Wrong, ANSWER--again

The folks over at International ANSWER appear to have gone off their medication again. You remember them-- the "anti-war" group that cheers Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel; the self-proclaimed commissars of rallies against the US war in Iraq that have managed to shrivel the public turnout at their events down to a few thousand at a time. Basically now irrelevant except to the hard core cadres who show up because of ANSWER's other agendas--Israel-bashing, China-excusing, Darfur-denying and so on. They have now gone as far as to admit that they have accepted dhimmi status with regard to their radical Moslem constituency. Having been instructed by their Moslem groups that they would be offended by public nudity, ANSWER begged the "nudes for peace" contingent not to show up at their recent rally. Of course, ANSWER doesn't view as offensive the "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs" chants or the sonorous voice of Hatem Bazian chanting "intifada, intifada" like some kind of crazed jihadist mantra (wait, that actually IS a crazed jihadist mantra!), or the signs at its rallies displaying naked anti-Semitism. They ignore the fact that the Islamists whose boots they lick are homophobes who excuse "honor killings" and the genocide in Darfur.

We also were able to find out that at least one group allied with ANSWER places its racial/ethnic agenda even ahead of its core political position--opposition to the war in Iraq. Witness these e-mails received by Direct Action to Stop The War about last week's anti-war actions in San Francisco which were aimed not only at US Government offices but also those businesses who were deemed complicit in the war effort:
"Hey all,I just got a call from S---- S---, the owner of the Sprint store at --------, which is on our direct action menu. He told me that that store is an authorized Sprint dealership that's owned by him - it is*not* owned by Sprint. He said that he strongly opposes the war and strongly supports what we're doing, and hopes that we won't target his business.Please make whatever decision you see fit based on this information.(Personally, I think we should let the poor guy off the hook.)Thanks,Adrian"
"I just got an e-mail forwarded to me from someone re: the sprint storeowned by S---- S---- he is a Palestinian who's grandfather passed away 3 days ago, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE drop this off your target list. I understand the need to target war profiteers, but i wish more research had been done on the targets. some people are just trying to feed their families, and have almost no choice but to partner with companies such as Sprint. thank you, M----- S---- (S----- is my cousin)"

How did we get these e-mails? Maybe somebody on the inside took offense at not holding Palestinians to the same moral standards? Maybe this person felt that just because you're Palestinian or other "oppressed" Moslem that you can be held accountable for the choices you make, same as everyone else? Naaahhhhhh..... Palestinians are excused for celebrating the cold-blooded murder of yeshiva students so why should a little war profiteering be an issue between friends?

What's next-- is ANSWER going to insist that all women wear burkas to its next rally?

"Muzzlewatch" Gets a Muzzle

One of my daily sources of amusement lately has been reading (and posting on) the "Muzzlewatch" blog put up by Jewish Voice for Peace. That blog has the ostensible purpose of "tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy"; they actually did very little of that, because debate is quite open, it's just that their point of view gets very little traction in US public opinion-- see this previous post on this site. They happily promoted all sorts of anti-Israel viewpoints and speakers; any criticism of those was then claimed as attempted "muzzling". Much more interesting than their rather weak postings were the comments; not only was there a good representation of the pro-Israel viewpoint from some good writers whose work I had never previously read (take a bow, Jon), but there was also--no surprise-- the expected chorus from those whose anti-Israel position comes from true, heartfelt anti-Semitism.

JVP tried shutting down comments for a day, claiming it was "not because of the bigotry per se, but the escalation of personal attacks." (I guess "bigotry per se" is OK then?) But of course once the comment boards were opened up then they couldn't get rid of the company they attracted. Yet they do seem surprised at this: "Lately, the site has become a forum for posting anti-Semitic in particular, and also other bigoted and racist comments, as well as ugly personal attacks." Just like they were, in the words of one JVP member who posted there, "appalled" at the anti-Semitism displayed at ANSWER rallies against Israel last summer(see pictures of that event here ). Yet they never publicly dissociated themselves from ANSWER after seeing similar ugliness in previous ANSWER rallies, and they went ahead and paid ANSWER so they could officially participate with a booth at that hate-fest!

So why are they surprised that their forum became a haven for anti-Semites, at least one of whom were known posters on hate sites? Despite their own high-mindedness in claiming to oppose anti-Semitism, their track record of tolerating it in practice from ANSWER and other anti-Israel groups inexorably led to this. They just don't get it-- at its core, anti-Zionism (opposing the right of the Jewish people to have our own country in our own homeland, while supporting the right of every other group, including Palestinian Arabs, to their own state) IS anti-Semitic. And an anti-Israel website will always attract anti-Semites, like flies buzzing around excrement. Of course, JVP's recent conference in Oakland featured T-shirts on sale that proudly stated "Anti-Zionist". If the shirt fits........

