is for her, and for the play’s authors, merely an extension of evil American foreign policy and military power. This pilgrim’s only reaction to signs of Jewish life is to note that she has never before seen a Star of David used as a symbol of “colonialism.”

As for Corrie’s take on the other side of the ledger, the deaths of a thousand Jews at the hands of her non-violent buddies aren’t worth mentioning. Her reaction to an e-mail from her mother questioning Palestinian violence is an impassioned rant justifying any measures the Palestinians might take to fight the Israelis. Suicide bombings get Corrie’s imprimatur because the sweet Palestinians she meets are worthy — and the faceless Israelis are not.

The play concludes on this “moderate” note. What follows then is an audiotape of one of Corrie’s confederates, claiming she was killed deliberately. After that, the audience is treated to an actual home video of the 10-year-old Corrie affirming her opposition to world hunger before the lights go out.

We can poke fun at the pretensions of the authors of such maudlin trash, as Oscar Wilde did more than a century ago when he wrote of another piece of sentimental hogwash, “One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing.” But it would be a mistake to under-estimate the power of a lie, even one so transparent as Rickman’s and Viner’s mythical version of the misguided Corrie.

There is a tradition of using theater as a political bully pulpit, and you can easily imagine this farrago having a long shell life, touring the provinces and college campuses where untold numbers of naive audience members will grieve anew over the death of innocent little Rachel at the hands of the rapacious Jews.

Alan Rickman and Katherine Viner - and all those who applaud their work want you to believe that Rachel Corrie died for America’s Middle East sins.
But if you believe that, it isn’t much of a stretch to think as Corrie did, that the Jews of Israel deserve to die, too.

As British writer Tom Gross noted at the time of the play’s opening its promoters = like Corrie herself - might have taken the time to learn about the many other Rachels, the Jewish women and girls slaughtered by Palestinians in the name of a jihad that Corrie supported whether she understood it or not. Yet what makes My Name Is Rachel Corrie worth noting is that this premise of Israeli perfidy and Palestinian victim hood is actually presented in many an American classroom.

Those who wonder that truth can be so easily stood on its head need only wander up from the West Village playhouse where the show will appears until the end of the year and visit virtually any campus where a Middle East Studies department has taken root.

Jonathan Tobin is executive director of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:31 PM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2006

The Stark Reality of Ehud Olmert, et al

Redacted from an article by Professor Paul Eidelberg

The Jewish Press, November 3, 2006

On June 9, 2005, Ehud Olmert revealed what he is made of in a speech to the Israel Policy Forum in New York. Israel’s government, of which he was the vice premier, was then in the process of preparing some 50,000 soldiers and police to implement Sharon’s plan to withdraw front Gaza and expel its 8,000 Jewish residents. Olmert told his New York audience that the withdrawal represents “a remarkable process ... that will have an enormous impact on everything that will happen thereafter, in the State of Israel and in the Middle East.” Dwelling in wonderland, Olmert spoke glowingly of the unilateral aspect of the Gaza withdrawal: “We don’t have to wait anymore,” he said. Glib as usual, he even boasted to his American audience: “We really don’t need the United States to lead the [peace] process in the Middle East, we will lead this process.
Israel will lead the process, he blabbered “because it’s good for us” —

Really! "And we will lead it because it may do good to the Palestinians.” (How generous!)“And we believe that if it will be good for us and will be good for the Palestinians, then it will be good.” Impeccable logic! And why will it be good? Because “It will bring more security, greater safety, much more prosperity and a lot of joy for all the people that live in the Middle East.” Hallelujah!

Intoxicated with himself, Olmert confided: “We are tired of fighting; we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning; we are tired of defeating our enemies; we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors.” This confession reveals not only an errant fool but of a degenerate. Before you turn off, ponder the words of that great Zionist, Max Nordau, a psychologist of profound learning — an atheist who understood the mentality of Jews like Olmert.

I call to your attention Nordau’s 1895 work, Degeneration. This heavy tome, which was re-published in 1968, has been the subject of several doctoral dissertations. It offers a deep understanding of people of Olmert’s mentality — suffice to mention Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres and former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, who decriminalized the government’s expulsion of those thousands of Jews from Gaza.

