EclectEcon

The staged appearance of the killing of al-Dura, staged to make it appear the boy was killed by Israeli troops, set off a wave of fury:

On September 30 2000, two days after Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel’s opposition Likud Party, went for a walk on Temple Mount, Palestinians mounted a demonstration at Gaza’s Netzarim Junction. A 55-second piece of video footage of that demonstration, transmitted that day by the French TV station France 2, was to cause unprecedented violence in the Middle East and throughout the world.

The footage, with a voice-over by France 2’s Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, showed what was said to be the killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli marksmen. Viewers saw the child crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, as they sheltered next to a barrel under what Enderlin said was Israeli gunfire, and then slumping to the ground as Enderlin pronounced that he was dead.

That image of the boy screaming in terror before being killed was uniquely incendiary. It portrayed the Israelis as diabolically gunning down a child in cold blood, even as he cowered for his life. It ignited the Arab and Muslim world with apparent proof that the Israelis were deliberately killing their children, inciting a murderous frenzy.

Al-Dura became a poster boy for the Palestinian and Islamist war against Israel and the West. The day after the France 2 broadcast, the second intifada erupted in its full fury; according to the 2001 Mitchell report, the two events were directly connected. Twelve days later, a mob of Palestinians shouting, ‘Revenge for the blood of Mohammed al-Dura’ lynched two Israeli army reservists and dragged their mutilated bodies through the streets of Ramallah.

When al-Qaeda decapitated the journalist Daniel Pearl, the video of this atrocity was punctuated with references to al-Dura. After September 11 2001, Osama bin Laden said: ‘Bush must not forget the image of Mohammed al-Dura.’ Several Arab countries issued postage stamps with his picture. On Palestinian Authority TV and in its school books, al-Dura’s example is used to encourage other children to emulate his spirit of ’sacrifice’.

But we now know that this whole fiesta of violence and incitement was based on a lie. For whatever people think they saw in those 55 seconds, it was not the death of that boy. He was not killed by Israeli bullets; he was not killed at all. At the end of France 2’s famous footage, he was still alive and unharmed. The whole thing was staged, a fantastic piece of play-acting, an elaborate fabrication designed to blacken Israel’s name, and incite the Arab and Muslim mobs to mass murder.

Melanie Phillips has a very detailed account of the entire affair. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

In addition, Alan Adamson links to some insightful comments about the media trial that ensued, in which France 2 and Charles Enderlin sued Phillipe Karsenty for libel when he exposed the sloppiness, bias, and outright untruths in the original story as reported on France2 by Enderlin.

To understand the al-Dura affair, it helps to keep one thing in mind: In France, you can't own up to a mistake.

Not even if it contributes to intifadas, death, anti-Semitism, and more hatred.

For links (omitted here), see this.

From Stratfor:

Reports from Canada say Hezbollah operatives have been detected conducting surveillance on Jewish targets in Toronto, including schools and synagogues. U.S. sources have confirmed increased Hezbollah activity as well. Intriguingly, the reports specifically said the men conducting the surveillance were Hezbollah members, not just men of Middle Eastern appearance. That either indicates a deep penetration of Hezbollah in Canada — the Canadians knew the political affiliation of the men — or psychological warfare against Hezbollah, an attempt to let the group know the Canadians are on to them. If this is a Hezbollah operation, the Canadians just told them they were busted.

Why announce it? To deter Hezbollah from attacking Jewish sites? To say, "We're watching you, and we will stop you before you succeed?" To reassure the voters that the Canadian spy agency really is effective?

But at the same time, won't this also tell Hezbollah that they need to improve and rethink their terrorism projects?

My favourite drug dealer, JB, has some amusing speculation about why the University and College Union of England has been trying to implement a boycott of Israeli scholars:

Unions are about, at least in part, protectionism (protecting the jobs of people who would lose them in a completely open market). The UCU are merely protecting themselves against being shown up by Jewish scholars, since no intelligent, self-respecting Jew would now want to go to Britain on an exchange basis, whether or not the UCU sanctions a boycott.

Next on the UCU list will be Americans and then Germans if number of Nobel laureates by country is used as a metric for sanctions.

The University and College Union of the United Kingdom is still trying to implement a boycott of Israeli scholars. Norm Geras, of NormBlog points out very effectively that anti-Semitism is the only logical explanation for their persistent attack on Israeli scholars (h/t to MA):

In posting once again on this matter, it's not my purpose to repeat the arguments I've made at length in the past opposing an academic boycott of Israel. ...

It is rather to register what I think is the political meaning of this latest decision by the principal union of British academics. No one should be misled by talk of solidarity with the Palestinians. Solidarity is expressible with any people that has suffered, or is suffering, an historical injustice without the add-on attempt to ostracize and/or punish academics of one nationality. The boycotters understand this perfectly well, in as much as their solidarity statements and efforts in relation to all other peoples than the Palestinians are free of the ostracizing and punitive add-on. The latter is seen by them as relevant to Israelis and Israelis only, for reasons that have never been persuasively explained. [emphasis added]

The University and College Union is now therefore committed to a policy which is anti-Semitic: aimed at Israeli Jews alone and at no other academic community on the entire planet, irrespective of the gravity of the crimes committed by the governments of the countries such academic communities inhabit. According to one account of the proceedings that led to the most recent UCU decision, a speaker who raised the issue of anti-Semitism was jeered for doing so, 'albeit mildly'. Perhaps we should draw comfort from the fact that the jeering was merely mild and not raucous. The conclusion is, in any case, now unavoidable that the UCU is a union that is morally tainted. Containing a core of activists who will keep returning with boycott motions so long as their previous efforts have failed; who will try to bypass clear legal advice by reformulating their aims in a more surreptitious way; who are unwilling to have this issue put before the union membership as a whole; and who are so insensible of the historical weight of anti-Semitism and its consequences as well as of its contemporary resurgence that some of them see fit to mock the very mention of it as being a diversion; the union appears to lack what is necessary to deliver them the defeat that they deserve.

Where is the international outrage this time [h/t to Jack]?

Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-foes. ...

Opposition to Israel is a fundamental principle in Shi'ite Muslim Iran, which backs Palestinian militants opposed to peace with the Jewish state.

A 2005 statement by Ahmadinejad saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map" outraged the international community.

This past Sunday evening I attended a dinner in honour of Paul Davenport, president of The Univesity of Western Ontario. He was being honoured by the Jewish National Fund for his continued strong support of openness, freedom, and tolerance. For more details, please see this.

The guest speaker was Alan Dershowitz, a man with a strong presence and a brilliant mind, and author of The Case for Israel. At one point during his address, he said (loosely paraphrased, with apologies):

Some time ago, I spoke at the University of California at Irvine. There were 1200 people there to hear me. Of course most of them were there to see if I would say that OJ really did it. But there was a small group over on one side who were strong supporters of Israel, and there was a small group on the other side who were strong supporters of the Palestinians....

I asked the supporters of Israel how many would be willing to accept a negociated, secure two-state solution, and they all raised their hands. I asked the supporters of Palestine the same question, and not one of them raised their hands.

And that example says more than you might imagine about why so many of my postings are pro-Israel. Two-state solutions of various forms have been offered intermittently for over 70 years, and Israel (even before it existed as a country) has always been willing (albeit sometimes reluctantly) to accept them. The Arabs living in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt were, for the most part, unwilling to accept them.

And then Dershowitz dropped a bombshell: he said he suspects that Yassir Arafat eventually rejected the negotiated settlement of 2000-2001 on the advice of ex-president, Jimmy Carter. If his suspicions are correct, Carter has even more to answer for.

There were perhaps 30-50 usual-suspect protestors outside the venue where President Davenport received his honour and Professor Dershowitz spoke. Before the ceremonies began, and in keeping with the spirit of the evening, Dershowitz went out to speak with some of the protestors and gave them a copy of his book.

.

On Wednesday,

The University and College Union (UCU) ... passed a motion that would allow for the reintroduction of a boycott of Israeli academia.

At its annual congress in Manchester, the motion was passed without debate and by a show of hands.

