Would it be worth it if our schools of higher education would ban all religious, foreign and ethnic organizations from campus life?
////////////////////////
Bard College
Office of the President
Statement of Bard College President Leon Botstein Regarding the Bard ISM Student Organization Controversy
Over the past several weeks, Bard College and I as its President have been the object of unsubstantiated, exaggerated, and often vitriolic accusations regarding a student group on campus that has chosen to affiliate itself with an organization called the International Solidarity Movement. Some of those who have posted on blogs and written emails claim that ISM is a “terrorist” organization committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and its people. The information on the Bard ISM student website is being misrepresented to suggest that the college and its students are involved with illicit activities, encouraging and training terrorism.
When the first allegations came to our attention, I asked that College representatives meet with the students involved and find out the facts. The facts are, first, that ISM, like all student organizations at Bard, is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the college. No student organization represents or has ever represented the College. Student organizations are founded and supported by students and speak for them alone. Second, ISM's activities, like those of all other student groups, are guided by the general rules of the College. There are dozens of student groups at Bard, ranging from the Bard Christian Fellowship, Chess Club, and Black Student Organization, to the Jewish Students Organization, Musical Theater Company, and Darfur Action Campaign. The policies of the College include a steadfast commitment to the fundamental civil rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. With respect to violence, the College has a clear no-tolerance policy. Although there may be a constitutional right to bear arms under certain circumstances, that right cannot be exercised on the Bard campus. We aspire to a standard of civility, including the freedom from fear of violence, appropriate to an institution of higher learning.
Our investigation has shown that the students affiliated with ISM have done nothing that remotely resembles the accusations leveled against them and the College. They have exercised their proper right to free speech and assembly. They have invited speakers and held meetings. I have asked members of the College administration to maintain close contact with the group to insure that their actions remain within College regulations and US law. Contrary to what one might assume from recent hostile postings, the ISM operates legally within Israel and the United States and does not appear on any State Department terror watch list.
From what I have read, I personally do not share the views of ISM or the members of the small Bard student group, but that difference of opinion is precisely what needs protection. The students have every right to organize and to affiliate so long as no laws are violated. Accusations regarding improper use of facilities or improper conduct require evidence and due process. Slander and hyperbole are insufficient.
Particularly in the wake of the shooting of US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I want to take this opportunity to urge those who are outraged by ISM to temper their rhetoric and look at the facts. At stake here at Bard is not terrorism or violence, but a deep disagreement regarding politics in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Colleges and universities must be safe havens for freedom of expression and dissent on the most sensitive and contentious issues. Crucial to a democracy and the education of its citizens is the ability, with civility, to listen, learn, understand, debate, and rebut ideas and claims, particularly those we find wrong or dangerous. Ideas we fear cannot be fought through censorship. If we believe the views of others to be seriously in error, we need to use argument, reason, and evidence to persuade. Creating a climate of fear by obscuring the truth, engaging in character assassination, exaggerating the facts, and suggesting the existence of activities that do not, in fact, exist is not constructive. Insulting those with whom one disagrees, vilifying them, and impugning their integrity are not proper means in a college environment—or in the public arena of democracy—to register dissent and advocate one’s opinions.
We would like to think that the Internet has become a vehicle of diversity and free expression that will enhance public debate. But it appears that the opposite is also true. The Internet is capable of fueling a new kind of hysteria that spreads like wildfire, encouraging guilt by association and the forging of premature conclusions without benefit of evidence, poisoning personal relationships and the atmosphere of public debate.
For all those who are writing about ISM in an effort to create a campaign to terrify and badger the College into preventing the students from maintaining their group, the following statement constitutes my answer as the President of Bard. The College will maintain its firm commitment to the right of students and all members of the community to exercise free speech and the right of assembly and association. The rules of the College will be maintained. All activities at the College center on the free exchange of ideas, public service, and the education of individuals. Furthermore, the College maintains no political positions. Each individual on the campus is entitled to his or her own beliefs. The Bard community, I am pleased to report, has representatives of every imaginable political and philosophical persuasion, and has in its chaplaincy representatives of all major religions, just as it supports and honors atheists and agnostics. The College is therefore neither liberal nor conservative. It is committed to a high standard of excellence in the conduct of inquiry, scholarship, research, teaching, and debate.
On a personal note, for those who have cast aspersions on me as an individual and as a member of the Jewish community, I am pleased to put the following in the public record. I was born to Russian-Polish Jewish parents, most of whose family members did not survive the Holocaust. I came to the United States from Europe as a small child. Two of my uncles died in the Warsaw Ghetto. My aunt was a righteous gentile honored by Yad Vashem. My father was the only survivor in his family. I am a long-standing member of the Conservative Synagogue in Kingston, NY. I am a contributor to the UJA Federation. I have served since 2003 as Music Director of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, the Orchestra of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, pro bono. As a proud member of the Jewish community, I cherish the heritage to which I was born. That heritage is defined in part by Maimonides, Spinoza, Moses Mendelssohn, Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, and Abraham Joshua Heschel, among others. The Jewish spiritual and intellectual tradition with which I associate myself is one of dissent, debate, and commitment to reason and argument. As a Jew who is a citizen of the United States, I am particularly indebted to this country’s protection of fundamental civil rights, including free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the equal protection of all, particularly those in the minority.
It is ironic that the dissent that our constitution protects and that exists on our campus about the politics in the Middle East (as it does on many other campuses throughout the nation) is no wider than the dissent that flourishes today in the State of Israel among its citizens, which can be followed by any willing observer in the pages of the Israeli press. Therefore I urge those who disagree with ISM and wish to protect and strengthen the State of Israel to take a step back from slander, distortion, and vilification, and instead make the best arguments they can as to why the views they fear are wrong.
There is no doubt that the maintenance of democracy and its freedoms contain an inherent danger that freedom will be abused by those whose purpose is to undo it. That risk is unavoidable in democracy and one that we must take. This country is already reeling from the inevitable fear and self-censorship that will follow in the wake of the shooting of Representative Giffords. A climate is brewing in which people will be increasingly reluctant to assemble and express their views out of fear for their safety. Our universities and colleges need to resist this trend. We must, with courage, take the risk of defending freedom and democracy by the exercise of freedom itself.
Leon Botstein
President of Bard College
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/bard-colleges-dual-degree-with-hamas-linked-university/
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
WHO SPIES ON WHOM?
Two documents reported on this week shed a troubling light on the US government's attitude toward Israel. The first is a 27-page FBI search warrant affidavit from 2004 targeting then senior AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen, published Wednesday in The Washington Times.
The second is WikiLeaks leaked secret Sate Department cable from October 2008 signed by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice directing US officials to spy on Israel.
Both indicate that in certain quarters of the American government Israel is viewed as at best a banana republic and at worst an enemy of the US.
The text of the FBI affidavit directed against Rosen makes clear that the FBI had no particular reason to suspect that he was an Israeli agent or was harming US national security. Rosen's activities during his tenure as AIPAC's senior lobbyist as described in the affidavit -meeting with government officials, journalists and Israeli diplomats — were precisely the type of activities that lobbyists in Washington routinely engage in.
Despite this the FBI followed Rosen for five years and indicted him and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman on felony charges under the all-but-forgotten 1917 Espionage Act. The FBI probe and subsequent trial harmed AIPAC's reputation, destroyed both men's careers, and did untold damage to the reputation of both the State of Israel and its American Jewish supporters. That it took five years for the Justice Department to drop these outrageous charges is a testament to the strength of the FBI's commitment to criminalizing American Jewish advocates of a strong US-Israel alliance.
And then there is Rice's secret cable. Just days before the 2008 presidential elections, the secretary of state instructed US diplomats in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA to conduct a massive espionage operation against Israel. The sought for information covered all aspects of Israel's political system, society, communications infrastructures and the IDF.
Regarding the IDF, for instance, among other things, diplomats and spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria and probe the attitudes of military commanders. They were also told to gather information on “IDF units, equipment, maintenance levels, training, morale, and operational readiness[;] IDF tactics, techniques and procedures for conducting conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations[; and] Israeli assessment of the impact of reserve duty in the territories on IDF readiness.”
As for political leaders, among other things, Rice instructed diplomats and spies to provide detailed information about government plans; influences on politicians; how politicians decide to launch military strikes; what Israel's leaders think about the US; and much more.
Rice also sought information about various aspects of Israeli society. Rice instructed US diplomats and spies to gather information on everything from, “Information on and motivations for any increased Israeli population emigration from Israel,” to detailed information on Israeli “settlers” in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.
Regarding the “settlers,” among other things, Rice wanted information on, “Divisions among various settlement groups[;] details on settlement-related budgets and subsidies[;] settlers' relationships with the Israeli political and military establishment including their lobbying and settlement methods.”
Rice expressed deep interest as well in all details related to Israel's military and non-military communications infrastructure. For instance, she directed US officials to gather information on “Current specifications, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and planned upgrades to national telecommunications infrastructure, networks, and technologies used by government and military authorities, intelligence and security services, and the public sector.”
Finally, Rice wanted personal data on Israeli leaders. She asked for “official and personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of principal civilian and military leaders.”
TAKEN SIDE-BY-SIDE, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.
But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US. That is, whereas two thirds of Americans support Israel, a minority constituency in the US government treats Israel with scorn and hatred.
And the question that arises from this is how is this minority able to get away with it?
Part of the answer was exposed this week in the aftermath of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's move on Monday morning to break ranks with the Labor Party. To understand how the two issues are related it is important to understand the plight of Labor since the demise of the peace process with the PLO in 2000.
Since the peace process ended with the beginning of the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have viewed Labor's policies of appeasement at all cost as dangerous and wrong. That is, since 2000, Labor's policies have been the policies of the political fringe. This situation has only grown worse for Labor since Hamas's takeover of Gaza and victory in the Palestinian elections held in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Despite the fact that its policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled Labor to continue to present itself as a mainstream ruling party.
The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice since the birth of modern Israel, since the demise of the peace process, the media have helped the likes of Labor by demonizing the Right, and rightist politicians and particularly Likud. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have engaged in the politics of personal destruction against right wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Likud and the Right is too high for many Israelis to bear.
At the same time, the media have colluded with the Left to present Leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept rightist leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.
The second reason that Labor was able to retain its mantle as a ruling party is that it has enjoyed the energetic support of the State Department and European governments which both support its radical policies.
Until the formation of the Netanyahu government two years ago, Labor was the State Department's favorite political party. Labor leaders from Shimon Peres down were the objects of constant attention and praise. Labor's leaders in turn were happy to help the Americans and Europeans hide their basic hostility towards Israel by claiming that their anti-Israel policies were actually pro-Israel policies.
