All I can ask after reading this is: Why am I not surprised?

FYI:

Volokh Conspirator, George Mason Law professor David Bernstein responds to what he believes is "unfair" criticism of Eugene by Charles and Roger Simon.

More belligerents needed.
My only (admittedly nitpicking and very minor) issue is

If belligerency means standing up to hatred and bigotry, then I will wear the label with pride.

One needs to not only stand against something, but also FOR something. Lots of L3's say they are against "hatred and bigotry", and practice the very same things they preach against with great vigor. Those words tend to be abused greatly by the L3's, to the point where they can mean the exact opposite of what they used to.
What about saying the FOR part to make sure the L3's have a tougher time co-opting the message to their causes?

Wonder if any groups in her area would be willing to front the money for them both to take lie detector tests. Not that that's the way I'd advocate disagreements be settled, but we've got a person in a position of power with the backing of said institution of power questioning the integrity of a student. Perhaps having her simply put this offer out in the public realm will make it clear just who has a problem with the truth.

And, should her story be the accurate one, place some much-needed shame upon her fellow students. I wouldn't dream of taking a class without recording it these days.

Rock on Susanna!!! You are the SHIT! Keep on kickin' ass.

Like I said in the other topic. Ms Klein's first letter written to Dafka before her formal letter was the better and more informative of the two.

In this letter she restates some of the facts that she initially stated but left out of the "formalized" letter to the school.

Mike

According to "professor" Kadhim (who must be correct since he is a professor) the Jews secretly rule the world. Since I am Jewish maybe I will secretly CRUSH him from my home in Maine.

#4 M4

. I wouldn't dream of taking a class without recording it these days.

Unfortunately many profs/grad students will not allow their lectures to be recorded. Saw this first hand at OSU in 95'. I am not sure what the penatly was for recording without consent, but I would assume the administaration would rake a student over the coals.

Everyone knows it's not the Jews who are out to rule the world, it's the Circus Clowns. You can read all about it in...

The Protocols of the Elders of Barnum

This professor is not teaching Political Science, it is my understanding that he is supposed to be teaching the Arabic language. I already responded to this on the other thread, I think #237.

If you don't like the professor, please drop the course.

You do not accomplish anything constructive by browbeating someone from a totalitarian regime.

Regarding David Bernstein's comments about this issue
and his statement that Kadhim should not be dismissed
because this is a freedom of speech issue: His article
shows something I have long said: No matter how little accurate or detailed information someone has about an issue they wil still express a strong opinion even if that opinion may do harm to others. Two glaring faults stick
out in his article.
1) Kadhim has already lied about the exchanges that occured. He changed his story about what was said and why. As a teacher he shapes the minds of students who accept their instructor as knwoing what he is talking about. He still insists the Protocols are not forgeries. His intent was to indoctrinate hate against Jews and Israel. Ms. Klein was involved in this discussion with him because of an earlier blog he wrote
against Jews and Israel she had seen. Kadhim has also
voiced similar antisemitic views in the past. He should be fired for attempting to indoctrinate his students with
antisemtic propaganda.
2) Note Bernstein's use of the phrase "campus Zionists". The Arabs in their media and on campus use
"Zionist" interchangeably for Jew. All practicing Jews
say "Next year in Jerusalem" at Passover. Many Stars of David say "Zion" in Hebrew on them. Judaism has been inextricably linked to the Holy Land for millenia.
His use of a euphemism to refer to Jews as Zionists shows his true colors. Though his surname is Jewish, he considers himself an intellectual elitest above it all.
He's not a "Zionist". It's those "Zionists" who are out to get Kadhim. He reminds me of an intellectual who would tell the Nazis he shouldn't be thrown in the oven with the rest because he's special from all those other
Jews. He's wiser and has a fancy law degree. But into the oven he would still go as a Jew. To him law is opinion in a sophistic discourse. who cares about the real world? His article was gobledygook and sophistry not related to the events that really occured nor in compliance with the situation and academic abuse that occured that day. Such thinking could only thrive in an Ivory Tower built on sand. Kadhim should be sacked. And Bernstein should go back to school for a lesson in the reality of the world we live in. It's not a free speech issue. It's an issue of teaching the next generation to hate the conspiratorial Jews. Allow this to continue on our campuses and even "nonZionists" like Bernsten may find out more of usare "Zionists" than we think.

DAFKA EDITOR

hey, it's cool that I found this site, because i'm fed up with all anti-israel, anti-american news in Iran and even other places in internet. although your posts is sometimes anti-iranian :) but it doesnt bother me, keep up the good work.

Bernstein's remarks are worthwhile to think about. She wants him to be fired over this? I do not approve.

I'm beginning to think she just wants to get her name in the newspapers so she can become a kind of celebrity.

Being a bully and trying to force someone to say what you want him to say is not celebrity, it is notoriety.

The Arabs in their media and on campus use "Zionist" interchangeably for Jew.

Editor:

It's not only the Arabs that do that and it's not only in their media or on campus. As I'm sure you know.

IranianBoy:

Nice to see you. Stay awhile.

If Klein's commenting in LGF were found by her critics, they would accuse her of participating in a web site promoting "hatred and bigotry".

foobar (#13)

I'm beginning to think she just wants to get her name in the newspapers so she can become a kind of celebrity.

Yeah, or what she's saying is true and she's standing up for herself. C'mon, she's taking a lot of heat over this. I don't believe she's doing it for the reasons you suspect her of. She seems sincere.

IranianBoy: stick around! Nice to see you. ;-)
I think you'll find that most here are pro-Farsi/Iranian/Persian, and anti-mullah.
Saudi Arabia recently added this website to its banned list. I suggest you locate and learn how to use a free proxy service so that you can keep visiting if the mullahs decide to ban LGF in Iran.
Hope to read your thoughts here!

Re #11:

Oh, they're not Zionists-- she's a dominatrix and so are her friends. That's just what a guy coming out of a totalitarian society really needs.

None of this has anything to do with learning the Arabic language. If you don't like the professor, drop his class.

Mike Nargizian, nice site! I like it. It was a little hard to navigate, though-maybe it's my browser (Opera 7.11) but I couldn't find a navbar from your default.asp page, and when I finally figured out that if I clicked on a recent newsitem in the left pane, the article it went to would have a pull-down menu of other articles. You might want to try a more weblog-like format, with teasers arranged in reverse chronological order with "read more..." links at the end of each teaser...Just a suggestion. The drop-down menu cut off the ends of article names too, it made it kind of hard to find the letter you were talking about. Eventually I did though.
Alan E Brain-nice blog! I appreciate the lexicon of Australian political parties. Previously I didn't know where to place an Aussie pol if I read about their party affiliation.
I really enjoyed the project pluto info too-cool!!! Don't fuck with America, boy! We're fucking crazy!
I'm going to read "A Colder War" in a little bit...I'm tantalized.

