

1. More News from Orwellistic Israel: Terrorist murderer wants to

Finish his BA; Model Hebrew University Student 1. More News from Orwellistic Israel: Terrorist murderer wants toFinish his BA; Model Hebrew University Student http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149051 Freed Terrorist: I Want to Finish My University Degree

Hamas terrorist who directed the murders of two IDF soldiers: I don't

regret what I did. I want to finish the university degree I started.

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 10/25/2011, 6:09 AM

Hamas terrorists

Israel news photo: Flash 90

One of the 477 terrorists who were freed last week in exchange for

Gilad Shalit said on Monday that he has absolutely no regrets for what

he did.

Mohammed Sharatha directed the kidnapping and murders of IDF soldiers

Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon in 1989. Both soldiers were kidnapped by

Hamas terrorists as they were hitchhiking on their way back home from

their military bases.

Sasportas was kidnapped and murdered in February of 1989 and his body

was found three months later, in May. Saadon was murdered in May of

1989 but his body was not found until seven years later, in 1996.

Sharatha was captured by the IDF in Gaza shortly after Saadon's

murder. He was sentenced to three life sentences.

Interviewed by Israel's Channel 10 News just six days after his

release from prison and his return to Gaza, Sharatha said, "I did what

I did and I do not regret it."

Sharatha, who refused to cooperate with Israeli investigators and

reveal where Saadon's body had been buried, even after he was captured

and sentenced, said that the kidnapping and murder of the two soldiers

was a direct order from Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (who was

killed in an IDF air strike in 2004).

He explained why he refused to reveal the location of Saadon's body.

"Why did the enemy not show us the burial place of people whom we are

just now starting to look for? These are people who have been missing

since 1967," he said, adding: "Israel has secret prisons where there

are detainees whose identity is unknown."

Sharatha said that his one request of Israel now that he has been

released is to be allowed to finish the university degree from the

Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which he began while in prison.

Allowing terrorist prisoners to study while in prison is just one of

many benefits given to them by Israel. In comparison, Gilad Shalit

spent five and a half years in Hamas captivity and was not allowed one

single visit from the International Red Cross.

At the end of the interview, Sharatha encouraged future terrorists who

will commit murderous acts towards Israelis.

"They have a great experience and greater power, and their fighting

spirit is greater than ours," he said. "We are proud to have created a

generation that will continue with the battle and go further, and

Allah willing they will achieve victory." (Seems he was not accepted to Ben Gurion University's Politics

department because he was not anti-Israel enough for them!!)

2. The Boyfriend of Tali Fahima (Israeli Left's Poster Girl) re-arrested:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151225

Top Terrorist Turns Himself In after Pardon Cancelled

Fatah terrorist Zakaria Zubeidi turns himself in after the IDF cancels

his pardon.

By Gil Ronen & Elad Benari

First Publish: 12/29/2011, 8:42 PM / Last Update: 12/29/2011, 11:33 PM

Jenin

Israel news photo: Flash 90

Zakaria Zubeidi, the former Fatah leader in Jenin, turned himself to

the Palestinian Authority on Thursday evening.

Earlier, Zubeidi told the Ma'an news agency that Israel had canceled

his pardon and instructed him to hand himself in to the Palestinian

Authority (PA).

Zubeidi, who headed the Al-Aqsa Brigades during the murderous terror

war launched by the PLO in 2000, told the PA-based news agency he had

stuck to all the conditions of the amnesty deal granted him by Israel

three years ago.

However, he said, Israel informed PA security forces on Thursday that

Zubeidi's pardon had been revoked, and that Israeli forces would

detain him if he did not turn himself in.

Zubeidi was admired by an Israeli woman, Tali Fahima, who crossed the

lines to accompany him when he was wanted by the IDF. Fahima, who

served jail time for treasonous activities in the service of Fatah,

has since been released and converted into Islam.

3. Auld Lang Zion Should auld accomplice be forgot,

And never brought to trial?

Should auld Osloids, friend, be forgot,

In days of auld lang Zion? For betraying auld lang Zion, my dear,

For abasing auld lang Zion.

Should their accomplice be forgot,

In days of auld lang Zion? We yids ha'e run aboot the world,

Under fire the whole time.

We've wandered mony a weary foot,

To reach auld lang Zion. Save auld lang Zion, my dear,

Save auld lang Zion,

Indict those Oslo blaggards, dear,

For the sake of auld lang Zion!!!

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/30/womens-rights-and-double-standards/ Women's Rights and Double Standards Posted By Steven Plaut On December 30, 2011

Well, it seems the Obama team lately was running short of things over

which to bash Israel and so it decided that the treatment of women in

Israel is something that needs condemnation. Led by Hillary Clinton,

the Obama administration thinks that Israel does not treat its women

nicely or respectfully enough. This is the same Hillary Clinton who

never had much to say about the treatment of women in the Clinton

White House. Other administration bashers of Israel joined the feeding

frenzy. This is the same Obama team that rarely has had anything to say about

the treatment of women in the Muslim world, without a doubt the very

worst such treatment that can be found on the planet. Hillary

insisted that Israel's treatment of women is as bad as that in Iran,

although Obama people do not exactly speak out against the treatment

of women in Iran before breakfast each day. Hillary also used the

same opportunity to condemn Israel for considering the adoption of

transparency laws that would require disclosure of foreign funding to

political NGOs operating inside Israel, laws that are similar to what

the United States and many other democratic countries already have.

After all, how will those who desire Israel's annihilation be able to

finance picayune treasonous radical anti-Israel propaganda NGOs inside

Israel if such transparency ever takes effect? So when Hillary Clinton recently decided to speak out against the

mistreatment of Middle Eastern women, she singled out Israel for

condemnation, and then turned around to welcome a delegation of Saudi

feudalists with cordiality. If Hillary considers Israel a force of

anti-feminine darkness and repression, just imagine how awful she must

regard Scandinavia. She compared Israel's treatment of women with the

racial segregation that once was so common in the American South.

Israeli public figures, led by the secularist non-Orthodox Minister of

Finance Yuval Steinitz, denounced Hillary's comments as absurd and

incorrect. He was joined by numerous other secularist Israelis. The Obama administration is largely silent when it comes to the plight

of women in the Muslim world, but keeps condemning the only country in

the Middle East that has a woman chief justice, plenty of women in its

parliament, more women MDs and than men, countless women army officers

and court judges, and which has had a woman as head of state,

something the US has never had. Israel is also the only country in

the world where a panel of judges, two of them women, put a former

president in prison for alleged rape and sexual abuse of women. But

perhaps that is what really has Bill Clinton's wife so hostile to and

suspicious of Israel. Women university students in Israel have been the majority out of all

undergraduate Israeli students since 1980, reaching 58% of students in

1999. That is without including teachers colleges in the computation,

where women are a far larger share. Women students are the majority

of students, not just in the fields of education and humanities, but

also in such "non-traditional" fields for women as biological sciences

and agriculture. Women are a majority of medical students, 48.3% of

law students, and 39% of physics students, according to the latest

survey. There are also oodles of women students in math, engineering,

and computer sciences. Women students are also a small majority of

those pursuing MA and PhD studies. So just what got Hillary and the Obama team so upset? Well, it seems

that Israel has been debating the behavior of some small

ultra-religious Jewish sects, groups that believe in strict gender

separation, especially in public spaces. Known as the chareidim,

these are religious radicals, best known for their black clothing,

long sidecurls, anti-modern life styles, and especially for their

ideas about "modesty" for women. No Jew anywhere has to belong to

such communities and women in those communities unhappy with the life

style may leave at any time. In some communities of these chareidim, there have been initiatives to

introduce a small number of special bus lines in which women and men

do not sit together. When a secularist Israeli woman rider challenged

the initiative and sat in the "men's section" of one such bus Israel's

ultra-secularist leftist media proclaimed her the Israeli Rosa Parks,

and Hillary picked up the cue. In another incident, some religious

soldiers requested not to be required to attend a concert in which

women were singing, on grounds that according to their religious

outlook such singing is erotic and immodest. And in yet other

incidents, some signs were put up in the neighborhoods of chareidim

asking women not to congregate on a street next to a synagogue, or

calling on men and women in the name of modesty to walk on opposing

sides of some streets in those neighborhoods. Of course Hillary and the secularist media never object to signs in

mosques and churches in Israel and elsewhere that ask people not to

enter in immodest dress. Hillary and her Obama colleagues have never

condemned the Amish for their own pre-modern life styles and opinions

and gender roles. The enlightened media regard the Amish as downright

endearing, a charming tourist attraction. And you would never know it

from reading Hillary's statements, but one can find some neighborhoods

and communities of chareidim inside the United States, mainly in

Brooklyn and upstate New York, in which similar forms of gender

separation in the name of "modesty" are practiced. No one seems to

think this is grounds for a public outcry by politicians.

