The Holocaust Industry

26 of Foxman’s chins say Amnesty anti-Semitic

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent

The Anti-Defamation League on Monday blasted Amnesty International as denying Israel the right to defend itself after the human rights organization urged a global freeze on arms sales to Israel.

“In calling for an arms embargo of Israel, Amnesty International is doing nothing short of denying Israel the right to self-defense, an internationally accepted right of every sovereign nation,” said ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman in a statement.

Amnesty called for the embargo in a report released Monday that claimed more than 20 countries sold Israel weapons and munitions whose use during its offensive in Gaza could constitute war crimes and might pose serious infractions of international law.

“Indeed, with this pernicious and biased report, Amnesty International has now become the research arm for and a proponent of the extremist anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement,” the Jewish-American organization’s statement said.

“The manner in which Amnesty’s ‘evidence’ is presented and the tone of the report convey an obvious agenda to vilify Israel.”

The Foreign Ministry also lambasted the report on Monday, calling it biased and stating that Amnesty ignored the fact that Hamas is a terror organization.

Israel has faced a spate of war crimes allegations following the offensive against Hamas, in which about 1300 Palestinians were killed, according to Gaza officials. 13 Israelis were also killed during the campaign, which Israel launched to combat cross-border rocket fire.

In the ADL statement, Foxman added: “The report omits any mention of Hamas’ use of civilian shields, or tactics of basing their operations in the midst of population centers, in mosques, hospitals, schools, and UN facilities.”


Even the Jerusalem Post is coming to its senses, a little

By LARRY DERFNER

First we left the Gaza Strip in bloodied ruins. Then we raised up a politician who, with his appeal to racism, militarism, fear of alien “subversives” and the yearning for a strong leader, fits the classic, textbook definition of a fascist.

And now, what is the talking point for our hasbara (spin) campaign? The surge in global anti-Semitism.

It’s hard to avoid the impression that for the champions of Israel Right or Wrong, the surge in global anti-Semitism – which is real enough – came as a godsend. Finally, Israel and its lobbyists could get off the defensive about civilian casualties, white phosphorous and Avigdor Lieberman, and go on the offensive against synagogue firebombings, chanting mobs and boycotts.

I’m not saying Israel and its cheerleaders are happy that Jews are coming under increasing attack in Europe and elsewhere. Environmentalists aren’t happy about oil spills – but oil spills are a godsend for their cause. I’m saying that the chorus of condemnations of anti-Semitism from Israelis and pro-Israel nationalists has a dual purpose – to fight anti-Semitism, which is good, and to neutralize criticism of Operation Cast Lead and the spread of Israeli fascism, which is cynical and morally deadening.

THE CLAIM we hear is that anti-Semitism today is worse than it’s been since the 1930s. That may be true, but it overlooks one little thing that’s different about the Jews of today compared to those of the 1930s: power. The Jews back then had none, or at least none that could protect them, while Israel, the focus of today’s rise in anti-Semitism, has awesome power. Incomparably more power than its enemies have, including the anti-Semites, who are legion.

In the 1930s, Jews didn’t do anything to provoke anti-Semitism. They were weak while their persecutors were strong. But today? Today’s surge in anti-Semitism began with a war in which the Jewish state killed its enemies at a ratio of 100-to-1, then made a political giant out of a former bouncer whose campaign slogan was “Only Lieberman understands Arabic.”

To compare Israel’s predicament today with that of the Jews of the 1930s is disingenuous in the extreme. Today’s rise in anti-Semitism was provoked not by Israel’s weakness, but by its abuses of power, first against the Gazans, then against Israeli Arabs. The difference is night and day.

It’s also disingenuous to imply, as hasbara does, that the entire wave of anti-Israel sentiment in the world is tainted by anti-Semitism. (To pro-Israel lobbyists, it’s fair and acceptable to acknowledge that Israel is not perfect. Anything beyond that is suspect.) There’s a great deal of moral outrage at Israel, some of it fair, some of it not. On the far side of the unfair is the anti-Semitic.

In the 1930s, only anti-Semites were incensed at Jews. Today, while there are certainly masses of anti-Semites who are incensed at Israel, they’re not alone. Today the world is filled with people who are not anti-Semites yet who are incensed at the things this country has been doing. Lots of them, myself included, are Jews.

I UNDERSTAND very well that Israel is by no means to blame for most of the anti-Semitism in the world. We are not to blame for Islamic fundamentalism, or the irrational Third World Left, or the age-old anti-Jewish instincts of much of Europe and Latin America. No matter how good, how fair we are to the Arabs, the reservoirs of anti-Semitism in the world are not going to dry up.