Big Lies Part 1-- A "Jewish State" Provides Unique Ethnic Preference and Therefore Is Illegitimate

Here at BlueTruth, as many other blogs and organizations do, we advocate on behalf of the simple proposition that the Jews (like any other people who share a common heritage, history and ties to a particular piece of land) are entitled to a country of their own. Those who do so often confront various lies being propagated about Israel. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, you will hear more of them. This will be the first in a series of posts that will analyze and refute them. Much of the basic ground is covered in several excellent resources which are essential reading for those who want to know the facts around the birth of modern Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel: Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Israel and two pamphlets by Mitchell Bard that are available online: Myths and Facts and On One Foot.





The arguments made 40, 30, or even 20 years ago said that Israel should allow the Palestinians to have a state in the territories conquered in that June 1967 war. Now, of course, with the international community (including Israel) having agreed with that concept (though not on borders, as well as other minor details such as security for 7 million Israelis in the face of such a state controlled by radical Islamist jihadis), the anti-Israel groups have revealed what was undoubtedly their true goal all along-- the dismantlement of Israel as a Jewish state. One of the claims made to justify this is that Israel is a racist/apartheid state and that the primacy given to Jews and to Judaism is prima facie unacceptable and must be eliminated. Reading those arguments, one would think that no other country in the world provides any type of differential treatment to members of its own ethnicity.



Of course, we would not condone not granting to members of minority groups such basics as voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Israel, of course, does grant these. The Freedom House annual report on political and civil liberties around the world ranks Israel as "free", with a ranking of 1 (highest) for political rights and 2 for civil liberties. (The PA , "partially free", manages a 4 for political rights; civil liberties are at 6 [lowest is 7]. That of course doesn't factor in the recent threat to one's political rights or civil liberties of being shot dead for belonging to the wrong militia or being kidnapped for being a journalist. They probably already took into account other risky behaviors in the PA such as being a Christian or being a young woman who "dishonors" her family by being seen with an unrelated male in public).



But I digress. The main right being challenged is Israel's Law of Return, which gives the right of immigration to anyone with one Jewish grandparent or who has converted to Judaism. From reading anti-Israel screeds, one would never know that immigration preferences are quite common in the world today. The legal term for this right is lex sanguinis. Countries that provide such preferences include Armenia (another country with a widespread diaspora), China, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Romania, Russia and Spain. That covers a pretty fair-sized chunk of the world's population right there. Especially given that none of these countries (except Armenia) can document any history of genocidal persecution in its diaspora similar to what the Jewish people have experienced, why is only Israel singled out as if this is unique? One possible answer can be found in this landmark article by Natan Sharansky.

We also hear that the flag and the national anthem must also be changed to not show any preference to Jews and Judaism. As far as flags, how about this salient fact:
The flag of Turkey, which was the flag of the Ottoman Empire, has been an inspiration for the flag designs of many other Muslim nations. During the time of the Ottomans the crescent began to be associated with Islam and this is reflected on the flags of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Tunisia, and of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags)
Also, the following countries feature a different religious symbol, the Christian cross, in their flags:
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece, Tonga.

Once again, only Israel is pilloried for using the symbol of the Jewish people on its flag.

And for national anthems, here are slections from the national anthems of a few other countries that somehow are not vilified as “racist”–

Saudi Arabia:Hasten to glory and supremacy!Glorify the Creator of the heavensAnd raise the green, fluttering flag,Carrying the emblem of Light!Repeat - God is greatest!O my country,My country, may you always live,The glory of all Muslims!Long live the King,For the flag and the country!

Thailand (I'm not criticizing Thailand here, but I do suspect that not 100% of the citizens of Thailand are ethnic Thais…):
Thailand unites its people with flesh and blood.
land of Thailand belongs to the Thais.....

The Czech anthem includes the lines "Where is my home? Where is my home?
If, in a heavenly land, you have met
Tender souls in agile frames,
Of clear mind, vigorous and prospering,
And with a strength that frustrates all defiance,
That is the glorious race of Czechs,
Among Czechs (is) my home!"

The mention of the Jewish soul's hope to become a nation in its own land isn't so different, is it? Not really-- unless you've got an underlying agenda.