According to Nordau, “That which nearly all degenerates lack is the sense of morality and of right and wrong.” This degeneracy is widespread in democratic societies where moral relativism is rampant and I have evidence that the persons mentioned have been tainted by this academic doctrine. An inevitable consequence or concomitant of moral relativism is what Nordau calls “egomania,” which he discusses at great length. “Egomania renders degenerates incapable of empathy. Pre-occupied with themselves, they are insensitive to the feelings of others. Degenerates lack public spiritedness, a heightened sense of outrage at the suffering of others, and of course they lack a sense of honor.”

I dare say it is in these terms that we are to understand not only Sharon’s policy of self-restraint toward Arab terrorists — which made the murder of an indeterminate number of Jews “acceptable” — but also his less deadly policy of expelling Jews from their homes. Did not this egomaniac tell his cabinet: “Anyone who speaks or writes against disengagement is guilty of incitement!” Nordau also claims that the degenerate is “incapable of correctly grasping, ordering, or elaborating into ideas and judgments the impressions of the external world...” He “surrenders himself to the perpetual obfuscation of... fugitive ideas”. He is given to “fixed” ideas, however nebulous (like “peace”).

Moreover, “facts which do not please him he does not notice, or so interprets that they seem to support his delirium.” Here Nordau anticipates Harry Stack Sullivan’s concept of “selective inattention” — typical of Jews whose lust for peace blinds them to 14 centuries of Arab bellicosity and barbarism. This selective inattention raises the question of whether degenerates compulsively misrepresent or consciously lie about reality (like unilateral disengagement is good). Nordau contends that they believe in the truth of their fabrications. Perhaps, but self-delusion may sometimes be a developmental phenomenon. Selective inattention is often the result of fear as well as of egoism. Nordau has observed this. Indeed, not only does continued fear govern many degenerates, but also such is their inability to face reality that even their instinct of self- preservation is crippled.

Nordau’s analysis of degenerates clearly applies to Israel’s ruling elites, exemplified by Israel’s current prime minister.
• Olmert has witnessed 13 years of the Oslo policy of “territory for peace” and its consequences: the murder and maiming of thousands of Jewish men, women, and children. Yet he persists in this delusion. Olmert continues to condone the arming and release of thousands of Arab terrorists, who invariably revert to terrorism.
• Olmert’s aforementioned speech in New York clearly conveys his inability or unwillingness to recognize the obvious: the implacable hatred and genocidal pronouncements of Israel’s enemy.
• Contrary to tons of blood-filled evidence, Olmert boasted that “unilateral disengagement” from Gaza would be a major step toward peace.
• And now, despite the fact that the Gaza withdrawal brought Hamas to power and made Gaza a center for international terrorism, Olmert wants to withdraw from Judea and Samaria even while arms from Gaza are pouring into these strategically important areas.

All this is not simply a consequence of American pressure. It is not simply a consequence of miscalculation or eyen of stupidity. Israel has — and not for the first time — a degenerate prime minister. There is a lesson to be drawn from this analysis. Criticism of Israel’s ruling elites, as if they were rational actors, is misleading if not irrelevant. Another election, even if Olmert were to be replaced by some other member of the Knesset, will not steer Israel away from the suicidal path of its last seven prime ministers. Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Democracy offers no solution to this malaise — certainly not that which passes for a democracy in the shrinking state of Israel.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2006

The Duplicitous New York Times - Paper of Record, Indeed!

By Jason Moaz, Senior Editor, The Jewish Press

October 20, 2006

New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Erlanger is so openly pro-Palestinian in his reporting that he’s beginning to call to mind perhaps his most biased predecessor in that post — the truly execrable (inferior, wretched) Deborah Sontag, whose transparently one-sided dispatches would invariably read as though she wrote them with a PLO flag draped over her word processor.