This professor is not teaching Political Science, it is my understanding that he is supposed to be teaching the Arabic language.

foobar, I'm sorry, but you just fisked yourself. Susanna had the right to expect instruction in the Arabic language with maybe a few cultural niceties like traditional Iraqi cuisine or geography. She pays tuition just like everyone else there and has the right not to be subjected to an off-topic political discussion about the Protocols.

I think we all agree that Susanna did not bring up the Protocols, he did. Her disruption was to clarify that he did not believe them to be true.

Your comments indicate the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. As a student at a supposedly world-class university, she is entitled to somewhat higher expectations.

Even if it's Berkeley.

she's a dominatrix and so are her friends

You, foobar, are an asshat.

That's just what a guy coming out of a totalitarian society really needs.

What he really needs is not to be teaching in an American classroom if he insists on bringing his old-world hate here. What he really deserves is a swift, painful kick to the derriere for spreading these lies.

None of this has anything to do with learning the Arabic language. If you don't like the professor, drop his class.

No shit sherlock. The whole problem is that none of it has anything to do with learning Arabic. As for, if you don't like it drop the class-why should she have to drop her class because the professor is a grade-A turd? I'm sure she will drop the class if UCB refuses to take any action against him. That doesn't preclude her agitating for his relief from his responsibilities-the two go hand in hand. This is no mere stylistic quibble-"Professor McGee assigns too much homework so I'm dropping his class" or whatever. The guy is a raving antisemite. He believes that Jews are in a world conspiracy described by a document called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This guy isn't fit to teach my ass how to cut wind.

evariste: Thank you. Well said.

Foobar --

She wants him to be fired over this? I do not approve.

I think he should be fired over it, and not just him. The whole department needs to be under investigation perhaps it should be dissolved. Universities should create inclusive environment. If Berkeley is as serious about peace as they want us to believe, they will welcome Jews in the ME Department. Klein should have found her instructor's speech both insulting and threatening and she acted appropriately.

Since I actually support this school out of my taxes I think I have the right to demand it to live up to its own multiculturalist ideal... I also realize that it's not going to happen.

We cannot provide Thought Police in every college classroom.

#24 weebee-I agree. We should dissolve every single endowment funded by the Saudis. Their money and their ideas have no place in our society. Fucking period! I am so pissed off right now! Must remember not to grind teeth...fists shaking...goddamnit!
Why the hell do we let this happen?! Saudi funded anything! This is so fucking ridiculous!
Where are the Israeli funded departments of Middle Eastern studies if they control so much of the fucking world? Answer me that, foobar you fucking ass!

We cannot provide Thought Police in every college classroom.

We apparently also cannot provide intelligence, or a sense of proportion, or an understanding of reality, or restraint of hyperbolic tendencies, to many of our citizens. Fortunately, they will be useful for fellating our future rulers, the coming Islamic overlords. I, for one, would like to welcome our new leadership. You'll make a wonderful collaborator foobar. You're already your own thought police-you prevent yourself from having any real or genuine thoughts much better than an actual policeman could.

Sorry, Charles, I lost my shit there for a moment (#26). Feel free to delete anything you find offensive.

I meant, in terms of excessive cussing. I meant every word I said, natch. I just cussed a blue streak on someone else's website. Not civil.

Seriously speaking, why in the world did she sign up for this class?

If she wants to learn a language, aren't there CD's or computer programs nowadays that teach languages?

Is she going to like any Arabic professor? Does she at least check out professors before she signs up for their classes? Will she ever find an Arabic professor whose course she actually finishes?

These are serious topics to think about. It may end up that she is just not sufficiently motivated to learn Arabic at all.

Good night, everyone. I'm too pissed off to keep looking at LGF right now. I'll be back, in a better mood, tomorrow. Not that there's much to be in a better mood about. Maybe I'll wake up to a post by Charles that we have finally invaded Oiltick Arabia. I wish.

foobar (#30)

Blame the victim and be done with it? Honestly, what are you on about? Where are you coming from with, "Is she going to like any Arabic professor?" Now what? She's a bigot? It's not about liking her professor, Arabic or otherwise. It's about a specific issue.

Are you being serious?

Mr. Kadhim is probably just another islamist.

The link below is a message he forworded to all Cal MSA members. (FBI should keep an eye on those in the distro list)-
[Link: groups.yahoo.com...]

Though I have seen it posted that he fought against the US, Mr. Kadhim has been cited as fighting in the Shiite uprisisng against Saddam after GWI -
[Link: www.accuracy.org...]

Mr. Kadhim believes that Iraq must have a real democracy and if they vote for a theocracy, so be it. (evidentally freedom of religion, good enough for Americans, need not apply to the non-Shiite Iraqi minority) -
[Link: www.sfgate.com...]

Enough of that...
Googling is fun.

#30 foobar, you completely asinine ass, this is my final post on this matter tonight.

Seriously speaking, why in the world did she sign up for this class? If she wants to learn a language, aren't there CD's or computer programs nowadays that teach languages?

The best way to learn a language is immersion. If you can't afford that, or other obligations in your life such as college or a family or job interfere, then the next best alternative is a class. CD-based systems are an extremely poor substitute.

Is she going to like any Arabic professor? Does she at least check out professors before she signs up for their classes? Will she ever find an Arabic professor whose course she actually finishes? These are serious topics to think about. It may end up that she is just not sufficiently motivated to learn Arabic at all.

You are obviously just here to shoot off your mouth, and haven't even read any of the links provided in this and the other thread, nor in their comments. She is the best student in the class and is described both by her peers and Kadhim as "brilliant".
My only regret is that I have allowed a thoughtless flea such as yourself affect me emotionally to the point of rage. I have nothing further to say to you, unless I find in the morning that you have something reasonable to say. In the meantime, I hope you die, you miserable piece of equivocating shit. More than that, I hope you find your brain so that I can quit hoping you die, which is unworthy of me.

Case anyone missed it:

UPDATE [Link: volokh.com...]

Yeah, I know, wrong thread...

#27 evariste: heh, exactly. I think you're brilliant. Sorry but just had to say that again. :-)

#2 SoCalJustice: wow, interesting. I cannot get my head round the insults Klein is getting.

A professor failing to point out the historical fact about one major lie in the nazi propaganda.

And he still upholds that after complaints.

Of course he should be fired! It's not just the topic itself and how relevant it is still today. It's the total disregard for facts.

I don't see how the First Amendment can cover total lack of professional basics. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. One pays for tuition, right? Then one expects a minumum of accuracy by any professor. Simple. Then they can hold any ideas they want, but in class, they got to stick to facts and point them out clearly as facts. No twiddling around that.

It's beyond disgusting to attack Klein as notoriety seeker for standing up to point the obvious, which sadly, isn't as obvious to many.

From the post you linked in the Volokh blog:

Kadhim can't be disciplined by the university simply because he chose not to condemn an anti-Semitic myth that came up in class;

What wrong reasoning and choice of words. It's not about failing to "condemn" a myth. It's failing to merely point out it is indeed a myth, and a murderous one. If someone refuses to point that out, it obviously means they support said myth.