The motion follows last year's attempts by the union to implement a similar boycott motion, but was withdrawn by the Union following undisclosed legal advice.

This year's motion was debated ... despite legal advice which clearly states that any boycott of Israeli academia would be in breach of the unions own anti-discrimination policies and British anti-discrimination laws.

As regular readers know, I oppose this boycott on two distinct grounds.

• I favour academic freedom and think we should not ban association with scholars from any country simply because of that country's policies or abuses of human rights.
• I see no reason (other than anti-Semitism) to single out Israel when there are so many countries that are truly horrible.

Update: Here is more from Engage, a site well-worth visiting:

UCU Congress passed a motion which incites members to discriminate against Israeli academics on the grounds of their nationality. ...

There was a short debate, dominated by procedural wrangling which was curtailed suddenly and quickly when somebody moved "that the motion be now put". The chair called for a final speech for the motion, didn't allow one against, and 90% of the delegates voted for the motion.

Although the boycott campaign has always demanded the right to have a proper debate, when it came to it there wasn't any serious debate. A couple of demagogic "as a Jew" speeches from Michael Cushman and Haim Bresheeth and it was all over.

There was no debate on whether "criticism of Israel as such is antisemitic". There was no debate about what it means to claim that Israeli academia is "apparently complicit" in Israeli human rights abuses. There was no debate about the significance of UCU's official encouragement to members "to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating."

UCU, again has an antisemitic policy, one which violates its own constitutional commitment to equality and which also violates the Race Relations Act 1976. It was passed after only trivial debate and consideration.

Congress rejected an amendment which would have stipulated that there could be no call to boycott Israelis without a ballot of the UCU membership. Congress doesn't want to ballot the membership. It wants to dictate policy to the membership.

Update: For more, see Michelle Malkin and her references, especially to Melanie Phillips.

It looks as if some of the leaders of the UK's UCU will be attempting to implement a formal boycott of Israeli universities and academics again this Wednesday at the UCU's annual congress. This boycott has never made any sense to me since it castigates academics and universities in a country that does more for democracy, freedom, and human rights than any other country in the region. Why doesn't the UCU go after Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria or, for that matter, China? One plausible explanation for the behaviour of those promoting the boycott is simple: anti-Semitism.

For more, see the excellent work by Engage. As David Hirsch says in an article recently reproduced in Engage,

No antiracist and no scholar should need the case to be explicitly set out against a campaign to exclude Israelis from the cultural and economic life of humanity; especially from the global academic community. There is no campaign to exclude anybody else; only Israelis. That a reputable scholarly journal feels it has to commission an article giving reasons why such an exclusion is a bad idea should tell us something worrying about the depth and scope of contemporary antisemitism.

Irena Sendler died at the age of 98 on Monday, May 12th. She was a brave Polish social worker who helped save the lives of hundreds, and probably thousands, of Jewish children during World War II. From Wikipaedia,

During the World War II German occupation of Poland, Sendler lived in Warsaw ... while working for the city's Social Welfare Department. Under the pretext of conducting inspections of sanitary conditions during a typhoid outbreak, Sendler visited the ghetto and smuggled out babies and small children in ambulances and trams, sometimes disguising them as packages. She also used the old courthouse of the edge of the Warsaw Ghetto (still standing) as one of the main routes of smuggling children out. She started helping Jews a long time before the Warsaw Ghetto was established. As early as 1939, when the Germans invaded Poland, she began helping Jews by offering them food and shelter. Irena and her helpers made over 3,000 false documents to help Jewish families, before she joined Zegota and the children's division. Helping Jews was very risky — in German-occupied Poland, all household members were punished by death if a hidden Jew was found in their house. This punishment was more severe than those applied in other occupied European countries.

In December 1942, the newly created Children's Section of the Żegota (Council for Aid to Jews), nominated her (under her cover name Jolanta) to head its children's department. As an employee of the Social Welfare Department, she had a special permit to enter the Warsaw Ghetto, to check for signs of typhus, something the Nazis feared would spread beyond the ghetto. During the visits, she wore a Star of David as a sign of solidarity with the Jewish people and so as not to call attention to herself.

She cooperated with the Children's Section of the Municipal Administration, linked with the RGO (Central Welfare Council), a Polish Relief Organization tolerated under German supervision. She organized the smuggling of Jewish children from the Ghetto, carrying them out in boxes, suitcases and trolleys. The children were placed with Polish families, the Warsaw orphanage of the Sisters of the Family of Mary or Roman Catholic convents such as the Sisters Little Servants of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mary at Turkowice and Chotomów. Some were smuggled to priests in parish rectories where they could be further hidden. She hid lists of their names in jars, in order to keep track of their original and new identities. Zegota assured the children that, when the war was over, they must be returned to Jewish relatives.

In 1943, Sendler was arrested by the Gestapo, severely tortured, and sentenced to death. Żegota saved her by bribing the German guards on the way to her execution. She was left in the woods, unconscious and with broken arms and legs. She was listed on public bulletin boards as among those executed. For the remainder of the war, she lived in hiding, but continued her work for the Jewish children. After the war, she dug up the jars containing the children's identities and began an attempt to find the children and return them to living parents. However, almost all the children's parents had died at the Treblinka extermination camp.

Today's Globe and Mail carries a scurrilous opinion piece, billed as a web-exclusive comment, asserting that Israel's war in 1948 was an act of ethnic cleansing.

What the piece does not mention is that

• It is not "ethnic cleansing" when one country whose existence is threatened fights wars to hold off the aggressors; why do so many writers keep forgetting or refusing to refect upon the implications of what the Arab-Israeli wars were about?
• Israel's actions were the result of the Arab countries' refusal to acknowledge the creation of the state of Israel. The shelling and the fighting by the Israelis would not have taken place if Jordan, Syria, and Egypt had accepted the existence of Israel in 1948.
• Israel did not set out to cleanse the area of its former residents. Those residents left primarily because of (a) the war that was started by the Arab countries, and (b) assurances by those Arab countries that Israel would soon be driven out of existence and they would be able to return to their homes in a matter of days or weeks or months. And,
• these Arab countries themselves were carved out of the former Ottoman empire. What about all the Jews who were forced to leave their homes and possessions in Arab countries by the anti-Semitic regimes in those countries? Their losses have by far outweighed those of the Arabs who left Israel.

I can easily be convinced that the Israelis made mistakes in their early years. But to emphasize those mistakes without granting Israel the right to fight for its very existence gets to the heart of most writings that castigate Israeli policies. If the Israelis had not fought hard and wisely in 1948, 1967, and 1973, they would not exist as a country today. And most of the displacement that has followed during the 60 years of Israel's existence would not have occurred had Jordan, Syria, and Egypt been willing to accept their new neighbour.

Update: Eric, a friend and former colleague, writes,

Here are useful antidotes to this, on Israel's sixtieth anniversary:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200403u/int2004-03-25

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/1948--israel--and-the-palestinians-br--the-true-story-11355?page=all

1948 was a big mess, and if it had not been Israel, it might have been worse for the Palestinians--with all of the mistakes made. A two-state solution, with the right security moves, is the way to go. Even though Israel has accepted this and the Arab world has refused it several times. Don't forget that Israel's national anthem, Hatikvah means 'hope'.

Most of us know that, for the most part, the mainstream media have a serious anti-Western bias. Nobody says it better than Rebekah, who started her posting by noting that the weather forecast was inaccurate:

Still, it seems to me that the little picture of a gloomy sky is a lot more accurate, in the long run, than the Associated Press, ABC News, and other sources, on the topic of the "unrest" in Lebanon. Sure, they mention "possible civil war." Sure, they mention the numbers of dead, the "militants", the people of Beirut, Tripoli, etc., still living in fear... but they gloss right over its true root cause:

Heavy fighting broke out Sunday between supporters of Lebanon's Western-backed government and opposition followers in the central mountains overlooking the capital, security officials said.

Um. "Western-backed government". Would those "opposition" members be Hezbollah? Who's backing the "opposition followers"? No mention, although it has been very well-established that Iran and Syria have been pulling the strings for that "opposition" group for quite some time, now. Hezbollah, the invading force, gets labeled as "opposition"!