But since this country’s actions were responsible for the recent surge in the level of those reservoirs, I think there’s a way of at least bringing that level down, a way that might work as well if not better than stepping up the hasbara: Let’s stop fighting immoral wars. Let’s stop laying siege to a tiny, destitute country. (That might stop Gazans from firing rockets at us, too.) Let’s stop holding 10,000 Palestinian prisoners. (That might also help us get Gilad Schalit back.)

And finally, let’s stop electing fascists to the Knesset. And if this is too much to ask of ourselves, let’s at least have the decency not to bring them into the government. And if even that’s beyond us, if we’re going to have fascists as cabinet ministers, if we go so far as to have one for finance minister or foreign minister, then let’s not complain about the next surge in global anti-Semitism, because we will have provoked that one, too.

This is not the 1930s. We, the nation of Israel, are far from being powerless, and we are far from being innocent.


Mystery surrounds influx of Russian prostitutes to London on 16-17 February; One overheard saying, “The foreign minister loves it when I pretend to be a concentration camp guard”

February 17, 2009 — New York — An AJC delegation participated in The London Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism. The conference, held February 16-17, was organized and hosted by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, and co-hosted by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK-based Community Security Trust. More than 125 parliamentarians from around the world, and 75 nongovernmental experts, gathered for intensive discussions on the growing global threat of antisemitism.

“What was most striking in the deliberations was the broad consensus that anti-Semitism has reached new heights and poses a clear and present danger,” said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. Harris served as a consultant to the parliamentarians on their talks on the international arena and chaired a session on internet hate.

“This was an important, indeed historic, gathering,” said Harris. “Much credit is due to John Mann, the British Member of Parliament who spearheaded the conference. He and his colleagues have demonstrated a remarkably strong determination to create a broad front to combat anti-Semitism. They have shown courage, principle and perseverance. There were many high points of the impressively-organized conference, including the stirring keynote address by Franco Frattini, Italy’s foreign minister, who underscored his country’s resolve to fight anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly head.”

The gathering explored anti-Semitism from various vantage points, including in public discourse, the international political realm, and the internet, as well as discussing fact gathering, data collection, and the role of law enforcement.

The AJC delegation, all of whom had advisory roles in the deliberations, included Rabbi Andrew Baker, AJC’s Director of International Jewish Affairs and the Special Representative on anti-Semitism for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); Emanuele Ottolenghi, Director of AJC’s Transatlantic Institute in Brussels; and Ken Stern, AJC’s anti-Semitism expert.


Germany to feature Hitler in swimming trunks to soften its image

By Aluf Benn

Tzipi Livni is the most famous Israeli woman in the world, according to the number of hits on Google, and Bar Refaeli is second. During a week in which Livni was nearly elected prime minister, Refaeli appeared on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, an Oscar for supermodels. Her photo in a bikini was put on an airliner and the Israeli media were thrilled that another of ours had made it big abroad.

Refaeli presents herself everywhere as an Israeli, and even expressed her support for Livni on the eve of the elections. The enormous international exposure she enjoys raises the question of whether she helps Israel’s public-relations campaign abroad, and whether her photos on the beach soften the hard images of the war in the Gaza Strip.

At the Foreign Ministry they believe that she helps. The Brand Israel project, which was created during Livni’s tenure, seeks to counter the country’s aggressive and religious image abroad, using common marketing tools. If Israel is perceived as a hard, unpleasant place, resembling an armed evangelical village in Texas, then it is worthwhile to reveal softer sides to the West.

A year and a half ago, the Foreign Ministry sponsored a photo essay in the men’s magazine Maxim, which presented bikini-clad Israeli models as former soldiers. A survey carried out after the publication showed that the readers caught on to the message and perceived Israel as a more liberal country, more similar to the United States than they had originally thought.

The branding project is not meant to influence Congressmen’s votes on aid to Israel, or Barack Obama’s stance on the settlements; it aims to alter an image in the long run. It confronts Israel’s most difficult problem in the world: the difference in the way Israelis perceive themselves and the way they are perceived abroad.

Israelis tend to see their country as part of the West, and compare it to the United States and Britain. The problem is that the West is not too thrilled by the comparison and regards Israel as an oddity, a country using excessive force in permanent conflict with its neighbors. In Europe, and to a growing extent in the U.S., the use of military power is seen as primitive, something that belongs to the previous century, something that decent people don’t do. When the Europeans apply force in Afghanistan or Kosovo, they are not proud of it like Israeli leaders who get excited about the bombing of Gaza.