Pro-Israel Voices Muzzled at UCSC

If anybody still believes the protestations of Jewish Voice for Peace at muzzlewatch.com that anti-Israel speech is suppressed by the all-powerful pro-Israel machine, read below for details of last week's conference at University of California at Santa Cruz. This event would have been more appropriately held in Ramallah or Tehran. Note that any attempt to voice a pro-Israel opinion, or to get the organizers to provide a balancing position, was met with implacable hostility.

This phenomenon is not confined to UCSC. Muslim students at UC Irvine hold "Palestine Solidarity Week" events in which jihadist speakers spew their hatred on campus, providing an intimidating environment for any pro-Israel students (see the film "Tolerating Intolerance", available from StandWithUs at www.standwithus.com for actual videos of hate speech on campuses). Earlier this year, Muslims students at Brown University forced the cancellation of a speech by Nonie Darwish, an Arab Muslim woman who grew up in Gaza but now speaks out against jihadist terror, on the grounds that having her speak was "offensive" to them. the truth of the matter is that on too many campuses all across America, pro-Israel students and faculty find that they are not allowed to have their views heard, not allowed to question the presumption of evil Israeli guilt and noble Palestinian resistance, not allowed to promote the Zionist perspective-- in short, THEY are the ones truly "muzzled".

Those of you who agree that the type of biased political advocacy described below might just be a few giant steps short of the "highest ideals of academic freedom" should address your concerns to the individuals listed after the report on the conference.

BlueTruth thanks Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, lecturer in Hebrew at UCSC, for attending and documenting the conference and for providing us with the opportunity to disseminate her report. She noted "The most egregious part of the event was not the anti-Israel sentiment or the fact that all alternative positions were stifled, but rather the fact that the conference was sponsored by 8 university departments and therefore given complete academic legtimacy. In this way UCSC differs from, say UC Irvine, where the anti-Israel propaganda comes from the students. In my opinion, that makes UCSC far worse than Irvine. All citizens of California should be outraged by this university-sponsored taxpayer-funded conference."
__________________________________________________________________