The enormous majority of Israelis reject the life style and opinions

of the chareidim, much as the bulk of Americans have no interest in

living the Amish life style. But the Amish generally are

beneficiaries of a "live and let live" attitude on the part of the

bulk of Americans. Most of the "conflicts" in Israel regarding the

"gender separation" sought by the chareidim would go away with similar

tolerance. The religious soldiers who asked to be excused from

listening to women singing did not demand that the singing event be

cancelled, and they were happy to do kitchen duty or guard duty

instead of attending. But their officers and secularist politicians

attempted to coerce them into attending to make a political point.

The chareidim who were denounced for requesting bus lines with

separate seating have now decided to finance their own independent

small bus company without public funding, in whose busses they can sit

in the manner they please. No one disturbed by those seating

arrangements need use those private bus lines or minibuses. And no one really needs to heed any of those signs on those few

Israeli streets in chareidi neighborhoods that call upon people to

behave in manners the chareidim consider "modest." I have walked

through such neighborhoods with my wife dressed in pants and otherwise

"immodest" secularist dress and with my daughter wearing her army

uniform, and not a single resident said a single word to us about it.

Even when my daughter was not carrying her gun. The Israeli media managed to uncover a tiny handful of cases in which

local chareidi residents spoke disrespectfully to some women or girls.

Well, I am a native Pennsylvanian and I have to tell you that I have

seen a few Pennsylvania Dutch hotheads speak disrespectfully to other

people. So what? Why is this news? The media rarely report cursing

or disrespectful speech by radical secularists. The Israeli chareidi attitudes towards women and gender separation are

actually not any more "pre-modern" or feminist-challenged than are

those among Israeli Moslems, Druse, and some other non-Jewish minority

populations. It was rather curious that Hillary and the rest of the

Obama team did not denounce Israeli Moslems and Druse for also

practicing gender separation in public spaces in the name of

"modesty." Condemning non-Jews for gender segregation is just not

politically correct. In a sense, Hillary was just following the lead of numerous

Bash-Israel leftist feminist organizations. Radical feminists and

their organizations have never been able to identify any mistreatment

of women in Arab countries beyond the supposed "suffering" of those

women due to Israeli "occupation." The feminists cannot conceive of a

better way to promote the interests of Moslem women than annihilation

of Israel and the accompanying genocide of Israel's Jewish population.

Feminist groups have rarely spoken out against Arab anti-Israel

terrorism, even though many of the victims of that terrorism are

themselves women. Even most of the feminist groups operating inside

Israel are radically pro-"Palestinian," pro-terror, anti-Israel, and

some are fronts for the Israeli communist party. They do not seem to

feel uncomfortable in the role of streetwalkers on behalf of

Islamofascism. The treatment of women in Arab and Moslem countries is so atrocious

that space here would not allow for even a superficial survey. In the

very same week that Iran announced that a woman convicted of adultery

would be mercifully hanged to death instead of stoned to death, the

Obama team could find nothing more deserving of condemnation than the

treatment of women in the only country in the Middle East in which

women are treated as humans deserving of equal rights.

(See also http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/30/israel-stands-up-to-gender-extremists/)

Professor Ze'ev Maoz (University of California and the Herzliya IDC)

endorses the Calls for The Complete Shutting Down of the Department of

Politics at Ben Gurion University; Insists it is a bunch of

substandard pseudo-academics Professor Ze'ev Maoz (University of California and the Herzliya IDC)endorses the Calls for The Complete Shutting Down of the Department ofPolitics at Ben Gurion University; Insists it is a bunch ofsubstandard pseudo-academics By Steven Plaut I must tell you that I am not generally a fan of Prof. Ze'ev Maoz. He

is a leftist and his written some obnoxious anti-Israel articles and

expressed some anti-Israel opinions (here is one:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/morality-is-not-on-our-side-1.193739

I will cite some others below). He is currently on the faculty of

the University of California at Davis and teaches at the Herzliya

Interdisciplinary Center. He used to be a professor at Tel Aviv

University and at the University of Haifa. But the fact that he is left of center makes what he has published

today even more important and newsworthy. Maoz has an Op-Ed in

Haaretz today endorsing the calls for the shutting down of the

Department of Politics at Ben Gurion University! As you know, a recent international panel appointed by Israel's

Council on Higher Education denounced the Department of Politics at

Ben Gurion University for being a radical anti-Israel indoctrination

center and a Bash-Israel propaganda operation, with no serious

academic credentials and standards, an "unbalanced" (meaning

anti-Israel) group of pseudo-scholars. The panel proposed shutting

the department down altogether. Israel's radical anti-Israel tenured

Left and their foreign Bash-Israel amen chorus raced to defend the

department, while a rising chorus of pro-Israel voices have echoed the

call of the international panel. Well, Prof. Maoz has chimed in on the controversy and he has issued

his own unambiguous call for closing the entire department of politics

at Ben Gurion University. You can see Maoz' Op-Ed (in Hebrew) here:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1602889 . Haaretz is not running

the piece in English (we wonder why) but I will sum it up for you

here. His Op-Ed is entitled, "Yes, Shut it Down!" He begins by proclaiming that he is a proud member of the Israeli

Left. He then goes on to tell how the tenured Left has been lobbying

him to oppose the recommendations of the panel, and asking him to

recruit international support behind the Department of Politics at BGU

in the name of "academic freedom." He then reveals that he himself had been recruited nine years ago by

the Council on Higher Education to evaluate the very same department

at BGU. At the time he proposed shutting down the entire department

for essentially the same reasons as those in the new panel report. He

claims his reasons were entirely academic, not political, just as the

current panel's recommendations are academic. Back then, Maoz found that there are no serious academic standards in

place in that department. Most of the faculty members have no serious

credentials in political science. He says that not only was the

Council on Higher Education not conducting a witch-hunt against the

Politics department at BGU, but it even refused to implement Maoz' own

recommendations, treated the department with permissive (his word) kid

gloves, allowed it to go on functioning and even to develop new

programs for students, and refused to apply the same rigorous

standards to the department of Neve Gordon and David Newman that it

was applying to all other departments across the board. He concludes that the Department of Politics at BGU is an academic

disgrace and the petitions of support for it are motivated by the most

dubious of motives. Translation: those petitions consist of

anti-Israel extremists seeking to defend other anti-Israel

pseudo-academic extremists from criticism and accountability.

Here are some previous items I posted about Ze'ev Maoz, to convince

you that he is no raving Right-winger: Ze'ev Maoz, Tel Aviv University

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742257.html

"There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North

is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be

said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an

introverted worldview, and double standards.

This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without

distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose

is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on

Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started

it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does

not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side."

Some more pearls from the mouth of Ze'ev Maoz: In October, 1996 he said:

"chance of army coup now possible." And in August 1996: "If the political

deadlock continues for a long time, and Syria reaches the conclusion that

there is no solution in the political option, it may reconsider the

military option as a viable one," he [Ze'ev Maoz] wrote.

In March 2002 he was interviewed saying: "Any initiative that comes from

the Arab world makes me considerably more optimistic," says Ze'ev Maoz, an

Israeli political scientist, "because it has the potential ... to lower

the psychological barriers that many Israelis have in terms of making

concessions for peace." At the same article it said: "Tel Aviv University

professor Maoz says Israeli supporters of a negotiated solution are

"regrouping because they are starting to realize that a policy of applying

force just for the sake of applying force, without any sort of political

vision, doesn't lead anywhere."

