Hat Tip: LGF
"We, the undersigned, call on the international community to indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for incitement to commit genocide, as per the UN Genocide Convention which classifies 'incitement to commit genocide' as a crime against humanity."
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION BY CLICKING HERE
The petition will be submitted to the International Court of Justice.
Hat Tip: LGF
The Boston Globe
Why won't Carter debate his book?
By Alan Dershowitz | December 21, 2006
YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."
Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."
When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)
The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.
Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan , saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.
Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.
What most rankles is Carter's insistence that he is somehow brave for attacking Israel and highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people. No other conflict in the world -- not even the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan -- evokes more hand-wringing in the media, universities, and human rights organizations than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.
When Jimmy Carter's ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I'll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there -- ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University. His most recent book is "Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways."
It's rare to see the day that Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs is confused...
Not quite sure what to make of this, but given Ellison’s associations with CAIR and his history with the Nation of Islam, his stated views on Israel and Iran may not be what you expect
On the Issues: Israel and the Middle East
I believe that peace throughout the world should be the guiding principle of the United States. To this end working towards a lasting peace in the Middle East should be one of the United States' most focused goals. Peace is necessary for both Israeli and Palestinian people, and I wholeheartedly support peace movements in Israel and throughout the region.
The template set forth by the roadmap for peace currently provides the best outline for achieving a two-state solution to bringing about a lasting settlement. Right now Hamas represents the greatest obstacle to this path, and until Hamas denounces terrorism, recognizes the absolute right of Israel to exist peacefully and honors past agreements, it cannot be considered legitimate partners in this process. Sensible and moderate elements in Palestinian society could possibly provide credible negotiating partners. The United States should encourage dialogue with peaceful Palestinian leaders that recognize Israel, condemn terrorism, and honor past accords.
Terrorism is the greatest impediment to peace. At this point the Palestinian Authority (PA) has yet to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank. The United States cannot support any government that condones or embraces terrorism. However, the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people cannot be neglected, and the United States should respect these needs through the use of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The obligation to help the Palestinian people is also a political necessity. It is important not to play into the hands of terrorist organizations by allowing them to credibly argue that the US and Israel are denying food and medicine to women and children.
The other serious threat to the security of the region is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. This must be stopped. A nuclear-armed Iran would upset the strategic balance in the region and pose a clear threat to world peace. Iran's sponsorship of international terrorism as well as financial aid to terrorist organizations endangers peace around the globe. I believe that the United States must engage Iran in a diplomatically meaningful way, through direct or multi-lateral negotiations, before resorting to military force.
Iran is the leading sponsor of international terrorism as well as the major financial supporter of many radical groups that threaten moderate regimes throughout the Middle East.
I believe the United States should continue to do all it can to foster and promote peace between Israel and Palestinians. The best chance for this lasting peace can be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and its neighbors with the United States working as broker between them. Only with a democratic Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel can the safety of the entire region be assured.
I've blogged about some of Reut's articles in the past. Now she's got her own blog:
http://reutrcohen.blogspot.com/
Welcome, Reut, to the UCI blog scene.
Until they change their tune, keep the pressure on the MSU, SAS, and their cohorts.
Until the pervasive hostile environment towards students of Jewish ancestry on campus disappears, keep the pressure on the UCI administration.
Remember the words of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Tags:
Reut R. Cohen
I wonder how it all turned out...
Rabbi ripped for embracing Ahmadinejad
BY ABBY LUBY
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS
It was an unbelievable image - especially for Jews.
There, on their televisions and in their papers, was a New York rabbi embracing the Iranian leader who wants Israel destroyed and calls the Holocaust a farce.
But Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, who has followers in Brooklyn and Rockland County, makes no apologies.
His outraged neighbors will protest today.
"You don't negotiate with Hitler and you don't negotiate with the president of Iran, who is out to destroy the Jews," said Carol King Berkman, who works with Holocaust survivors at Rockland's Jewish Family Service.