On page 7 of this week’s Jewish Press, the always incisive Rick Richman of Jewish Current Issues (jpundit.typepad.com) cuts the heart out of Erlanger’s futile pretensions at objectivity and just plain old reading comprehension. Rarely does a book review come in for such thorough dismemberment, and the resultant carnage is a beautiful thing to behold.

Erlanger is not particularly shy about trumpeting his bias: as reported in August on Ynetnews.com, he told a convention of journalists in Jerusalem that Israelis “were not interested in whether 1,000 Lebanese civilians needed to die” in the recent war with Hezbollah, and admitted he rejected an IDF offer of accessibility that would have enabled him to write about Israel’s efforts to ensure the arrival of humanitarian aid to Lebanon. He was not interested in the story he told the panel.

Erlanger is the character who, in an August 5, 2005 story on a claim by an Israeli archaeologist that the palace of King David may have been unearthed, gave the politically motivated lies of Yasir Arafat equal billing with historical fact. ‘The find,” Erlanger wrote, “will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem—whether the Jews have their origins here and thus have some special hold on the place, or whether, as many Palestinians have said, including the late Yasir Arafat, the idea of a Jewish origin in Jerusalem is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation."

As the Monitor noted at the time, “Just try to imagine a New York Times story on slavery that would accord historical weight to a statement by, say, David Duke, or a piece at the height of the civil rights movement in which a Times reporter would cite as potentially authoritative the ravings of some discredited boor.”

This, the Monitor conjectured, using Erlanger’s basic framework but changing a handful of words, is what such a piece of drivel would look like: “The dispute hinges on whether Negroes are being deprived of their constitutional rights or whether, as many white Southerners have said, including Alabama Governor George Wallace, the idea of their systematic mistreatment is a myth to justify sympathy and federal intervention.”

Unfortunately, such mindless moral relativism — unimaginable in a Times story on civil rights in 1966 or 2006 — is a defining characteristic of the paper’s coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict.

In September 2005, in a front-page story ostensibly about the burning by Palestinians of recently abandoned synagogues in Gaza, Erlanger led with this bit of disinformation: “Throughout the abandoned Israeli settlements of Gaza, Monday was a carnival of celebration, political grandstanding and widespread scavenging for a Palestinian population whose occupiers vanished overnight...”Nothing about burning synagogues.

A couple of paragraphs later Erlanger gave us this cheerfully misleading depiction: “Donkey carts were piled with bathroom fixtures, pieces of metal, skeins of wire and long pieces of wood, to feed home ovens. Men, women and children worked with a seriousness of purpose, trying to take home some little personal benefit from the return of lands many feel will somehow, as usual, end up in the hands of the wealthy or well connected.”
Still no mention of any synagogues set afire.

A hint of the fate that befell the Gaza synagogues came several paragraphs later: ‘..a settlement synagogue built in the shape of a huge Star of David was smoldering; fires inside sending smoke through the edges of the star”
But even there Erlanger neglected to say who or what caused those “fires inside sending smoke through the edges of the star.”

Finally, in the sixteenth paragraph of his 26-paragraph story Enlanger wrote, rather ambiguously and without identifying the perpetrators: “In Kfar Darom, there was an extensive march of armed fighters, but the synagogue there, was protected from burning by security forces who made a kind of headquarters out of it.”

New York Times, “Paper of Record” indeed!

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:17 PM | Comments (0)

November 09, 2006

For Liberal Jews basking in the glory of the Democratic Party take-over

Political Analysis from an impeccable source.

And, as warned multiple times prior to the election but, of little concern to those whose primary cause celebre has been stem cell research, third term abortion, phantom loss of female rights and the support of the refugees from Arab terrorism in Darfur! - jsk

Four staunch Senate supporters of Israel lost their re-election contests – Rick Santorum (PA), Mike DeWine (OH), Jim Talent (MO) and George Allen (VA). Allen’s replacement, Jim Webb, who has recently advocated a “regional approach” in the Middle East, is raising concern.

Democrat Senator, Joe Biden (who is running for President in ’08) will take over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While his record vis-a- vis Israel is much better than that of Dick Lugar, whom he will replace, Biden can be erratic at times.