Further reading on Ze'ev Maoz:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/4768/edition_id/87/format/html/displaystory.html

c

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/4316/edition_id/78/format/html/displaystory.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0308/p06s01-wome.html

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep96/basch.htm (half way down the page)

The latest cause of Israel's tenured radicals is censorship. They

are all in FAVOR of it! The latest cause of Israel's tenured radicals is censorship. Theyare all in FAVOR of it! Hundreds of Israeli academics are issuing calls and signing

petitions demanding that a book containing unfashionable comments

about homosexuality be censored and barred from any use in academic

institutions. Not a single one of these tenured sheep ever condemned

the "book" by Tel Aviv University's Shlomo Sand that claimed that

there is no such thing as a Jewish people and that today's Jews are

merely descendents from converted Khazars and Berbers, having no

rights at all to self-determination and statehood. Not a single

participant in the campaign for censorship this week ever offered the

opinion that Sand's book should be removed from library shelves and

course syllabi. And not a single crusader for censorship this week

thinks that minority dissenting opinions about homosexuality have the

right to be aired in classrooms and textbooks. The ruckus this week over homosexuality involves a standard

Hebrew textbook in psychiatry entitled, "Prakim nivharim

b'psichiatria" ("Select Chapters in Psychiatry") the most recent

edition of was published in 2010. It expresses some unfashionable and

"politically incorrect" opinions about homosexuality. It describes

homosexuality as a disorder, insisting it is curable, and endorses

"conversion therapy," which is vehemently opposed by homosexual

militant organizations. The chapter that today's censors are upset

over was written by Prof. Shmuel Tiano, former director of the Geha

Psychiatric Hospital in Petah Tikva. You can see the Haaretz report on the ruckus in English here:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-textbook-slammed-for-calling-homosexuality-a-disorder-1.403572 A number of homosexual activist academics started a campaign

against the book, and the chat lists of Israeli faculty are filled

with calls for suppression of the book and censorship of "incorrect"

ideas about homosexuality. The book contains "incorrect

information," insist the censors. Suppose that it does. But so does

the book by Shlomo Sand. Since when does the fact that a book

contains incorrect information entitle the leftist thought police to

suppress and censor it? The tenured censors insist that students be prevented from hearing

the opinion that homosexuality is a disorder, and a treatable one at

that. Their vehement insistence that homosexuality is NOT a disorder

might be more easily marketable if these were not the very same people

also insisting that "transgendered" people (transvestites and those

who undergo genital mutilation) are ALSO "normal" people suffering

from no disorders at all. Without getting into a whole debate here

about homosexuality in general, let me just say that it is my opinion

that by adding that "T" to the "LGB" to construct "LGBT," the

politicized homosexual militant movement (which is almost always

anti-Semitic and pro-terror, by the way) has also shot itself in its

own foot and undercut any chances it ever had of persuading the

general public of its case for legitimizing homosexuality. And by leading the jihad for censorship, Israel's own militant

homosexuals, led by its tenured pinks, is showing its own fundamental

hostility to freedom of speech, academic freedom, and democracy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/hannuka_among_the_hellenists_1.html (reprint) December 15, 2006

Hannuka Among the Hellenists

By Steven Plaut Of all the Jewish holidays, the one that I think best captures the

contemporary Jewish zeitgeist, the one that is the most relevant to

the current (and, if certain trends are not reversed, the last?)

chapter in Jewish history, is Hannuka. Hannuka is, of course, the story of Jewish national liberation. It is

the story of the military victory of the few against the many, of the

champions of Judaism against the pagan barbarians.

But it is more than this. It is the saga of the heroic struggle of

Jewish survivalists (those one would today label "Zionists") against

the assimilationists and self-hating Hellenists of the second century

BCE. Hannuka is less a story about the battle against the Greeks than it is

about the battle against the predominant assimilationist paradigm at

the time among the Jews. It is about the battle against the

anti-survivalists, those who hated themselves for being Jews, those

who seek to be "progressive", "modern", and "in", through rejecting,

abasing, disgracing and degrading themselves and their people. The

Hellenists who fought the Hasmoneans were struggling against Jewish

survival. Sound familiar?

In the United States, the main movement of Hellenistic assimilationism

has been the school of "Political Liberalism as Judaism", the

pseudo-religion that holds that all of Judaism can be reduced to the

pursuit of this week's liberal political fads. But the global avante

garde of Jewish self-hatred these days is the Israeli Left.

The Israeli Left is the main manifestation today of Jewish anti-Semitism.

It not only promotes "plans" and policies designed to end Israel's

existence, increasingly endorsing the one-state, bi-national Rwanda

solution to the "problem" of Israeli national existence, but it also

regularly attacks every symbol and concept of traditional Judaism.

You think I am exaggerating? Well just consider the Op-Ed a few years

back in the Israeli anti-Zionist daily Haaretz, penned by one Yehiam

Shorek, a "historian" who teaches at the Beit Berl College in Israel.

Beit Berl is a college run by the kibbutz movement.

The "historian" Shorek devoted his Haaretz column to proving that the

Maccabees were fascist and racist hooligans, bloodthirsty zealots, and

downright Likudniks. His column was entitled "Bloodthirsty Zealots".

His thesis was that Jews should stop celebrating Hannuka and the

exploits of the Maccabees, and should instead feel sympathy for the

poor occupied and mistreated Greeks and Hellenists.

His article was not a spoof.

The evil Maccabees were plotting to perpetrate population "transfer",

wrote Shorek, that most evil of all crimes in the "minds" of Israel's

fundamentalist Leftists. Population "transfer" is far worse than, say,

mass murdering 2000 Jews after signing with them a series of peace

accords, or turning the West Bank and Gaza over to barbarian fascists

to allow them to carry out such mass murders. Shorek is a member of

that same Fundamentalist Left that will not rest until all Jews have

been expelled from the West Bank and Gaza in an act of ethnic

cleansing, and until no Israeli armed forces are left behind to

interfere with the terrorist activities of the "Palestinians."

Matityahu, the father of Judah Maccabee and his brothers, was a

lunatic, wrote Shorek. He was a warmonger who dragged his country into

an unnecessary "war of choice", one that was not a legitimate "war of

self-defense". (Never mind that there is nothing at all in Judaism

that says Jews should refrain from conquering their lands unless it is

part of a war of self-defense.) The Maccabees were the aggressors,

insisted Shorek. And they suppressed the free speech of those who

supported the Greeks; how undemocratic of them!

Judah Maccabee was guilty of causing many families to lose their loved

ones by leading people to war, wrote Shorek, instead of pursuing some

sort of Hellenistic Oslo appeasement and capitulation, the sort the

"enlightened Left" seeks today to impose upon Israel. All Judah

Maccabee really wanted to do was to Occupy, Occupy, Occupy, insists

Shorek. No better than the West Bank settlers today! And not only

that, but Judah and his hooligans were Orthodox Jews, which every

leftist knows must make them primitive and barbaric; you know, unlike

the enlightened Marxist historians who live on nice kibbutzim or teach

at the Beit Berl college.

Unfortunately, Shorek is hardly a lone phenomenon. Israel's

anti-Jewish leftists have been launching similar jihads against every

other symbol of Jewish valor. Masada was a cesspool of non-tolerant

fanatics, according to them. The Bible is a backward document full of

fabrications. Schools should stop teaching it altogether, they demand,

and instead teach something really useful, like the works of

Palestinian "poets". Archeology proves the Bible is nothing but lies

and fantasy, they insist. One wag labeled such people Pentateuch

Deniers (intended as a play on "Holocaust Deniers").

In Israel, the country's politics - particularly its

cultural/educational elite and its chattering classes - are now

largely dominated by those motivated by the desire for their country

to commit national suicide. They scorn themselves, their own country

and their own people, the same way that the Hellenized Jews did at the

time of the Maccabees. Many endorse boycotts of Israel by anti-Semites

abroad. Like the Hellenized Jews, they are convinced that

traditionalist Jews are reactionary and primitive, and that the

greatest national priority should be renunciation of Jewish

peculiarity and the striving to assimilate amongst the cosmopolitan

progressive "Greeks" of the world. They are ashamed of their

Jewishness and convinced that the only path to peace is to renounce

it. They insist that a Seleucid "narrative" should replace the Jews'

own reactionary national one.

Israel's universities are by and large the Occupied Territories of

these Hellenists. The Israeli media is to almost the same extent.

Hellenists dominate much of the Israeli military and, somewhat

incredibly, the intelligence services. (It is doubtful the country

could have undergone the Oslo debacle had these intelligence services

not operated as lap dogs for the Beilinized Israeli Left.)