Two documents reported on this week shed a troubling light on the US government's attitude toward Israel. The first is a 27-page FBI search warrant affidavit from 2004 targeting then senior AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen, published Wednesday in The Washington Times.
The second is WikiLeaks leaked secret Sate Department cable from October 2008 signed by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice directing US officials to spy on Israel.
Both indicate that in certain quarters of the American government Israel is viewed as at best a banana republic and at worst an enemy of the US.
The text of the FBI affidavit directed against Rosen makes clear that the FBI had no particular reason to suspect that he was an Israeli agent or was harming US national security. Rosen's activities during his tenure as AIPAC's senior lobbyist as described in the affidavit -meeting with government officials, journalists and Israeli diplomats — were precisely the type of activities that lobbyists in Washington routinely engage in.
Despite this the FBI followed Rosen for five years and indicted him and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman on felony charges under the all-but-forgotten 1917 Espionage Act. The FBI probe and subsequent trial harmed AIPAC's reputation, destroyed both men's careers, and did untold damage to the reputation of both the State of Israel and its American Jewish supporters. That it took five years for the Justice Department to drop these outrageous charges is a testament to the strength of the FBI's commitment to criminalizing American Jewish advocates of a strong US-Israel alliance.
And then there is Rice's secret cable. Just days before the 2008 presidential elections, the secretary of state instructed US diplomats in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA to conduct a massive espionage operation against Israel. The sought for information covered all aspects of Israel's political system, society, communications infrastructures and the IDF.
Regarding the IDF, for instance, among other things, diplomats and spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria and probe the attitudes of military commanders. They were also told to gather information on “IDF units, equipment, maintenance levels, training, morale, and operational readiness[;] IDF tactics, techniques and procedures for conducting conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations[; and] Israeli assessment of the impact of reserve duty in the territories on IDF readiness.”
As for political leaders, among other things, Rice instructed diplomats and spies to provide detailed information about government plans; influences on politicians; how politicians decide to launch military strikes; what Israel's leaders think about the US; and much more.
Rice also sought information about various aspects of Israeli society. Rice instructed US diplomats and spies to gather information on everything from, “Information on and motivations for any increased Israeli population emigration from Israel,” to detailed information on Israeli “settlers” in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.
Regarding the “settlers,” among other things, Rice wanted information on, “Divisions among various settlement groups[;] details on settlement-related budgets and subsidies[;] settlers' relationships with the Israeli political and military establishment including their lobbying and settlement methods.”
Rice expressed deep interest as well in all details related to Israel's military and non-military communications infrastructure. For instance, she directed US officials to gather information on “Current specifications, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and planned upgrades to national telecommunications infrastructure, networks, and technologies used by government and military authorities, intelligence and security services, and the public sector.”
Finally, Rice wanted personal data on Israeli leaders. She asked for “official and personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of principal civilian and military leaders.”
TAKEN SIDE-BY-SIDE, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.
But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US. That is, whereas two thirds of Americans support Israel, a minority constituency in the US government treats Israel with scorn and hatred.
And the question that arises from this is how is this minority able to get away with it?
Part of the answer was exposed this week in the aftermath of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's move on Monday morning to break ranks with the Labor Party. To understand how the two issues are related it is important to understand the plight of Labor since the demise of the peace process with the PLO in 2000.
Since the peace process ended with the beginning of the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have viewed Labor's policies of appeasement at all cost as dangerous and wrong. That is, since 2000, Labor's policies have been the policies of the political fringe. This situation has only grown worse for Labor since Hamas's takeover of Gaza and victory in the Palestinian elections held in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Despite the fact that its policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled Labor to continue to present itself as a mainstream ruling party.
The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice since the birth of modern Israel, since the demise of the peace process, the media have helped the likes of Labor by demonizing the Right, and rightist politicians and particularly Likud. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have engaged in the politics of personal destruction against right wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Likud and the Right is too high for many Israelis to bear.
At the same time, the media have colluded with the Left to present Leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept rightist leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.
The second reason that Labor was able to retain its mantle as a ruling party is that it has enjoyed the energetic support of the State Department and European governments which both support its radical policies.
Until the formation of the Netanyahu government two years ago, Labor was the State Department's favorite political party. Labor leaders from Shimon Peres down were the objects of constant attention and praise. Labor's leaders in turn were happy to help the Americans and Europeans hide their basic hostility towards Israel by claiming that their anti-Israel policies were actually pro-Israel policies.
So it was that in 2003 Labor leaders actively colluded with the State Department in drafting the so-called Roadmap plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's opposition to the plan.
Labor's importance took a hit with the formation of Kadima in late 2005. Comprised of newly minted leftists from Likud led by Sharon and veteran leftists from Labor like Peres, Kadima inherited Labor's mantle as the Left's new ruling party. Labor was able to retain its relevance to the US by joining Olmert's coalition and advocating even more radical policies than those advocated by Olmert and Livni.
But then Likud and the Right won the 2009 elections. Kadima, led by Livni, went into the opposition and Labor, under Barak joined the coalition.
As head of the opposition, Livni has become ever more vocal in advocating the policies of the radical Left and the Obama administration. Livni has placed the blame for the absence of the peace process and for the Obama administration's sour relations with Israel squarely and entirely on Netanyahu's shoulders.
For his part, Barak has been stuck in an untenable situation. To justify his partnership with Netanyahu, he worked closely with the Obama administration and actively lobbied Netanyahu to adopt the US's favored positions. The Obama administration rewarded him by regularly hosting him in Washington and openly extolling him as its chosen “Israeli foreign minister.”
But given both his own party's radicalism and the Obama administration's hostility towards Netanyahu, Barak was never able to fully satisfy either his party or the Americans. He was never able to move to the Left of Livni.
According to Haaretz and to Labor leaders who opposed Barak, the end of the line for Barak came early this month with Haaretz's publication of a report claiming that the Obama administration had soured on Barak due to his failure to convince Netanyahu to extend the Jewish construction ban in Judea and Samaria for an additional 90 days. Livni, Haaretz reported, had replaced Barak as the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician.
Since the article was published, Barak could no longer maintain the contradiction between Labor's radical policies and its protestations to ruling party status. Without American support, there was no way to keep Labor together.
This is why, when he announced his break with Labor on Monday morning, Barak explained that Labor had become a radical party that was home to post-Zionists who believe that Israel alone is to blame for the absence of peace. The post-Zionists rejected him when he lost his international support. So he had nowhere to go but into Netanyahu's waiting Zionist arms.
This is also why Livni and Kadima have so harshly attacked Barak. In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Livni – whose political career owes entirely to her decision to betray Likud voters – called Barak's split from Labor “the dirtiest act,” in history. More importantly, the woman who claims that Netanyahu is solely to blame for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and that he is wrong not to bow to every US demand protested, “For Barak to call whoever wants peace post-Zionist is unheard of.”
THIS BRINGS us back to the FBI's anti-Israel witch hunt and Rice's spy cable.
Barak lost his ability to serve as the puppet of the anti-Israel wing of the US government because he was unable to both serve under Netanyahu and overthrow him. By pressuring Barak to do the impossible, the anti-Israel officials in the US government inadvertently caused the demise of the Labor Party. However, with Kadima under Livni, these officials can take heart. Their support for Livni makes her powerful. Owing to their support, Livni is able to maintain her control over the largest party in the Knesset.
And as long as Livni remains both powerful and loyal to their agenda, those forces in the US government that despise the Jewish state will be able to rest easy. Although the majority of Americans want their government to support Israel, shielded by Kadima, these US government officials will be able to continue to implement policies that treat Israel with the contempt due to a banana republic.
Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.
So it was that in 2003 Labor leaders actively colluded with the State Department in drafting the so-called Roadmap plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's opposition to the plan.
Labor's importance took a hit with the formation of Kadima in late 2005. Comprised of newly minted leftists from Likud led by Sharon and veteran leftists from Labor like Peres, Kadima inherited Labor's mantle as the Left's new ruling party. Labor was able to retain its relevance to the US by joining Olmert's coalition and advocating even more radical policies than those advocated by Olmert and Livni.
But then Likud and the Right won the 2009 elections. Kadima, led by Livni, went into the opposition and Labor, under Barak joined the coalition. As head of the opposition, Livni has become ever more vocal in advocating the policies of the radical Left and the Obama administration. Livni has placed the blame for the absence of the peace process and for the Obama administration's sour relations with Israel squarely and entirely on Netanyahu's shoulders.
For his part, Barak has been stuck in an untenable situation. To justify his partnership with Netanyahu, he worked closely with the Obama administration and actively lobbied Netanyahu to adopt the US's favored positions. The Obama administration rewarded him by regularly hosting him in Washington and openly extolling him as its chosen “Israeli foreign minister.”
But given both his own party's radicalism and the Obama administration's hostility towards Netanyahu, Barak was never able to fully satisfy either his party or the Americans. He was never able to move to the Left of Livni.
According to Haaretz and to Labor leaders who opposed Barak, the end of the line for Barak came early this month with Haaretz's publication of a report claiming that the Obama administration had soured on Barak due to his failure to convince Netanyahu to extend the Jewish construction ban in Judea and Samaria for an additional 90 days. Livni, Haaretz reported, had replaced Barak as the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician.
Since the article was published, Barak could no longer maintain the contradiction between Labor's radical policies and its protestations to ruling party status. Without American support, there was no way to keep Labor together.
This is why, when he announced his break with Labor on Monday morning, Barak explained that Labor had become a radical party that was home to post-Zionists who believe that Israel alone is to blame for the absence of peace. The post-Zionists rejected him when he lost his international support. So he had nowhere to go but into Netanyahu's waiting Zionist arms.
This is also why Livni and Kadima have so harshly attacked Barak. In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Livni – whose political career owes entirely to her decision to betray Likud voters – called Barak's split from Labor “the dirtiest act,” in history. More importantly, the woman who claims that Netanyahu is solely to blame for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and that he is wrong not to bow to every US demand protested, “For Barak to call whoever wants peace post-Zionist is unheard of.”
THIS BRINGS us back to the FBI's anti-Israel witch hunt and Rice's spy cable.
Barak lost his ability to serve as the puppet of the anti-Israel wing of the US government because he was unable to both serve under Netanyahu and overthrow him. By pressuring Barak to do the impossible, the anti-Israel officials in the US government inadvertently caused the demise of the Labor Party.
However, with Kadima under Livni, these officials can take heart. Their support for Livni makes her powerful. Owing to their support, Livni is able to maintain her control over the largest party in the Knesset.