This sits right up there with blaming the Israelis for shooting back at the sphincters in Gaza who target Israeli civilians for death. Nice "journalism", guys!

I confess. I have not seen Fitna, the movie. Having read some reviews, I don't really care whether I see it. I doubt if it is a very good movie or a very bad movie. But I'd rather read blogs or watch CSI on television.

If you really want to see it, there are lots of sites hosting it even though threats from Muslim extremists caused LiveLeak to remove it from their site.

Nevertheless....

As when the Danish cartoons caused so much violence among Islamic extremists, I am once again appalled and deeply concerned about the clash between their perceptions of their religion and the heretofore sacrosanct western ideals of freedom of speech. I am equally appalled that Canada's embarrassment to the world, Louise Arbour, has once again spoken out against freedom of the press and in favour of appeasing terrorists. Here is a letter my friend Eva sent Ms. Arbour:

I have just read that you have condemned the movie, "Fitna".

Have you seen it? I doubt it. I have seen it because I took advantage of the opportunity to watch it during the short number of hours it was shown on a web-site. I knew that the time would be short and, of course, threats have been made to the lives of the people who posted the film on the internet and they have been obliged to withdraw the film.

If you had seen it, you would know that the film consists of exact extracts from the Koran. Yes, the verses are very bloody and full of hate, but Wilders didn't invent the verses. What he did was to show that there are powerful, murderous sectors of the Islamic world who take the inflammatory, incitement contained in the verses very literally indeed. The verses were accompanied by newsreel shots of the incitement being carried out in the real world, by Islamic militants, not by Mr Wilders. The newsreel shots were originally broadcast on AL Jazeera, the BBC and other media outlets. You didn't complain then, did you?

Aren't you addressing your moralistic fervour in the wrong direction? Aren't you blaming the messenger and not the originators of the worldwide hate, blood, gore and mayhem? Admit, you are terrified of the true violators of human rights and turn your anger to those who point it out. If you were truly concerned with human rights you would speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of Islamic extremism.

From Bruce Smith, quoted by the Israpundit:

Criticism leveled at Israel for her response to terrorist attacks by Hamas in the Gaza says more about those who criticize Israel than it does about the legality of the reprisals.

Given the restraint shown by Israel so often when under attack, we should be praising the Israeli gubmnt, not condemning it.

An impressive story. It is available from many different sources on the internet. Here is an excerpt from Wikipaedia:

During the 1930s and 40s the son of the founder of the Leica camera company, Ernst Leitz II, a Protestant, and his daughter Dr. Elsie Kuehn-Leitz smuggled hundreds of Jews out of Germany before the Holocaust.

The story has only recently been told in detail, as the Leitz family members involved did not want the details made public during their lifetime. ...

To help his Jewish workers and colleagues, Leitz quietly established what has become known among historians of the Holocaust as "the Leica Freedom Train," a covert means of allowing Jews to leave Germany in the guise of Leitz employees being assigned overseas.

Employees, retailers, family members, even friends of family members were "assigned" to Leitz sales offices in France, Britain, Hong Kong and the United States.

Leitz's activities intensified after the Kristallnacht of November 1938, during which synagogues and Jewish shops were burned across Germany.

Before long, German "employees" were disembarking from the ocean liner Bremen at a New York pier and making their way to the Manhattan office of Leitz Inc., where executives quickly found them jobs in the photographic industry.

From the Sandbox [links omitted in this excerpt],

The Boston Globe has just run an op-ed under the headline "Ending the Stranglehold on Gaza." The authors are Eyad al-Sarraj, identified as founder of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, and Sara Roy, identified as senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. The bias of the op-ed speaks for itself, and I won't even dwell on it. But I do want to call attention to this sentence:

Although Gaza daily requires 680,000 tons of flour to feed its population, Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of 99 percent.

You don't need to be a math genius to figure out that if Gaza has a population of 1.5 million, as the authors also note, then 680,000 tons of flour a day come out to almost half a ton of flour per Gazan, per day.

A typographical error at the Boston Globe? Hardly. The two authors used the same "statistic" in an earlier piece. They copied it from an article published in the Ahram Weekly last November, which reported that "the price of a bag of flour has risen 80 per cent, because of the 680,000 tonnes the Gaza Strip needs daily, only 90 tonnes are permitted to enter." Sarraj and Roy added the bit about this being "a reduction of 99 percent."

Note how an absurd and impossible "statistic" has made its way up the media food chain. It begins in an Egyptian newspaper, is cycled through a Palestinian activist, is submitted under the shared byline of a Harvard "research scholar," and finally appears in the Boston Globe, whose editors apparently can't do basic math. Now, in a viral contagion, this spreads across the Internet, where that "reduction of 99 percent" becomes a well-attested fact.

What's the truth? I see from a 2007 UN document that Gaza consumes 450 tons of flour daily. The Palestinian Ministry of Economy, according to another source, puts daily consumption at 350 tons. So the figure for total consumption retailed by Sarraj and Roy is off by more than three orders of magnitude, i.e. a factor of 1,000. No doubt, there's less flour shipped from Israel into Gaza--maybe it's those rocket barrages from Gaza into Israel?--but even if it's only the 90 tons claimed by Sarraj and Roy, it isn't anything near a "reduction of 99 percent."

Canada has opted out of the 2009 United Nations Human Rights conference. The reason? Canada actually cares about human rights.

The Stephen Harper government has withdrawn its support for a UN anti-racism conference scheduled to take place next year in South Africa, according to a media release today from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, said today that the conference, like its predecessor in 2001, "has gone completely off the rails... Canada is interested in combating racism, not promoting it. We'll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance".

... The last UN anti-racism conference held in Durban in 2001 degenerated into a hate-fest of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel vitriol, while the most egregious human rights violators escaped criticism. The Toronto Star today reported that "all of the non-governmental organizations invited to the first conference have been invited back to the second, including those that were at the 'forefront of the hatred', some of which posted pro-Hitler posters at the 2001 gathering."

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is in charge of planning for the conference, an entity that has directed 93% of its resolutions on human rights violations at just one nation - Israel. Iran is a member of the organizing committee, despite its government's open call to wipe the Jewish homeland off the face of the earth.

"The Stephen Harper government has again demonstrated that Canada can project power as a moral leader in international affairs," added [Alistair] Gordon [Director of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies]. "A nation does not need a massive military to provide the moral leadership and clarity that denies legitimacy to Orwellian UN agencies that hijack the language of human rights to promote Jew-hatred.

"Stephen Harper has signaled that Canada will act on principle, regardless of UN consensus. This is the stuff of global leadership."

Also, yesterday, Canada was the only country to vote against an anti-Israel motion before the UN kangaroo Human Rights Council. A youtube of the votes (30-1, with 15 abstentions) is here. Check out the 30 countries that voted in favour of the condemnation.

So much for freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and academic freedom. From the Washington Post,

WARSAW — Polish prosecutors are considering taking the unusual step of filing criminal charges against an Ivy League professor for allegedly "slandering the Polish nation" in a book that describes how Poles victimized Jewish survivors of the Holocaust in the aftermath of World War II.

Jan T. Gross, a Princeton University historian and native Polish Jew, has raised hackles here with the publication of "Fear," an account of Poland's chaotic postwar years in which Jews who barely survived the brutal Nazi occupation under the Germans often went on to suffer further abuse at the hands of their Polish neighbors.

The book was first published in 2006 in the United States, where reviewers found it praiseworthy. Gross's work, however, generated bitter feelings among many Poles who accused him of using inflammatory language and unfairly stereotyping the entire population as anti-Semitic. When the Polish-language edition of his book was released here last Friday, prosecutors wasted no time in announcing that he was under investigation.

A spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office in Krakow, which is handling the case, said a decision was expected this week on whether to press charges against Gross or summon him for questioning.

The law in question was adopted in 2006, around the time that "Fear" was published in English; Gross and some other historians say it was partly a response to the book. The measure prohibits anyone from asserting that "the Polish nation" was complicit in crimes or atrocities committed by Nazis or communists. The maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment.

The threat of legal action has not deterred Gross so far. ...