Report on “Alternative Histories Within and Beyond Zionism” conference
at UCSC on March 15, 2007
Submitted by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Ilan Benjamin
Approximately 100 people attended the conference -- about 70 students, 20 faculty members and 10 community members. UCSC Anthropology professor Lisa Rofel, the conference organizer and moderator, opened the event by saying that the conference was an historic one at UCSC, and represented the “highest ideals of academic freedom”.
The first speaker was David Theo Goldberg, Director of the University of California Humanities Research Institute, who spoke on “Racial Palestinianization”. Goldberg claimed that Israel was, from its inception, a racist entity, which used its racist state policies to protect the purity of the Jewish race and exclude and oppress the Palestinians. In his talk and accompanying slide presentation, Goldberg explicitly and implicitly linked Israel’s current state policies and practices to those of the Nazis. Goldberg concluded his talk by asserting that Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians was part of a race war begun by Israel in order to rid the land of a despised racial group, and that within such a context, suicide bombing was an understandable and even fair response.
Judith Butler, a professor in the departments of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, was the second speaker. Her talk was entitled “Hidden Histories of Post- Zionism”. Basing herself in part on the writings of Edward Said and in part on those of Jewish thinkers in the first half of the 20th century such as Martin Buber and Hannah Arendt, Butler claimed that Zionism was a racist and therefore illegitimate ideology, and she argued for the creation of a secular democratic bi-national state, which would replace the Jewish State. While Butler complained that the debate about a bi-national state is often stifled with the argument that it will lead to the destruction of Israel, she did not address the issue of why this concern is unfounded, or how Jews would be able to live safely and securely in a state with a Muslim majority.
The third speaker was Hilton Obenzinger, Associate Director for Honors and Advanced Writing at the Stanford Writing Center. His talk, entitled “Jewish Opposition to the Occupation Since 1967, A Personal and Public Journey“, was indeed primarily a personal account of how, after growing up in a Zionist Jewish home, Obenzinger became an anti- Zionist activist who opposed the Jewish State and advocated Palestinian causes. Obenzinger also described and decried the opposition within the Jewish community to his anti-Israel pro-Palestinian efforts.
Terri Ginsberg, an adjunct professor at Purchase College, was the fourth speaker. In her talk, “Holocaust Film and Zionism: Exposing a Collaboration”, Ginsburg drew heavily upon the writings of Norman Finkelstein in claiming that Holocaust films have facilitated and justified the propagation of a racist Zionist ideology, which has resulted in the oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians. She noted that her ideas were very unpopular both in the academy and in the Jewish community, and she accused those who would discredit her work of being “McCarthyites”.
The fifth and final speaker was Ryvka Bar Zohar, a graduate student at NYU, whose talk was entitled “A History of Zionism and the Politics of Divestment”. Bar Zohar presented her own ideas about the history of Zionism, arguing that the ideology grew out of the attempt of Eastern European Jews to recover from the “shame” of the Diaspora and the Holocaust by finding pride in domination. According to her analysis, Zionism was an essentially racist doctrine, which led to the creation of an apartheid state. Bar Zohar used her analysis to argue that the movement to divest from Israel was a justified and effective strategy for mounting an opposition to Zionism for all anti-Zionist and anti-apartheid activists.
It wasn’t until after the final speaker had concluded, with less than a half-hour remaining to the 3-and-a-half hours scheduled for the conference, that the moderator opened the floor for questions. Unfortunately, by that time most of the audience had left the hall, as well as one of the speakers. At the end of the event, a student approached one of the members of the audience who had, during the question and answer period, challenged the use of the term ‘Arab Jews’ by one of the speakers, and she yelled at him several times, “You are a racist”. Another student approached two men engaged in a private conversation about how egregiously biased the conference was, and she said in a clear and accusatory tone, “You have blood on your hands”. The few pro-Israel students in the room were extremely upset after the event. One student was appalled that her own department, History, had sponsored this event. Another expressed outrage that her university tuition was supporting what she felt was anti-Israel propaganda.
There are four aspects of this conference that should deeply concern all university administrators and faculty, as well as members of the tax-paying public:
1) Although promoted as an academic event and sponsored by 8 UCSC departments and research groups (Institute for Humanities Research, Feminist Studies, Anthropology, CGIRS, Community Studies, Sociology, Politics and History), this conference did not adhere to even minimal standards of scholarship. First of all, neither the conference organizer nor any of the speakers is a recognized scholar of the history of Zionism or Israel, and collectively they boast few academic publications in this area. Secondly, only two of the five speakers referenced the scholarship of others. Of these, Ginsburg based much of her work on the highly questionable scholarship of Norman Finkelstein, and Butler’s interpretation of one of her key sources was disputed by the book’s editor, who happened to be in the audience at the time. Thirdly, the use of demonizing and vilifying language and slides in Goldberg’s talk, the focus on personal anecdotes in Obenzinger’s talk, and the justification of political activism that was at the heart of Bar Zohar’s talk, all raise a number of serious questions about the academic quality of this event. 2) Far from representing a diversity of legitimate scholarly perspectives on the topic of Zionism, the speakers all articulated the same extremist view about Israel’s founding ideology, namely, that it was racist and illegitimate, and called into question the legitimacy of the Jewish State itself. Indeed, this uniformity of perspective and expression of egregious anti-Israel bias, which violate the norms of academic integrity, are not surprising, given that all five speakers identified
themselves in the course of their talks as anti-Zionists, and two of them, Obenzinger and Ginsberg, openly expressed their solidarity with the Palestinian people. It seems, however, that such a one-sided anti-Israel conference is just what the conference organizer, Lisa Rofel, had in mind. For when Jewish Studies director Murray Baumgarten offered to work with Rofel to create a more balanced event by bringing speakers with other legitimate scholarly perspectives about Zionism and Israel, she declined the offer.
3) It is clear that the conference was an event dominated by political advocacy. Most of the speakers were explicit about their political motivation and advocacy efforts: The talks by Obenzinger and Bar Zohar were wholly devoted to justifying and promoting their anti-Israel political efforts. Butler introduced her talk by saying that she had committed herself “to speaking out, and to encouraging other Jews to speak out”, and Ginsberg said that her goal was “to transform Zionism in the name of social justice”. Moreover, the anti-Israel political stands of the speakers must have been well-known to the conference organizer, as all of them had previously spoken out publicly against the Jewish State, either by signing divestment petitions and other public statements calling for halting all aid to Israel, boycotting Israeli academics, or organizing "Israeli Apartheid Week" events. Indeed, the conference organizer herself is a signatory the petition urging that the University of California divest from Israel.
4) The US Department of State, in its working definition of anti-Semitism, has included the following examples of the manifestation of anti-Semitism in public discourse:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor).
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
The description of the talks above suggests that every one of these examples found expression at this conference. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the speakers’ blatant anti-Israel bias and inflammatory rhetoric gave rise to the hostile behavior of some students in the audience towards the few people who openly expressed disagreement with the speakers.