And as long as Livni remains both powerful and loyal to their agenda, those forces in the US government that despise the Jewish state will be able to rest easy. Although the majority of Americans want their government to support Israel, shielded by Kadima, these US government officials will be able to continue to implement policies that treat Israel with the contempt due to a banana republic.
Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.
The second is WikiLeaks leaked secret Sate Department cable from October 2008 signed by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice directing US officials to spy on Israel.
Both indicate that in certain quarters of the American government Israel is viewed as at best a banana republic and at worst an enemy of the US.
The text of the FBI affidavit directed against Rosen makes clear that the FBI had no particular reason to suspect that he was an Israeli agent or was harming US national security. Rosen's activities during his tenure as AIPAC's senior lobbyist as described in the affidavit -meeting with government officials, journalists and Israeli diplomats — were precisely the type of activities that lobbyists in Washington routinely engage in.
Despite this the FBI followed Rosen for five years and indicted him and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman on felony charges under the all-but-forgotten 1917 Espionage Act. The FBI probe and subsequent trial harmed AIPAC's reputation, destroyed both men's careers, and did untold damage to the reputation of both the State of Israel and its American Jewish supporters. That it took five years for the Justice Department to drop these outrageous charges is a testament to the strength of the FBI's commitment to criminalizing American Jewish advocates of a strong US-Israel alliance.
And then there is Rice's secret cable. Just days before the 2008 presidential elections, the secretary of state instructed US diplomats in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA to conduct a massive espionage operation against Israel. The sought for information covered all aspects of Israel's political system, society, communications infrastructures and the IDF.
Regarding the IDF, for instance, among other things, diplomats and spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria and probe the attitudes of military commanders. They were also told to gather information on “IDF units, equipment, maintenance levels, training, morale, and operational readiness[;] IDF tactics, techniques and procedures for conducting conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations[; and] Israeli assessment of the impact of reserve duty in the territories on IDF readiness.”
As for political leaders, among other things, Rice instructed diplomats and spies to provide detailed information about government plans; influences on politicians; how politicians decide to launch military strikes; what Israel's leaders think about the US; and much more.
Rice also sought information about various aspects of Israeli society. Rice instructed US diplomats and spies to gather information on everything from, “Information on and motivations for any increased Israeli population emigration from Israel,” to detailed information on Israeli “settlers” in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.
Regarding the “settlers,” among other things, Rice wanted information on, “Divisions among various settlement groups[;] details on settlement-related budgets and subsidies[;] settlers' relationships with the Israeli political and military establishment including their lobbying and settlement methods.”
Rice expressed deep interest as well in all details related to Israel's military and non-military communications infrastructure. For instance, she directed US officials to gather information on “Current specifications, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and planned upgrades to national telecommunications infrastructure, networks, and technologies used by government and military authorities, intelligence and security services, and the public sector.”
Finally, Rice wanted personal data on Israeli leaders. She asked for “official and personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of principal civilian and military leaders.”
TAKEN SIDE-BY-SIDE, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.
But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US. That is, whereas two thirds of Americans support Israel, a minority constituency in the US government treats Israel with scorn and hatred.
And the question that arises from this is how is this minority able to get away with it?
Part of the answer was exposed this week in the aftermath of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's move on Monday morning to break ranks with the Labor Party. To understand how the two issues are related it is important to understand the plight of Labor since the demise of the peace process with the PLO in 2000.
Since the peace process ended with the beginning of the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have viewed Labor's policies of appeasement at all cost as dangerous and wrong. That is, since 2000, Labor's policies have been the policies of the political fringe. This situation has only grown worse for Labor since Hamas's takeover of Gaza and victory in the Palestinian elections held in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Despite the fact that its policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled Labor to continue to present itself as a mainstream ruling party.
The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice since the birth of modern Israel, since the demise of the peace process, the media have helped the likes of Labor by demonizing the Right, and rightist politicians and particularly Likud. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have engaged in the politics of personal destruction against right wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Likud and the Right is too high for many Israelis to bear.
At the same time, the media have colluded with the Left to present Leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept rightist leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.
The second reason that Labor was able to retain its mantle as a ruling party is that it has enjoyed the energetic support of the State Department and European governments which both support its radical policies.
Until the formation of the Netanyahu government two years ago, Labor was the State Department's favorite political party. Labor leaders from Shimon Peres down were the objects of constant attention and praise. Labor's leaders in turn were happy to help the Americans and Europeans hide their basic hostility towards Israel by claiming that their anti-Israel policies were actually pro-Israel policies.
Two documents reported on this week shed a troubling light on the US government's attitude toward Israel. The first is a 27-page FBI search warrant affidavit from 2004 targeting then senior AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen, published Wednesday in The Washington Times.
The second is WikiLeaks leaked secret Sate Department cable from October 2008 signed by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice directing US officials to spy on Israel.
Both indicate that in certain quarters of the American government Israel is viewed as at best a banana republic and at worst an enemy of the US.
The text of the FBI affidavit directed against Rosen makes clear that the FBI had no particular reason to suspect that he was an Israeli agent or was harming US national security. Rosen's activities during his tenure as AIPAC's senior lobbyist as described in the affidavit -meeting with government officials, journalists and Israeli diplomats — were precisely the type of activities that lobbyists in Washington routinely engage in.
Despite this the FBI followed Rosen for five years and indicted him and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman on felony charges under the all-but-forgotten 1917 Espionage Act. The FBI probe and subsequent trial harmed AIPAC's reputation, destroyed both men's careers, and did untold damage to the reputation of both the State of Israel and its American Jewish supporters. That it took five years for the Justice Department to drop these outrageous charges is a testament to the strength of the FBI's commitment to criminalizing American Jewish advocates of a strong US-Israel alliance.
And then there is Rice's secret cable. Just days before the 2008 presidential elections, the secretary of state instructed US diplomats in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA to conduct a massive espionage operation against Israel. The sought for information covered all aspects of Israel's political system, society, communications infrastructures and the IDF.
Regarding the IDF, for instance, among other things, diplomats and spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria and probe the attitudes of military commanders. They were also told to gather information on “IDF units, equipment, maintenance levels, training, morale, and operational readiness[;] IDF tactics, techniques and procedures for conducting conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations[; and] Israeli assessment of the impact of reserve duty in the territories on IDF readiness.”
As for political leaders, among other things, Rice instructed diplomats and spies to provide detailed information about government plans; influences on politicians; how politicians decide to launch military strikes; what Israel's leaders think about the US; and much more.
Rice also sought information about various aspects of Israeli society. Rice instructed US diplomats and spies to gather information on everything from, “Information on and motivations for any increased Israeli population emigration from Israel,” to detailed information on Israeli “settlers” in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.
Regarding the “settlers,” among other things, Rice wanted information on, “Divisions among various settlement groups[;] details on settlement-related budgets and subsidies[;] settlers' relationships with the Israeli political and military establishment including their lobbying and settlement methods.”
Rice expressed deep interest as well in all details related to Israel's military and non-military communications infrastructure. For instance, she directed US officials to gather information on “Current specifications, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and planned upgrades to national telecommunications infrastructure, networks, and technologies used by government and military authorities, intelligence and security services, and the public sector.”
Finally, Rice wanted personal data on Israeli leaders. She asked for “official and personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of principal civilian and military leaders.”
TAKEN SIDE-BY-SIDE, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.
But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US. That is, whereas two thirds of Americans support Israel, a minority constituency in the US government treats Israel with scorn and hatred.
And the question that arises from this is how is this minority able to get away with it?
Part of the answer was exposed this week in the aftermath of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's move on Monday morning to break ranks with the Labor Party. To understand how the two issues are related it is important to understand the plight of Labor since the demise of the peace process with the PLO in 2000.
Since the peace process ended with the beginning of the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have viewed Labor's policies of appeasement at all cost as dangerous and wrong. That is, since 2000, Labor's policies have been the policies of the political fringe. This situation has only grown worse for Labor since Hamas's takeover of Gaza and victory in the Palestinian elections held in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Despite the fact that its policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled Labor to continue to present itself as a mainstream ruling party.
The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice since the birth of modern Israel, since the demise of the peace process, the media have helped the likes of Labor by demonizing the Right, and rightist politicians and particularly Likud. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have engaged in the politics of personal destruction against right wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Likud and the Right is too high for many Israelis to bear.
At the same time, the media have colluded with the Left to present Leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept rightist leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.
The second reason that Labor was able to retain its mantle as a ruling party is that it has enjoyed the energetic support of the State Department and European governments which both support its radical policies.
Until the formation of the Netanyahu government two years ago, Labor was the State Department's favorite political party. Labor leaders from Shimon Peres down were the objects of constant attention and praise. Labor's leaders in turn were happy to help the Americans and Europeans hide their basic hostility towards Israel by claiming that their anti-Israel policies were actually pro-Israel policies.
So it was that in 2003 Labor leaders actively colluded with the State Department in drafting the so-called Roadmap plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's opposition to the plan.
Labor's importance took a hit with the formation of Kadima in late 2005. Comprised of newly minted leftists from Likud led by Sharon and veteran leftists from Labor like Peres, Kadima inherited Labor's mantle as the Left's new ruling party. Labor was able to retain its relevance to the US by joining Olmert's coalition and advocating even more radical policies than those advocated by Olmert and Livni.
But then Likud and the Right won the 2009 elections. Kadima, led by Livni, went into the opposition and Labor, under Barak joined the coalition.
As head of the opposition, Livni has become ever more vocal in advocating the policies of the radical Left and the Obama administration. Livni has placed the blame for the absence of the peace process and for the Obama administration's sour relations with Israel squarely and entirely on Netanyahu's shoulders.
For his part, Barak has been stuck in an untenable situation. To justify his partnership with Netanyahu, he worked closely with the Obama administration and actively lobbied Netanyahu to adopt the US's favored positions. The Obama administration rewarded him by regularly hosting him in Washington and openly extolling him as its chosen “Israeli foreign minister.”
But given both his own party's radicalism and the Obama administration's hostility towards Netanyahu, Barak was never able to fully satisfy either his party or the Americans. He was never able to move to the Left of Livni.
According to Haaretz and to Labor leaders who opposed Barak, the end of the line for Barak came early this month with Haaretz's publication of a report claiming that the Obama administration had soured on Barak due to his failure to convince Netanyahu to extend the Jewish construction ban in Judea and Samaria for an additional 90 days. Livni, Haaretz reported, had replaced Barak as the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician.
Since the article was published, Barak could no longer maintain the contradiction between Labor's radical policies and its protestations to ruling party status. Without American support, there was no way to keep Labor together.