"It's completely bizarre," he said, seeming to relish the attention. "There's an old saying in Polish that if God wants to punish someone, he takes away their brains first."

... "I'm not going to say the majority of his facts are wrong," said Machcewicz. "It is true: Polish anti-Semitism existed. There were pogroms. Many Jews were killed. There is no reason to deny it or hide it. . . . But the language he used is counterproductive."

Poland's tragic wartime history remains a highly sensitive topic here. The Nazis exterminated an estimated 3 million Jews in Poland, or about 90 percent of the prewar Jewish population. But 3 million other Poles were also killed, and many people see them as forgotten victims in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Many Poles are still reluctant to engage in an open discussion of those years. Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the archbishop of Krakow, suggested this week that the publisher of the Polish-language edition of "Fear," a printing house with close ties to the church, had made a mistake.

"Your task is to promulgate the truth on history and not to wake up demons of anti-Polishness and anti-Semitism at the same time," he said. "Reading the book filled me with pain."

... As he prepared to launch his book tour, Gross said he was not surprised at the hostile reaction.

"The memories of the war here are fixed, of people being victims and heroes," he said. "The truth of the matter is that European societies during the war did not behave as they'd like to think toward Jews."

He also said he was not intimidated by the risk of a legal backlash or any other dangers. Next week, he is scheduled to make a public appearance in Krakow, the city where prosecutors are weighing legal action.

"People have warned me that I should worry and not walk at night alone, but I don't feel any threats," he said. At the same time, with his photograph in dozens of newspapers and magazines these days, he admitted to wearing a hat to disguise himself on the streets. "We'll see what happens," he said with a shrug.

.

The ledes of the coverage of George Bush's statements in the Middle East were truly horrid. From the opening paragraph in the coverage by Washington Post,

JERUSALEM, Jan. 10 — President Bush said Thursday that Palestinian refugees should receive compensation for the loss of homes they fled or were forced to flee during the establishment of Israel and declared that there should be an end to Israel's "occupation" of lands seized in war four decades ago.

Bush tied his remarks about ending the occupation to statements expressing concern for Israel's security. In fact, he expressed an understanding that so long as Israelis are experiencing rocket attacks and suicide (and other) bombings, there would good reasons for Israel not to want to pull back to the pre-1967 borders. But we see that only much later in the story:

"These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized and defensible borders."

He also said,

"I can also understand that until confidence is gained on both sides, why the Israelis would want there to be a sense of security."

These are important qualifications to "end the occupation." The stories could just as easily have led with "Bush defends Israel's right to security," and have captured the essence of much of his speech.

If I were an Israeli leader, I would say something like this:

We, too, want peace in our land. We have tried time and again to negotiate a withdrawal from the west bank territories, but every time we reach an agreement, the arabs renege and our security is threatened once again. Until the rest of the world can guarantee our security, we must hang onto those territories and maintain the security fence.

And as for compensation, keep in mind that most of the arabs who fled Israel nearly 60 years ago did so not out of fear of the Jews. They did so because the arab nations (in particular, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt) told them to leave, promising they would drive the Jews into the sea in a few days. I.e., don't blame Israel for most of the dislocations.

I understand that paying compensation is probably preferable to the "right of return" that the region's arabs are demanding. But if there is to be compensation, make the surrounding arab nations pay it. And not just because of the bad advice they gave in 1948, but also because they refused to allow, much less encourage, the refugees to integrate into their new countries. But of course the western media don't mention these little items.

For a solid analysis of Bush's speech and of the situation, see this.

For more on media anti-Israel bias, see this about the BBC.

Melanie Phillips has a recent item by this same title. Here are some excerpts, dealing with the exodus of Christians from Bethlehem:

... the only reason the Palestinians are suffering from the security barrier is that it was erected solely to stop them from murdering any more Israelis. If they abandoned their terrorism, the barrier would immediately come down.

Such moral blindness apart, it is truly remarkable that these mindless bigots never pause to ask themselves the obvious question. If it really is Israel that is driving out Bethlehem’s Christians, then why isn’t it equally driving out Bethlehem’s Muslims? Same Israeli ‘occupying’ forces; same separation barrier; same hardship, brutality, economic sanctions etc. Are we to assume, perhaps, that Israel has a particular problem with Christians, rather than the Muslims or Arabs in general, that the rest of the world has somehow missed?

(In which case, might they not also scratch their heads at the fact that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christians have thrived and multiplied, rising in number from 34,000 in 1948 to nearly 130,000 in 2005?) Might there not be the teensiest, weensiest morsel of a clue in the fact that, whereas a few years ago Bethlehem was mainly Christian, now it is 80 per cent Muslim? Might the fact that such a dramatic change occurred simultaneously with Bethlehem coming under Muslim control after Oslo (thus making all those responsible for that satirically named 'peace process' accessories to the persecution of Bethlehem's Christians) just possibly have something to do with it?

From Melanie Phillips,

[T]he iconic image of the child Mohammed al Durah, pictured crouching with his father behind a barrel next to a concrete wall in an apparently vain attempt to shelter from the gun-battle between Israel and the Palestinians that was raging around them before he was allegedly shot dead by the Israelis, served to incite terrorist violence and atrocities around the world after it was transmitted by France 2 at the beginning of the second intifada. Yet it is clear to anyone looking at this in detail that the whole thing was staged, not least from the devastating evidence here which shows the boy raising his arm and peeping through his fingers seconds after the France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin said he had been shot dead.

Philippe Karsenty, who runs a French media watchdog, criticized the France 2 report and was successfully sued for libel. That case is now under appeal, and the additional evidence that is coming out strongly indicates that France 2, its journalist(s), and its managers all had/have a strong anti-Israel bias that smacks of anti-Semitism. As Phillips says,

There were many very strange things about this footage which just didn’t add up. When it came to the footage of the ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah, the following stood out:

* This sequence was not a continuous narrative but was repeatedly broken up and spliced onto footage of other scenes from the demonstration
* Although the France 2 cameraman had told a German film-maker, Esther Shapira, that he had filmed six minutes of the al Durah father and son under continuous Israeli fire, the footage of them lasted for less than one minute

* There was a camera tripod next to them
* There was no evidence of the boy actually being hit
* At one point, people in the crowd cried out that the boy was dead, while he was sitting up large as life clinging onto his father with his mouth wide open
* After he was said to be dead, he moved his arm (the sequence I have already reported which has been available on the web for years)....

The ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah was swallowed uncritically by the western media, despite the manifold unlikeliness and contradictions which were apparent from the start, because it accorded with the murderous prejudice against Israel which is the prism through which the Middle East conflict is habitually refracted. This scandal has the most profound implications not just for the media, not just for the Middle East conflict but for the western world’s relationship to reason, which seems to grow more tenuous by the day.

Bill Sjostrom writes,

[T]he Guardian has dedicated itself to supporting murder and genocide pretty much everywhere.

And many leftist academics still regard the Guardian as a legitimate source for news.

Also see his piece in which he says,

There is no getting around it: the Guardian is scum.

One of the clearest cases for limiting free speech is the famous phrase from Oliver Wendell Holmes about, "...falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre... " Another is the instigation to commit murder or other crimes. And a related case might involve urging genocide and supporting those who espouse it. From Melanie Phillips,

This is what happened on the streets of London yesterday. A demonstration organised by Iranian Islamists promoting the destruction of Israel, in which people called for the killing of Jews and waved Hezbollah flags. The police provide protection for such a demonstration on the basis that people are entitled to march provided they are not breaking the law. They ignore the fact that such incitement to murder is indeed against the law; they fail to grasp that a parade of Hezbollah flags is a recruiting device for Islamists; they refuse to acknowledge that such a demonstration is an flagrant act of intimidation by proxies for a terrorist regime which is currently blowing up our troops in Iraq, threatening genocide against Israel and intent on defeating the west in war. Welcome once again to Londonistan.

While this situation falls short of the "clear and imminent danger" criterion for abrogating free speech, I see no reason to permit the demonstrators to use public property while promoting their ideas. After all, freedom of speech does not require that all taxpayers provide scarce resources for the exercise of that free speech.