____________________________(end)__________________________________

If you wish to share your concerns about this with responsible individuals at UCSC, please contact the following; let them know you read it on BlueTruth!

Acting Chancellor George Blumenthal: chancellor@ucsc.edu
Executive Vice Chancellor David Kliger: kliger@ucsc.edu
Dean of Humanities, Prof. Georges Van Den Abbeele: humdean@ucsc.edu
Dean of Social Sciences, Prof. Sheldon Kamieniecki: sk1@ucsc.edu
Prof. Ronnie Lipschutz, co-director, Center for Global International and Regional Studies (CGIRS): rlipsch@ucsc.edu
Prof. Daniel J. Wirls, Chair Politics: wirls@ucsc.edu
Prof. Gail Hershatter, Director Institute for Humanities Research: gbhers@ucsc.edu
Prof. Karen Barad, Chair Feminist Studies: kbarad@ucsc.edu
Prof. Judith A. Habicht-Mauche, Chair Anthropology: judith@ucsc.edu
Prof. Mary Beth Pudup, Chair Community Studies: pudup@ucsc.edu
Prof. Herman S. Gray, Chair Sociology: herman@ucsc.edu
Prof. Daniel J. Wirls, Chair Politics: wirls@ucsc.edu
Prof. Lisa Rofel, Anthropology (conference organizer): http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4602F4620005EF2C000000E42200737478C7CB080A0507039D0B?cmd=ComposeTo&adr=lrofel%40ucsc%2Eedu&sid=c0

Crossing the Line: Portrayals of Israelis as Nazis

Manfred Gerstenfeld has written a detailed report on the phenomenon of "Holocaust Inversion", the propaganda that the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is comparable to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. Of course, to anyone who has studied history, this comparison is so outrageous that the only excuses for it are either sheer ignorance (all too common these days) or deep-seated intractible malice against Jews (also, unfortunately, all too common these days). Gerstenfeld researches this phenomenon and shows its roots--especially in the Arab world.

Those who accept this type of propaganda from their anti-Israel fellow travelers should pay very close attention to this article.

Before posting comments, please note: in no way does BlueTruth claim that any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic. Read Gerstenfeld's article here to find out when such criticism DOES cross the line.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=0&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=0&IID=1526&TTL=Holocaust_Inversion:_The_Portraying_of_Israel_and_Jews_as_Nazis

The "silence" is deafening

Rabbi Michael Lerner published an opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury News last week in which he once again complained about having been labeled (along with Jimmy Carter, of course) as "anti-Semitic" and charged that there has been a "silencing of the debate on Israel policy". He claimed that "voices of dissent on Israeli policy must be given the same national exposure in the media" as those of the Jewish "establishment".

I just did a Google search on Michael Lerner and anti-Semitism; same with Jimmy Carter. The closest I could find to anyone in a major media outlet or in a major Jewish community organization calling either one of them anti-Semitic was Deborah Lipstadt's piece in the Washington Post in which she did state that "Carter has repeatedly fallen back -- possibly unconsciously -- on traditional anti-Semitic canards." Yet we constantly hear from these individuals, and from those such as Jewish Voice for Peace who clearly oppose Israel's existence, that they are being "silenced".

So I did another cursory Google check-- just within the past 2 weeks, Rabbi Lerner has been featured or prominently quoted in the following newspapers: The New York Times, The Baltimore Chronicle, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Forward, The Jewish Journal of Greater LA, and Washington Jewish Week. No doubt this list is incomplete. Of course, Carter has lately been in the news more than at any time since his term as President.

To accuse the media of ignoring critics of Israel is laughable. The media's ongoing misportrayals of the Palestinians are legendary examples of journalistic incompetence: equating suicide terrorists with their victims, portraying them as seeking to "end Israel's occupation" (without specifying that for the terror groups, Tel Aviv is occupied territory no less than Jenin or Nablus), banner headlines about a "massacre" in Jenin that never occurred, being duped by Hezbollah into running news stories about faked casualties during last summer's war, and so on. Readers can go to HonestReporting or CAMERA for details of these journalistic misadventures with the truth.

I'm not saying that either Lerner or Carter are anti-Semitic. I am saying that their claims of being "silenced" have become a deafening roar, and have become a way for them to deflect substantive criticism of their positions.