This is why, when he announced his break with Labor on Monday morning, Barak explained that Labor had become a radical party that was home to post-Zionists who believe that Israel alone is to blame for the absence of peace. The post-Zionists rejected him when he lost his international support. So he had nowhere to go but into Netanyahu's waiting Zionist arms.
This is also why Livni and Kadima have so harshly attacked Barak. In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Livni – whose political career owes entirely to her decision to betray Likud voters – called Barak's split from Labor “the dirtiest act,” in history. More importantly, the woman who claims that Netanyahu is solely to blame for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and that he is wrong not to bow to every US demand protested, “For Barak to call whoever wants peace post-Zionist is unheard of.”
THIS BRINGS us back to the FBI's anti-Israel witch hunt and Rice's spy cable.
Barak lost his ability to serve as the puppet of the anti-Israel wing of the US government because he was unable to both serve under Netanyahu and overthrow him. By pressuring Barak to do the impossible, the anti-Israel officials in the US government inadvertently caused the demise of the Labor Party. However, with Kadima under Livni, these officials can take heart. Their support for Livni makes her powerful. Owing to their support, Livni is able to maintain her control over the largest party in the Knesset.
And as long as Livni remains both powerful and loyal to their agenda, those forces in the US government that despise the Jewish state will be able to rest easy. Although the majority of Americans want their government to support Israel, shielded by Kadima, these US government officials will be able to continue to implement policies that treat Israel with the contempt due to a banana republic.
Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.
So it was that in 2003 Labor leaders actively colluded with the State Department in drafting the so-called Roadmap plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's opposition to the plan.
Labor's importance took a hit with the formation of Kadima in late 2005. Comprised of newly minted leftists from Likud led by Sharon and veteran leftists from Labor like Peres, Kadima inherited Labor's mantle as the Left's new ruling party. Labor was able to retain its relevance to the US by joining Olmert's coalition and advocating even more radical policies than those advocated by Olmert and Livni.
But then Likud and the Right won the 2009 elections. Kadima, led by Livni, went into the opposition and Labor, under Barak joined the coalition. As head of the opposition, Livni has become ever more vocal in advocating the policies of the radical Left and the Obama administration. Livni has placed the blame for the absence of the peace process and for the Obama administration's sour relations with Israel squarely and entirely on Netanyahu's shoulders.
For his part, Barak has been stuck in an untenable situation. To justify his partnership with Netanyahu, he worked closely with the Obama administration and actively lobbied Netanyahu to adopt the US's favored positions. The Obama administration rewarded him by regularly hosting him in Washington and openly extolling him as its chosen “Israeli foreign minister.”
But given both his own party's radicalism and the Obama administration's hostility towards Netanyahu, Barak was never able to fully satisfy either his party or the Americans. He was never able to move to the Left of Livni.
According to Haaretz and to Labor leaders who opposed Barak, the end of the line for Barak came early this month with Haaretz's publication of a report claiming that the Obama administration had soured on Barak due to his failure to convince Netanyahu to extend the Jewish construction ban in Judea and Samaria for an additional 90 days. Livni, Haaretz reported, had replaced Barak as the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician.
Since the article was published, Barak could no longer maintain the contradiction between Labor's radical policies and its protestations to ruling party status. Without American support, there was no way to keep Labor together.
This is why, when he announced his break with Labor on Monday morning, Barak explained that Labor had become a radical party that was home to post-Zionists who believe that Israel alone is to blame for the absence of peace. The post-Zionists rejected him when he lost his international support. So he had nowhere to go but into Netanyahu's waiting Zionist arms.
This is also why Livni and Kadima have so harshly attacked Barak. In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Livni – whose political career owes entirely to her decision to betray Likud voters – called Barak's split from Labor “the dirtiest act,” in history. More importantly, the woman who claims that Netanyahu is solely to blame for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and that he is wrong not to bow to every US demand protested, “For Barak to call whoever wants peace post-Zionist is unheard of.”
THIS BRINGS us back to the FBI's anti-Israel witch hunt and Rice's spy cable.
Barak lost his ability to serve as the puppet of the anti-Israel wing of the US government because he was unable to both serve under Netanyahu and overthrow him. By pressuring Barak to do the impossible, the anti-Israel officials in the US government inadvertently caused the demise of the Labor Party.
However, with Kadima under Livni, these officials can take heart. Their support for Livni makes her powerful. Owing to their support, Livni is able to maintain her control over the largest party in the Knesset.
And as long as Livni remains both powerful and loyal to their agenda, those forces in the US government that despise the Jewish state will be able to rest easy. Although the majority of Americans want their government to support Israel, shielded by Kadima, these US government officials will be able to continue to implement policies that treat Israel with the contempt due to a banana republic.
Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.
HEALTH CARE: PHONEY FIGURES BY CBO
Daily Policy Digest
* Receive the Daily Policy Digest via Email
* Receive the Daily Policy Digest via an RSS Newsfeed
* Receive the Daily Policy Digest via Cell Phone
* Daily Policy Digest Archive
Health Issues
January 21, 2011
Health Care Repeal Won't Add to the Deficit
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the coming decade and by a modest amount in the decade after that. A close examination of the CBO's work and other evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion, according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO, Joseph Antos, former assistant director at the CBO and James C. Capretta, former associate director at the Office of Management and Budget.
If the CBO is right, 32 million people will be added to the health entitlement rolls at a cost of $938 billion through 2019, and growing faster than the economy or revenues thereafter. How, then, does the ACA magically convert $1 trillion in new spending into painless deficit reduction? Through budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions.
* For starters, $1 trillion is a low-ball estimate, covering only six -- not 10 -- years of subsidies that do not begin until 2014.
* Over 10 years of full implementation, it's more like $2.3 trillion.
The deepest spending cuts in the ACA are in Medicare. No doubt Medicare needs real reform, but the ACA's cuts are illusory. Medicare's payments to health care providers would fall below those of Medicaid. The network of hospitals and physicians willing to care for Medicaid patients is notoriously constrained, say Holtz-Eakin, Antos and Capretta.
* About 15 percent of the nation's hospitals would have to stop seeing Medicare patients in just a few years to stem their losses.
* What's worse, ACA's advocates are double-counting this fictional savings, claiming it can pay both for the ACA's entitlements and Medicare solvency too.
* The truth is, these cuts cannot be relied upon to pay for anything.
So, even if the CBO's analysis were flawless, the authors of the ACA guaranteed a misleading bottom line. Their legislative prescriptions were written to create deficit reduction only on paper -- not in reality.
Source: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Joseph Antos and James C. Capretta, "Health Care Repeal Won't Add to the Deficit," Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2011.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089702354292100.html
For more on Health Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16
//////////////////////////////////////
Rich Galen
The chatter around Your Nation's Capital among the cognoscenti, the intelligentsia, and smarty-pantses over the past 24 hours was: Is there any real meaning to the House vote to repeal Obamacare?
That may not be as poetic as Paul Simon's lyric from his 1966 song Dangling Conversation: We speak of things that matter;
With words that must be said:
"Can analysis be worthwhile;
Is the theater really dead?"
The answer might have been "No. It was all eye wash," but the House Republican Policy Committee followed right on the heels of that vote with a list of programs and policies which, if adopted, would save $2.5 trillion (with a "T") over the next 10 years.
Someone far wiser than I once said that every line in the United States Internal Revenue Code has a constituent. So it is with every dollar which is spent by the Federal government.
Here are some of the big cuts:
A 15 percent reduction in the number of civilian Federal employees. This would be accomplished by attrition rather than outright firings. According to the plan only one employee could be hired for every two who left until the reduction number was met. The Committee doesn't break out the amount which would be saved, but says it is part of the overall $2.29 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over 10 years.It also doesn't say whether it applies just to the Executive Branch, or also would be applied to the Legislative and Judicial Branches.
Some cuts are called for in programs I didn't even know existed. As an example, cutting out the "Hope VI Program" will save $250 million per year. I looked it up for you. According to the HUD.GOV web page: "The HOPE VI Program was developed as a result of recommendations by National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, which was charged with proposing a National Action Plan to eradicate severely distressed public housing."
There. Now you know as much as I do.
Amtrak is heavily subsidized. To the tune of $1.565 billion per year. Let's round down to $1.5 billion per year. I use Amtrak to travel to New York from Washington, DC, but I don't think I'm worth a billion and a half per.
The plan calls for cutting the Federal Travel Budget in half which will save $7.5 billion per year. Again, it is not clear whether this includes Congressional travel, but I have a suggestion: Only allow members of the House and Senate to travel to their home States or Districts six times per year on the public dole. More than that, they have to use campaign funds.
Japanese View of the' Palestinians' and Chinese bias
Brilliant analysis: Japanese View of the 'Palestinians'
Gasp . . . you mean that the arabs have been lying to us, all the while cheating, stealing from and killing the Jews? How uncharacteristic of them.
Japanese View of the' Palestinians'
cid:1.3784564179@web83604.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
Is the world just plain stupid?
An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates
By Yashiko Sagamori
If you are so sure that " Palestine",the country, goes back through most of recorded history," I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. Since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza , respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel 's ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria .
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
For Israel, and Justice
Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
So Yashiko Sagamori is a pseudonym
Link from IsraPundit: Part 2 from "Yashiko Sagamori". It is long, but well worth the read.
It's All about Jews, Part 2
A wonderful exchange by an outraged Chinese e-mailer, complaining that Yashiko Sagamori (not the writer's real name) ignores the major contributions and importance of China and instead to devotes so much space and energy to the tiny and insignificant Israel. And Sagamori's great rejoinder. This is via e-mail and thus has no URL, though the writer's site is listed.
A friend of mine has forwarded me your June 30th article titled: “All about Jews”, and as a Chinese, I feel deeply offended by it. Are your articles intended exclusively for Jewish consumption, and no Chinese are welcome to read them?
There have been no major events in the lives of Israel and the Jews during the last couple of weeks, so probably you had been afraid that your readers may forget you, and you wrote this senseless piece that has no any new information but repeat old Jewish assertions about being offended by the hostile world. As an example for comparison, this time you chose my country of origin. This is what you wrote:
“Compare, for example, two ancient nations, China and Israel. About a quarter of the world's population are Chinese. China is occupying Tibet and is waiting for an opportunity to gobble up Taiwan. Its systematic, daily human rights violations have by far surpassed the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union combined, which is quite an extraordinary achievement. It is the only country in the world that routinely executes thousands of convicts every year in order to harvest their organs for sale.