Israel’s public-relations machine has tried for many years to market Israel as a villa in the jungle, a Western frontier outpost against extremist Islam. We are hit by rockets in Sderot and bomb Gaza in order to save Paris and London. Israeli leaders complain that the West is unconcerned by the danger posed by Islam, and instead of dealing with it they criticize Israel for defending itself. But the media and public opinion in the West ignore this message and insist that Israel is at least as violent as its enemies.

Bar Refaeli is expected to prove that Israel is like the West. The young women of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are not photographed in bathing suits. Neither are Egyptian or Saudi Arabian girls – an advantage perhaps that stresses our belonging in the Western cultural club. In Israeli eyes, a photo of Refaeli on an airliner makes us more American and Western.

But it is doubtful whether this message is being received on the other side. No Russian model softens the Putin regime’s aggressive image in the West; no Venezuelan beauty queen transforms Hugo Chavez into a liberal and democrat. Refaeli deserves credit for her personal success, and the branding project needs to continue, but they will not solve Israel’s public-relations problem. Whoever wants to belong to the West needs to behave accordingly, or pay the price.


Say No to Israeli PR Gimmicks!

Quite extraordinarily, the Science Museum in London and the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry have both been made available (on 3 and 5 March respectively) for an event called “Israel Day of Science”. The museums argue they are not sponsoring the event, but have merely hired out their premises. This subtle distinction is unlikely to be appreciated by the many thousands of all ages and faiths who have repeatedly taken to the streets round the country to protest against Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The event is promoted by the Zionist Federation and is designed to showcase the scientific achievements of seven Israeli universities. But all of these are complicit in the Israeli occupation and in the policies and weaponry so recently deployed to such disastrous effect in Gaza. To take just one example, Tel Aviv University, in its most recent annual review, states that “the Israel ministry of defence is currently funding 55 projects at TAU”, which “is playing a major role in enhancing Israel’s security capabilities and military edge”. The head of TAU’s security studies programme was a former director of the R&D directorate of the Israel ministry of defence. He holds the rank of major-general in the Israel Defence Forces and is a member of the Knesset.

Israel Day of Science is aimed particularly at sixth-form students, who can be expected to come in parties from schools across the country. What reaction can be expected from the many young people, already disaffected from science, who will associate the science museums with this Israeli public relations exercise? The event is being billed as a celebration of science. In fact it is an attempted celebration of Israel.

In the immediate aftermath of the indiscriminate slaughter and attempted annihilation of all the infrastructure of organised society in Gaza, how can this “celebration” be allowed to borrow some respectability from the use of these distinguished institutions? The museums should cancel these unseemly events.

Charles Jencks, Mairead Maguire, Dr Ian Gibson MP, Walter Hain, Ahdaf Soueif, Professor RS MacKay (Warwick), Reem Kelani (Singer), Karl Sabbagh, Professor Steven Rose (Open University), Sabah Al-Mukhtar (Arab Lawyers Association), Professor Jonathan Rosenhead (LSE), Dr Sue Blackwell (Birmingham), Professor Jim Al-Khalili (Surrey) and 368 others


New ADL poll shows that 47% of Foxman’s chins are anti-Semitic.

By Adam Shoop

The latest report is in: “anti-Semitism remains alive and well in the minds of many Europeans.” The U.S. is apparently safe for the moment, as reporting during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead indicated that, “the American people are squarely behind Israel and overwhelmingly think that using force against Hamas is appropriate.”

The survey, commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League, finds that “attitudes in seven European countries have worsened due to the global financial crisis and Israel’s military actions against the Palestinians.” Its findings are supposedly similar to a similar 2007 ADL survey (which in turn is similar to a 2005 ADL survey), reflected by the fact that much of the language from earlier press releases is lazily carried over to the latest.

These occasional opinion surveys are perhaps intended to reinforce the oft-cited conclusion of Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League: “We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s—if not a greater one.”

The surveys purport to show that millions of Europeans “continue to believe the classical anti-Semitic canards that have persistently pursued Jews through the centuries.” And by the way, the fact that for some “their opinion of Jews was influenced by actions taken by the State of Israel” in Gaza and “worse as a result” means that the criticism of actions by the Israeli government are motivated by anti-Semitic canards.

Never mind that there is much to suggest that European anti-Semitism is often the result of local government policies towards disaffected Muslim or Arab populations (with “the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally”). Indeed, as Norman Finkelstein notes in Beyond Chutzpah, “the transparent motive behind these assertions is to taint any criticism of Israel as motivated by anti-Semitism.”

As for the survey data, I spent about 60 seconds having a look at the report on the ADL website. It doesn’t take long to read the 26-page document, which comically looks like it was concocted from a high school power point presentation.