Hellenists have attempted to rewrite the Israeli school curriculum, to

teach Israeli Jewish children to despise themselves. Their message is

that Jews must feel ashamed, because they are mean, selfish, evil and

immoral people. Surely, there would be no anti-Semitism on the planet

were not the Jews such racist and insensitive people.

Their aim is to convince the Jews that the only way they may become

accepted in the world is to adapt to paganism, to stop seeking to

exist as a separate national entity, to commit national suicide.

Moreover, their campaign is aimed at challenging the moral existence

of the Jews. They realize this is the weakest chink in the armor of

the Jews. If Jews can be convinced that they are morally in the wrong,

then no Maccabees will emerge. The aim of the Jewish Hellenists is the

delegitimization of the Jews as a nation, discrediting the moral

position of Jewish survivalism.

The message of the contemporary Hellenists is unambiguous: Those who

wish to purify the Temple, who seek pure oil for the Temple lamp, who

wish to evict the barbarians from Jerusalem, are the enemies of peace.

The Maccabees must be arrested for incitement. The Jews must provide

Antiochus with concessions and arms and funds and a Road Map. Under no

circumstances should the Jews seek to defend themselves militarily

against the Seleucids, for there is no military solution to the

problem of Seleucid aggression. If the barbarians murder the Jews, it

is because the Jews are evil, selfish people and because they have

been too reluctant to abandon their primitive survivalism.

If the Israeli anti-Jewish Left has its way, the Post-Hasmonean,

post-survivalist era will be upon us. 2. Ben Gurion University's leading "thinker" - comments on the true Maccabees: http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/BGU%20-%20Lev%20Grinberg%20-%20real%20Maccabis.htm

University of London's Efraim Karsh Exposes Ben Gurion University's

Pseudo-Academic anti-Israel Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities,

David Newman University of London's Efraim Karsh Exposes Ben Gurion University'sPseudo-Academic anti-Israel Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities,David Newman Karsh in Hudson NY: "Betraying Ben-Gurion" Follow the Middle East Forum MEF Home | Research & Writings | Middle East Quarterly | MEF @

Facebook | MEF @ Twitter | Donate Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and

submit your city & country location. We will use this information in

future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area. Betraying Ben-Gurion by Efraim Karsh

Hudson New York

December 22, 2011 It is ironic that Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU), Israel's

only university bearing the name of the Jewish state's founding

father, and established in the ancient desert he dreamt of reviving,

has become a hotbed of anti-Israel propaganda at the expense of proper

scholarly endeavor. So much so that an international committee of scholars, appointed by

Israel's Council for Higher Education to evaluate political science

and international relations programs in Israeli universities, recently

recommended that BGU "consider closing the Department of Politics and

Government" unless it abandoned its "strong emphasis on political

activism," improved its research performance, and redressed the

endemic weakness "in its core discipline of political science." In

other words, they asked that the Department return to accurate

scholarship rather than indoctrinate the students with libel. The same day the committee's recommendation was revealed, Professor

David Newman -- who founded that department and bequeathed it such a

problematic ethos, for which "achievement" he was presumably rewarded

with a promotion to Deanship of the Faculty of Humanities and Social

Sciences, from where he can shape other departments in a similar way

-- penned an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post in which he compared Israel's

present political culture to that of Nazi Germany. "I will no doubt be

strongly criticized for compared making such a comparison," he wrote, but we would do well to paraphrase the famous words of Pastor

Niemoller, writing in 1946 about Germany of the 1930s and 1940s: "When

the government denied the sovereign rights of the Palestinians, I

remained silent; I was not a Palestinian.

When they discriminated against the Arab citizens of the country, I

remained silent; I was not an Arab. When they expelled the hapless

refugees, I remained at home; I was no longer a refugee. When they

came for the human rights activists, I did not speak out; I was not an

activist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Even if every single charge in this paraphrase were true, Israel would

still be light years apart from Nazi Germany. But one need not be a

politics professor or faculty dean to see the delusion in these

assertions. To begin with, which Israeli government has denied "the sovereign

rights of the Palestinians"? That of David Ben-Gurion which accepted

the 1947 partition resolution with alacrity? Or those headed by Shimon

Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Benjamin Netanyahu,

which explicitly endorsed the two-state solution? Has Newman perhaps

mistaken Israel's founding father for Hajj Amin Husseini, leader of

the Palestinian Arabs from the early 1920s to the 1940s, who

tirelessly toiled to ethnically cleanse Palestine's Jewish community

and destroy the nascent state of Israel? Or possibly for Husseini's

successors, from Yasser Arafat, to Ahmad Yassin, to Mahmoud Abbas,

whose commitment to Israel's destruction has been equally unwavering? There is no moral equivalence whatever between the Nazi persecution,

exclusion, segregation, and eventually industrial slaughter of

European Jewry, and Israel's treatment of its Arab population. Not

only do the Arabs in Israel enjoy full equality before the law, but

from the designation of Arabic as an official language, to the

recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal resting days for

their respective communities, Arabs in Israel have enjoyed more

prerogatives than ethnic minorities anywhere in the democratic world. To put it more bluntly, while six million Jews, three quarters of

European Jewry, died at the hands of the Nazis in the six years that

Hitler dominated Europe, Israel's Arab population has not only leapt

tenfold during the Jewish state's 63 years of existence - from 156,000

in 1948 to 1.57 million in 2010 - but its rate of social and economic

progress has often surpassed that of the Jewish sector, with the

result that the gap between the two communities has steadily narrowed. It is precisely this exemplary, if by no means flawless, treatment of

its Arab citizens that underlies their clear preference of Israeli

citizenship to that of one in a prospective Palestinian state (a

sentiment shared by most East Jerusalem Palestinians). This preference

has also recently driven tens of thousands of African Muslims

illegally to breach the Jewish state's border in search of employment,

rather than to stay in Egypt, whose territory they have to cross on

the way. The treatment of mass illegal immigration (hardly the hapless

refugees presented by Newman) is a major problem confronting most

democracies in the West these days, where there is an ongoing debate

about what are the basic responsibilities of governments for their

citizens' wellbeing and the right of nations to determine the identity

of those entering their territory. Even more mind-boggling is Newman's equating Israel's attempt to

prevent foreign funding of Israeli nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) involved in the international Israel de-legitimization campaign

-- along the lines of the US Foreign Agents Legislation Act -- with

repressing political opponents by the Nazi regime. What "human rights

activists" have been unlawfully detained by the Israeli government,

let alone rounded up and thrown into concentration camps? On what

planet does the Ben-Gurion University faculty dean live? But Newman is not someone to be bothered by the facts. His is the

standard "colonialist paradigm" prevalent among Israeli and Western

academics, which views Zionism, and by extension the state of Israel,

not as a legitimate expression of national self-determination but as

"a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" (in the words of

another BGU professor) - an offshoot of European imperialism at its

most rapacious. And therein, no doubt, lies the problem with BGU's Politics and

Government Department: the only Israeli department singled out by the

international committee for the unprecedented recommendation of

closure. For if its founder and long-time member, who continues to

wield decisive influence over its direction, views Israel as a

present-day reincarnation of Nazi Germany in several key respects, how

conceivably can the department ensure the "sustained commitment to

providing balance and an essential range of viewpoints and

perspectives on the great issues of politics" required for its

continued existence? Efraim Karsh is research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean

Studies at King's College London, director of the Middle East Forum

(Philadelphia) and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed. http://www.meforum.org/3136/ben-gurion-university Related Topics: Academia, Israel & Zionism | Efraim Karsh This text

may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral

whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place

of publication, and original URL. You are subscribed to this list as eaengl@u.washington.edu.

To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to

http://www.meforum.org/list_edit.php

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to

http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php The Middle East Forum

Short Headlines in the Ongoing Saga of Israeli Apartheid Short Headlines in the Ongoing Saga of Israeli Apartheid

1. Abu Dawud was the guerilla pseudonym of Muhammed Dahud Udeh, the

uber-terrorhoid who planned and organized the 1972 massacre of Israeli

athletes at the Munich Olympics. He died last year, much too late and

much too easily. His widow is still alive and waddling. She was

allowed by Israel this past week, a bit foolishly, to enter the

country from Syria in order to attend a funeral. She fainted after

the funeral and was hospitalized in Ramallah by the "Palestinians."

Before her medical team had a chance to kill her with their

incompetence, she asked to be treated in Tel Aviv at the city's

fanciest private hospital, Assuta. Israel agreed and she was. You

and I are shouldering her costs.