I hate how these things are turned into a "points of view, freedom of speech" issue.

and campus Zionists certainly wouldn't want to open up that can of worms, lest pro-Israel professors start facing inquisitions initiated by Arab and leftist students, to be decided by typical campus kangaroo courts.

This has to be a really bad joke I'm not quite grasping... Bah?

evariste:

I don't care what your arguments are, you don't wish death on people! I'm horrified. Take that back!

And by the way, foobar has been posting here for a lot longer than you have, for whatever that's worth.

Just for the record: many Arabs and many Iraqis believe the Protocols and lots of other fairytales. They also believe that a man can be suddenly possessed by a djinn who overtakes him and throws him into convulsions or a kind of epileptic fit as he writhes on the ground.

As the Iraqis and other Arabs get more access to information and more freedom of access, this will abate. Meanwhile, the dictator controls their access to the internet and filters it or blocks it. Their governments control much of their access to information. And there is also a basic lack of literacy skills.

foobar

Are you somehow under the impression that Berkeley is in Egypt?
That is the only explanation for your ridiculous posit that Susanna should expect this kind of hatred to be spouted by a language instructor.

mommydoc put it best

Susanna had the right to expect instruction in the Arabic language with maybe a few cultural niceties like traditional Iraqi cuisine or geography. She pays tuition just like everyone else there and has the right not to be subjected to an off-topic political discussion about the Protocols.

Your comments indicate the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. As a student at a supposedly world-class university, she is entitled to somewhat higher expectations

Susanna,
there should be more people like you who are unwilling to bow down and take this kind of crap. I am sorry your education has been so sorely interrupted by a hate-mongering instructor and a school that seems determined to collaborate in the spread of this hatred (may I be proved wrong on the last).
God Bless.

#34 evariste

I hope you die, you miserable piece of equivocating shit.

Go to bed evariste. This was clearly over-the-top.

Foobar may be trolling, but don't lower yourself to DU standards.

zaza-thanks ;-)
zulubaby-

I don't care what your arguments are, you don't wish death on people! I'm horrified. Take that back!

You're absolutely right. I take it back, foobar. I'm just really pissed off right now, and I took it out on you. I still think your line of "reasoning" is totally asinine, though.

And by the way, foobar has been posting here for a lot longer than you have, for whatever that's worth.

Point well taken, although I don't think longevity confers additional wisdom or credibility. I've been reading LGF since 9/11, does that make me more credible?
I should have more respect and self-restraint though, even when faced with something that pushes all my buttons. Thank you, zulubaby.

foobar, you are so full of it.

According to Klein, Kadhim was the one who brought up the Protocols, and then told her that he has no doubt that they were written by Jews.

Kadhim, in his letter to Volokh does not even explicitly deny this. And judging from his letter

As you know, this issue of authenticity and the identity of the author -- or authors -- of the Protocols has not been settled between the Middle Eastern disputants (that is to say, no one said to the other, "you are right.").

I have no reason to doubt that he believes the Protocols to be genuine.

Are you comfortable with the fact that such views are held in the academia, and are being expressed by instructors in classes at UC Berkeley?

As Bernstein says, and I completely agree:

But if raising the Protocols was relevant, and if he did not endorse the view that the Protocols was written by Jews, then there is no grounds for disciplining him (absent some explicit university rule banning mention of the Protocols). On the other hand, if Klein's version of the facts is correct, there may be grounds (this is a notably murky area of First Amendment law) for disciplining Kadhim...

What reasons do you have to doubt that Klein's version of the facts is, in fact, correct?

I admire Susanna Klein for standing up against the narrow-minded and hateful "politically correct" bigotry which thrives at UC Berkeley. It takes a lot of courage.

(and yes, I've been there. I do know what I'm talking about).

Buckeye Abroad,

This was clearly over-the-top.

...

but don't lower yourself to DU standards

Yup. I'm embarrased now. Dang. The Preview button really is my friend, isn't it? I'm such a faithless friend...*Sigh*

Doh!

Looks like SoCal got the update already... way back when...

Has anyone noticed that the posts discussing LGF on Volokh's blog are not written by Volokh but by David Bernstein, whoever that is? I can't say I think much of him or his views on Judaism.

foobar-you are correct here

Just for the record: many Arabs and many Iraqis believe the Protocols and lots of other fairytales. They also believe that a man can be suddenly possessed by a djinn who overtakes him and throws him into convulsions or a kind of epileptic fit as he writhes on the ground. As the Iraqis and other Arabs get more access to information and more freedom of access, this will abate. Meanwhile, the dictator controls their access to the internet and filters it or blocks it. Their governments control much of their access to information. And there is also a basic lack of literacy skills.

but none of that justifies Kadhim's behavior in the United States. We have every right to demand that he be relieved of his duties at a public university paid for by taxpayers if he is going to continue to propagate vicious slander against some of our citizens. I'm sorry but we're in the middle of a war here and this guy is propagandizing for the enemy. I don't care what his situation is or how his past experiences excuse his belief system. His belief system is what we are at war with. He needs to get with the program, or be relieved of his responsibilities. I'm not saying, expel him from school. Just that he shouldn't be allowed to teach any more, because he hasn't been sufficiently de-nazified. If he can find private employ, then good for him. Not outta my pocket though, damn it.
Sorry I wished death on you. Your uninformed, ad hominem slurs against Susanna Klein were a bit rich though.

Duh, never mind. SoCalJustice addressed this way back in post #2. Obviously, I'm too tired to post, but insomnia is a b**ch.

evariste (#46) Excellent post.

evariste (#41)

Point well taken, although I don't think longevity confers additional wisdom or credibility.

I agree, it doesn't, but while I think foobar's position on this reeks, I don't like it when people that we know are treated like trolls. Having said that, I don't blame if you mistook foobar for a troll...

I've been reading LGF since 9/11, does that make me more credible?

I'm not questioning your credibility for a minute. I think you're lovely and I hold you in high regard. Just cool your jets, okay?

Sleep tight.

Apparently I missed some quite heated arguements today. I checked the Roger Simon post and comments a bit too. I'd feel bad about missing the party but I had a high school reunion weekend that kept me busy.

#38 foobar

Meanwhile the individuals in question are a student and a professor in at one of the Universities of California. Wacky as Berkely is, there is no lack of sources to check facts.

What you seem to be saying is the student availed herself of these while the professor did not begging the question what in the red hot hell is he doing there?

---

You also said in several other posts that is people don't like the class they should drop it. Tell you what - ignoring a problem and hoping it would go away is a piss poor choice compared to challenging the status quo in hopes of making things better. Dropping the class gives victory to yet another pinhead espousing a fraud as fact.

I myself am quite tired at this point, but I shall try to slog on.

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

May I recommend a good book on this type of thing:
The Silent Language by Prof. Edmond T. Hall. It's a classic.