One of the questions asked was: “How much blame do you place on Jews in the financial industry for the current global economic crisis? Do you blame them a great deal, a good amount, a little or not at all?” The 31% figure is the aggregate of anyone responding “a great deal,” “a good amount” or “a little.” No data is provided on what the numbers are for any of those responses.

The poll was conducted by First International Resources, which you will never have heard of. According to the company’s website, its CEO is a former Director of Middle East Affairs for the ADL and former Director at the time of the newly established ADL Jerusalem office. One of its vice presidents worked as a writer for the ADL in New York City.

Maybe First International is an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization. As a thought experiment, imagine how the ADL would characterize the situation if two former employees from Al Jazeera (who would defend their prior broadcast experience as newsworthy and balanced, no doubt) worked for a consulting group and conducted a poll finding that about thirty percent of Jews had xenophobic attitudes towards Palestinians? Imagine that included among the survey was a response criticizing a member of parliament, “as a lamb in hawk’s clothing” asking: “When has he ever shot anyone?” “When has he ever held a rifle?”

Days before the release of the survey, Foxman had already branded the Gaza war as unleashing “a pandemic of anti-Semitism.” In the coming weeks and months as criticism intensifies over Israel’s continued blockade and conduct during war in Gaza, increased settlement and expansion in the West Bank, you can be sure that the ADL will be there to forecast the anti-Semitic pall over Europe and much else.


When conspiracies are not imagined

_Introduction_

In January, 1988, I was appointed to the Alger Hiss Chair of Social
Studies at Bard College. As this was a Presidential appointment outside
the tenure system, I have served under a series of contracts. The last
of these was half-time (one semester on, one off, with half salary and
full benefits year-round), effective from July 1, 2004, to June 30,
2009. On February 7 I received a letter from Michèle Dominy, Dean of the
College, informing me that my contract would not be renewed this July 1
and that I would be moved to emeritus status as of that day. She wrote
that this decision was made by President Botstein, Executive
Vice-President Papadimitriou and herself, in consultation with members
of the Faculty Senate.

This document argues that this termination of service is prejudicial and
motivated neither by intellectual nor pedagogic considerations, but by
political values, principally stemming from differences between myself
and the Bard administration on the issue of Zionism. There is of course
much more to my years at Bard than this, including another controversial
subject, my work on ecosocialism (/The Enemy of Nature/). However, the
evidence shows a pattern of conflict over Zionism only too reminiscent
of innumerable instances in this country in which critics of Israel have
been made to pay, often with their careers, for speaking out. In this
instance the process culminated in a deeply flawed evaluation process
which was used to justify my termination from the faculty.

_A brief chronology_

  • 2002. This was the first year I spoke out nationally about Zionism. In
    October, my article, “Zionism’s Bad Conscience,” appeared in /Tikkun/.
    Three or four weeks later, I was called into President Leon Botstein’s
    office, to be told my Hiss Chair was being taken away. Botstein said
    that he had nothing to do with the decision, then gratuitously added
    that it had not been made because of what I had just published about
    Zionism, and hastened to tell me that his views were diametrically
    opposed to mine.
  • 2003. In January I published a second article in /Tikkun/,
    “’Left-Anti-Semitism’ and the Special Status of Israel,” which argued
    for a One-State solution to the dilemmas posed by Zionism. A few weeks
    later, I received a phone call at home from Dean Dominy, who suggested,
    on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou, that
    perhaps it was time for me to retire from Bard. I declined. The result
    of this was an evaluation of my work and the inception, in 2004, of the
    current half-time contract as “Distinguished Professor.”
  • 2006. I finished a draft of /Overcoming Zionism/. In January, while I
    was on a Fellowship in South Africa, President Botstein conducted a
    concert on campus of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, which he has
    directed since 2003. In a stunning departure from traditional concert
    practice, this began with the playing of the national anthems of the
    United States and Israel, after each of which the audience rose. Except
    for a handful of protestors, the event went unnoticed. I regarded it,
    however, as paradigmatic of the “special relationship” between the
    United States and Israel, one that has conduced to war in Iraq and
    massive human rights violations in Israel/Palestine. In December, I
    organized a public lecture at Bard (with Mazin Qumsiyeh) to call
    attention to this problem. Only one faculty person attended; the rest
    were students and community people; and the issue was never taken up on
    campus.
  • 2007. /Overcoming Zionism/ was now on the market, arguing for a
    One-State solution (and sharply criticizing, among others, Martin Peretz
    for a scurrilous op-ed piece against Rachel Corrie in the /Los Angeles
    Times/. Peretz is an official in AIPAC’s foreign policy think-tank, and
    at the time a Bard Trustee—though this latter fact was not pointed out
    in the book). In August, /Overcoming Zionism/ was attacked by a watchdog
    Zionist group, StandWithUs/Michigan, which succeeded in pressuring the
    book’s United States distributor, the University of Michigan Press, to
    remove it from circulation. An extraordinary outpouring of support (650
    letters to U of M) succeeded in reversing this frank episode of
    book-burning. I was disturbed, however, by the fact that, with the
    exception of two non-tenure track faculty, there was no support from
    Bard in response to this egregious violation of the speech rights of a
    professor. When I asked President Botstein in an email why this was so,
    he replied that he felt I was doing quite well at taking care of myself.
    This was irrelevant to the obligation of a college to protect its
    faculty from violation of their rights of free expression—all the more
    so, a college such as Bard with a carefully honed reputation as a
    bastion of academic freedom, and which indeed defines such freedom in
    its Faculty Handbook as a “right . . . to search for truth and
    understanding without interference and to disseminate his [sic] findings
    without intimidation.”
  • 2008. Despite some reservations by the faculty, I was able to teach a
    course on Zionism. In my view, and that of most of the students, it was
    carried off successfully. Concurrently with this, another evaluation
    of my work at Bard was underway. Unlike previous evaluations, in 1996
    and 2003, this was unenthusiastic. It was cited by Dean Dominy as
    instrumental in the decision to let me go.