While Weiss, whose grandparents perished at Auschwitz, doesn't deny the Holocaust, he accuses his people of using it to justify decades of bloodshed in the Middle East.
Weiss said he and seven other rabbis from the Neturei Karta sect attended President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's huddle in Tehran last month to reach out to the Iranians.
"We tried to appease them," he told The News. "We explained how the Holocaust is used to intimidate people who want to speak against the unjust Zionist regime."
That stance only further infuriates his neighbors in Rockland's massive Hasidic community.
Malkie Zamore said she and her husband will be at today's 1p.m. protest outside Neturei headquarters in Monsey.
"We don't consider Weiss one of ours," she said. "What he did was very wrong."
Originally published on January 7, 2007
Ideological Bias at UCI?
by: Howard Charlop, December 21, 2006
On November 29th I attended the program “Middle East in 2007: Same Old Story or a New Beginning?” at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). It was co-sponsored by the Middle East Studies Student Initiative, The Department of History, and the Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies. Panelists included:
1.)Mark LeVine, Associate Professor, Modern Middle Eastern History, UCI
2.)Lina Haddad Kreidie, Lecturer, Department of Political Science, UCI
3.)Nasrin Rahimieh, Director of the Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies, UCI
Opening remarks were made by LeVine, who told the overflow crowd to “spread the knowledge and inform others.” Some of the views presented by the panelists during the panel discussion and the question-and-answer session which followed are shown below.
1) Kreidie suggested that Israel, not Syria, not Hezbollah, was responsible for the assassination of Pierre Gemayel. When asked if she had any evidence during the Q&A session which followed the Panel discussion, both she and LeVine said that their extensive experience in the Middle East gives them reason enough to conclude that Israel was probably responsible for the assassination.
2) Kreidie also suggested that Israel might have started a war with Lebanon because Lebanon poses a threat as another regional power in the Middle East and that the outcome of the war was the destruction of Lebanon, not Hezbollah.
3) Kreidie stated that Syria wants stability and the return of the Golan Heights.
4) Rahimieh said that President Bush caused a provocation by saying that Iran was not a democratic country. During the Q&A session which followed, LeVine stated that Iran was not a theocracy.
5) LeVine discussed whether the Israelis and Palestinians were wounded enough to consider becoming partners for peace. He said that Israel lost all credibility as a partner for peace when it continually violated the Oslo Peace Accords by creating more settlements, intensifying the occupation, and creating poverty. During the Q&A session I asked if Israel had demonstrated that it was a willing partner for peace in 2000 at Camp David by offering 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem as a capital, contiguous land and a $30 billion redevelopment package. LeVine said that is what is commonly believed but not accurate. I then showed him a StandWithUs report which confirmed my understanding. He told me he had other information that gives a different story.
6) During the Q&A session one of the students asked why a more balanced panel wasn’t used for this important program. LeVine replied that the panel wasn’t biased and that the truth, based on the facts, was presented. He further characterized the program as not political and that empirical data was presented. In a subsequent email, LeVine wrote “you are certainly right that there are always two sides of a story and it’s impossible to decide definitively who’s right without evidence.” He also repeated a suggestion that we schedule a debate on these issues and let everyone decide for themselves. I told LeVine that we have different points of view and different sources of information. I hope we can find some common ground and teach others to do the same rather than proving the other side to be biased using our “unlimited sources of empirical data.”
On November 1st UCI hosted “Religious Diversity: An Interfaith Dialogue.” Dean of Students Sally Peterson, who served as moderator, and Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez attended the program. The program was co-sponsored by Hillel and the Muslim Student Union. At the last minute however, the MSU withdrew their sponsorship.
The panelists were:
1. Rabbi Richard Steinberg, Congregation Shir Ha-Ma’alot, Irvine;
2. Reverend Gary Barmore, Fairview Community Church, Costa Mesa;
3. Sheik Sadullah Kahn, Executive Director of Religious Affairs, Islamic Center in Irvine, son in law of Imam Muzammil Siddiqi (Director of the Islamic Center of Orange County). Sheik Kahn arrived in Irvine from South Africa in 1998.