She also presumed too much of their level of sophistication, which can seem insulting or patronizing.

foobar--if he needs that much accomodation to teach in an American university classroom, he needs to rethink his career choice. Susanna, a native, a tuition payer and the daughter of the taxpayers who help support the University, owes him nothing more than civility and respect commensurate with what he has earned.

Which is very little in this particular case.

RE #50 NTropy

*Dropping the class gives victory to yet another pinhead espousing a fraud as fact.*

Very good point, NTropy!!!

This means there are choices that can be made in this situation.

foobar (#51)

I couldn't care less about his ego if my life depended on it. Try to address what has been posted in response to your previous comments.

#43 evariste

No problem. I have done similiar faue pauxs (sp?) and I will probably do them again. :) My lack of profound intellect I guess, but I hate to see respected posters fall below the bar.

Mommydoc:

Being realistic, there is a shortage of Arabic teachers right now. And the Army is having the same problem.

Under more ideal or even normal conditions, they might be able to divest themselves of him more easily. But because of the need and the shortage, people are having to make more "accommodations."

#51 foobar

"For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly--is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to bebrowbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated."

Good point.

And the University will take that into consideration when they ream him out and then send him back to the classroom.

Management will never fire anyone for just one complaint, and they won't do it this time. But, they need to recognize that this guy is a militant (shiite) islamist. And keep an eye on him.

#51 foobar

For an Arab man to have the arrogance to assume he is at home, wherever that may be, and expect the a female American student to conform to some male Arabic or Muslim standard of behavior is ridiculous. He is the one who needs to adapt, not she.

Regardles of race, creed or culture the first thing that needs to be broken - HARD - is pride. Pride as in arrogance. Pride as in admitting no wrong. Pride as in misogyny. That kind of pride has no place here. If he doesn't like the way things are in an American university perhaps he should be the one leaving rather than the student, hmmm? Particularly if he is actually giving credence to the myth that is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

foobar-

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

Two points in response. One is that, my reading of the initial confrontation as described by Susanna Klein is that she was being fairly subtle with him, and gave him chances to back out. He was insisting to her that they were true, regardless, and he cut her off when she tried to explain the whole okhara (sp?) thing. Also, Iraqis are very different from the average Arab in their treatment of women, and have had outspoken woman professionals among them even in Saddam's days. Heck, Dr Germ was (is?) a woman.
Besides, it's not okay to say that just because he's an Arab, he won't be able to handle a woman confronting him. That's racism against him. I'm an Arab, and I was just confronted by zulubaby (who I believe is a woman) and I backed down, because I knew I was in the wrong.It's also unfair to tell all female Berkeley students to tone down their assertiveness if they have an Arab professor. What, and they should wear burqas to make sure these fine fellas don't rape them too? I know that's not what you're advocating, but where does it stop? It's not her behavior that's wrong, its his. And it's not OK to tell her, in her own country, to behave according to the customs of someone else's country. Our troops are very sensitive to Iraqi customs. Why can't he at least bite his damn tongue when he is in the classroom, regardless of his private bigoted beliefs? (HE is in HER country). Obviously because he thinks no one gives a damn or will do anything about it, and the sad thing is that he's probably right.

foobar: No, in this case he is an instructor because he is a graduate student earning his fellowship stipend. He can be warned, reprimanded, or remediated. I am not arguing for his dismissal, but a responsible university would nip his bad tendencies in the bud.

BTW - has anybody seen if there has been a comment from Daniel Pipes? I don't see anything on Campus Watch.

Mommydoc: O.K., they can have a talk with him :-)

Evariste-#59
There are many different Iraqi social circles. They had a rich oligarchy, they had some elite, educated people, there are Shiites, Sunnis, and others. You don't know what kind of social background he was from-- rich, poor, socialist, religious, etc. I am not suggesting she don a burqa. I am just trying to encourage some more sensitivity.

#15 zulubaby:

IranianBoy:
Nice to see you. Stay awhile

Me, too :)

#18 evariste

IranianBoy: stick around! Nice to see you. ;-)
I think you'll find that most here are pro-Farsi/Iranian/Persian, and anti-mullah.
Saudi Arabia recently added this website to its banned list. I suggest you locate and learn how to use a free proxy service so that you can keep visiting if the mullahs decide to ban LGF in Iran.
Hope to read your thoughts here!

Thanks ;) about pro-Iranian you are right, I was reading some old articles here and saw many good things about Iran and even some people defending Iranian. with all these arabs who hate Iranain people, it's great that I see some friends here.

btw I know some ways to bypass filtering but I think mullahs have more important job to do(like finding a mouse hole) lol :)

#57 db: erm, no that's not a good point at all. She's a woman, he's a man, she should shut up or play it more nicely not to burst his ego bubble? excuse me?

Isn't that precisely the kind of things that one shouldn't accept, no matter what country, culture, religion, nationality, gender, etc?

Foobar just doesn't have a point at all. Surely not with the idea of endorsing any sort stereotypes. They're there to be challenged.

And, what evariste said in #59.

- Even before foobar posted that, I just knew that the fact Susanna is a woman had to bother the whiners... That "she's just a notoriety seeker" is a bit the typical giveaway.

Of course, if she'd been a guy, they'd have found some other excuse to attack her common sense anyway.

Foobar,
Don't you think that just dropping the course is cowardly? You know, 'always run away, be invisible, never complain, never take a stand' type of behavior. I actually would not blame a student for being timid in such a case, for it is quite difficult to confront your professor/instructor. But I could never expect that someone would advocate such behavior here, in the United States. Ms. Klein was entirely correct in raising an issue and filing a complaint. There are certain standards that educational institutions must uphold. Those who cannot satisfy the requirements for teaching should not teach.

Also, you seem to have a problem with a female student complaining. Would it be easier for you if it were a male student? Such cases do exist, you know.

#64 Zaza,

exactly!

#64 zaza

No, let me clarify-

Management cannot afford to loose one of their drones, and they'll play along with his humiliation to help justify (in their own minds) that he suffered some damage as well, maybe explain that the Prorocals are fraud, not to suggest they are real again, or else, and send him back to work.

I really doubt he will be fired for this. Realpolitik meet realbussinez.

#62 foobar

No, we do know who he is - he fought against the US in GWI, he fought against Saddam post GWI, somehow ended up in a Saudi prison for a year or so, found his way to the US, sent mass e-mail calling for action against Hindus for slights against islam, says only true justice can be done in Iraq by allowing the shiites institute ('vote for') a theocracy, suggest the Protocala are real, and his brother may be looking for him (or padding the rolls)
[Link: www.familylinks.icrc.org...]
(can't confirm that one though...).

The guy is just another islamist who found his way to the US.

Try to google his name, only a few hundred hits...

I so many typos, I need to go to bed...

I really doubt he will be fired for this. Realpolitik meet realbussinez.

#67 db: ok, now I get what you meant, and ok, maybe he won't be removed - but point is: that's not a valid reason not to protest and ask for his removal. Esp. on grounds foobar says.