_Irregularities in the Evaluation Process_

The evaluation committee included Professor Bruce Chilton, along with
Professors Mark Lambert and Kyle Gann. Professor Chilton is a member of
the Social Studies division, a distinguished theologian, and the campus’
Protestant chaplain. He is also active in Zionist circles, as chair of
the Episcopal–Jewish Relations Committee in the Episcopal Diocese of New
York, and a member of the Executive Committee of Christians for Fair
Witness on the Middle East. In this capacity he campaigns vigorously
against Protestant efforts to promote divestment and sanctions against
the State of Israel. Professor Chilton is particularly antagonistic to
the Palestinian liberation theology movement, Sabeel, and its leader,
Rev. Naim Ateek, also an Episcopal. This places him on the other side of
the divide from myself, who attended a Sabeel Conference in Birmingham,
MI, in October, 2008, as an invited speaker, where I met Rev. Ateek, and
expressed admiration for his position. It should also be observed that
Professor Chilton was active this past January in supporting Israeli
aggression in Gaza. He may be heard on a national radio program on WABC,
“Religion on the Line,” (January 11, 2009) arguing from the Doctrine of
Just War and claiming that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for
human rights violations—this despite the fact that large numbers of Jews
have been in the forefront of protesting Israeli crimes in Gaza.

Of course, Professor Chilton has the right to his opinion as an academic
and a citizen. Nonetheless, the presence of such a voice on the
committee whose conclusion was instrumental in the decision to remove me
from the Bard faculty is highly dubious. Most definitely, Professor
Chilton should have recused himself from this position. His failure to
do so, combined with the fact that the decision as a whole was made in
context of adversity between myself and the Bard administration, renders
the process of my termination invalid as an instance of what the
College’s Faculty Handbook calls a procedure “designed to evaluate each
faculty member fairly and in good faith.”

I still strove to make my future at Bard the subject of reasonable
negotiation. However, my efforts in this direction were rudely denied by
Dean Dominy’s curt and dismissive letter (at the urging, according to
her, of Vice-President Papadimitriou), which plainly asserted that there
was nothing to talk over and that I was being handed a /fait accompli/.
In view of this I considered myself left with no other option than the
release of this document.

_On the responsibililty of intellectuals_

Bard has effectively crafted for itself an image as a bastion of
progressive thought. Its efforts were crowned with being anointed in
2005 by the /Princeton Review /as the second-most progressive college in
the United States, the journal adding that Bard “puts the ‘liberal’ in
‘liberal arts.'” But “liberal” thought evidently has its limits; and my
work against Zionism has encountered these.