Jews, on the other hand, barely amount to one quarter of one percent of the world's population. The number of Jews in Israel is just about one one-thousandth of all people on earth. For more than half of its long history, Israel was banished from its homeland. In the last 2,000 years, it never committed or even contemplated an act of aggression. It never occupied even a square inch of foreign land illegally. Whatever territory it has gained by force was won in defensive wars, which, according to international law, makes the winner legally entitled to keep it — unless the winner is Israel, of course. Obeying its special status according to this rule, Israel has voluntarily ceded most of its gained territories to its enemies, hoping to assuage their hostility; as we know, that didn't work. Needless to say, Israel has never attempted to force its enemies to compensate it for the terrible losses inflicted on its people by the ongoing Arab aggression.”
What do you think about me starting a web page for the Chinese only (no Jews are welcome) and writing there something like this?
“Compare, for example, two ancient nations, China and Israel. About a quarter of the world's population are Chinese. China has been a home of one of the most creative civilizations in the human history, which invented paper and paper money (2 thousand years ago), book printing, porcelain and china (so-called because the English-speaking world has credited us with this invention), gunpowder etc. It has been a home of the marvelous architecture, enchanting landscape painting, literature and poetry. Today it boasts one of the most vivid economies, and Ms./Mr. Sagamori surely has more Chinese artifacts in her/his household than those imported from any other country. Throughout the history China has been much less aggressive than many other countries — in opposite, it was a frequent victim of foreign aggression. China has always been very tolerable to foreigners, and it is one of the few countries in the world without traces of anti-Semitism. In the Middle Ages there was a rather large Jewish community in China, but it peacefully disappeared by assimilation because there were no prosecutions at all. In the 20th century China hosted many Jewish refugees from the Nazi Europe. Thanks to a foreign financial help, those Jews frequently lived better than the surrounding population, but still there was no trace of hostility whatsoever.
Jews, on the other hand, barely amount to one quarter of one percent of the world's population. The number of Jews in Israel is just about one one-thousandth of all people on earth. Still, this nation is rather known for its aggresive behavior. To find out about it, we do not need to read the notorious 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'; but we'd rather turn to the Jewish Bible. This is how the capture of Palestine about 2500 years ago is described in the Book of Joshua, 6/21 & 24: 'And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass with the edge of the sword... And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein.' Their famous mutual hatred brought the destruction of the Benjamin tribe (Judges, 20). In our times they occupied the land with a huge Arab population and has been maintaining the occupation during 37 years in spite of a strong protest of the Arabs. They sprinkled the land with their own settlements that is in obvious violation of the international law, which requires the occupying power not to change the character of the occupied land. Under great pressure and as a result of rebellion of the population they involuntarily ceded some of its gained territories. Israel has never compensated the millions refugees it has displaced for their terrible losses. The Jews do not have many friends in the earth, and to create an impression that they do have some among the Japanese, a Jewish girl or boy from Brooklyn has assumed a pen name Yashiko Sagamori. She-He is so xenophobic and right-wing that even such a friend of Israel as President Bush is no good for him/her, and She-He joins forces with an extreme left-wing guy Michael Moore and writes that Bush has 'close personal ties with the Saudi rulers'!”
How would you like me publishing this kind of newspaper, Sensei Sagamori? Every significant ancient nation — Chinese and Jews among them — has many facts to be proud of and some facts to be ashamed of. It is grossly unfair to choose bad facts for another nation but only good ones for your own folk. In this way you will never gain any friends. With respect,
Sincerely yours,
Sun Man Chen
manchen41@hotmail.com
Dear Mr./Ms. Sun Man Chen,
Many readers write to me how much they appreciate my views and the way I express them. Obviously, I enjoy letters that praise me; however, we both know that constructive criticism helps one keep one's skills sharp. Unfortunately, most critical responses I receive come from angry Arabs and aren't really that constructive. This is the first time I have received a letter from an angry Chinese person, and I enjoyed it tremendously. Please convey my gratitude to your friend for forwarding my article to you.
Although I represent a distinctly Jewish point of view, I do not write exclusively for the Jews. Everyone, including Chinese, is welcome to my articles, and if there is something they don't like — well, this is still a free country. Since I wasn't trying to put anyone down, I sincerely regret offending you. At the same time, I'd like to point out to you that even though I failed to provide a full historical analysis of Chinese achievements throughout the ages, whatever little I said about your country was accurate, unlike most of the things you wrote about Israel. I was comparing Israel to China, trying to show that, despite the stark contrast in the sizes of their population, Israel has influenced Western civilization with much greater impact than China has.
A fair measure of a nation's contribution to civilization is the number of Nobel Prize winners among its members. I'm sure you aware that while Chinese outnumber Jews more than 100 to 1, Jewish Nobel Laureats outnumber Chinese Nobel Laureates at least 50 to 1. If this simple math makes you feel uncomfortable, please feel free to conclude that Jews control the Nobel Prize Committee.
Like most of my readers, I am well aware that paper, gunpowder, rockets, china, and many, many other wonderful things were first invented by the Chinese centuries ago, while Jews didn't even begin inventing things until the Industrial Revolution. (If you follow me carefully, you can tell me at this point how much I am omitting: the discovery of monotheism, the idea of universal preciousness of every single life, the distinction between right and wrong, and a few other equally vague concepts that form the ethical basis of our civilization. And if you're looking for more tangible contributions, then how about banking?) Unfortunately, by the time the Industrial Revolution unfolded, the Chinese, for whatever reason, dropped out of the invention business. Obviously, this is not because your people are less intelligent than any other people on earth. Judging from the huge number of brilliant, successful Chinese scientists in the West, I can only offer the backwardness of the mainland Chinese society as a possible explanation for the fact that your country has remained on the periphery of Western civilization, while Israel has always been at its center.
You may argue that China, unlike Israel, is a civilization in itself, and I will agree with you wholeheartedly. But I was writing specifically about Judeo-Christian civilization, of which China even today is not really a part. You invented rockets, but to launch your satellites you have to use second hand technology that comes from the West — some of it bought, some stolen. You invented gunpowder, but the Chinese assault rifle is, essentially, a copy of the Russian AK-47. You invented paper, but Israel prints more books per capita than you do. I believe you when you say that Chinese poetry may be breathtakingly beautiful, but you know as well as I do that it does not translate into Western languages, which guarantees that I will never be able to appreciate its beauty. And while the West had to reinvent much of what your folks had invented so many centuries earlier, some of your achievements have never been repeated. For example, those tiny little shoes that have turned generations of Chinese women into cripples. And should we count the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap among your people's accomplishments or should we pretend they have never happened so you wouldn't be offended by those references?
I'm sure you have mighty counter-arguments ready for everything I say. The problem is, I state facts, while you, out of either malice or ignorance, resort to libel against my people. To prove it, I would like to point some of the many inaccuracies in your letter.
You write: “In our times [the Jews] occupied the land with a huge Arab population and have been maintaining the occupation during 37 years in spite of a strong protest of the Arabs.” In fact, Arabs do not protest against the “occupation”; they protest against the very existence of Israel. They have never even tried to conceal their genocidal intentions. At the same time, those Israeli Arabs, who are not involved in terrorism, live in Israel unmolested and enjoy freedoms that are not available to them in any Arab country — or, I believe, to most Chinese in China. As to the proverbial cruelty of the Israeli “occupation” of Israel's own land, I'm sure you will appreciate the fact that the number of Arab terrorists killed by the IDF during the four years of the ongoing intifada remains far below the number of unarmed protesters killed by your government in the course of just two days on Tiananmen Square.
Like many others, you vaguely refer to “international laws” that, in your opinion, demand Israel to surrender its territory to its enemies. Somehow, so far, no one has been able to provide a specific reference to an applicable article of that law. Can it be because no such article exists? Or do you find it perfectly natural that some kind of international law against Jews in general must be on the books?
You write: “Israel has never compensated the millions refugees it has displaced for their terrible losses.” Millions? Are you sure? Can you tell exactly how many “millions” were displaced by Israel and under what circumstances, or are you mindlessly repeating anti-Semitic propaganda? If you believe yourself to be a fair person, shouldn't you ask why Arab countries have never compensated the terrible losses suffered by over 900,000 of Jews forced after World War II out of their homes and stripped of all their possessions throughout the Middle East, in some cases, uprooting communities that had been there long before Arabs conquered those lands?
Being one of a billion and a half, you probably consider 6 million mere peanuts. And yet, shouldn't you ask why the world has never attempted to compensate the Jews for the terrible losses inflicted on us in the Holocaust? Or for the 2,000 years of relentless persecution for crimes we had never committed? And since these questions, obviously, did not come to your mind, you will have to forgive me if I refuse to consider you a fair person.
You liberally quote the Old Testament; have you missed the part where God grants all this land to the Jews?
You write: “There have been no major events in the lives of Israel and the Jews during the last couple of weeks”. Are you lamenting the brief lull in terrorist acts against Israel? Imagine what your reaction would've been had Israel bombed an Arab kindergarten. But when Arabs bomb an Israeli kindergarten and kill a three-year-old and a grandfather, it's no major event to you.
You call me “a Jewish boy or girl from Brooklyn”. Not even mentioning the fact that you don't really know my age, do you realize how incredibly, stereotypically bigoted (and, incidentally, very wrong) your assumption is?
Chinese “artifacts” in my home? Their existence stems from the fact that your impoverished countrymen are willing to slave for the lowest wages that exist on earth. Are you calling that an achievement?
In an attempt to characterize my political standing, you call me “extreme right wing” and, in the very next sentence, put me in the same camp with Michael Moor. Has it occurred to you that I am simply trying to write the truth, and the truth has very little to do with whatever labels you may have in your polemic arsenal?
You admonish me for not helping Jews to make friends. No, I am not. We have never had friends; we have always lived surrounded by enemies, and this is how it will always be. I am just trying to tell my readers the truth about it.
You are asking me how I would feel if you decided to start an anti-Semitic da-dzy-bao. Rest assured: unlike China, this is a free country. Your da-dzy-bao would be just one of many anti-Semitic publications. So, why would I care? One more wouldn't make a difference. Be my guest, make yourself heard. You have already added your voice to the chorus anyway.
And, last but not least, I would like to explain what I like the most about your letter. It's the fact that in it you implicitly admit feeling threatened by the Jews. Of course, you may object that the Chinese traditionally feel threatened by anyone; that's why your compatriots customarily refer to foreigners as foreign devils. Nevertheless, your insecurity confirms the perfect validity of my comparison of Israel to China. It also, by definition, makes you a Judophobe, my friend, and Judophobia is synonymous with anti-Semitism. Your reference to the libelous Protocols confirms my diagnosis. And thus you prove the point I was trying to make in my article: it's all about Jews, always has been, always will be.
Feeling a little jealous?
Sincerely yours,
Yashiko Sagamori
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was written exclusively for the Forwerts.