Pat Leahy, who will chair the Judiciary Committee, is also in line to chair the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations. He has been a frequent critic of Israel and has supported relatively few positive initiatives.

In the House:
Five very senior Democrats who will assume committee chairmanships must be ranked in the bottom 10% of the class (of 435) when it comes to Israel-related issues:

David Obey (Appropriations)
John Conyers (Judiciary)
John Dingell (Energy and Commerce)
George Miller (Education and Work Force)
Nick Rahall (Resources)

Recently all five voted against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which passed 361 to 37!

While Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not been that involved in our issues – she has been generally supportive and has ties to the Jewish community, the key contest will be for Majority Leader. If Jack Murtha (not good), beats Steny Hoyer (excellent), for Majority Leader – it will really be bad news. A lack of support from many in the Black Caucus also continues to be a problem, as well as the emerging influence of the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party exemplified by MoveOn.org. Two newcomers, Gerald McNerney in California – a protégé of Israel-bashing former Rep. Pete McCloskey, and the first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, can be expected to join the “bad guys” list – taking the place of the departed but unlamented Cynthia McKinney.

On the positive side, Rep. Tom Lantos is in line to take over as chair of the House International Relations Committee. Israel has no stronger, effective, committed supporter in Congress. The new chair of the Foreign Operation Appropriation Committee will be Rep. Nita Lowey, also a big plus. Assuming Rep. Ike Skelton takes over as chair of Armed Services, there is no problem here. Finally, John Hostettler (R-IN), who has a poor record of support, was defeated by Brad Ellsworth whom the PAC supported. “

While the direction of the Democratic Party leftward is troubling, it could be offset somewhat by the election of a number of new moderate/centrist Members. At least six new Jewish Members – all Dems – were also elected.

Bottom Line:
Thankfully, we can expect continued bi-partisan support for Israel in the 110th Congress. But there is a small cadre of 40-50 House Members (excuse me, Mr. Expert, but how is a “cadre of 40-50 House members, equaling near 10% of the House, “small” Jsk) who cannot be considered friendly, all Democrats except for half a dozen. There are also several Senators who are problematic. This all means we have our work cut out for us in the ’08 election cycle – which is already shaping up.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:45 AM | Comments (0)

November 07, 2006

President Bush, Would you please re-visit the grossly unfair case of Jonathan Pollard

Editorial, The Jewish Press October 20, 2006


We have long thought the Draconian punishment meted out to Jonathan Pollard for spying for Israel was explainable only in terms of the special and intense animus toward the Jewish state on the part of all too many State Department Arabists and foreign policy functionaries. In the past this page has several times noted that Mr. Pollard is the only person in U.S. history to have received a life sentence, or anything even approaching it, for spying on behalf of an American ally.

We have also noted that the circumstances of his sentencing suggested a special agenda. That is, a negotiated sentence had been unilaterally disavowed by the government and the sentencing judge, in consigning Pollard to life imprisonment, relied upon a secret memorandum written by then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, whose antipathy toward Israel was not exactly a state secret and who reportedly was enraged that Pollard had provided information to Israel on Arab military preparedness — information Mt Weinberger opposed sharing with the Israelis.

Now comes an October 9 editorial from The Jerusalem Post noting that Ronald Montaperto, a former Pentagon analyst, was sentenced last month by a U.S. judge to a mere three months in prison for passing “highly classified” information to China. According to U.S. officials, Mr. Montaperto’s actions severely hampered U.S. efforts to track China’s covert arms sales to nations sponsoring terrorism such as Iran, Syria and Pakistan.

Of course, no two cases are exactly the same, but there are several noteworthy points to be made. The sentencing judge in the Pollard case relied on the aforementioned secret Weinberger memorandum. In the Moñtaperto case the sentencing judge, while acknowledging the “very serious charge,” said he’d been persuaded to reduce the sentence thanks to letters of support from current and former intelligence and military officials. This despite the fact that the prosecutor told the court that Mr. Montaperto met at least 60 times with two Chinese military intelligence officers and provided them with top secret information.