A fundamental principle of mine is that the educator must criticize the
injustices of the world, whether or not this involves him or her in
conflict with the powers that be. The systematic failure of the academy
to do so plays no small role in the perpetuation of injustice and state
violence. In no sphere of political action does this principle apply
more vigorously than with the question of Zionism; and in no country is
this issue more strategically important than in the United States, given
the fact that United States support is necessary for Israel’s behavior.
The worse this behavior, the more strenuous must be the suppression of
criticism. I take the view, then, that Israeli human rights abuses are
deeply engrained in a culture of impunity granted chiefly, though not
exclusively, in the United States—which culture arises from suppression
of debate and open inquiry within those institutions, such as colleges,
whose social role it is to enlighten the public. Therefore, if the world
stands outraged at Israeli aggression in Gaza, it should also be
outraged at institutions in the United States that grant Israel
impunity. In my view, Bard College is one such institution. It has
suppressed critical engagement with Israel and Zionism, and therefore
has enabled abuses such as have occurred and are occurring in Gaza. This
notion is of course, not just descriptive of a place like Bard. It is
also the context within which the critic of such a place and the Zionist
ideology it enables becomes marginalized, and then removed.

For further information: www.codz.org; Joel Kovel, “Overcoming
Impunity,” /The Link/ Jan-March 2009 (www.ameu.org).

To write the Bard administration:

President
Leon Botstein
president@bard.edu.

Executive Vice-President
Dimitri Papadimitriou
dpapadimitrou@bard.edu


Jews of the World Unite: You have nothing to lose (except 46 of Abe Foxman’s chins); You have the respect of humankind to win!

I have always maintained on this Blog and elsewhere that there is a difference between Jews and zionists. The following photos are proof of that. Over 1,000 New York Jews demonstrated in front of the Word zionist Organisation and Jewish Agency against Israel’s policies in Gaza. It was a 24 hour long demonstration (still going on as I write this).

Photos © by Bud Korotzer


Avigdor Lieberman threatens to drop six of Foxman’s chins on Iran

From: Sydney Levy, Jewish Voice for Peace
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:19 PM
Subject: What? Anti-hate group defends right-wing hate-monger?

Dear xxxx,

Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is defending one of Israel’s
most powerful far-right extremists and his plan to strip “unfaithful”
citizens, mostly Arab Israelis, of their citizenship. The
Anti-Defamation League is supposed to “secure justice and fair
treatment to all.” Instead, they are supporting a dangerous ideology
that calls for taking citizenship away from Israelis for exercising
their right to free speech.

How can we expect the ADL to effectively defend the rights of Jews
when they so easily step on the rights of Arabs?

Avigdor Lieberman now heads Yisrael Beytenu, the third largest party
in Israel, and is likely to be a minister in a new Israeli
government.

On February 10, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Abe
Foxman defended Lieberman’s plan, despite the fact that “Some liberal
Israeli and Jewish groups have condemned Lieberman as a fascist – the
left-wing Meretz Party even compared him to the late far-right
Austrian politician Joerg Haider – for his proposal to require
Israeli Arab citizens to sign an oath of allegiance to the Jewish
state.” (1)

Instead of defending Lieberman, the ADL should be condemning him.

Why should the Anti-Defamation League condemn Lieberman?

  • Avigdor Lieberman led the drive in Israel’s Central Election Committee to have Arab political parties banned from running in the most recent election, which passed successfully and was overturned only by the Israeli Supreme Court. (2)
  • He has called for the expulsion of Arab Members of the Knesset, threatening them that “a new administration will be established and then we will take care of you.” (3)
  • He has called for Arab citizens of Israel to sign an “oath of loyalty” to the state or be stripped of their citizenship. (4) His party has been very clear about what being “loyal” means: If you are an Arab student and dare come to school wearing a kefiyah, you are “disloyal.” (5)
  • Lieberman’s party said that if you are a Muslim Israeli and collect money and medicines for Gaza relief, you are “disloyal.” (6)

If Lieberman’s plan is put into place, if you do not meet his standards of loyalty, you lose all the rights of a citizen; you lose the right to vote; and you lose the right to have a political party or to run for office – that is, the right to participate in Israel’s political process.

Is this what the ADL stands for?

It is ironic that the ADL understands as anti-Semitic the accusations of dual loyalty hurled against Jews in the US and elsewhere, but remains unconcerned about similar accusations against Arab Israelis. Remind Abe Foxman that his organization was founded “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all” – and that all means all, including Arab Israelis. Click here to sign the letter to Abe Foxman.

—-

(1) Back in 2006, the ADL condemned Lieberman’s call to execute Arab legislators. But today, Abe Foxman defends Lieberman’s loyalty oath (http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/10/1002906/controversial-lieberman-proposal-finds-support-among-american-jews)

(2) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html

(3) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/962767.html

(4) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_hard_line_hero

(5) in Hebrew: http://beytenu.org.il/126/2596/article.html


(6) in Hebrew: http://beytenu.org.il/126/2345/article.html


“Norman Finkelstein is a sock and a deeply disrobed, self-heating Jew….He constantly invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes of the kind that were found in Der Stutterer.”

By Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law school professor.

FP: Alan M. Dershowitz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Dershowitz: Thank you.

FP: What were the key issues on your mind during the Gaza war?

Dershowitz: Hamas figured out how to win a media victory by sacrificing its own civilians. It was committing a double war crime by targeting Israeli civilians from behind Palestinian human shields. This despicable and unlawful tactic could never have succeeded without the complicity of the United Nations, many in the European community, the hard left and much of the media.

FP: What was Hamas’s goal in the war?

Dershowitz: The goal of Hamas was to produce as many dead Palestinian women and children as possible and to have the media show these victims uncritically and without asking who was to blame. So there were many villains to this piece and yet Israel, which was acting entirely lawfully and in self-defense, bore the brunt of international criticism. This only encouraged Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel’s other enemies to repeat this tactic over and over again, because for the terrorists, it’s a win-win situation and for democracies, it’s a lose-lose situation.

FP: No other nation in history has dealt as humanely, and with such compassion, in its fight against terrorism as Israel. And yet, as you point out, it bears the brunt of international criticism. Why? What explains this phenomenon?

Dershowitz: There are several explanations. First is that the Hamas tactic of inducing Israel to kill Palestinian civilians by using them as human shields works at least on some people. But there are deeper factors at work. Many people, especially in Europe, look for excuses to hate Israel. They love to hate the Jewish state. Part of the reason is the close relationship between Israel and the United States. Part of the reason is that Israel is the Jew among nations and anti-Semites respond to the Jewish nation in the same way that they respond to the Jewish people. Finally, many young people are subjected to constant propaganda by their teachers, many of whom come from the hard left.

FP: Iran and Hezbollah decided to sit this war out. How come in your view?

Dershowitz: Because they can win without lifting a finger. They supply the rockets to Hamas. They complain loudly. They rattle a few swords and they sit back and laugh at how easily the media is manipulated in the service of terrorism.

FP: The media is easily manipulated in the service of terrorism because it is controlled by liberal elites — who are biased against the U.S. and Israel. Right?

Dershowitz: I don’t agree with that statement. I think that even neutral journalists are impacted by the Hamas strategy. It is extraordinarily effective because it works on emotion and not reason.

FP: Is there actually any real hope for a two-state solution?

Dershowitz: There was great hope for a two-state solution when Clinton and Barak offered it to the Palestinians in 2000. But as Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia correctly put it, Arafat committed a crime against the Palestinian people by turning down the offer. He wanted to see the end of the Jewish state more than he wanted to see the establishment of a Palestinian state. When the Palestinian leadership and a substantial majority of the Palestinian people want their own state more than they want the end of the Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution. There is no real alternative to the two-state solution, except continuing warfare.

FP: What do you think of the demographic trends that appear to threaten the future of Israel?

Dershowitz: The demographic trends are an important reason why Israel should actively seek a two-state solution. If a successful Palestinian state will emerge—a state with freedom, economic potential and peacefulness—many of the Arab citizens of Israel might eventually choose to move there. That must be their choice. Right now almost no Israeli Arabs want to move to Palestine because life in Israel is so much better for them than it is in any Arab state.

FP: When you refer to a “successful Palestinian state” that might emerge that will have “freedom, economic potential and peacefulness,” how optimistic are you that this is possible? It’s a wonderful scenario of course, but do you really believe that Palestinians, with their death-cult culture and their Islamist supporters who lust for Jewish blood, will one day somehow be able to accept Jews as neighbours and choose a democratic and peaceful way of life?

Dershowitz: Yes. The culture of life is more powerful than the culture of death.

FP: Your thoughts on the world’s reaction to Israel’s attempt to defend itself in the Gaza war?

Dershowitz: The reaction of much of the world was not only morally despicable but played right into the hands of terrorists. It encouraged terrorists to persist in their double war crime tactic and to use civilians as pawns.

FP: Tell us a bit about some of the criticisms of you and what you think of them.

Dershowitz: I’m generally proud of the criticism directed at me because it tends to come from some of the worst people in the world: the neo-Nazi hard right and the neo-Stalinist hard left. It tends to be ad hominem, thoughtless, non-substantive and often overtly bigoted. What does concern me is when otherwise thoughtful people fall for the Hamas tactic and allow their emotional reaction to terrible images to skew their rational views. I was particularly disappointed in Bill Moyers’ equation of Israeli self-defense to Hamas terrorism. He said it was “exactly the same.” Shame on him.

FP: Your thoughts on Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky? What impulses, in your view, motivate Jewish individuals to reach out in solidarity to those forces under whose power they would be annihilated?