Please do not reproduce without proper attribution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read my other articles, please visit
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/
Gasp . . . you mean that the arabs have been lying to us, all the while cheating, stealing from and killing the Jews? How uncharacteristic of them.
Japanese View of the' Palestinians'
cid:1.3784564179@web83604.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
Is the world just plain stupid?
An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates
By Yashiko Sagamori
If you are so sure that " Palestine",the country, goes back through most of recorded history," I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. Since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza , respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel 's ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria .
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
For Israel, and Justice
Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
So Yashiko Sagamori is a pseudonym
Link from IsraPundit: Part 2 from "Yashiko Sagamori". It is long, but well worth the read.
It's All about Jews, Part 2
A wonderful exchange by an outraged Chinese e-mailer, complaining that Yashiko Sagamori (not the writer's real name) ignores the major contributions and importance of China and instead to devotes so much space and energy to the tiny and insignificant Israel. And Sagamori's great rejoinder. This is via e-mail and thus has no URL, though the writer's site is listed.
A friend of mine has forwarded me your June 30th article titled: “All about Jews”, and as a Chinese, I feel deeply offended by it. Are your articles intended exclusively for Jewish consumption, and no Chinese are welcome to read them?
There have been no major events in the lives of Israel and the Jews during the last couple of weeks, so probably you had been afraid that your readers may forget you, and you wrote this senseless piece that has no any new information but repeat old Jewish assertions about being offended by the hostile world. As an example for comparison, this time you chose my country of origin. This is what you wrote:
“Compare, for example, two ancient nations, China and Israel. About a quarter of the world's population are Chinese. China is occupying Tibet and is waiting for an opportunity to gobble up Taiwan. Its systematic, daily human rights violations have by far surpassed the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union combined, which is quite an extraordinary achievement. It is the only country in the world that routinely executes thousands of convicts every year in order to harvest their organs for sale.
Jews, on the other hand, barely amount to one quarter of one percent of the world's population. The number of Jews in Israel is just about one one-thousandth of all people on earth. For more than half of its long history, Israel was banished from its homeland. In the last 2,000 years, it never committed or even contemplated an act of aggression. It never occupied even a square inch of foreign land illegally. Whatever territory it has gained by force was won in defensive wars, which, according to international law, makes the winner legally entitled to keep it — unless the winner is Israel, of course. Obeying its special status according to this rule, Israel has voluntarily ceded most of its gained territories to its enemies, hoping to assuage their hostility; as we know, that didn't work. Needless to say, Israel has never attempted to force its enemies to compensate it for the terrible losses inflicted on its people by the ongoing Arab aggression.”
What do you think about me starting a web page for the Chinese only (no Jews are welcome) and writing there something like this?
“Compare, for example, two ancient nations, China and Israel. About a quarter of the world's population are Chinese. China has been a home of one of the most creative civilizations in the human history, which invented paper and paper money (2 thousand years ago), book printing, porcelain and china (so-called because the English-speaking world has credited us with this invention), gunpowder etc. It has been a home of the marvelous architecture, enchanting landscape painting, literature and poetry. Today it boasts one of the most vivid economies, and Ms./Mr. Sagamori surely has more Chinese artifacts in her/his household than those imported from any other country. Throughout the history China has been much less aggressive than many other countries — in opposite, it was a frequent victim of foreign aggression. China has always been very tolerable to foreigners, and it is one of the few countries in the world without traces of anti-Semitism. In the Middle Ages there was a rather large Jewish community in China, but it peacefully disappeared by assimilation because there were no prosecutions at all. In the 20th century China hosted many Jewish refugees from the Nazi Europe. Thanks to a foreign financial help, those Jews frequently lived better than the surrounding population, but still there was no trace of hostility whatsoever.
Jews, on the other hand, barely amount to one quarter of one percent of the world's population. The number of Jews in Israel is just about one one-thousandth of all people on earth. Still, this nation is rather known for its aggresive behavior. To find out about it, we do not need to read the notorious 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'; but we'd rather turn to the Jewish Bible. This is how the capture of Palestine about 2500 years ago is described in the Book of Joshua, 6/21 & 24: 'And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass with the edge of the sword... And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein.' Their famous mutual hatred brought the destruction of the Benjamin tribe (Judges, 20). In our times they occupied the land with a huge Arab population and has been maintaining the occupation during 37 years in spite of a strong protest of the Arabs. They sprinkled the land with their own settlements that is in obvious violation of the international law, which requires the occupying power not to change the character of the occupied land. Under great pressure and as a result of rebellion of the population they involuntarily ceded some of its gained territories. Israel has never compensated the millions refugees it has displaced for their terrible losses. The Jews do not have many friends in the earth, and to create an impression that they do have some among the Japanese, a Jewish girl or boy from Brooklyn has assumed a pen name Yashiko Sagamori. She-He is so xenophobic and right-wing that even such a friend of Israel as President Bush is no good for him/her, and She-He joins forces with an extreme left-wing guy Michael Moore and writes that Bush has 'close personal ties with the Saudi rulers'!”
How would you like me publishing this kind of newspaper, Sensei Sagamori? Every significant ancient nation — Chinese and Jews among them — has many facts to be proud of and some facts to be ashamed of. It is grossly unfair to choose bad facts for another nation but only good ones for your own folk. In this way you will never gain any friends. With respect,
Sincerely yours,
Sun Man Chen
manchen41@hotmail.com
Dear Mr./Ms. Sun Man Chen,
Many readers write to me how much they appreciate my views and the way I express them. Obviously, I enjoy letters that praise me; however, we both know that constructive criticism helps one keep one's skills sharp. Unfortunately, most critical responses I receive come from angry Arabs and aren't really that constructive. This is the first time I have received a letter from an angry Chinese person, and I enjoyed it tremendously. Please convey my gratitude to your friend for forwarding my article to you.
Although I represent a distinctly Jewish point of view, I do not write exclusively for the Jews. Everyone, including Chinese, is welcome to my articles, and if there is something they don't like — well, this is still a free country. Since I wasn't trying to put anyone down, I sincerely regret offending you. At the same time, I'd like to point out to you that even though I failed to provide a full historical analysis of Chinese achievements throughout the ages, whatever little I said about your country was accurate, unlike most of the things you wrote about Israel. I was comparing Israel to China, trying to show that, despite the stark contrast in the sizes of their population, Israel has influenced Western civilization with much greater impact than China has.
A fair measure of a nation's contribution to civilization is the number of Nobel Prize winners among its members. I'm sure you aware that while Chinese outnumber Jews more than 100 to 1, Jewish Nobel Laureats outnumber Chinese Nobel Laureates at least 50 to 1. If this simple math makes you feel uncomfortable, please feel free to conclude that Jews control the Nobel Prize Committee.
Like most of my readers, I am well aware that paper, gunpowder, rockets, china, and many, many other wonderful things were first invented by the Chinese centuries ago, while Jews didn't even begin inventing things until the Industrial Revolution. (If you follow me carefully, you can tell me at this point how much I am omitting: the discovery of monotheism, the idea of universal preciousness of every single life, the distinction between right and wrong, and a few other equally vague concepts that form the ethical basis of our civilization. And if you're looking for more tangible contributions, then how about banking?) Unfortunately, by the time the Industrial Revolution unfolded, the Chinese, for whatever reason, dropped out of the invention business. Obviously, this is not because your people are less intelligent than any other people on earth. Judging from the huge number of brilliant, successful Chinese scientists in the West, I can only offer the backwardness of the mainland Chinese society as a possible explanation for the fact that your country has remained on the periphery of Western civilization, while Israel has always been at its center.
You may argue that China, unlike Israel, is a civilization in itself, and I will agree with you wholeheartedly. But I was writing specifically about Judeo-Christian civilization, of which China even today is not really a part. You invented rockets, but to launch your satellites you have to use second hand technology that comes from the West — some of it bought, some stolen. You invented gunpowder, but the Chinese assault rifle is, essentially, a copy of the Russian AK-47. You invented paper, but Israel prints more books per capita than you do. I believe you when you say that Chinese poetry may be breathtakingly beautiful, but you know as well as I do that it does not translate into Western languages, which guarantees that I will never be able to appreciate its beauty. And while the West had to reinvent much of what your folks had invented so many centuries earlier, some of your achievements have never been repeated. For example, those tiny little shoes that have turned generations of Chinese women into cripples. And should we count the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap among your people's accomplishments or should we pretend they have never happened so you wouldn't be offended by those references?
I'm sure you have mighty counter-arguments ready for everything I say. The problem is, I state facts, while you, out of either malice or ignorance, resort to libel against my people. To prove it, I would like to point some of the many inaccuracies in your letter.
You write: “In our times [the Jews] occupied the land with a huge Arab population and have been maintaining the occupation during 37 years in spite of a strong protest of the Arabs.” In fact, Arabs do not protest against the “occupation”; they protest against the very existence of Israel. They have never even tried to conceal their genocidal intentions. At the same time, those Israeli Arabs, who are not involved in terrorism, live in Israel unmolested and enjoy freedoms that are not available to them in any Arab country — or, I believe, to most Chinese in China. As to the proverbial cruelty of the Israeli “occupation” of Israel's own land, I'm sure you will appreciate the fact that the number of Arab terrorists killed by the IDF during the four years of the ongoing intifada remains far below the number of unarmed protesters killed by your government in the course of just two days on Tiananmen Square.
Like many others, you vaguely refer to “international laws” that, in your opinion, demand Israel to surrender its territory to its enemies. Somehow, so far, no one has been able to provide a specific reference to an applicable article of that law. Can it be because no such article exists? Or do you find it perfectly natural that some kind of international law against Jews in general must be on the books?
You write: “Israel has never compensated the millions refugees it has displaced for their terrible losses.” Millions? Are you sure? Can you tell exactly how many “millions” were displaced by Israel and under what circumstances, or are you mindlessly repeating anti-Semitic propaganda? If you believe yourself to be a fair person, shouldn't you ask why Arab countries have never compensated the terrible losses suffered by over 900,000 of Jews forced after World War II out of their homes and stripped of all their possessions throughout the Middle East, in some cases, uprooting communities that had been there long before Arabs conquered those lands?
Being one of a billion and a half, you probably consider 6 million mere peanuts. And yet, shouldn't you ask why the world has never attempted to compensate the Jews for the terrible losses inflicted on us in the Holocaust? Or for the 2,000 years of relentless persecution for crimes we had never committed? And since these questions, obviously, did not come to your mind, you will have to forgive me if I refuse to consider you a fair person.
You liberally quote the Old Testament; have you missed the part where God grants all this land to the Jews?