This is not about sensitivities.

There's facts, and lies. Right, and wrong. Professional codes, and abuse of it. It's pretty clear to me at least.

Those "Protocols" are only upheld by conspiracy nutters, and Islamist propaganda. Not by a professor in a secular university in the US. It's beyond acceptable. He can't bring them into a class discussion as if they were as neutral and valid for consideration and "different points of view" as... a food recipe.

So if they don't remove or discipline that professor in some way, that'd be even more shocking.

My culture of Wakakaeriueiieiebobobaaacansinignma believes that it Hindus have a plot to control the world.

And if Hindus have a problem with the Wakakaeriueiieiebobobaaacansinignma's expose of their bastardly plot, then obviously they are disrespecting the culture of Wakakaeriueiieiebobobaaacansinignma, even though we, in fact, were disrespecting Hindus in the first place.

"Those "Protocols" are only upheld by conspiracy nutters, and Islamist propaganda. Not by a professor in a secular university in the US. It's beyond acceptable. He can't bring them into a class discussion as if they were as neutral and valid for consideration and "different points of view" as... a food recipe."

No! They're not!

The people who say they are false are Jews or people who have gotten the idea from Jews and obviously Jews would deny that they were trying to take over the world!

[/sarcasm]

UC Berkeley to probe anti-Semitism charge

Berkeley does a "Wilkie"

Heh ;-)

JG

JG,
All right! I think that the ADL has to put its foot down in this case. This is the Arab equivalent to Mein Kampf. Actually, it might even be worse. And it will never do to forget that the Arabs were the bosom buddies of the Nazis even before WWII.

About point foobar raised, that allowances must be made because there's a shortage of Arabic lnaguage instructors, I have to say that it's better that the students learn Arabic later, than learn hatred in Arabic now. But that just me. Perhaps foobar feels racist hatred is a necessary evil if you want to get educated...

#71 Zachary Cohen: LOL, with a totally non-obviously-Jewish name like that, I believe you're only trying to cover up for those cunning Jews trying to cover up their world domination conspiracy by blaming it on the highly respected Wakakaeriueiieiebobobaaacansinignma. Tsk, that's not something a good Wakakaeriueiieiebobobaaacansinignma would do. ;-)

Btw, I admire your enormous patience and efforts in doing what you do on your blog, fact-checking that nutter. If it's of any minor interest to you, his site was name-checked one year ago in an article in the "prestigious" (sadly, it is considered so by many, even if it's a marginal paper) Italian newspaper "il Manifesto", which is overtly communist, vehemently anti-american and rabidly anti-Israel. The article was by a former correspondent from Russia, and old journalist who'd written for more mainstream papers too, and worked for Italian state tv as well. He's an old commie relic into all sorts of conspiracies, and argues Europe was liberated from nazism by the great and wonderful Soviet army, not the US and UK. He mentioned wrh and put the web url in the article, praising it as a fact-based, objective counterbalance to "the US propaganda on 9/11"... I swear, I'm not making this up. Very, very sad...

#51 Foobar

You wrote:

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

Are you kidding? We are in the USA...his cultural expectations are not relevant here. From your logic, though, sexism is also permissible in the classroom because Arab men can't help themselves (isn't that kind of anti-Arab to think that Arab men cannot transcend their culture?)

I am a teacher and I do not make my views on political issues public for many reasons--one is that it could create controversy in the classroom and distract my students from learning. Kadhim should have kept his mouth shut because what he did was create a hostile learning environment. There is something called classroom management (obviously college instructors need to learn a bit more of this).

You also insinuate that Klein, being a Jew, shouldn't be taking a class in Arabic but that she should learn it from CD's et. al. Are you kidding? Your point of view seems directly to contradict the 14th amendment if you think about it.

The onus is on Kadhim. When you are in charge of a class, you have a code of conduct you need to follow. The class was an Arabic language class. Got it? He was supposed to teach Arabic. Classroom time is precious and shouldn't be wasted on irrelevant conversation. That is not what the students are paying for. That he even allowed any classroom time for discussion other than about his subject matter shows him to be incompetent.

I know people will say that this is a freedom of speech issue...but it isn't. If he expressed this view outside of the classroom or if he had a website promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as being true, that would be a different issue and he probably couldn't be fired. This happened inside of the classroom--during class time.

He had no right to have this discussion. Period.

And finally, what if he had said during this discussion that ... let's say... that African Americans are inferior, or that women are less intelligent than men and should not be allowed to study in a university or any other biased statement...or if any instructor had said in the classroom during class time anti-Muslim statements...do you think that the same people who are defending him would still defend him.

In short, during class time you devote yourself to your subject matter. As a teacher, you control what goes on in the classroom and you stop any conversation that is irrelevant to the subject of the class. Period.

Susanna chose the high ground. It's too damn bad she seems to be alone up there.

You go, girl!!!

Tell me who with a liberal arts degree from any major university has NOT been exposed to professors preaching communism, socialism, Chinese imperialism, nihilism, new-age buddhism, animism, and other far-out ideologies, probably even Islamism?

Just add this kook to the list of loonies that use their professorships to try and advance their agenda.

In my mind, they drive more people into the arms of Liberty-loving Conservatism than they convert.

OT: BBC "Explains" Egyptian Anti-Semetism
This is for the strong of heart only. The BBC's Kate Clark points out to the uninformed not once but twice that

most of the anti-Semitic imagery in the Egyptian media originally came from Europe: there is no indigenous tradition of anti-Jewish racism in the Muslim world.

No tradition of anti-Jewish racism? How about this Hadith (Sahih Bukhari 004.52.176) that states

the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

I guess Kate Clark would say that is not a tradition of racism, just a tradition of murder.

#75 Christine,

Excellent post. There is, as you pointed out, a huge difference between what a teacher does in class and what views they may hold in private.

Presenting a view that a hatefull forgery which contributed in no small part to many section of Mein Kampf as a real document is grossly irresponsible and doing so on university time and in a classroom where a teacher is responsible for nuturing young minds and promoting truth and learning is to the bahaviour that one expects of any teacher in any part of the educational establishments of the West.

The statement from the Proffessor in which he states "As you know, this issue of authenticity and the identity of the author -- or authors -- of the Protocols has not been settled between the Middle Eastern disputants (that is to say, no one said to the other, "you are right.")." is quite appalling in it's implication that despite the fact that The Times proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the protocols were forgeries in August 1921 because certain jihadist elements in the Middle East use them to promote anti-Semitism that it is acceptable to ignore the proof that has been in the public domain for over 80 years.

Had the professor made the point that some Klansmen don't accept the black people are entitled to equality with white people and that because these individuals hold that view the issue of equality is still open to debate then this would have been huge news and the left would have, quite correctly, taken major issue with it. It seems that as the target of his smear is not one of the cause celebre of the left this becomes an issue of "free specch" for them rather than one of promoting hatred to young people in the classroom.