Dershowitz: Norman Finkelstein is a sick and deeply disturbed, self-hating Jew, who in his autobiography implied that his own mother was a kappo. He constantly compares Israel to the Nazis (though he seems to admire the Nazis and to despise Israel). He constantly invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes of the kind that were found in Der Stutterer. He is beneath contempt and deserves no further comment. He should be relegated to the dustbin of history and ignored. Chomsky, on the other hand, is a serious linguist, but a total ignoramus and bigot when it comes to Israel. He must be taken seriously and answered in the marketplace of ideas. That’s why I always accept invitations to debate Chomsky.

FP: Jimmy Carter was at it again during the war. I’m sure you saw his Washington Post piece: An Unnecessary War. Carter referred to Hamas as if it was some kind of social welfare agency that was bullied into taking up arms. It’s as if Article XI in their Charter doesn’t exist, and as if Hamas has some reason for its existence other than the annihilation of Israel. Carter referred to “a defensive tunnel” being dug by Hamas. And this is not, apparently, some kind of morbid and twisted sense of humor on Carter’s part. What gives here? What’s the psychology of a man like this?

Dershowitz: Jimmy Carter has been completely bought and paid for by extremist Islamic money. He has accepted funding from Holocaust deniers, who he had characterized as friends. He seems to love tyrants such as Arafat, Assad, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, but he seems to despise virtually all Israeli leaders. He also seems afflicted by a perverse form of deep-seeded theological anti-Judaism. I have written extensively about him in my book “The Case Against Israel’s Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand In The Way of Peace.”

FP: Your advice for Israel and the Obama administration in terms of how to deal with the Mid-east issue — in the context of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah and Iran?

Dershowitz: I hope that Barack Obama follows through with what he said as a presidential candidate. He should try to achieve peace through negotiations. He should be tough on Israel when it comes to non-security issues, such as civilian settlements deep in the West Bank. But he should support Israel in its legitimate efforts to defend itself from terrorism and from the existential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

FP: Will the Obama administration be a true friend of Israel?

Dershowitz: There is every reason to hope and expect that he will be, based on what he said during the campaign and who he has appointed to serve in his administration.

FP: But what of his appointment of George Mitchell and seeming reaching out to Fatah and Abbas?

Dershowitz: I support that.

FP: Do you give the Bush administration credit for its support of Israel?

Dershowitz: I give the Bush administration great credit for its support of Israel, but it took actions which hurt Israel and failed to take some actions which hurt Israel. The war in Iraq, which then Prime Minister Arielle Sharon opposed, has been a disaster for Israel, since it has diverted attention away from Israel’s existential enemy, Iran. I wish that Bush had picked up where Clinton had left off and tried to initiate active peace efforts earlier on in his first term. I do think that George Bush’s heart is in the right place when it comes to Israel.

FP: Well, for the record, in Iraq the Bush administration overthrew a fascist dictator and ended up defeating Al Qaeda there. The surge succeeded, sectarian violence is now down, and Iraq is moving in a positive direction. In this success, which one will never read about in the mainstream media, America has dealt a deadly blow to our enemy in the terror war.

But this debate belongs in another forum — and the point cannot be denied that any diversion of attention away from dealing with Iran is a bad thing.

It is questionable how Bush can be criticized for not picking up where Clinton had left off in terms of the peace process. The Bush administration didn’t stop the “peace” process; Arafat did. As your own work has demonstrated, Mr. Dershowitz, Arafat rejected Barack’s over-generous offer and called for a new Intifada. What many had suspected became undeniably clear: from the very beginning of Oslo, Arafat had never been serious about real peace. All throughout the peace process, he continued to support terror against Israel and to oversee the ideological indoctrination of his own people – which propagated the illegitimacy of Israel and the necessity of its annihilation. The Palestinians clearly remained more interested in destroying the Jewish state than in creating their own.

The Bush administration understood that the Palestinians had to shed themselves of their terrorist infrastructure and ideology before any real peace process could be renewed. It would have been simply absurd and destructive for Bush to have continued Arafat’s sick charade. No?

Dershowitz: Yes, but as soon as Arafat met his untimely death—ultimately in the sense that if he had died five years earlier—we might have had a two-state solution, the Bush Administration should have moved aggressively to make peace with Abbas.

FP: Well, it is debatable whether there can be a real peace made with someone like Abbas — recognizing his past, who he actually is and what he believes. But we’ll save this for another time and place.

Final thoughts my friend?

Dershowitz: I love tough questions. And you asked some mighty tough ones.

FP: Alan Dershowitz, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Dershowitz: Thank you.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.