2. This week three Jewish teenagers were arrested on suspicion of

having attacked Arab teenagers and yelling at them "Arabs, get out."

The police wanted them remanded and charged with racism, even though

the mother of one of the Arabs who claims he was attacked insists that

the background to the quarrel was not ethnic but just teenage

hooliganism. When they were brought before the judge, he assigned to

the Jewish teenagers the public defenders who were on duty that day.

They were Arab lawyers. They defended the Jewish teenagers and in

fact got them released. When asked how they felt about having

successfully released Jewish teenagers accused of attacking Arab

teenagers, the public defenders said Just Fine. (Story in Yediot

Ahronot today.) So as you can see, Israeli apartheid is all alive and

kicking.

3. You may recall that hundreds of Israel's tenured leftists signed

petitions and organized caravans of solidarity to a small Galilee

mosque that was vandalized a few months back, apparently by Jewish

vandals. Well, today's headline is

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150924

Police Silent on Synagogue Fire in Ramle

A member of Ramle's Jewish community say police are trying to hide the

rise of attacks on Jews in the city after a synagogue is "Torched"

Quick, guess how many of those same tenured leftists who signed the

earlier petition or who made pilgrimages to the village in the Galilee

with the vandalized mosque have signed petitions or spoken out about

this new incident! While you are computing your answer, here is a followup question: Baaa Baaa Tenured Sheep, have you any wool?

Yassir, Yassir, two bags full.

One for the mosque, sir, and one for the church,

But none for the little shul that burned down the lane.

The Jihad on behalf of Ben Gurion University's Tenured Extremists

By Steven Plaut The Jihad on behalf of Ben Gurion University's Tenured ExtremistsBy Steven Plaut

In Israel there are two schools of thought as to what a university

should be. The first school of thought, a shrinking minority opinion

on Israeli campuses, holds that universities should be centers of

scholastic inquiry, research, scientific exploration and analysis, and

teaching. The second school of thought, which is the growing

majority position, holds that universities should be indoctrination

centers in which radical leftist anti-Israel and sometimes Marxist

ideology is drummed into students by tenured thought police. Under

the second school of thought, faculty leftists bully students into

toeing the ideological line and agreeing with the ideological

positions of the lecturers, a bit like re-education camps in North

Korea. Student grades often depend upon their endorsing and agreeing

with the leftist anti-Israel positions of faculty members. Faculty

members are hired and promoted in many departments based on their

leftist ideological purity. Bashing Israel has become both a

necessary and a sufficient condition for being hired in many

university departments in Israel. The comparative prevalence of the two schools of thought varies by

disciplines. Natural sciences and engineering usually are dominated

by the first school. Social sciences, humanities, education and law

schools are dominated by the second. The political biases are well

documented at the web site of Isracampus (www.isracampus.org.il ). The first school of thought is very strong at all four of Israel's

liberal-arts universities (Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University,

Hebrew University, University of Haifa), and is weaker at the

science-engineering institutions (Technion and Weizmann) and at the

nominally religious Bar-Ilan University. In many ways Ben Gurion University is the very worst offender. The

most infamous of the "academic" units in Israel in which the second

school of thought dominates is the department of political science at

Ben Gurion University. There no Zionist or non-leftist is permitted

to teach. The one single dissenting pro-Israel faculty member who

once taught there was fired by the university for incorrect thinking.

The department was largely erected by one David Newman, currently Dean

of social sciences and humanities at Ben Gurion University, a

geographer (and Jerusalem Post columnist) who believes that academic

freedom means critics of the Left should be silenced and suppressed.

In the politics department he built, far-leftist anti-Israel faculty

members get evaluated for hiring and promotion by appointing

evaluation committees consisting of other far-leftist anti-Israel

extremists who then solicit evaluation letters from still other

far-leftist anti-Israel radical academics from around the world. The

results of these politicized and corrupt "evaluation procedures" of

faculty members is visible to all. The conversion of the department of politics at Ben Gurion University

into an anti-Israel indoctrination camp has by now become well known

around the world and to everyone in Israel. Last year Israel's

Council on Higher Education, which oversees and funds Israel's

universities (and is composed of representatives of those same

universities) appointed a special commission to investigate and

evaluate the Department of Politics at Ben Gurion University. That

commission found what everyone already knew, that the department is a

radical monolithic politicized incitement camp, not a serious academic

department, one in which anti-Israel activism had replaced serious

scholarship, and in which serious academic standards have been

trashed. The commission proposed that the entire department be shut

down unless radical reform and restructuring takes place, including

complete de-politicization of and introduction of real pluralism into

the department. Since that CHE report was issued, Israel's radical Left, led by its

tenured Left, has been leading a campaign to defend the anti-Israel

indoctrination camp calling itself the Department of Politics at Ben

Gurion University. They have been joined by the President of Ben

Gurion University, Rivka Carmi, who sees nothing wrong with a

university department engaged in anti-Israel agitation in which no

pro-Israel person may teach. And they are also being championed by

Haaretz, the radical anti-Israel leftist "newspaper," better thought

of as a Palestinian newspaper published in Hebrew. These people

insist that preserving the second school of thought in Israeli

academia is the country's highest priority. Universities must

continue to serve to indoctrinate students into correct leftist

anti-Israel ideology. All attempts at interfering with this sacred

mission must be resisted and defeated. Now the tenured Left in Israel is organizing petitions of like-minded

radical tenured leftists in Israel and around the world to express

their support and solidarity with the Ben Gurion University

indoctrination camp. Here is the report in Haaretz about this:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/academics-seek-to-keep-biased-ben-gurion-department-open-1.402450

. An actual examination of those signing the petitions shows that

they are themselves radical Marxist and anti-Israel pseudo-academics.

So naturally they identify with the sacred need to preserve and defend

leftist pseudo-academic indoctrination at Ben Gurion University. While one could go through the lists of signers of the petition name

by name to document their own anti-Israel far-leftist biases, it is

sufficient to illustrate the point with one of the leading signers,

Berkeley's Judith Butler. She is a notorious collaborator with

anti-Semites and supporter of Israel annihilation. An analysis of the

academic credentials and political bias of Butler appears here: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/09/collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-judith-butler/ The full piece is reprinted here: Collaborators in the War against the Jews: Judith Butler

Posted By Steven Plaut On March 9, 2010

Professor Judith Butler from Berkeley's Department of Rhetoric and

Comparative Literature is not just your ordinary deconstructionist

feminist anti-Semite. A self-proclaimed leading scholar in the

pseudo-discipline of "Queer Studies," she is also one of the leading

academic defenders of anti-Semitism, which she insists is not

anti-Semitic at all. She has devoted much of her academic career to

the struggle to see Israel eliminated. While often posturing as a

free speech absolutist, she is also absolutely opposed to Israelis

having any academic freedom and is a leader in the attempt to impose a

world boycott against Israeli universities. Naturally, she has never

come out in favor of an academic boycott of Syria, Libya, Iran, Cuba,

or the Hamas. Hamas and Hezbollah may seek the extermination of every

Jew on the planet and not just of Israel, but Butler still likes to

wave her "Jewish roots" when she serves as an apologist for them.

Butler is perhaps best remembered as one of the most strident

attackers against Lawrence Summers, the ex-President of Harvard. She

was horrified when Summers proclaimed: "Profoundly anti-Israel views

are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual

communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking

actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent

(September 17, 2002)." Butler venomously denounced Summers for

telling the truth, arguing that telling the truth threatens academic

freedom: "Summers has struck a blow against academic freedom, in

effect, if not in intent."

Edward Alexander, who is also a professor of comparative literature,

explains that Butler's hysterical attacks on Summers stemmed from

something more than her girlish enthusiasm:

"Butler had herself signed the divestment (against Israel) petition at

its place of origin, Berkeley, where it had circulated in February

2001. She therefore found Summers' remarks not only wrong but

personally 'hurtful' since they implicated Judith Butler herself in

the newly resurgent campus anti-Semitism. Butler could hardly have

failed to notice that the Berkeley divestment petition had supplied

the impetus and inspiration for anti-Israel mob violence on her own

campus on 24 April 2001, a few weeks after it had been circulated, and

for more explicitly anti-Jewish mobs at San Francisco State University

in May of the following year."