In April of 2003, Abbas Kadhim was on the O'Reilly TV show on Fox. He was introduced as a lecturer in Islamic Studies at Berkeley. Perhaps someone knows what he said on that show. I wonder how he got himself on the show. Perhaps he is a man with an agenda.

On August 4, 2003 Kadhim was quoted in an AP article concerning the Zayed Centre's financial 'donations' to American schools and programs which present Islamically Correct viewpoints. Appealing to Arabic public opinion as the highest authority, Kadhim excused dealing with Arabic 'research' institutes which are anti-Israeli, saying there is nothing else in the Middle East. I wonder how AP writer Jeremiah Marquez came upon Kadhim. Perhaps he is a man with an agenda.

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

Foobar,

Since people have already given you the long answer to this "point", I'll give you the short one: "Tough Shit."

This reminds me of how Jewish women were often trashed in the early feminist movement because in our culture women are encouraged to be assertive and argumentative and smart, as opposed to the stereotype of "WASP" culture, in which "good girls" are demure and are supposed to create a harmonious atmosphere.

A lot of 70s feminists were Jewish, and they were regularly accused of being elitist, aping patriarchal attitudes, not submitting to consensus, too individualistic, etc. while they were lauded for making the feminist case to the public and demonstrating and instigating lawsuits.

Gentile women who were outspoken, direct, and took initiative were also trashed, but the personality profile that more conventional women took exception to is very common in Jewish culture.

So Susanna is a mouthy pushy Jewish broad who isn't going to sit quietly and let this jerk tell lies about her people, and that is pushing a few buttons around here. Good for her. When I was her age I would have been doing the same, and I did (different issues though).

Something tells me she isn't any more argumentative or disruptive than the leftist women on campus - have you seen the Brain Terminal videos?

Yehudit,

The Brain Terminal video is AWESOME! Time to email the link to everyone. Thanks!

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

Are you high? No, seriously, are you?

Ugh. Like, gag me with a Koran.

SoCalJustice wrote:

Volokh Conspirator, George Mason Law professor David Bernstein responds to what he believes is "unfair" criticism of Eugene by Charles and Roger Simon.

I saw that response and the "unfair" criticism remark -- but if you read his whole entry, he never makes that case. He said "unfair" ... and then left it at that.

In fact, he spends most of the entry agreeing with my and Roger's points, that Kadhim was extremely dishonest in his email. If you're going to say I was "unfair," shouldn't you at least say why?

Charles: Do you agree with DAFKA EDITOR's characterization of David Bernstein or do you consider that a mischaracterization? (see comment #11)

Very interesting dicussion! I have a couple of things to add that I think might be interesting.

1) Suppose instead this incident concerned a professor of biology and he'd said that the reason blacks are so successful in athletics is because they have an extra muscle in their legs.

2) Suppose Mr. Kadhim had asserted that he believed aliens were visiting earth via UFOs and occasionally abducting human beings.

I see (1) as being very much analagous to what Mr. Kadhim did say, do you all think that behavior of all the involved players would remain the same if blacks were the target of Kadhim's idiocy or not? My intuition tells me he'd have already been fired.

As for (2), I suspect we'd all just write him off as a nut and leave it at that - there'd likely be no calls for his resignation or an apology. In short, though he'd have been conveying false information to his students unrelated to the subject he was teaching the uproar over his behavior would have been substantially muted compared to what it currently has been.

I suppose in the end, I don't see *that* much difference between this scenario and the unending torrent of anti-western blather that so many "professors" see fit to interject into their classrooms. The best thing to do here is just publicize this behavior - education is after all a product and informed consumers do have a tendency to make their opinions felt by voting with their dollars.

foobar -
"We can't have thought police at every school"

Interesting, so teaching lessons based on Nazi Germany Ideology and Tszarist Secret Police which Hitler incorporated is part of an overall education?

When is David Duke going to be able to teach his Racial Theories as well then?

When do Conservative Christians get to teach their views of Gays at Berkeley? You'll never see that!

When do ROTC ex-Army member get to teach War strategy - You'll never see that either!

And those above 3 are not morally equivalent either but just to show you how there is a thought police for what Berkeley would find offensive and UN PC. They just don't find teaching ideologies that led to the Holocaust and Pogroms to be repeating history or UN PC.

foobar:

You do not accomplish anything constructive by browbeating someone from a totalitarian regime.

Sure you do. You let him know in no uncertain terms that America is not, and will never be, a totalitarian regime. You let him know that he won't be able to distort the truth without being challenged

None of this has anything to do with learning the Arabic language. If you don't like the professor, drop his class.

Wrong. If you don’t like the instructor (he’s not a professor) you keep your mouth shut and meet the requirements of the course as best you can. You don’t run away.

We cannot provide Thought Police in every college classroom.

Actually, yes we can. LGF is known as The Site That Fact-Checks Your Ass. Each and every student in that class should be questioning and checking what the instructor says, not meekly accepting everything he says as fact. That’s what this particular instructor seems to be doing, using the trust his students have placed in him to promote a malicious falsehood.

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results.

I just have no idea how to respond to that. If he doesn’t like to have what he says in his classroom challenged he should stick to the facts.

It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

There is a bigger problem than that, he loses his credibility, and possibly his job. How masculine will he feel then?
And just exactly how masculine can he be if he feels threatened by a mere girl?

Sorry to get on you about this foobar, but I’m an engineer. Language and engineering may seem dissimilar, but not really. If I were in a class on aerodynamics and an instructor made an offhand remark about how the oceans are salty due to the minerals washed into them from rivers, you bet you sweet ass I’d challenge him. Even though it has nothing to do with aerodynamics. If it’s not true, it’s not true. Period.

How does that relate to language? Well, if Kadhim won’t immediately and publicly admit that what he is saying about the veracity of the Protocols if untrue (something to which there is no doubt, and to which he himself admits to) then he has a reason to misinform. At this point everything he say needs to be taken into question. What if he just starts playing loose and fast with Arabic, it origins, and its translations as well?

Use this analogy: an English instructor in Iraq tells his students that the KKK is a legitimate political party in the US (with the excuse that it’s “generally accepted” in the south), would you be at all surprised if he “innocently” translated Negro as n*****? And would it be wrong for an Iraqi student who knows this not to be the case, to stand up and confront him? Or should they just drop the class?

A basic responsibility of an instructor is not to mislead the class. This Berkeley instructor presented a notorious forgery as if it were the truth. That is educational malpractice.

The colleges and universities also seek to be known as institutions that promote ethnic tolerance rather than ethnic hatred. The forgery that a Berkeley instructor advanced as being true was a favorite of Hitler's, that was used to condition the population to support his genocide. This forgery has been the single most effective document supporting the attempted and partially successful genocide against the Jews. The path is:
lie -> hatred -> violence.
If Berkeley contributes in this way to promoting anti-semitism, which is probably one of the oldest and most potent forms of ethnic hatred in history, then this is what is going to establish its reputation in the field of ethnic tolerance.