After some friendly discussion about religion by the participants, the audience was invited to ask questions. The first question came from a student who asked: Does Israel have a right to exist?
Rabbi Steinberg said he was a Zionist and then proceeded to explain the importance of Israel to the Jewish people.
Sheik Kahn said that all people have the right to Palestine, that he opposes Zionism, that Israel is a racist state and that the Palestinians are fighting for their freedom. He also said that Jews are not “the Chosen People;” we are all children of God. When he finished, a loud “Allah Akbar” was shouted three times from the back of the room by Muslim students.
Rabbi Steinberg responded by saying that words are very powerful. Looking at both Sally Peterson and Manual Gomez, he said that we must be sensitive about the way we speak. He said that a third of the Jews, 6 million people, were wiped out during WWII. He said that the University must do a better job of dealing with words. There was no response from the UCI administrators.
This was a “very educational” evening. One I will long remember.
Howard Charlop is the Orange County, Calif. chapter director of Stand With Us, "an educational organization that ensures that Israel's side of the sotry is told in communities, campuses, libraries, the media and chruches through brochures, speakers and conferences."
I think this SHOULD be my last catching-up post.
First, a little poem to David Duke (courtesy of a friend):
David Duke Hater of Jews
Went to Iran and made the News
His rants and rave about the numbers
of Jews murdered by gases or in their slumber
He credits his buddy, good old Norman the Fink
who hate the Jews as much as you think
While getting paid two hundred bucks a speech
making money on the Holocaust, my what a leech
He blames Elie Wiesel, Abe Foxman and Marvin
for making up stories about people starvin'
he says they are fake and only tell lies
Whilst forgetting that over 6 million have died
He kisses the Pali's, the Mufti's and the traitors
while living the life as a celebrated hater
He waxes poetic about his degrees
While never making more than his two hundred dollar fees
I hope there is a place in hell for this capo
who G-D willing, we can put to a stopo
His lies and his hate only do more damage
than even a right winger like Michael Savage
I hope if there is a hot hell
that Norman my dear, will go there, I'd kvell!
He does not yet realize the damage he has done
to help the world hate the Jews, and then some.
The Prophet Muhammad (S) stood for justice in all situations, and our history is replete with stories in which the Khulafaa sided with Jews to the detriment of Muslims. By this we should learn to deal with each legal issue independently and un-emotionally. How Holocaust denial has entered our psyche, and how Muslims defend it on the basis of freedom of speech, however, truly baffles my mind.
A lot of ideas have entered our world view while the intelligensia of Islam were asleep. We should take inventory, question such notions, and "clean house". We are, after all, tasked with standing up for and implementing justice on earth, and will be questioned about this One Day.
I pray that our representatives in the Shura Council, CAIR, and ISNA make appropriate statements in this regard.
The SCAMA Moderator
Tags:
David Duke,
Holocaust Denial,
Jon Stewart
We all know the Iranian government has no grip on reality - now, even more evidence:
UPDATE
VitalPerspective's summary:
Let's see that we got it right: Adolf Hitler decided to start a world war, invade Russia, kill 6 million brethern as well as tens of millions of non-Jews just so that he could lose the war, destroy his country, shoot himslef [sic] in the head, bring about the establishment of the UN that would, in turn, establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Simple right?
On the subject of Holocaust denial, one of the best books available is Denying History. Its analysis is equally valid when examining the 9/11 conspiracists psychosis.
09:50 , 01.02.07
Iran: Hitler was a Jew (YNetNews)
Advisor to President Ahmadinejad claims Nazi leader was Jew who conspired with USSR and Britain to establish Jewish state
Dudi Goldman
Just when you thought the Iranian leadership could stoop no further: A top advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed in an interview with Iranian website Baztab that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's parents were both Jewish and that Hitler himself was one of the founders of the State of Israel.