Summers insists that people who oppose Israel's very existence are

anti-Semitic. The fact that a second Jewish Holocaust would result

from Israel's annihilation does not seem to matter to his attackers

like Butler. She writes, "A challenge to the right of Israel to exist

can be construed as a challenge to the existence of the Jewish people

only if one believes that Israel alone keeps the Jewish people alive

or that all Jews invest their sense of perpetuity in the state of

Israel in its current or traditional forms." The fact that the very

people calling for Israel to be annihilated are not calling for the

elimination of any other country, not even a single one of the 22

fascist Arab states, cannot possibly have anything to do with

anti-Semitism, she insists.

Butler's proof that anti-Israel radicals are not really anti-Semites?

It is that she manages to find some anti-Israel extremists among

Israelis, the Israeli equivalents to Taliban John, Lord Haw-Haw, and

Noam Chomsky. She writes, "Identifying Israel with Jewry obscures the

existence of the small but important post-Zionist movement in Israel,

including the philosophers Adi Ophir and Anat Biletzki, the

sociologist Uri Ram, the professor of theatre Avraham Oz and the poet

Yitzhak Laor. Are we to say that Israelis who are critical of Israeli

policy are self-hating Jews, or insensitive to the ways in which

criticism may fan the flames of anti-Semitism?" The proper answer to

her question is often: yes.

Butler recently showed up in the Middle East, to strut her support for

the intifada. As a militant feminist, however, she was on a bizarre

mission. In February, 2010, she spent her time in the West Bank

shilling for the very same Palestinian Islamic terrorist groups who

make a point out of torturing and murdering homosexuals and who insist

that the place of women in Muslim society is somewhere out back and

out of sight, barefoot and scarved. Like so many apologists for

Islamofascism, the only "oppression" of Palestinian women Butler could

find was their supposed mistreatment by the Zionist "occupiers." You

know, the same ones who have a woman Chief Justice in their Supreme

Court, who have more women doctors than men, and who have elected a

woman as Prime Minister. Butler denounced Israel at length for its

"mistreatment" of Arab women, and never mind that they are treated at

least a thousand times better by Israel than they are inside any Arab

regime. Meanwhile, Islamic religious figures in Egypt have been

proclaiming that Muslims have the natural right to rape all Jewish

women. Butler has yet to issue a response to that.

To remove all doubt, Butler made it clear that she objects to Israel's

presence not only in the West Bank, where she was doing her Terrorism

Grand Tour. She also wants Israel removed from within Israel's

pre-1967 borders. Butler has long supported a worldwide boycott of

Israel, and not simply because Israel "occupies" the West Bank. She

has made it clear that she demands that Israel allow millions of Arabs

claiming to be Palestinian "refugees" to flood into Israel and convert

it into yet another Palestinian Arab state. She wants this even after

the creation of some Palestinian state.

While in the West Bank, Butler went to visit a "theater" in the

terrorist stronghold of Jenin. Theatrics is largely what Jenin is all

about. During Israel's battle against terrorists there in April of

2002, the Bash-Israel Left invented fictional tales about Israel

carrying out a "massacre," some even calling it a "genocide." As it

turned out, after days of Jenin street-to-street gun battles, launched

by the Palestinians intentionally in built-up urban areas, 23 Israeli

soldiers were killed along with a few dozen terrorists. Less than 20

Palestinian civilians died in the intense urban firefight, largely

because Israel foreswore reducing the town to rubble using artillery

to spare civilian collateral damage. It sacrificed the lives of its

own soldiers for that reason. And this was called "genocide." A

propaganda film about the battle called "Jenin, Jenin" was later

produced by Israeli Arab pro-terror director Mohammed Bakri, who

himself publicly admitted that his film was a tissue of lies. Bakri

is now being sued by some Israeli soldiers for libel.

Butler explained to her terrorist hosts that she opposes the existence

of a Jewish state even alongside some future Palestinian Arab state.

Instead, she favors what she calls a bi-national state, something

along the lines of Rwanda. She claims to be some sort of authority

on Hannah Arendt and promotes her anti-Israel "bi-nationalism" by

obsessively citing Arendt's ancient writings on bi-nationalism (at

Berkeley Butler is officially the "Hannah Arendt Professor"). Of

course, no one knows just what Arendt would have to say about the

Arab-Israeli conflict in the twenty-first century. But one suspects

that anyone like Arendt who spent so much time studying the

totalitarian mindset would retch at the willingness of people like

Butler to vouch and shill for Palestinian violence.

Butler writes: "And if we have a bi-national state, it's expressing

two nations. Only when bi-nationalism deconstructs the idea of a

nation can we hope to think about what a state, what a polity might

look like that would actually extend equality." Come to think of it,

the genocidal consequences of bi-nationalism in Rwanda are pretty

close to what Butler seems to have in mind for the Israeli Jews. Among

the terrorists who hosted her in Jenin was Zakaria Zabeidi, a head of

the genocidal "Al Aqsa" Brigades. Assaf Wohl, a columnist in Israel's

leading daily Yediot Ahronot, dismissed Butler as a Jewish

anti-Semite.

According to Professor Edward Alexander,

"Prior to the autumn of 2003, this University of California professor

of rhetoric and comparative literature was, like many members of

Berkeley's 'progressive' Jewish community with which she habitually

identifies herself, somebody who defined her 'Jewishness' (not exactly

Judaism) in opposition to the State of Israel. She was mainly a signer

of petitions harshly critical of the Jewish state, full of mean spite

towards its alleged 'apartheid' and 'bantustan' practices, oily

sycophancy towards such Palestinian figures as Sari Nusseibeh, and a

habit of covering over the brutality of Arab terror with the soft snow

of Latinized euphemisms. She was one of the 3700 American Jews opposed

to 'occupation' (Israeli, not Syrian or Chinese or any other) who

signed an 'Open Letter' urging the American government to cut

financial aid to Israel; later she expressed misgiving about signing

that particular petition–it 'was not nearly strong enough…it did not

call for the end of Zionism.'"

Butler, whose PhD is actually in philosophy, is a walking illustration

of the very worst things wrong with the humanities. She is a leading

American proponent of "Queer Theory" (which is what she calls it.)

You will never discover in "Queer Theory" any scientific hypotheses

about what produces homosexuality. Instead, it serves as the umbrella

term for politicized militant homosexuals seeking the annihilation of

America, Israel, and capitalism. Whether such people seriously think

that homosexuals are treated better in non-capitalist regimes and in

the Islamic sections of the Third World is doubtful.

Butler's favorite prefix is "post." She uses it more often than the

Cliff-the-Mailman character on "Cheers." She proudly describes

herself a "Post-Zionist," by which she means she is anti-Zionist.

Butler likes to describe herself as a "poststructuralist," and

sometimes also as a "Post-Marxist," which – as far as we can tell –

seems to mean a Marxist. (The Marxist New Left Review is one of

Butler's favorite venues.) She claims to reject "dialectics" as her

political theology because it is too "phallogocentric," and that has

upset some of the members of the academic Comintern.

Like so many members of the tenured Left – her favorite methodology of

analysis is the silly polysyllable. Her writings ooze

"Deconstructionist" jive and are exercises in the worst forms of

pseudo-academic NewSpeak. And that is when she is sticking to her

actual "discipline," not pontificating about the Middle East, about

which she has no expertise or training at all. "Deconstruction" is

the nonsensical infantile "philosophy" that argues that words have no

meaning, there are no facts nor truth, and the only thing we can

really be absolutely certain about are that the US and capitalism and

Israel are evil and must be eliminated. Language is the ultimate form

of tyranny and source of control over us oppressed folks by those evil

elites. There are no false narratives, just different subjectivities.

Deconstructionism has become something of a pseudo-intellectual

orthodoxy among certain of our academic colleagues, especially those

in the academic professions that never quite found out where's the

beef.

Butler's "theories" about feminism include her argument that sexual

relations are "performative," and are based on "regulatory discourse."

The "system" attempts to impose "constructions of binary asymmetric

gender." She has even devoted time to celebrating drag queens:

"There is no original or primary gender a drag imitates, but gender is

a kind of imitation for which there is no original." A fuller

collection of some of her bizarre pronouncements can be read here.

She insists, "Masculine and feminine roles are not biologically fixed

but socially constructed," which seems to prove that she never took

any biology courses back at Yale.