You write: “There have been no major events in the lives of Israel and the Jews during the last couple of weeks”. Are you lamenting the brief lull in terrorist acts against Israel? Imagine what your reaction would've been had Israel bombed an Arab kindergarten. But when Arabs bomb an Israeli kindergarten and kill a three-year-old and a grandfather, it's no major event to you.
You call me “a Jewish boy or girl from Brooklyn”. Not even mentioning the fact that you don't really know my age, do you realize how incredibly, stereotypically bigoted (and, incidentally, very wrong) your assumption is?
Chinese “artifacts” in my home? Their existence stems from the fact that your impoverished countrymen are willing to slave for the lowest wages that exist on earth. Are you calling that an achievement?
In an attempt to characterize my political standing, you call me “extreme right wing” and, in the very next sentence, put me in the same camp with Michael Moor. Has it occurred to you that I am simply trying to write the truth, and the truth has very little to do with whatever labels you may have in your polemic arsenal?
You admonish me for not helping Jews to make friends. No, I am not. We have never had friends; we have always lived surrounded by enemies, and this is how it will always be. I am just trying to tell my readers the truth about it.
You are asking me how I would feel if you decided to start an anti-Semitic da-dzy-bao. Rest assured: unlike China, this is a free country. Your da-dzy-bao would be just one of many anti-Semitic publications. So, why would I care? One more wouldn't make a difference. Be my guest, make yourself heard. You have already added your voice to the chorus anyway.
And, last but not least, I would like to explain what I like the most about your letter. It's the fact that in it you implicitly admit feeling threatened by the Jews. Of course, you may object that the Chinese traditionally feel threatened by anyone; that's why your compatriots customarily refer to foreigners as foreign devils. Nevertheless, your insecurity confirms the perfect validity of my comparison of Israel to China. It also, by definition, makes you a Judophobe, my friend, and Judophobia is synonymous with anti-Semitism. Your reference to the libelous Protocols confirms my diagnosis. And thus you prove the point I was trying to make in my article: it's all about Jews, always has been, always will be.
Feeling a little jealous?
Sincerely yours,
Yashiko Sagamori
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was written exclusively for the Forwerts.
Please do not reproduce without proper attribution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read my other articles, please visit
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/
WHO LOST EGYPT?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32736
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32740
The Emperor’s Pink Burka
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32740
Dore Gold
Precisely when the Egyptian government had its back to the wall with the worst protests in recent history, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs threatened the embattled President Mubarak with a cut in U.S. foreign aid. What kind of signal did the White House press secretary's threat about cutting aid send to King Abdullah of Jordan or to President Saleh of Yemen, as well as to other allies in the Persian Gulf? Did it mean that as soon as an Arab leader gets into trouble, he starts to get disowned? (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
Beware Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Leslie H. Gelb
Washington should think hard about fostering a Mubarak-led transition rather than one led by protesters. The devil we know is President Mubarak. The other "devil," now being proclaimed as misunderstood Islamic democrats, is the Muslim Brotherhood. Outside of the government, the MB is the only organized political force, the only group capable of taking power.
Wishful thinking aside, the MB would be calamitous for U.S. security. The MB supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the MB would endanger counterterrorism efforts in the region and worldwide. The writer is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Daily Beast)
////////////////////////////////
Usama Dakdok, an Egyptian-born Christian who founded a ministry that reaches out to mu s lim s , says that what is going on in Egypt cannot necessarily be deemed the "will of the people".
Dakdok says that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are rioting but that there are millions who are not. Are we and the US government to be influenced by organized demonstrations that have a political agenda of bringing shari ah law to Egypt?
Here is Dakdok's website.
http://www.thestraightway.org/
Dakdok was a guest who spoke today on Brannon Howse's radio show, Worldview Matters.
Here is Howse's website.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/
If you want to listen to today's show, you can go to this website and click on the button to hear Dakdok's comments. You may have to wait until later today or tomorrow to hear it as time is needed to put it up on the website after broadcast. The Jan. 31 show is currently available.
http://tinyurl.com/4o4q4xa
////////////////////////////////////////////
Monday, January 31, 2011
Muslim Brotherhood Declares Jihad on America; America Declares Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate!
Please be subscriber 18,522 (daily reader 32,921). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card : click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Mubarak Sphinx Becomes Muhammad Badi (head of Muslim Brotherhood) Sphinx
Cartoon by Martin Berman-Gorvine
By Barry Rubin
The best thing I can do for you to understand the Muslim Brotherhood is to ask you to read what I wrote last October 7. In that article I asked whether the United States would notice that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, through its leader, declared Jihad on America. At the end of the article I noted that an Egyptian friend said I was the only one who noticed outside of the country.
Here's the key quote:
The United States is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise....Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”
And here's what the previous supreme guide, Mahdi Akef, said:
"Question: Regarding resistance and jihad…do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid [a holy warrior, literally someone who wages jihad]?
"Akef: Certainly, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, drawing closer to God Almighty."
What I never imagined is that 3.5 months later people would be claiming--in contradiction to every Muslim Brotherhood speech and writing (in Arabic)--that the Muslim Brotherhood is some harmless nonviolent reform group. So please click on the link and read that article. These are the people who may be running the most important country in the Arab world.
Note that even if President Husni Mubarak resigns that is not what is important. What is important is whether the current regime survives or there is a totally new government.
The Muslim Brotherhood won't take over immediately but would be the power behind the throne. Remember that after the Free Officers took power in July 1952--the beginning of the current regime--it took three years for Gamal Abdel Nasser to step out as the country's dictator. Then he nationalized the Suez Canal company, made an alliance with the USSR to get weapons, and began subverting every other state in the region.
One explanation is laziness and ignorance. I have not seen any evidence to date that any journalist who wrote about it either read the "Palestine Papers" (except for the Guardian and al-Jazira people who--to put it politely--creatively interpreted the materials) or have ever read or heard any statement ever made by a Muslim Brotherhood leader.
How can you explain it? The leader of the Brotherhood calls for Jihad on America and destroying all US influence in the region and then the media says they are moderates!
Here's my (satirical) theory: Being against revolutionary Islamists seizing power in any country has now been declared to be Islamophobic.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog,
Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Posted by Barry Rubin at 10:54 PM
If ElBaradei Can't Tell the Truth About the Muslim Brotherhood, He Can't Master It. By Barry Rubin. Muhammad ElBaradei blatantly lied to CNN. Naturally, the reporter neither called him on it or followed up to ascertain the truth. ...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32740
The Emperor’s Pink Burka
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32740
Dore Gold
Precisely when the Egyptian government had its back to the wall with the worst protests in recent history, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs threatened the embattled President Mubarak with a cut in U.S. foreign aid. What kind of signal did the White House press secretary's threat about cutting aid send to King Abdullah of Jordan or to President Saleh of Yemen, as well as to other allies in the Persian Gulf? Did it mean that as soon as an Arab leader gets into trouble, he starts to get disowned? (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
Beware Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Leslie H. Gelb
Washington should think hard about fostering a Mubarak-led transition rather than one led by protesters. The devil we know is President Mubarak. The other "devil," now being proclaimed as misunderstood Islamic democrats, is the Muslim Brotherhood. Outside of the government, the MB is the only organized political force, the only group capable of taking power.
Wishful thinking aside, the MB would be calamitous for U.S. security. The MB supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the MB would endanger counterterrorism efforts in the region and worldwide. The writer is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Daily Beast)
////////////////////////////////
Usama Dakdok, an Egyptian-born Christian who founded a ministry that reaches out to mu s lim s , says that what is going on in Egypt cannot necessarily be deemed the "will of the people".
Dakdok says that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are rioting but that there are millions who are not. Are we and the US government to be influenced by organized demonstrations that have a political agenda of bringing shari ah law to Egypt?
Here is Dakdok's website.
http://www.thestraightway.org/
Dakdok was a guest who spoke today on Brannon Howse's radio show, Worldview Matters.
Here is Howse's website.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/
If you want to listen to today's show, you can go to this website and click on the button to hear Dakdok's comments. You may have to wait until later today or tomorrow to hear it as time is needed to put it up on the website after broadcast. The Jan. 31 show is currently available.
http://tinyurl.com/4o4q4xa
////////////////////////////////////////////
Monday, January 31, 2011
Muslim Brotherhood Declares Jihad on America; America Declares Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate!
Please be subscriber 18,522 (daily reader 32,921). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card : click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Mubarak Sphinx Becomes Muhammad Badi (head of Muslim Brotherhood) Sphinx
Cartoon by Martin Berman-Gorvine
By Barry Rubin
The best thing I can do for you to understand the Muslim Brotherhood is to ask you to read what I wrote last October 7. In that article I asked whether the United States would notice that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, through its leader, declared Jihad on America. At the end of the article I noted that an Egyptian friend said I was the only one who noticed outside of the country.
Here's the key quote:
The United States is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise....Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”
And here's what the previous supreme guide, Mahdi Akef, said:
"Question: Regarding resistance and jihad…do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid [a holy warrior, literally someone who wages jihad]?
"Akef: Certainly, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, drawing closer to God Almighty."
What I never imagined is that 3.5 months later people would be claiming--in contradiction to every Muslim Brotherhood speech and writing (in Arabic)--that the Muslim Brotherhood is some harmless nonviolent reform group. So please click on the link and read that article. These are the people who may be running the most important country in the Arab world.
Note that even if President Husni Mubarak resigns that is not what is important. What is important is whether the current regime survives or there is a totally new government.
The Muslim Brotherhood won't take over immediately but would be the power behind the throne. Remember that after the Free Officers took power in July 1952--the beginning of the current regime--it took three years for Gamal Abdel Nasser to step out as the country's dictator. Then he nationalized the Suez Canal company, made an alliance with the USSR to get weapons, and began subverting every other state in the region.
One explanation is laziness and ignorance. I have not seen any evidence to date that any journalist who wrote about it either read the "Palestine Papers" (except for the Guardian and al-Jazira people who--to put it politely--creatively interpreted the materials) or have ever read or heard any statement ever made by a Muslim Brotherhood leader.
How can you explain it? The leader of the Brotherhood calls for Jihad on America and destroying all US influence in the region and then the media says they are moderates!
Here's my (satirical) theory: Being against revolutionary Islamists seizing power in any country has now been declared to be Islamophobic.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog,
Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Posted by Barry Rubin at 10:54 PM
If ElBaradei Can't Tell the Truth About the Muslim Brotherhood, He Can't Master It. By Barry Rubin. Muhammad ElBaradei blatantly lied to CNN. Naturally, the reporter neither called him on it or followed up to ascertain the truth. ...