In the interview, translated by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) Mohammad-Ali Ramin, a chief aide to Ahmadinejad, told Baztab that Hitler's paternal grandmother was a Jewish prostitute and his father even kept his Jewish name until finally changing it to Hitler when he was 40.
Ramin also claimed that the reason Hitler developed such an aversion to Judaism was because his Jewish mother was a promiscuous woman. Hitler therefore, says Ramin, tried to escape his religion.
Ramin cites a 1974 book by Hennecke Kardel titled 'Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel', which alleges that Hitler strived to create a Jewish state as a result of being influenced by his Jewish relatives and his cooperation with Britain – which also wanted to drive the Jews out of Europe.
Ramin claims in the interview that Hitler both identified with his Judaism and was disgusted by it. It is these ambivalent feelings, said Ramin, that formed the basis for his treatment of Jews.
According to Ramin on the one hand Hitler's relatives and the friends who brought him to power, as well as his mistresses and personal physician, were all Jewish.
On the other hand he welcomed the expulsion of ambitious and influential Jews from Europe to the British Mandate of Palestine.
Itamar Eichner contributed to this report
Tags:
Hitler,
Holocaust Denial,
Iran,
YnetNews
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
Our World: The longest-running big lie
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 1, 2007
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Yasser Arafat was a master of the big lie. Since he invented global terrorism with the founding of the Fatah terror organization in 1959, Arafat successfully portrayed himself as a freedom fighter while introducing the world to passenger jet hijackings, schoolhouse massacres and embassy takeovers.
To cultivate the myth of his innocence Arafat ordered his Fatah terror cells to operate under pseudonyms. In the early 1970's he renamed several Fatah murder squads the Black September Organization while publicly claiming that they were "breakaway" units completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself.
In 2000, as he launched the current Palestinian jihad, he repeated the process by renaming Fatah terror cells the Aksa Martyr Brigades and then claiming that they were completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself. This fiction too, has been successful in spite of the fact that all Aksa Martyr Brigades terrorists are members of Fatah and most are members of Palestinian Authority official militias who receive their salaries, guns and marching orders from Fatah.
Last week, with the quiet release of a 33-year-old US State Department cable, a good chunk of the edifice of his great lie was destroyed.
ON MARCH 1, 1973, eight Fatah terrorists, operating under the Black September banner stormed the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan during a farewell party for the US Embassy's Charges d'Affaires George Curtis Moore. The terrorists took Moore, US ambassador Cleo Noel, Belgian Charges d'Affairs Guy Eid and two Arab diplomats hostage. They demanded that the US, Israel, Jordan and Germany release PLO and Baader-Meinhof Gang terrorists, including Robert F. Kennedy's Palestinian assassin Sirhan Sirhan and Black September commander Muhammed Awadh (Abu Daud), from prison in exchange for the hostages' release.
The next evening, the Palestinians brutally murdered Noel, Moore, and Eid. They released their other hostages on March 4.
Arafat denied any involvement in the attack. The US officially accepted his denial. Yet, as he later publicly revealed, James Welsh, who served at the time of the attack as an analyst at the National Security Agency, intercepted a communication from Arafat, then headquartered in Beirut to his terror agents in Khartoum ordering the attack.
In 1986, as evidence of Arafat's involvement in the operation became more widely known, more and more voices began calling for Arafat to be investigated for murder. As the New York Sun's online blog recalled last week, during that period, Britain's Sunday Times reported that 44 US senators sent a letter to then US attorney-general Edwin Meese, "urging the American government to charge the PLO chief with plotting the murders of two American diplomats in 1973."
The article went on to note that the Justice Department's interest in pursuing the matter was making senior State Department officials uneasy: "State Department diplomats, worried that murder charges against Arafat would anger the United States' friends in the Arab world, are urging the Justice Department to drop the investigation."