There is another disturbing dimension to this case. Mr. Pollard’s attorneys have from Day One been denied access to classified information that played a role in his case. To be sure, there are procedural rules that were successfully invoked by the government lawyers in denying such access. But why this rulebook approach to Mr. Pollard on the one hand and “support” from the American intelligence and military communities for Mr. Montaperto on the other? After all, well over 100,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in the Korean and Vietnam wars, both of which were, in significant part, Chinese productions. And the U.S. has spent untold billions of dollars to defend itself against the Chinese threat.

Further, there continues to be talk that classified information stolen by Mr. Pollard indirectly found its way to the Soviet Union and, as a result, a number of intelligence sources were executed. But over the years it has become increasingly clear that it was Aldrich Ames, a convicted CIA double agent, who passed the material in question to the Soviets. Even Casper Weinberger, in a moment of candor, finally conceded that the Pollard case had been “relatively minor.”

Jonathan Pollard is now completing his 21st year in a U.S. prison. The material he turned over to Israel has never been officially released. But, as was pointed out in the Jerusalem Post editorial, it is generally believed to have included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria as well as Iraqi and Syrian weapons programs. We certainly do not quarrel with the government’s right to withhold such information from Israel.

But think about it — the theft of information about Arab military capacities vis-a-vis Israel as a predicate for a life sentence. In the final analysis, a life is a life and Casper Weinberger’s pique should not be allowed to effectively end Jonathan Pollard’s.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)

November 04, 2006

DEMOCRATS BLAME ISRAEL AND THE JEWS

THE JEWISH PRESS, Friday. October 20, 2006

Former President Jimmy Carter: “I don’t think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon and I represent the vast majority of Democrats”
Der Spiegel, August 15, 2006

Michael Moore: “Hey, there’s a way to stop suicide bombings — give the Palestinians a bunch of missile-firing Apache helicopters and let them and the Israelis go at each other head-to-head.”
“Dude, Where’s my Country?” Warner Books 2003

Congressman John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel”
WDIV-TV July 30, 2006

Cindy Sheehan, flagrant anti-Semite: "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”
Letter to Nightline, August 2005

Al Sharpton: If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.
National Review, December 3, 2003

Thurston County Democratic Party Platform: “Israel’s need for secure borders is no more important than the Palestinians’ call for self determination;”
Olympia, Washington, 2004

(Redacted from a nationwide ad paid for by the Republican Jewish Coalition)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:44 PM | Comments (0)

November 02, 2006

The Idiocy of Affirmative Action Hits Israel, as well

From an article by University of Haifa Professor Steven Plaut

November 1, 2006

Seems the forces of affirmative action in Israel are aghast. The bleeding hearts and caring Leftists are up in arms. It seems that the number of Arabs being accepted to the Hebrew University medical school is down and the reason for that is that they are failing to pass the ethical awareness requirement. Moreover, the Arab spokesmen say that the Arab students have
failed to develop ethical awareness because they do not serve in the Israeli army.

First, yes, Israeli universities do have affirmative action preferences in favor of Arabs. Since affirmative action is supposed to compensate
victims of historic discrimination, Israeli universities have decided to make up for 1300 years of brutal discrimination against Jews and in favor of Arabs in the Middle East by instituting programs that discriminate in favor of Arabs and against Jews.

Second, the affirmative action axis of evil inside Israel is not very different from its cousins overseas. It opposes all standards because standards keep out the preferred minorities. That is why the affirmo-philes in the US want all science and math requirements to be junked! Such things prevent blacks and Hispanics from getting into college and also generate a student body with far too many Asians and Jews.

A few years back, the Israeli affirmo-bats tried to junk the college board test ("psychometric") altogether in order to boost the number of Arabs in universities, but after a year or two of mediocre admittees it was restored, resulting in a drop in the number of Arab students. To the chagrin of the Left.

(VOTE “YES” FOR PROPOSAL 2 ON MICHIGAN BALLOT, ending this travesty that in fact, denies equal opportunity, denies merit and is, undoubtedly a form of reverse discrimination detrimental to the long-term well being of those it purports to help.) Jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:51 PM | Comments (0)