CAIR & A CERTAIN ARIZONA SHERIFF ARE ON THE SAME PAGE?
CAIR politicizes AZ shooting
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:38 AM
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America
CAIR shamefully politicizes the shooting in Arizona
We join in mourning for the friends and families of the victims of the shooting this weekend in Arizona, which left Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. One of those killed was Judge John Roll, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush.
As if on cue, certain elements within our society began to attribute the shooting rampage to “inflamed political rhetoric.” Yet these same elements are usually the first to dismiss any link between radical Islam and its ideology of jihad to acts of Islamic terrorism.
One of these elements is CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. A CAIR statement posted in the Jihad Watch blog below (highlights added) cites “inflammatory political rhetoric that can contribute to such tragedies.”
Notwithstanding the fact that, from the Ft. Hood shooter to the Times Square bomber, the common refrain is “jihad,” CAIR denies any connection between Islam and these acts of terrorism. Then it shamefully politicizes the Arizona shooting perpetrated by a man identified in several media reports as mentally unbalanced.
Check out the Jihad Watch blog below for a short list of the so-called “hate crimes” CAIR has touted over the years. Why anyone would believe anything this front group for Hamas says is beyond us.
Hamas-linked CAIR, which has publicized fake anti-Muslim hate crimes, blames Giffords shooting on "inflammatory political rhetoric"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/hamas-linked-cair-which-has-publicized-fake-anti-muslim-hate-crimes-blames-giffords-shooting-on-infl.html
The mainstream media is trying to use the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords to demonize and silence conservatives, as Pamela Geller establishes here. The Leftist/Islamic supremacist convergence is nicely illustrated by this press release from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations:
CAIR Offers Condolences on Arizona Shooting Spree
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/9/11) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today offered condolences to the loved ones of all those killed or injured in yesterday's shooting spree in Tucson, Ariz., that left six people dead and left Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life with a bullet wound to the brain. Those killed included a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl.
In a statement, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
"We offer sincere condolences to the friends, colleagues and family members of all those killed or injured in this brutal and senseless attack. We must come together as a nation to mourn the dead, pray for the speedy recovery of the injured and reject the extreme partisanship and inflammatory political rhetoric that can contribute to such tragedies."
And Hamas-linked CAIR knows all about "inflammatory political rhetoric." Does publicizing fake hate crimes count as "inflammatory rhetoric"? From "CAIR's Hate Crimes Nonsense" by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha:
• CAIR cites the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. But investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store's operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram's antics were long ago exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime.
• CAIR also states that "a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas" on August 6, 2004. But already a month later, the owner was arrested for having set fire to his own business. Why does CAIR include this incident in its report?
• CAIR lists the March 2005 lawsuit filed by the Salmi family for the firebombing of their family van as one example of a hate crime report it received in 2004. However, the crime named in the lawsuit occurred in March 2003, was already reported by CAIR in 2003, and should not have been tabulated again in the 2004 report.
• CAIR reports that "a home-made bomb exploded outside of the Champions Mosque in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas," staking its claim on eyewitness reports that on July 4, 2004, "two white males" were seen placing the bomb. We inquired about the incident and found that Spring's sheriff department could not locate any police files about an explosion. Further inquiries to the mosque and an e-mail to CAIR both went unanswered. There is scant evidence that any crime even occurred.
• CAIR notes that "investigators in Massachusetts are still investigating a potential hate-motivated arson against the Al-Baqi Islamic Center in Springfield." However the case was long ago ruled a simple robbery, news that even CAIR's own website has posted. The Associated Press reported on January 21, 2005, that prosecutors determined the fire was set by teen-age boys "who broke into the Al-Baqi mosque to steal money and candy, then set the fire to cover their tracks." The boys, they clarified, "weren't motivated by hatred toward Muslims."
• CAIR describes what happened to a Muslim family in Tucson, Arizona: "bullet shots pierced their home as they ate dinner in October 2004" and two months later their truck was smashed and vandalized. But the only evidence that either incident was motivated by hate of Muslims is the Dehdashti family itself, not the police. Detective Frank Rovi of Pima County Sheriff's Department, who handled the shooting investigation, said that according to the neighbors, the desert area by the Dehdashti house was often used for target practice. Neither incident was classified as a hate crime and both cases were closed by February 2005, long before the CAIR report went to press.
Of twenty "anti-Muslim hate crimes" in 2004 that CAIR describes, at least six are invalid – and further research could likely find problems with the other fourteen instances.
Then there is the long history of character assassination and defamation that Hamas-linked CAIR has engaged in against any and all who dare to stand up for freedom and human rights against Islamic supremacism. Oh yes, if there is anyone who knows "inflammatory political rhetoric," it is Nihad Awad and his unsavory sidekick, the amiable stomach-stapled beekeeper Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:38 AM
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America
CAIR shamefully politicizes the shooting in Arizona
We join in mourning for the friends and families of the victims of the shooting this weekend in Arizona, which left Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. One of those killed was Judge John Roll, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush.
As if on cue, certain elements within our society began to attribute the shooting rampage to “inflamed political rhetoric.” Yet these same elements are usually the first to dismiss any link between radical Islam and its ideology of jihad to acts of Islamic terrorism.
One of these elements is CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. A CAIR statement posted in the Jihad Watch blog below (highlights added) cites “inflammatory political rhetoric that can contribute to such tragedies.”
Notwithstanding the fact that, from the Ft. Hood shooter to the Times Square bomber, the common refrain is “jihad,” CAIR denies any connection between Islam and these acts of terrorism. Then it shamefully politicizes the Arizona shooting perpetrated by a man identified in several media reports as mentally unbalanced.
Check out the Jihad Watch blog below for a short list of the so-called “hate crimes” CAIR has touted over the years. Why anyone would believe anything this front group for Hamas says is beyond us.
Hamas-linked CAIR, which has publicized fake anti-Muslim hate crimes, blames Giffords shooting on "inflammatory political rhetoric"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/hamas-linked-cair-which-has-publicized-fake-anti-muslim-hate-crimes-blames-giffords-shooting-on-infl.html
The mainstream media is trying to use the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords to demonize and silence conservatives, as Pamela Geller establishes here. The Leftist/Islamic supremacist convergence is nicely illustrated by this press release from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations:
CAIR Offers Condolences on Arizona Shooting Spree
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/9/11) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today offered condolences to the loved ones of all those killed or injured in yesterday's shooting spree in Tucson, Ariz., that left six people dead and left Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life with a bullet wound to the brain. Those killed included a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl.
In a statement, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
"We offer sincere condolences to the friends, colleagues and family members of all those killed or injured in this brutal and senseless attack. We must come together as a nation to mourn the dead, pray for the speedy recovery of the injured and reject the extreme partisanship and inflammatory political rhetoric that can contribute to such tragedies."
And Hamas-linked CAIR knows all about "inflammatory political rhetoric." Does publicizing fake hate crimes count as "inflammatory rhetoric"? From "CAIR's Hate Crimes Nonsense" by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha:
• CAIR cites the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. But investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store's operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram's antics were long ago exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime.
• CAIR also states that "a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas" on August 6, 2004. But already a month later, the owner was arrested for having set fire to his own business. Why does CAIR include this incident in its report?
• CAIR lists the March 2005 lawsuit filed by the Salmi family for the firebombing of their family van as one example of a hate crime report it received in 2004. However, the crime named in the lawsuit occurred in March 2003, was already reported by CAIR in 2003, and should not have been tabulated again in the 2004 report.
• CAIR reports that "a home-made bomb exploded outside of the Champions Mosque in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas," staking its claim on eyewitness reports that on July 4, 2004, "two white males" were seen placing the bomb. We inquired about the incident and found that Spring's sheriff department could not locate any police files about an explosion. Further inquiries to the mosque and an e-mail to CAIR both went unanswered. There is scant evidence that any crime even occurred.
• CAIR notes that "investigators in Massachusetts are still investigating a potential hate-motivated arson against the Al-Baqi Islamic Center in Springfield." However the case was long ago ruled a simple robbery, news that even CAIR's own website has posted. The Associated Press reported on January 21, 2005, that prosecutors determined the fire was set by teen-age boys "who broke into the Al-Baqi mosque to steal money and candy, then set the fire to cover their tracks." The boys, they clarified, "weren't motivated by hatred toward Muslims."
• CAIR describes what happened to a Muslim family in Tucson, Arizona: "bullet shots pierced their home as they ate dinner in October 2004" and two months later their truck was smashed and vandalized. But the only evidence that either incident was motivated by hate of Muslims is the Dehdashti family itself, not the police. Detective Frank Rovi of Pima County Sheriff's Department, who handled the shooting investigation, said that according to the neighbors, the desert area by the Dehdashti house was often used for target practice. Neither incident was classified as a hate crime and both cases were closed by February 2005, long before the CAIR report went to press.
Of twenty "anti-Muslim hate crimes" in 2004 that CAIR describes, at least six are invalid – and further research could likely find problems with the other fourteen instances.
Then there is the long history of character assassination and defamation that Hamas-linked CAIR has engaged in against any and all who dare to stand up for freedom and human rights against Islamic supremacism. Oh yes, if there is anyone who knows "inflammatory political rhetoric," it is Nihad Awad and his unsavory sidekick, the amiable stomach-stapled beekeeper Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
REV HAGEE: " I AM AN ISRAELI"
Hagee: "Appeasement is suicide on the instalment plan."
HEAR HIM AT:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/32562
REV HAGEE: " I AM AN ISRAELI"
IsraPundit
Hagee: “Appeasement is suicide on the instalment plan.”
By Ted Belman
I met Rev Hagee in Toronto five years ago and recognized him as a great man and a fantastic orator.
I have been a strong voice in appreciation for his support of Israel and for Christians United For Israel (CUFI), the organization he founded.
Many Jews are not yet willing to to think kindly of Christian Evangelicals or are hung up on their missionizing efforts.
To all of them and to all people who share my views, I urge you to listen to this great speech delivered at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel
972 (0)54 441 3252
Thanks for using IsraPundit!
HEAR HIM AT:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/32562
REV HAGEE: " I AM AN ISRAELI"
IsraPundit
Hagee: “Appeasement is suicide on the instalment plan.”
By Ted Belman
I met Rev Hagee in Toronto five years ago and recognized him as a great man and a fantastic orator.
I have been a strong voice in appreciation for his support of Israel and for Christians United For Israel (CUFI), the organization he founded.
Many Jews are not yet willing to to think kindly of Christian Evangelicals or are hung up on their missionizing efforts.
To all of them and to all people who share my views, I urge you to listen to this great speech delivered at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel
972 (0)54 441 3252
Thanks for using IsraPundit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)