Click on the cartoon to see a larger, more legible version.

The British union of academics, the UCU, has, under legal advice, called off it's boycott of Israeli Scholars. From an announcement made by the International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom (of which I am a member),

UK Boycott of Israeli Academics Ruled Illegal

IAB is pleased to announce that the UK based University and College Union (UCU) has declared today, 28/9/07, that an academic boycott of Israel is illegal and cannot be implemented.

After receiving legal advice that cleared that “a call to boycott Israeli institutions would run a serious risk of infringing discrimination legislation”… and “is also considered to be outside the aims and objects of the UCU”, the UCU’s strategy and finance committee recommended unanimously today, to immediately inform branches and members that:

• A boycott call would be unlawful and cannot be implemented
• UCU members' opinions cannot be tested at local meetings
• The proposed regional tour cannot go ahead under current arrangements and is therefore suspended.

As you might expect, this announcement leaves me both elated and yet concerned. Of course I am elated that the boycott has been called off, even if for the wrong reason. At the same time, though, I'm still disturbed that it might ever have happened in the first place, and I worry about the continuing anti-semitism and rabid anti-Israeli views that made this boycott more than rants of a few extremists.

My friend Eric Litwack, a colleague at the International Study Centre in England, has an article in the most recent edition of Engage.
The article deals with historical truth, holocaust denial, and anti-Zionism. To me, the most pithy portion of the article is summarized as,

...[A]nti-Zionism and Holocaust denial are different contemporary expressions of antisemitism that exploit pervasive historical ignorance and radical relativism in the promotion of their social designs: the destruction of Israel and the rehabilitation of Nazism, respectively.

At the heart of his article is a discussion of "truth". My own perspective is somewhat different from Eric's in this regard, and is probably best represented by discussions in Richard Posner's work on the Economic Analysis of Law. Essentially, this perspective acknowledges that historically, perceptions of truth have varied through time. A classic example is the morphing of "the world is flat" to "the sun is the centre of the universe" to "the universe has no centre". Posner asserts, as a result of his work, that truth is whatever people agree it is.

This perspective, while frustrating, is extremely empirical and is even a bit frightening to those of us (like me) who tend toward absolutism and wanting definitive answers to everything. And yet I find the perspective extremely compelling.

Also, this perspective has extremely important implications for the history of the holocaust and for political views concerning Israel. If truth is whatever people agree it is, then holocaust deniers must constantly be confronted with the best evidence available. We cannot rest and relax, confident in our knowledge (or belief) that the truth will prevail, since the truth could well be transformed in content to something else without constant diligence and work.

My own perceptions of truth about Israel have been heavily influenced by the writings of Sir Martin Gilbert. These are careful documentations of events leading up to the creation of Israel, and they deserve much wider dissemination and reading, especially in the pursuit of truth and in the continuing mission to head off untruths promulgated by anti-Semites.

Eric Litwack is a scholar. He does not put forward only his support for Israel in his writings. He also cautions,

... [S]upporters of Israel must ensure that their claims and arguments are securely moored to the mast of historical truth, and this will sometimes imply both opposition to propaganda and fanaticism from within our own ranks, as well as a possible qualification of some long cherished beliefs. No comparable school of self-critical historiography on the subject of Zionism exists elsewhere in the Middle East, and this is a tribute to Israeli democracy and scholarship.

From my perspective, since there are no such things as "historical truths", I interpret Eric's statement to mean that we must continue to provide the best evidence we have of holocaust events and of the formation of Israel. We must also meet head-on claims of evidence that are contradicted by the best evidence and logic that we have at our disposal.

From this source [h/t to Rebekah]:

"The members of Imperial College UCU have voted overwhelmingly - by more than five-to-one - to reject Motion 30 - the boycott of Israeli academic institutions," said Imperial UCU member and leading UK academic Michael J. McGarvey, Reader in Molecular Virology at Imperial's Division of Medicine.

"In conjunction with the very similar results from the recent ballots of members at the University of Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, this clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of ordinary members of UCU are against a boycott and the damaging effects that this could have on British academia."

At the Imperial College, 82% of the faculty members voted to reject the boycott, 2% abstained, and 16% voted in favour of the boycott. These results lead to two questions:

• What's wrong with the 18% who did NOT vote against the boycott, and
• How can "leadership" like the UCU union leaders claim to represent their membership in the face of such overwhelming rejection of their motion? They should resign en masse.

From Ynet news:

A UN conference, held at the European Parliament in Brussels, heard an array of speakers call for a boycott against Israel and strategize on ways to achieve its international isolation, during the first day of an event billed by organizers as a gathering to promote "Middle East peace".

The 'International Conference of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace' has been organized by the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and attracted political figures and pro-Palestinian members of non governmental organizations (NGOs).

WHAT? The UN actually has such a committee?

The loaded language of such rhetoric is very disturbing. It is the same people dragging out the same tired arguments we heard from Durban in 2001. They were wrong then and they are still wrong.

[h/t to Scoop]

The only explanation I can come up with is blatant anti-Semitism. From Honest Reporting [h/t to Judith},

A Palestinian youth football team from Gaza has been unable to tour the UK after falling afoul of British visa regulations as well as the continuing problems in leaving the Gaza Strip following the Hamas takeover. Writing in the UK's Independent, Mark Steel criticizes the British Foreign Office, which is his right, before launching an astonishing diatribe against Israel, based not on facts nor reason, but on overt hate and disinformation.

All Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip may encounter problems exiting crossings at Israeli and Egyptian borders, particularly following Hamas' violent takeover of the area. But since the question of visas reached the British Foreign Office, it implies that Israel did not block the footballers from traveling.

Yet, Steel suggests "that the Foreign Office has been leaned on by the Israeli government to refuse entry to the team." Since when did the Israeli government exercise any power or control over British policy? Is Steel attempting to play on classic prejudice that ascribes such mythical power and influence to Israel and its supporters?

Steel's brand of 'satire', littered with inappropriate sporting analogies and terms that British readers will be familiar with, descends into simple hatred and demonization of Israel. For Steel, "the latest incident is simply part of the process of petty vindictiveness that occupying forces often dish out. Even if there's no obvious military or political advantage to be gained, you can imagine them passing a law that no one in Gaza is allowed to hum, or on Mondays everyone has to speak in a Geordie accent."

In accordance with such nastiness, Steel states that Israel bombed the only football pitch in Gaza. He conveniently forgets to mention that the pitch in question had been used for terrorist training exercises. The field, which had also reportedly served as a missile launching pad, was empty at the time; the strike itself came in response to the continuing barrage of Qassam rocket attacks directed at Israeli towns and villages.

When you type "Jew" in Google's search engine, one of the first few websites that pops up right after Wikipedia is something called "Jewwatch.com" [no link on purpose] — an anti-semitic, hate-filled harangue masquerating as "scholarly, factual, informational".

You may want to add your name to the petition to remove www.jewwatch.com from Google's search engine. (If necessary, check out the site and you will understand why.)

If so, please go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html to sign the petition.

The response from Google has been this:

If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

* http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
* http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google's search results on this topic.

Given Google's response, I doubt if this petition will have any effect. And as someone who strongly believes in freedom of expression and competition in the marketplace for ideas, I really do have mixed feelings about this situation. In the end, I've come down on the side of trying to get rid of such hate literature, but I have some concerns about this position.

It sure looks as if they are. From the Telegraph [h/t to BenS],

Over the weekend, the BBC was forced to remove a highly offensive message about Jesus from its website... [W]hy had this message been allowed to remain there for a week, despite complaints?

Anti-Muslim comments vanish instantly. Meanwhile, it emerged yesterday that the BBC has refused to allow Casualty [an ER-type programme] to carry a storyline featuring a terrorist attack by a Muslim suicide bomber. The editorial guidelines department decreed that, instead, the terrorists should be animal rights extremists.

The BBC's coverage of Islamic affairs has been unsatisfactory for many years.

In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. (Disgracefully, the BBC is still refusing to publish the Balen Report, which it commissioned to investigate allegations of anti-Israel bias.)