Colleges and universities have been known to go out of their way to ensure that intolerance is not advanced by anything that goes on in class. And I can understand why colleges and universities would want to have such a benign reputation.
No doubt Berkeley also does not want to be known as a hate-mongering institution.

So it is puzzling why Berkeley should have the use in class of a notorious forgery, which the instructor does not explain as a forgery, and which has been known to promote a virulent hatred in support of genocide.

Buckeye Abroad writes:

I wouldn't dream of taking a class without recording it these days.

Unfortunately many profs/grad students will not allow their lectures to be recorded. Saw this first hand at OSU in 95'. I am not sure what the penatly was for recording without consent, but I would assume the administaration would rake a student over the coals.

Perhaps we could recruit Fred "Rerun" Barry to record the classes. He secretly recorded a Doobie Brothers concert once on What's Happening.

___

I am not sure what the penatly was for recording without consent, but I would assume the administaration would rake a student over the coals.

Probably much more stiff than insurance fraud. B^)

#11 DAFKA EDITOR
Two glaring faults stick out in his article.

1) Kadhim has already lied about the exchanges that occured. He changed his story about what was said and why. As a teacher he shapes the minds of students who accept their instructor as knwoing what he is talking about. He still insists the Protocols are not forgeries. His intent was to indoctrinate hate against Jews and Israel. Ms. Klein was involved in this discussion with him because of an earlier blog he wrote against Jews and Israel she had seen. Kadhim has also voiced similar antisemitic views in the past. He should be fired for attempting to indoctrinate his students with
antisemtic propaganda.

Do you have this blog's address? Do you have examples of anti-semitic comments he's made in the past?

2) Note Bernstein's use of the phrase "campus Zionists". The Arabs in their media and on campus use "Zionist" interchangeably for Jew. All practicing Jews say "Next year in Jerusalem" at Passover. Many Stars of David say "Zion" in Hebrew on them. Judaism has been inextricably linked to the Holy Land for millenia.

I agree he tries to classify her as an extremist without stating it, using the word "zionist" as a catch phrase. I guess I'm a "campus zionist" myself because I would have fucking went nuts on this mother fucker. I guess I would classify Bernstein as what we called in college, "A PUSSY!"

To him law is opinion in a sophistic discourse. who cares about the real world? His article was gobledygook and sophistry not related to the events that really occured nor in compliance with the situation and academic abuse that occured that day.

Of course this deserves a sophistic discussion and perhaps Mr. Bernstein believes Mein Kempf should as well. The theories in the book are still up for debate? because its a best seller in the Arab world.

Such thinking could only thrive in an Ivory Tower built on sand. Kadhim should be sacked. It's an issue of teaching the next generation to hate the conspiratorial Jews. Allow this to continue on our campuses and even "nonZionists" like Bernsten may find out more of usare "Zionists" than we think.

The worst part about this story is that Khadim's teaching is PC in today's environment, its not a political death sentence. Instead Arnold Schwarzenegger is called a fucking Nazi by Katie Couric, George Bush is called Hitler, Sharon is a Nazi, meanwhile, those teaching actually NAZI IDEOLOGY ARE DEFENDED BY PRICKS LIKE BERNSTEIN UNDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM!

Mike

HINDUS BURNING THE HOLY QURAN

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY MUSLIMS AS YOU CAN IN
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES SO THAT IT MAY REACHES

THE MEDIA WHICH WILL -FOR SURE- COVER IT AS WEEL AS IT DESERVES, AND THE MUSLIMS ALLOVER THE WORLD MAY KNOW & DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE PICTURE AND IT'S THE ONLY PROOF OF THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN DONE BY THE HINDUS

Politics aside, at least Berkeley's educational standards have not relaxed, so their teachers reaches the media as weel it deserves allover the world.

This Berkeley instructor Abbas Kadhim also wrote (see introduction to this thread) of "the unforgivable sin done by the Hindus"

Apparently he believes in and preaches collective responsibility, because he directed his venom at the Hindus.

This Berkeley instructor Abbas Kadhim appears to be a spreader of hatred against the people of other faiths -- not against individuals, but against whole peoples of other faiths.

As a sometime university lecturer (economics & energy) at a major East Coast institution, perhaps I could add a couple of points to this discussion. In my experience, what has happened at Berkeley is just another example of the ongoing effort to privilege a viewpoint that is contrary to the truth, contrary to our intellectual traditions, and antithetical to free discussion.
Almost every year that I taught a course on the economics of oil and energy, one of my Arab students would ask why we had so much reading material from Jewish authors (Daniel Yergin, Morris Adelman, Paul Joskow, inter alios). This was in the class, not during a break or a consultation! No one in the class would say a word, including the Jewish students. Folks were clearly afraid of taking on this viewpoint. So it was left to me to do so. I did not go off topic unless this subject was raised, since I take seriously the obligation to impart whatever it is that the students have paid their tuition to learn, so I engaged only reluctantly.
If the intellectual argument failed, as it usually did with these idiotarians, then I was occasionally left with teasing out the loony, bigoted and self-serving basis of these questions and comments, in the hope that laying bare the thin reed of justification would shut him up (it usually did, but sometimes not until there was some go-round with the university authorities). It certainly made me no friends in the Arab Studies Department. But the fact is, no one will take on this kind of thing if tenure is on the line. Only someone like me, for whom the course was more of a hobby or sideline, could afford to mix it up with the reigning idiotarinaism.
And yet, every year, students would come up to me privately and praise me for saying what no one else was willing to say. The common sense that still inhabits a fair proportion of undergraduates is ill-served by the cowardice and greed for donations by the faculty and administration.

As great a resource as LGF is, this discussion must be brought forward into the mass media (as it was with the Oxford professor who blackballed the former Israeli soldier). It is an excellent opportunity to highlight anti-Semitic at a public university and begin to make some change. Any suggestions along that line would be welcome.

EE: I think the University of California finalized a change in its regulations removing the prohibition on professorial advocacy of political viewpoints in the classroom within the past month. (I could be wrong, though, and the change could still be pending.)

This is an excellent example of why that change should not have been made, if it has.

97 Randy:

You're abosutely right - just in time for U.C. lecturers to weigh in on the bona fides of rabid anti-Semitic literature (or any other twisted political sentiment), likely free from consequence.

UC faculty endorses new academic freedom statement

Roger: The mass media (or a slim wedge of it) did cover the change in regulations. They might be interested in knowing how quickly someone took up the UC's offer of politicization of the classroom and to what effect.

Perhaps the Regents of the university can be made aware. I understand the top dog there is having a spot of trouble keeping his job, and the lt. governor is looking for an issue or two in his quest to replace him.

Maybe someone should let the other candidates for Governor know about this dirty little secret. Of course, it helps to rachet down the rhetoric when presenting the case.

#89 Geepers:

There is a bigger problem than that, he loses his credibility, and possibly his job. How masculine will he feel then?
And just exactly how masculine can he be if he feels threatened by a mere girl?