As late as 2002, in spite of President George W. Bush's pointed refusal to meet with Arafat, the State Department continued to protest his innocence. At the time, Scott Johnson, a Minneapolis attorney and one of the authors of the popular Powerlineblog weblog, inquired into the matter with the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau. In an emailed response from the bureau's deputy director of press affairs Gregory Sullivan, Johnson was told, "Evidence clearly points to the terrorist group Black September as having committed the assassinations of Amb. Noel and George Moore, and though Black September was a part of the Fatah movement, the linkage between Arafat and this group has never been established."
So it was that for 33 years, under seven consecutive presidential administrations, the State Department denied any knowledge of involvement by Arafat or Fatah in the execution of its own people.
Until last week.
THE CABLE released by the State Department's historian states, "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy."
Although clearly skilled in the art of deception, Arafat could never have succeeded in creating and prolonging his fictions and with them, his crimes, without the cooperation of the US government and the media.
In this vein, the release of the State Department cable raises two daunting questions. First, how is it possible that the belated admission of a massive 33 year cover-up of the murder of senior American diplomats spanning the course of seven consecutive presidential administrations has been ignored by the US media? A Google news search for Cleo Noel brought up but a handful of stories - none of which were reported by the major news networks or national newspapers.
On the face of it, the released cable, which calls into question the very foundation of US Middle East policy for the past generation is simply stunning. The cable concludes, "The Khartoum operation again demonstrated the ability of the BSO to strike where least expected. The open participation of Fatah representatives in Khartoum in the attack provides further evidence of the Fatah/BSO relationship. The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum."
The media's silence on the issue does not merely raise red flags abut their objectivity. By not availing the American public to the knowledge that Fatah and the PLO have been specifically targeting Americans for 33 years, the media has denied the American people basic knowledge of the world in which they live.
The media's abject refusal to cover the story raises an even more egregious aspect of the episode. Specifically, what does the fact that under seven consecutive administrations, the US government has covered up Arafat's direct responsibility for the murder of American diplomats while placing both Arafat and Fatah at the center of its Middle East policy, say about the basic rationale of US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians? What would US Middle East policy looked like, and what would have been the results for US, and international security as a whole, if rather than advancing a policy that made Arafat the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House during the Clinton administration, the US had demanded his extradition and tried him for murder?
How many lives would have been saved if the US had not been intent on upholding Arafat's big lie? How would such a US policy have impacted the subsequent development of sister terror organizations like Hizbullah, al-Qaida and Hamas, all of which were founded by members of Arafat's terror industry?
Sadly, the release of the cable did not in any way signal a change in the US policy of whitewashing Fatah. In contravention of US law, for the past 13 years, the State Department has been denying that Fatah, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are terrorist organizations, and has been actively funding them with US taxpayer dollars.
This policy went on, unchanged even after Fatah gunmen murdered three US embassy employees in Gaza in October 2003. This policy continues, unchanged still today, as Fatah's current leader, Arafat's deputy of 40 years Mahmoud Abbas works to form a unity government with Hamas. Indeed, the central component of the US's policy towards the Palestinians today is the goal of strengthening Fatah by arming, training and funding its Force 17 terror militia.
In a November 14, 2006 interview on Palestinian television, Ahmed Hales Abu Maher who serves as Secretary of Fatah in Gaza, bragged of Fatah's role in the development of international terrorism. In his words, reported by Palestinian Media Watch, "Oh warrior brothers, this is a nation that will never be broken, it is a revolution that will never be defeated. This is a nation that gives an example every day that is imitated across the world. We gave the world the children of the RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenades], we gave the world the children stone [-throwers], and we gave the world the male and female Martyrdom-Seekers [suicide bombers]."
Imagine what the world would have looked like if, rather than clinging to Arafat's big lie that he and his Fatah terror organization were central components of Middle East peace, the US had captured and tried Arafat for murdering its diplomats and worked steadily to destroy Fatah.
Imagine how our future would look if rather than stealthily admitting the truth, while trusting the media not to take notice, the US government were to base its current policies on the truth, and the media were to reveal this truth to the world.
Tags:
Caroline Glick,
Fatah,
Jerusalem Post,
Yassir Arafat
RSS (Atom)