A typical Butler bloviation is this:

"Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of

iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. And

this repetition is not performed by a subject; this repetition is what

enables a subject and constitutes the temporal condition for the

subject. This iterability implies that 'performance' is not a singular

'act' or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under

and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and

taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and

compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist,

determining it fully in advance." (From Butler, Judith 1993; Bodies

That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex". New York: Routledge.

pp. 95. )

It is almost impossible to read a sentence by Butler without reacting

with a loud "Huh?" So much of it sounds like a parody of an academic

being concocted by "The Onion" or "National Lampoon." In 1998 she won

first-prize in the Bad Writing Contest sponsored by the academic

journal Philosophy and Literature. She won for this sentence:

"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood

to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view

of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition,

convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality

into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of

Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical

objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility

of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up

with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of

power."

So much of what Butler writes is so mindless and filled with so many

grammatical flaws that one wonders how her text survives a word

processing program. Butler's take on the 9-11 attacks on America was

that "the violent acts of 9/11 is (sic) exacerbated by the inability

of Americans to recognize the precariousness of non-American

(particularly Muslim) lives. They are always already dead, and

therefore cannot be killed." Huh? She insists that the West is guilty

of this: "These excluded are brutally subjected to the "violence of

derealization." Huh? She "claims that the War on Terror has provided

a climate where the sexual freedoms she and others fought for are now

misused to symbolize (sic) the shining, gleaming modernity of the

West. The backwardness and inferiority of 'others' is counterposed

(sic) and underscored against this." Huh?

In an interview she explains how her feminism differs from that of

some of the others, like Catharine MacKinnon or Andrea Dworkin: "I'm

not always calling into question who's a man and who's not, and am I a

man? Maybe I'm a man [laughs]." She is not one of those folks in favor

of homosexual marriage, by the way. In fact she is opposed to

marriage: "It's very hard to speak freely right now, but many gay

people are uncomfortable with all this, because they feel their sense

of an alternative movement is dying. Sexual politics was supposed to

be about finding alternatives to marriage."

Butler was one of the noisiest people denouncing the Campus-Watch

website for daring to criticize anti-Israel radical Middle East

Studies faculty members. Naturally, Butler thinks that critics of

anti-Israel radicals are not entitled to freedom of speech and that

their criticism is "McCarthyism."

While she likes to beat on her drum about supposedly growing up in a

Jewish home, there is no evidence that she knows the slightest thing

about Judaism. She claims her "Jewish values" are what drive her to

embrace Palestinian anti-Semites and barbarians. Here she sums up

her own knowledge of Judaism: "As a Jew, I was taught that it was

ethically imperative to speak up and to speak out against arbitrary

state violence." There is no such Jewish ethical imperative. She

clarifies: "There were those who would and could speak out against

state racism and state violence, and it was imperative that we be able

to speak out. Not just for Jews, but for any number of people."

Needless to say, the only "state violence" she feels obliged to

denounce is that supposedly practiced by Israel when it defends its

civilians. She is not exactly outspoken when it comes to the state

violence practiced by Iran or Syria.

As part of Butler's campaign on behalf of Palestinian terrorism, she

likes to wave about the fact that she herself grew up as a "Reform"

Jew. There are very few things wrong with the world that she does not

attribute to the unforgivable desire by Jews for self-determination.

Her attitude towards the Jewish homeland was summed up by her thus:

"The argument that all Jews have a heartfelt investment in the state

of Israel is untrue. Some have a heartfelt investment in corned beef

sandwiches."

When it comes to academic streetwalking on behalf of anti-Semitism and

Palestinian violence, that old adage is true: the Butler did it.

1. Send some condolences! 1. Send some condolences! Isracampus Invites you to send Condolences

As you no doubt have heard, Kim Jong II, the goosestepping Stalinist

brat who had been running the North Korean gulag in recent years, just

croaked. Isracampus would like to invite you to send an e-note of

condolence to Noam Chomsky; his email address is chomsky@MIT.edu

Then, please send similar letters of condolence to Israel's own

leading hardcore communists and Stalinists. These include TAU

"historian" Shlomo Sand: shlomosa@post.tau.ac.il; his sidekicks Gadi

Algazi at gadi.algazi@gmail.com and Yoav Peled at pol1@post.tau.ac.il;

Oded Lowenheim, who teaches international relations at the Hebrew

University, at oded.lowenheim@huji.ac.il; Jacob Katriel, retired

Technion Stalinist, at jkatriel@techunix.technion.ac.il; Eyal Nir from

Ben Gurion University, an active communist party member, at

eyalnir@bgu.ac.il; Ofer Cassif, central committee member, at

ofercass@mta.ac.il; and Yuri Pines from the Hebrew University, at

pinesy@mscc.huji.ac.il (if you do not think he is a Stalinist, se his

web page at http://www.eacenter.huji.ac.il/Pines).

PS. As you know, the suffix to web addresses for Israel always end in

.IL. Well, it occurred to me that there are so many communists at

Tel Aviv University that perhaps it should use as its web address

www.Kim.Jong.IL 2. Many on the American Right are pouring out tears at the passing of

Christopher Hitchens. I am one who thinks he was an evil little

bigot. A long-time far-leftist he moved well to the right on many

things. But at the same time he developed from a radical atheist into

a gutter hater of Judaism and Jews, a hater of Israel, and even a

chummy associate of Holocaust Deniers. (There is some debate as to

whether he himself was one.) You can see more about him here:

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/12/13/main-feature/1/christopher-hitchenss-jewish-problem See also http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/02/the-hidden-anti-semitism-of-christopher-hitchens-and-the-new-atheists/

3. Israel's worst academic bimbo:

http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial%20-%20Lee%20Kaplan%20-%20Haifa%20U%20-%20Dalit%20Baum%20-%20BDS%20and%20lies%20of%20omission.htm

4. Another great scholar from Tel Aviv University:

http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/TAU%20-%20Chen%20Misgav%20-%20figure%20in%20Queer%20Geography.htm And yet another one:

http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/TAU%20-%20Aeyal%20Gross%20-%20pinkwashing%20claims%20basis%20for%20NYT%20Israel-bashing.htm

1. David Mizrachi has had a tragic life, and then to top it all off

he fell victim to Israel's politicized dual judicial system. 1. David Mizrachi has had a tragic life, and then to top it all offhe fell victim to Israel's politicized dual judicial system. Mizrachi lives in Kiryat Arba, the Jewish town on the outskirts of

Hebron. Five years ago, Mizrachi's daughter, who was the mother of

small children, was mortally injured by a bullet that was accidentally

fired from a weapon. For several weeks she hung on to life, as

Mizrachi nursed her, but in the end died from the injury. Two years

later Mizrachi's own son, who had been born to him when Mizrachi was

quite advanced in age, died in a traffic accident. The cave of

Mahpela in Hebron, not far from his home, is where another Jew is

buried who gave birth to a son only at an advanced age. After both tragedies, Mizrachi and his wife set up a shop inside a gas

station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba. Two years ago, just a few months after they lost their son in the

accident, Mizrachi was napping at home when the phone rang. He picked

up the phone and heard hysterical screams from his wife that she was

being attacked and stabbed. A "Palestinian" terrorist had entered the

gas station and stabbed his wife in the neck. Mizrachi raced to the

station, but did not see his wife, and feared for the worst, that she

had been killed. He saw the terrorist who had attacked his wife,

captured and in the custody of several soldiers. Mizrachi climbed

into his car and drove straight at the terrorist, running him over and

injuring his legs. The soldiers took the terrorist to the hospital

and he recovered. Mizrachi's wife also was treated and recovered.

Mizrachi had a nervous breakdown and was incapacitated, unable to

continue to work or run the shop. Ah, but then in stepped the Israeli Attorney General's office and

decided to prosecute Mizrachi for "attempted homicide." For running

over the terrorist who had just stabbed his own wife. Let us bear in

mind that there have been cases in which Arabs lynched Jewish killers

after they were disarmed and the Arabs were never prosecuted for so

much as jaywalking. The two most famous cases that come to mind are

Baruch Goldstein, who was lynched and killed after being disarmed

following his murderous attack against Arabs in the same Mahpela

shrine, and Eden Natan-Zada, a mentally ill young Jew who killed

several Arabs or Druse in Shfar'am and then was lynched by the mob. But Mizrachi's case was different. Arabs attacking Jews in Israel are

like dogs biting mailmen and are of little interest to the Prosecution

or to the leftist media. When a Jew attacks an Arab terrorist in

Israel, he (or she) must be prosecuted. There was some internal debate among the prosecutors. Some wanted

Mizrachi charged with attempted homicide, but he was eventually

formally charged "only" with causing grievous bodily injury. Still

others wanted his emotional state and breakdown taken into account so

he would not be indicted at all. His wife begged in court that he not

be sent to prison, lest it destroy what was left of the man. The

prosecution demanded that he serve a full year of hard prison time.