In its coverage of British Muslims, the BBC has been inspired by two laudable aims: to treat their beliefs respectfully; and to avoid stereotyping ordinary Muslims as terrorist supporters. In the process, however, it has done two rather different things.

First, it has presented Islam on its own terms, as if only Muslims had the authority to describe their religion.

Mohammed remains an intensely controversial figure. Yet the BBC shies away from proper historical investigation of "the Prophet", as it insists on calling him.

Second, the BBC has only scratched the surface of one of the biggest news stories of the decade: the penetration of Muslim youth by Islamic supremacist groups.

Indeed, the corporation has even helped this to happen.

Again and again, it has wheeled on Islamic "moderates" who belong to hard-line sects that real moderate Muslims are desperate to stop their children joining.

It has been left to Channel 4 to conduct undercover investigations in radical mosques and to commission a 2007 GFK/NOP opinion poll revealing that almost a quarter of British Muslims believe that the Government helped stage the London bombings of July 7, 2005.

We live in a world in which, although the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim. [emphasis added]...

To ban a storyline featuring Islamic terrorists not only misrepresents reality; it is also an insult to licence-payers whose family, friends or colleagues were blown to pieces on July 7 - and not by animal rights activists.

As Richard Littlejohn writes in The Daily Mail,

"Good morning, this is the news from the BBC. A group of animal rights activists has hijacked four airliners and flown them into the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington."

I'm sorry, I'll read that again. "Four members of the anti-vivisection movement have blown themselves up on the London Transport network, killing 52 people and injuring hundreds more."

I don't think so. "Two doctors have attempted a suicide car bomb attack on Glasgow airport. The League Against Cruel Sports has claimed responsibility."

As the late Bill Deedes might have said: shurely shome mishtake.

But it all makes about as much sense as the BBC's decision to can an episode of Casualty which starts with a young Muslim blowing himself up in a crowded bus station - and rewrite it so that the bombing is carried out by animal rights extremists.

The Casualty plotline was rejected by the Beeb's "editorial and ethical standards" commissars, who were worried that it was stereotyping young Muslims as terrorists.

The BBC likes to boast about the gritty reality of its dramas. But if that were the case, they'd have stuck with the original script.

In real life, it's Muslims committing all the terrorist atrocities in Britain these days.

That's not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, far from it, but to pretend that the bunny liberation brigade are bombing bus stations is preposterous. ...

I would love to see a major political party advocate the abolition of the BBC. Or at the very least a major cutback in their funding.

From Stephen Pollard,

... they rejected this entirely factual and mainstream piece by him [Dr. Denis MacEoin] on antisemitism, dismissing it as exaggerated.

Who'd ever have thought that the Guardian would behave like that, eh?

And check out the comment, too. The entire episode smacks of more anti-semitism by The Guardian.

During the early years of WWII, Irena Sendler saved about 2500 children from being killed by the Nazis in Poland. She risked her life, she suffered imprisonment, and then after the war she worked tirelessly to help reunite the children with parents or relatives who might have survived. She has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and I cannot think of a more deserving person. But I'll bet she doesn't receive it: the children were Jewish. To read an excellent story of her history and her work, please see this [h/t to Judith].

Mrs. Sendler, code name "Jolanta," smuggled 2,500 children out of the Warsaw Ghetto during the last three months before its liquidation. She found a home for each child. Each was given a new name and a new identity as a Christian. Others were saving Jewish children, too, but many of those children were saved only in body; tragically, they disappeared from the Jewish people. Irena did all she could to ensure that "her children" would have a future as part of their own people.

Mrs. Sendler listed the name and new identity of every rescued child on thin cigarette papers or tissue paper. She hid the list in glass jars and buried them under an apple tree in her friend's backyard. Her hope was to reunite the children with their families after the war. Indeed, though most of their parents perished in the Warsaw Ghetto or in Treblinka, those children who had surviving relatives were returned to them after the war.

What a selfless heroine! Please take a few minutes to read the entire story.

A large contingent of U.S. unions have issued a joint statement criticizing the British UCU proposed boycott of Israeli academics:

Over 30 American trade unions ranging from the American Federation of Teachers to the American Postal Workers have condemned the spate of boycott initiatives by trade union movements in the UK, branding them "inimical" and questioning the motives for singling out Israel.

The University and College Union motion to boycott Israeli academic institutions came in for strong criticism.

"Calls for academic boycotts of Israel are inimical to and counter to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of association, key principles for which academics and educational unions have struggled over many years. Rather than limiting interactions with Israeli educators, academics and educational institutions, we see the importance of maximizing, rather than proscribing, the free flow of ideas and academic interaction between peoples, cultures, religions and countries," the unions said in a statement issued late Thursday evening [July 22nd].

With atrocities occurring around the globe, the trade unionists questioned the motivations of the boycotters and asked why the motions are by nature one-sided: "With the large number of local, regional and international conflicts, with the diverse range of oppressive regimes around the world about which there is almost universal silence, we have to question the motives of these resolutions that single out one country in one conflict.

"We note with increasing concern that virtually all of these resolutions focus solely on objections to actions or policies of the Israeli government, and never on actions or policies of Palestinian or other Arab governments, parties or movements. We notice with increasing concern that characterization of the Palestinians as victims and Israel as victimizer is a staple of such resolutions. That there are victims and victimizers on all sides, and that many if not most of the victims of violence and repression on all sides are civilians, are essential items often not mentioned in these resolutions."

[h/t to BenS]

From Fox News:

According to government reports, the chief sources of the hatred of Jews are native-born fascists, far-left political extremists and Muslim radicals [emphasis added]. The physical attacks are mainly directed at Orthodox Jews, who are highly visible because of their skullcaps and traditional dress. Secular Jews, who are not as easily identifiable by their clothes, are less likely to be attacked.

The number of anti-Semitic incidents in Britain increased by 34 percent last year, according to records collected by the Community Security Trust, a charity that monitors anti-Semitism in Britain and is regularly cited in government reports for being more comprehensive than police data.

That was the biggest annual increase since 1984, when the charity began collecting figures. Based on current projections, the number of incidents this year is on track to equal last year's.

Many of the physical assaults on British Jews are committed by Muslim extremists who blame all Jews for the conditions of Palestinians in Israel and Israeli-occupied areas. According to a poll in the London Times in December 2005, 37 percent of Britain’s 2 million Muslims agreed that all 268,000 members of the Jewish community were legitimate targets because of Israel’s policies.

“Bigots try to make all Jews responsible for the actions of the only democratically elected government in the Middle East,” John Mann, a member of Parliament, told FOXNews.com. “Anti-Israeli sentiment does go over the line to anti-Semitism,” said Mann, who chaired a bipartisan committee that studied anti-Semitism in Britain.

Israel-bashing has been fueled in Britain by militant left-wing trade unionists, academics and some members of the British press who regard Israel as an apartheid state determined to eliminate the Palestinians.

A proposed academic boycott would end exchanges between British and Israeli universities. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair called on academics to abandon plans to boycott Israeli universities during a speech in the House of Commons last month, saying a boycott would do absolutely “no good for the Middle East peace process.”

The BMJ is hosting a poll about the proposed boycott of Israeli academics. Here is the link.

Fortunately, the last time I looked, about 90% of the respondents opposed the boycott. My major concern is that even 10% of the respondents support the boycott of Israeli academics. I hope I never end up having to be treated by one of the supporters of the boycott.

The comments on the proposed boycott are generally very good. To see the comments of the responders to the poll, click here.

I'm not sure I would have this much insight, intelligence, or courage.

. .

Even if you don't buy or rent the movie, just go read the reviews at Amazon.com.

By a Druze student from Israel [h/t to MA]:

As a holder of two degrees from the University of Haifa and a PhD student at the University of London, I traveled to Bournemouth for the meeting of the British University and College Union (UCU) as an Israeli delegate on behalf of the Israeli Council for Academic Freedom.

The discussions at the meeting regarding the imposition of a boycott on Israeli academia took place in a hostile environment while ignoring all the facts we presented regarding freedom of expression and academic freedom at Israeli institutions of higher learning.