One of the judges on the panel of three denounced the prosecution for

indicting Mizrachi at all. In the end Mizrachi was sentenced to three

months in prison. Mizrachi should instead have been granted a medal and the Israel

Prize, maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize. Terrorists should be executed.

They should be lynched. They should be shot and have their carcasses

dumped from choppers into the sea. They should be targeted by drones.

When terrorists are attacked by civilians, especially when those

civilians are themselves victims or relatives of victims of those

terrorists, the "attackers" should have statues erected in their

honor. If a terrorist stabbed a member of my family, I would drive my

car in such a way that "causing injury" would never be a relevant

count in my indictment. My car would NOT have run over the

terrorist's LEGS. (Above based in part on news story in Besheva weekly newspaper) 2. In another matter of gross judicial stupidity and incompetence,

many of you have perhaps heard of the verdict a few days back against

Israeli writer Naomi Ragen. Let me say that, while I have never met

Naomi face to face, I consider her a great writer, a great Israeli,

and a great Jew. She may be best known for her fiction, but she also

writes some of the best publicist articles coming out of Israel. I am

not exactly the best judge of literary achievement, but she is

generally regarded as one of the best English-language authors of

fiction in Israel (her books have also been translated into Hebrew and

probably other languages). Her books are often about women's roles in

Judaism, and also rich in portrayals of traditional Judaism. Some of

you may be on Naomi's email distribution list for her articles. She

made aliyah from the US 40 years ago and lives in Jerusalem. Several years back Naomi was sued by one Sarah Shapiro, an

ultra-Orthodox (charedit) woman writer in the US. Shapiro claimed

that Ragen plagiarized material from an earlier book manuscript

written by Shapira. The book by Ragen in question, in which the

"plagiarism" allegedly appears, is something like 450 pages, out of

which there were perhaps 3 or 4 sentences that closely resembled

sentences that appeared in the earlier manuscript by Shapiro. The

"plagiarized" sentences have appeared in the press so I suppose

everyone can read them to make up his or her own mind about them. To

me they look like 3 or 4 similar sentences out of a 450 page book. I

imagine that if you went searching through all the publicist postings

I have posted over the years you could probably find 3 or 4 sentences

that closely resemble sentences in the Koran and conclude that I have

been plagiarizing from the Koran. Shapiro hired a lawyer. She was later joined by a second plaintiff

making similar charges. The wheels of judicial injustice spin slowly

in Israel, and it took years, until last week, before the court

reached a verdict. It found against Naomi. Of course this is the

same court system that found damages in favor of anti-Semite Neve

Gordon. The court has not yet ruled on how much "damages" it will

order Ragen to pay. Accusations of "plagiarism" against well known people on the basis of

similarities in phrases, sentences, or themes in writing are not

uncommon. Among other people who have been accused of such

"plagiarisms" have been Alan Dershowitz, whose "plagiarism" has long

been a cause celebre of the radical Left (and for which he was long

ago officially cleared by Harvard), writer Dan Brown, and other

writers and songwriters. The ruling in the Ragen case came out the

very same week in which a Dutch architect designing buildings in South

Korea was accused of designing them as "plagiarized" representation of

the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center being destroyed by

terrorists. The Ragen court case was complex and I do not pretend to know all of

its details. Nevertheless it is my opinion that the court ruling

against her was a gross injustice and the ruling judge was a fool.

Ragen seems to believe that the entire suit was politically motivated

by some chareidim who were offended by Ragen's own critical portrayal

of chareidi life. Those plaintiffs then found a foolish or

incompetent judge to side with them. Among the reasons for my

skepticism about the motives of the plaintiffs is the fact that the

plaintiffs filed criminal complaints with the police against Naomi's

own husband after he sent them a newspaper clipping about how those

who had sued author Dan Brown for "plagiarism" eventually suffered

significant losses to their estates when the verdict clearing Brown

was issued AFTER the plaintiffs had died, where the damages were

deducted from the property they bequeathed. What is criminal about

sending a newspaper news clipping? Naomi could use some words of encouragement, so – if you are of such a

mind – you can send her some at nragen@netvision.net.il.

Israel's Mona Lisa Weapon

By Steven Plaut Israel's Mona Lisa WeaponBy Steven Plaut She's unforgettable, she's a legend though...

It's kinda incredible

--- From "Mona Lisa" by Britney Spears Meet Israel's secret weapon against terrorism, code named "Mona

Lisa." Not only is Mona Lisa an effective weapon against Arab

anti-Israel terrorism and Islamofascism, but also is one of the most

effective weapons in the Israeli arsenal against the guttersnipes

screaming about imaginary "Israel Apartheid." Let us sit back and

watch in amusement as Hitlerjugend from the "Boycott and Divest from

Israel" movement and their fellow jihad travelers try to cope with our

Mona.

There are two critical things you need to know about this new

secret weapon. The first is that Mona Lisa is the real name of an

Israeli woman combat soldier. At her parents' suggestion - she writes

it as a single word, Monalisa (Nat King Cole did the same!). The

second thing you need to know is that she is an Arab.

Monalisa Abdo is a nineteen year old combat soldier in the

Israeli Defense Forces. She serves in one of Israel's elite

anti-terror units. Moreover she wears the legendary red army boots

that only Israel's most elite fighting units wear, the Israeli

equivalents of the American SEALS and green berets. My own military

experiences are timid in comparison with what soldiers do and no one

would ever think of letting me even get near a pair of red combat

boots.

Monalisa grew up in Haifa. Most Israeli Arabs are not

conscripted into the Israeli military, but they may volunteer to serve

if they wish. Some do so out of patriotism and loyalty to the state,

and some do so because of the career benefits and training that will

help them later in the workplace. Monalisa is clearly among the

former. Her story and an interview with her appear in the December 2,

2011 issue of Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper.

She describes the nasty comments some Arabs made to her and her

family members when she signed up. She dismisses them. And her

parents are squarely behind her. "Israeli Arabs need to serve in the

Israeli military," she insists in the interview, "to give to the

country and not just take." Israel is our country and we need to

serve it, she believes. And military service is beneficial for those

who serve, she adds, teaching them discipline and responsibility.

Monalisa's older sister Michelin, age 21, has also decided to enlist

and will start her service in a few days. In the same unit as Mona.

Monalisa not only asked to enlist in the Israeli Defense Forces

but signed up for an elite combat unit named "Karkel," in which both

men and women serve side by side on the front lines. Karkel is the

name of a wild desert cat that lives in Israel's south. The unit is

station in the Arava desert close to the border with Egypt. Hunting

down terrorist infiltrators is its specialty.

She describes her first day in uniform, when she was being

outfitted with equipment and fatigues. The orderlies gave her the

ordinary black combat boots that non-elite soldiers wear. "You gave

me the wrong boots," she insisted, "I demand the red combat boots."

And she got them. She says that when she first put them on, she felt

like a super-model. And while old men like myself are not supposed to

notice such things in 19 year olds, from her photo it is clear she

really could pass for a model if she decided to pursue that instead of

military service.

Since starting her tour of duty, she has taken the

non-commissioned officer training course and is already a NCO. When

asked in the interview how she gets along with the Jewish women

soldiers, she says just great. "There are no differences among us, we

support and help one another."

And about her name. Where did it come from? "My father wanted

me to always walk with pride with my head erect, and it had just that

effect upon me," she explains.

Come to think of it, maybe we have here the most effect

countermeasure yet against the Western campus bashers of Israel, the

anti-Semitic professors, and the jihadi wannabes holding their

anti-Israel protests and whining about Israeli "apartheid." In

reality, Israel is of course the only Middle East state that is NOT an

apartheid regime. Maybe Israel should let loose Monalisa, Michelin,

and the rest of the red-booted fighting tigresses and invite them to

apply those boots to some anti-Israel protester posteriors with

extreme prejudice! Home