Evidence that Israeli lecturers who hold pro-Palestinian views are able to express their positions uninterrupted both in their research work and lectures, as well as in the media, had no effect whatsoever on the discussions.

Even when we presented a list of organizations and research centers that operate in the framework of Israeli universities and boast Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab cooperation, with the promotion of ties between the peoples their top agenda, it did not make a difference.

... The truth is that it is clear to this group of lecturers that Israeli academia is least at fault for what is happening in our region, certainly when compared to the freedom of expression at our neighbors' academic institutions. After all, the English know full well that the technological, academic, and cultural achievements in the State of Israel stem first and foremost from the freedom of expression and research in every field in Israel.

Therefore, the figures we presented were futile, because all they cared about was their one and only objective: De-legitimizing the State of Israel with no relation to its academia; presenting it as an apartheid state that deprives its minorities of elementary rights such as education and the freedom of expression.

The UCU: a bunch of scary non-scholars.

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East [SPME] have issued a scathing criticism of the UCU's motions proposing a boycott of Israeli academics. SPME seems to me to be somewhat leftwing, with many members opposed to the west-bank settlements; nevertheless they have spoken out against the boycott. Here, in part, is the SPME reaction:

[T]his action [was] instigated by a small group of anti-Israel union delegates who appear not to represent the views of the union membership and who have singled out Israel for opprobrium. The motion is an attempt to delegitimize and to silence the only Jewish state in the world, one of a tiny minority of states in the Middle East that truly honor academic freedom. In Israel's prestigious universities, faculty members represent all religious and political persuasions. Many Israeli professors are Arabs; many are Muslims. How professors at universities in Arab countries are Jews? How many are non-Muslims? How many belong to nondominant Muslim denominations?

In Iran, professors have been purged from universities for ideological and religious reasons, and an American academic, Haleh Esfandiari, was recently imprisoned while visiting her 93-year-old mother. Despite the gargantuan scale of human rights abuses in Sudan, Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, Gaza, the UCU is not considering a boycott against any of them. Why not?


The proposed boycott is immoral and antithetical to academic principles. It shuts off dialogue, when one of the key purposes of universities is to promote dialogue and thereby the pursuit of truth. It ignores existing projects where Israeli and Palestinian academics cooperate. It requires academics to hew to one ideological line. And it constitutes discrimination on the basis of nationality.

That is the title of this piece by Bradley Burston [h/t to MA]. Here is an excerpt, but it is very well-written. rtwt [read the whole thing].

Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that you're a British academic. You believe strongly that the occupation must end, that the Palestinians should have an independent state, that Israel's military and diplomatic policies are wrongheaded to the point of immorality.

What to do? Simple. Find the one group within Israeli society which has consistently, vigorously and courageously campaigned against the occupation since its inception.

Then attack them.

...No matter that in the whole of the 1991 Gulf war, Saddam Hussein managed to hit all of Israel with a total of 39 missiles, and that two weeks ago, Hamas sent 40 rockets into the Sderot area in the space of a single day.

No matter that the Sapir College, Israel's largest public college, has for years been a primary target of Qassam crews.

No matter that in boycotting all Israeli academics on the basis of their being Israelis, the measure is patently racist, a grotesque reprise of the history of curbing academic freedom.

No matter that Israeli Arab academics who are staunchly opposed to the occupation are vehement opponents of the boycott as well.

No matter, even, that opposition to the boycott runs strong within the British University and College Union itself. In fact, all the more reason to press on.

For the genuine elitist, the unpopularity of an opinion is the best assurance of its real value.

Perhaps this is why the whole boycott campaign smacks of a uniquely far-left British brand of moral masturbation, a desperate, delusional, sterile, supremely self-contained form of non-activism that risks nothing even as it changes nothing.

Update: For more analysis and discussion, check out Lower Education from the New Republic by Marty Peretz. His article, along with comments there, offer some additional insights about the nature of the institutions that have been pushing the boycott.

First it was the AUT leadership, voting a boycott of Israeli scholars, and they were rebuffed, to say the least, by their general membership.

Then it was NATFHE, another union of academics, voting to boycott Israeli scholars, but they soon merged with the AUT, leaving a vote of their directors as meaningless.

But now the leadership of the combined unions, under the general grouping, the UCU, have voted to support a boycott of Israeli academics.

I strongly oppose their views on two grounds:

1. First, I am not convinced that Israel is doing much wrong with its occupation of the west bank. Failure to occupy the west bank would have been like telling robbers that if they get caught, the only punishment is that they must give back what they have stolen and that there will be no further deterrence. That's just plain silly because it doesn't discourage robbers from trying to steal again and again.
   
   Israel repelled an attack in 1967, only to have to fight another war in 1973. After that war, they said (and quite rightly under both international law and following just plain common sense) if you folks are going to keep using these lands as launching pads, both literally and figuratively, we're going to hold them until you renounce such plans. Such renunciation has not occurred.
   
   Nevertheless, Israel has been open and democratic. Yes, it cut off payments to the Palestinian Authority once Hamas was elected, and for bloody good reason: Hamas has as one of its primary goals the eradication of Israel (and, incidentally, the Jews who live there). There is no earthly reason why the UCU should expect Israel to continue making payments to a sworn enemy. If they really disagree, let them all contribute 10% of their salaries to the US Republican party.
2. But even if you don't accept my first point, this one is compelling: in the name of academic freedom, there is no justifiable reason for this boycott. If the UCU wants to single out academics for boycott, let them single out those from China or Iraq or Iran or Egypt or any other place where there are documented human rights abuses or flagrant violations of the concept of academic freedom. Academic freedom says that we scholars should assess the works of others on their merits, not on the basis of the politics of their home country.
   
   Instead, the UCU picks on Israeli academics. There can be only one reason for this: anti-semitism, pure and simple. And it is frightening.

For more, please see this, which summarizes the motions that were passed by the UCU Congress.

Also, please see this from Engage, which says

1 This is not a decision to institute a boycott. That decision can only be made by the whole membership through a ballot. That was the commitment on which Sally Hunt was elected as General Secretary. Congress also backed a policy which does not allow a boycott of Israeli academic institutions unless it is called for by Israeli campus trade unions. Which it won't be.

2 UCU Congress has today voted for a roadshow touring colleges and universities drumming up support for an exclusion of Israelis - and only Israelis - from our campuses, our conferences and our journals. The union is mandated to finance this tour and to stack the debate in favour of a pro-boycott outcome.

And also see this for a reaction.

And one final point: where is the outrage from non-Jewish, non-Israeli organizations? I am embarrassed and appalled by the (so far) lack of responses from such groups. Am I the only gentile in the universe who sees things this way?

[h/t to MA for the links]

Update #1: also see this from Melanie Phillips and this from Little Green Footballs.

Update #2: Both Melanie Phillips and Normblog quote this from Ha'aretz:

On Wednesday, representatives of the new British University and College Union (UCU) will be meeting in Bournemouth. On the agenda is another proposal to boycott Israel's academic institutions. These proposals have become as regular and as predictable as Qassam attacks on Sderot. The fact that studies at the Sapir Academic College in Sderot are not taking place because of the constant rocket fire from Gaza, even though the college is not in occupied territory and Gaza is no longer occupied, apparently does not bother British academia. The fact that Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Authority, does not recognize even pre-1967 Israel, and commits acts of terror against civilians, does not matter either. These nuances did not stop one boycott initiator from saying last week that justice in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is entirely on one side.

Norm continued,

This editorial in Haaretz rightly identifies the thinking of the would-be boycotters as impelled by a desire to de-legitimize Israel - identifies it with 'the position that the very birth of the Jewish state was a mistake'.

Update #3: And check out Stephen Pollard's column about boycotts of Israel.

Update #4: Rénald writes,

I find this totally ridiculous! Why of all people attack the scholars??? Why not the bakers, bankers and doughnut makers? It would make as much sense.

Boycotting scholars is like boycotting knowledge...it can only lead to ignorance or maybe they are already there!

to which BenS adds,

Of course, but why boycott any Jewish institution? The boycotters are playing copycat and operating like an ignorant herd….which they are. I’ll make one exception for these ignorant hypocrites: let them boycott for themselves and their families any medical or scientific advancement created or produced by Jews -— but being hypocrites, they won’t do that.

Update #5 Tim Worstall says that English academic unions are not worth worrying about.

The academic unions are well known to be populated and run by people with any number of very peculiar bees buzzing under their bonnets. The rest of us look upon them almost fondly, as examples of a well meaning but possibly futile form of Care in the Community.

The idea that we should take seriously anything that comes from such obvious nutters simply never occurs to those of us outside the hallowed halls of academe.

I hope he's right, but the UCU is still wrong and very unscholarly.

Why is it that so many members of the left-wing (we're gonna find something about some establishment to protest) spend so much time and effort attacking Israel for its alleged human rights abuses? There are so many much more deserving targets, as Perry de Havilland points out:

There is an article on the Guardian site called Throw a pebble at Goliath: don't buy Israeli produce, by Yvonne Roberts, in which she urges people to boycott Israel because of its human rights record.

Now I know nothing about Yvonne Robert and have never even heard of her before, but I assume she also an avid campaigner for people to boycott products from Cuba, Burma, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China (good luck doing that), Iran, Syria, Belorus, Zimbabwe, North Korea (assuming they actually produce any products) etc. etc. etc... after all, if she is such a tireless campaigner for human rights, surely she could not possibly feel it was alright for people to trade with all those places, given the state of human rights in those places. Right?

Anyone want to take any bets on this? [links are in the original]

As one of the commenters there said,

The day when those regimes become predominantly Jewish is the day that these people will start criticizing them, regardless of whether their human-rights records get better or worse.

Oh, oh. Now the British architects are getting into the act. What a bunch of ignoramuses. Read the comments there to get a good idea of just how ignorant they are.

Anyone who says,

This is not against Israel, it's for Palestine,... I think the Palestinians are living in a prison.

has not been paying attention to Middle Eastern events for the past five years and what it means to be pro-Palestinian. The suicide bombings, the kidnappings, the rockets, the promises to drive Israel into the sea... these count for nothing?

[h/t BenS]

It is so difficult to understand how scholars worthy of the name got to these views. Click here for a complete list of the motions that are to be discussed at the Bournemouth meetings later this week. I will not reproduce them here.

My recommendation: find out which schools support such anti-Semitic drivel, such blind one-sidedness, and boycott academics from those institutions. My guess is that such a retaliatory boycott would be totally unnecessary; I cannot imagine the authors of these motions produce much, if any, work that is truly scholarly in nature.

I see from the SPME website that there will be a booth at the Congress, operated by a combination of Israeli and Palestinian students, presenting examples of Israeli/Palestinian co-operation.

This week, the new union of post-secondary educators in the UK will be meeting, and one of the agenda items will be a proposed boycott of Israel and Israeli academics.

Why not a boycott of China for its treatment of Tibet? Why not a boycott of Palestine (and the other Arab-Muslim states) for their treatment of Jews? Why single out the country that has more democracy and more human rights (and, in many ways, less aggression) than any other country in the Middle East?

Even if you think Israel should not have occupied the west bank (and should have left it for the Jordanians and Syrians to use as a further launching pad for additional raids and rocket attacks on Israel), read this by David Hirsh, who believes Israel should withdraw from the west bank but who strongly opposes the boycott.

The boycott rhetoric does not help Palestinians. But it is seductive because it functions as a way to help boycotters feel better about living in a world in which horrors continue to happen. The boycott rhetoric doesn't stop the horrors and it doesn't make the world fair, but perhaps it can absolve us from the existential guilt that we bear because the world is what it is.

Perhaps it can do something about our terrifying feelings of powerlessness? In a post-national and a post-imperial world, the guilt of nationalism and imperialism can be focused on to Israel and we can thereby feel absolved ourselves. It is the ultimate "not in my name" gesture politics. It doesn't change anything but it enables us to step outside of the tear-stained reality of anti-semitism and empire, Holocaust and Nakba, aggressive settlement and nightclub bombing. But the dream of stepping outside history is vain and is intimately related to the nightmare of totalitarianism.

My own view is that academic freedom is more important than these types of political statements. But I've said all this before. Michael Yudkin makes the case quite well in one of his recent articles at Engage.

More on boycotts of Israel to follow this afternoon.

The proposed boycotts of Israeli scholars by some members of UK teachers' unions have always seemed wrong to me. I oppose them on two grounds:

1. they are anathema to academic freedom, which I prize very highly no matter how much some "scholarly" research offends me, and
2. it seems so unfair and unreasonable to single out Israel when that country has so much more freedom than any other country in the middle east and there are so many other countries (China, anyone??) that restrict freedoms so much more seriously.

Recently I re-watched the 1960 movie, Exodus. (Actually, I much preferred the book). I was struck by how much, during the 1960s, the entire liberal left supported Israel then in contrast with their views now. What has changed? The main thing that has changed is that Jordan, Syria, and Egypt lost two wars and the Israelis took steps to protect themselves against future possible attacks. Odd, isn't it.

And while we're on the topic, why haven't the UK leftie academics called for a boycott of Arab academics because of the treatment of Jews and Christians in so many Arab countries?

.

The article below by Prof. Kellner (Professor of Jewish Thought at the University of Haifa and of the IAB executive committee), has appeared on Babylon (Norwegian based journal about the Middle East and North-Africa), vol. 5, nr. 1, April 2007, pp. 122-131. It is reproduced in whole with the permission of the author. The lower-case Roman numerals in brackets are endnotes, which are well-worth reading.

Kellner's important article "Resisting Falsehood and Protecting Integrity" is a reply to Omar Barghouti's call for an academic and cultural boycott: "Resisting Israeli Apartheid: Why the Academic and Cultural Boycott?" that also appeared in Babylon.
-------------------------------------------

"Resisting Falsehood and Protecting Integrity"

Menachem Kellner, University of Haifa[i]

Omar Barghouti's call for an academic and cultural boycott, "Resisting Israeli Apartheid: Why the Academic and Cultural Boycott?" is a sustained attempt to demonize Israel, intended to bring about its destruction.


I shall reply to Mr. Barghouti's essay calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. At the outset, let me grant him one important point. If, for a moment, I believed that Israel was as bad as he describes, I would support his call for a boycott. Unlike many of my colleagues, I do not believe that such boycotts are never justified. But I do believe that such boycotts are destructive of the trust upon which the scientific endeavor must be based, and may be used only in the most extreme cases and if there is some reasonable expectation that they will accomplish something positive. So, the question between us boils down to the following: is Israel the evil incarnate that Mr. Barghouti pretends it to be — or not?


Mr. Barghouti seeks to convince his readers that Israeli Jews are inveterate racists, and that Israel is an apartheid state. In the space allotted to me, I cannot possibly correct all of the deceptive falsehoods he uses — as the Hebrew expression has it, it is easier to throw mud than clean it up. By characterizing more accurately than Mr.
Barghouti the true nature and history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and then addressing his two main charges, racism and apartheid, I will undermine his call for a boycott.


ACADEMIC LIFE IN ISRAEL


Reading Omar Barghouti's essay brought to mind a series of experiences I had when serving as Dean of Students at the University of Haifa in the 1990's. I used to organize various sorts of Arab-Jewish dialogues and discussions. Conducted by persons of good will from both communities, the discussions invariably foundered on questions of perception and context. Arab students saw themselves as a beleaguered minority on a campus in which roughly 80% of the students were Jewish (about the same ratio as in the general population), at which the language of instruction was not their own, and in a country which seemed to them to field a huge and frightening army. The Jewish students saw themselves as a beleaguered and threatened minority in a Middle East in which the vast majority of states not only refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, but remained in a state of war with Israel, supported terror organizations which wrought death and destruction on Israelis in school, on buses, and in cafés, and which drew upon the support of a billion or so Muslims around the world. Even then, a period of relative peace and optimism with the Oslo process in full swing, Jews and Arabs each saw themselves as victims of the other. Over the last seven years, since the late (unlamented by me) Yasir Arafat launched the so-called 'al-Aksa Intifada'[ii] the situation has grown markedly worse, and the conflict of percep