Oi! Taliban alert! hello? earth calling caveman? :-P

(...Wilmaaa!!)

Sorry, Geepers couldn't pass - seriously now, I know what you meant and I agree with all your other points, so I don't wanna play thought police here ;-)

But you could have spared that bit, come on, heh.

This whole masculine theme that foobar brought up, has got really nothing to do with the real issue here. And Khadim is not being threatened. He's the one using the Protocols in class. He's only going to face up to what he did.

It's actually very sad that no other one from the class apart from Susanna spoke up. Also because of this kind of arguments as foobar made. If it wasn't just her, they'd find it harder to find other excuses to attack her.

Kadhim's recent campaign against Hindus is practically incitement to commit murder. Are there any lawyers here that can weigh in and tell us if anything can be done legally to prevent distribution of stuff like this? Maybe nothing can be done because he's not telling Muslims outright to kill Hindus for burning the Koran, but we all know what happens in places like Pakistan when Islam is slandered--seething, rioting, and murder.

Charles has banned links to the particular site in question so I won't name it but a certain neo-nazi website which openly supports murdering Jews, Blacks..well pretyy much everyone except nazis really, have published a letter supporting the Proff and encouraging their Nazi readers to write in support to his employers.

Now obviously he can't control who backs him or not so it's not to say that he has any association with this group but it does suggest he has made a major mistake in saying what he did.

Here is a point of fact to add to the discussion:
This was on "Vanguard News Network. No Jews - Just Right" and I found it in google cache, however I can't give you a link right here because the site address is (understandably) banned from LGF

8/7/2003

To: Editor, VNN

Cc: Editor, Overthrow.com

jewish website recommends cranking up the jewish hate machine against anyone who dares criticise jewish behavior. I wish there were more administrators who shared Berdahl's guts and unwillingness to cave in.

And thanks to Professor Kadhim for openly confronting the world's biggest crybabies, hypocrites, liars and murderers in his classroom.

Mark Konrad

Berkeley Anti-Semitism 101

August 7, 2003

Susanna Klein, a UC Berkeley student, was attending her class in Iraqi Arabic this week when her instructor, Iraqi Abbas Kadhim, alluded to the Protocols of Zion in class as being a real document written by Jews.

DAFKA urges all readers to write Chancellor Robert Berdhal at the University of California at Berkeley, Office of the Chancellor, 200 California Hall #1500, Berkeley, CA 94720-1500 and demand the immediate dismissal of Khadim. Berdhal has taken expense paid vacations in Saudi Arabia courtesy the Saudis and even set up a special Mideast Studies Department on campus (despite one already in existence) which was then financed by Al Qaeda sponsoring sheiks from the royal family. Berdhal also sponsored and welcomed "warmly" Edward Said to campus to give a two hour diatribe against Israel last year. More on this later this week.)

[Link: frontpagemag.com...]

Send a brief note of support to Chancellor Berdahl and Professor Kadhim at the addresses below

Chancellor Berdahl
chanclor@uclink4.berkeley.edu

Professor Abbas Kadhim
abbaskadhim@hotmail.com

I don't really have an opinion on this. Khadhim probably didn't ask these Jew-haters to support him, they just found it natural to do so. Perhaps there are no conclusions to be drawn from this.

FROM SOLOMON

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate
Joanne Jacobs has a nice item on the "collision of experience" lunacy at Cal Poly where a white student was ordered to apologize for putting up flyers that offended sensitive minority students.

Disrupting a mind set
Remember Steve Hinkle? The Cal Poly student tried to post a flyer for an upcoming speech by a conservative black author at the multicultural center; black students who felt "offended" and "disrespected" told him he couldn't post a flyer without permission; one student called the campus police. After a seven-hour hearing, Hinkle was found guilty of disrupting a "campus event" -- an unscheduled, unannounced Bible study session that hadn't yet begun. "He was ordered to write letters of apology to the offended students, risking penalties up to expulsion if he refused," reports FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

Cal Poly says Hinkle was punished for conduct, not for being a white, male Republican. But FIRE has the transcript of the disciplinary hearing. The offended students admitted they objected to the content of the flyer, which advertised the speaker's book, It's OK to Leave the Plantation. Here's Hinkle questioning Student 6, who called the police.
SH: And you said I asked you, “Why can’t we sit down and talk about it?”

S6: Yes.

SH: Okay. And you told me, “Take the flier elsewhere or I will call public safety”?

S6: Yes. I said, “Take that elsewhere or I will call public safety.” And then that’s when you tried to debate, even more debate, and I went and called public safety because I wasn’t, I wasn’t up for it. It was just, the timing was horrible.

The hearing officer asks if Hinkle's demeanor was
threatening or abusive.

S6: You’re talking about Steve’s demeanor? Was his demeanor threatening?

RG: M-hmm, or abusive?

S6: No.
Here's Cornel Morton, Cal Poly’s vice president of student affairs, who'd complained FIRE had quoted him out of context.
CM: Well, it’s clear that we have an identifiably young white male who has been self-identified as a member of the College Republicans group. And although the College Republican group, I’m certain, is not exclusively white or male, there are some implications. And on the other side of this we had a group of students of color, at least identifiably, largely students of color, and the mix, unfortunately, and the collision of experience, that is, the collision of your experience with theirs, on that day at that time was placed inside a larger context, as you recall. And namely these fliers that were posted and the concern that some had about the nature of the speaker’s message and all the rest …. And then to learn later after some investigation that the College Republicans had sponsored the speaker. I think that chemistry, if you will, without question, had racial implications, not reduced solely or purely to a matter of race. But again, I think we would be naïve if we did not acknowledge at least that; we would have to acknowledge that.
It seems like Morton is acknowledging that Hinkle was disruptive by virtue of being a white Republican in the not-so-multi-cultural center. Apparently, Cal Poly officials think that black students have a right to be sheltered from contrary political beliefs or believers. A polite invitation to discuss a conflict is taken as disruption.

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

He is teaching in America, he should adapt and speak spanish like evryone else.

Perhaps more important is to recognize the "unique" language of UC Berkley.

A group of female students could show up topless with Jew Hater! written accross their chests. After this happens
a few times, the university is likely to have to set up
"a check point" at the door. Time for radical street theater, perhaps jewish students dressed in stripped concentration camp PJs trying to get into the class.

I cannot wait until Arnold takes office, and shows up at this little girly mans door. " Are you Sarah Connner?"

zaza (#100),

(...Wilmaaa!!)

LOL.

For letting my all too often sarcasm absurdo surface in an otherwise serious post, I apologize.

I just thought it was sooo funny that this big bad arab man would find this little Jewish girl such a threat to his masculinity that that would even be a consideration for his actions. He must be pretty touchy about protecting what little balls that he's got left.

This UC prof is just another example of the quality of intellect currently being recruted and tenured in California classrooms. It's your dime Californians, you make the call.

They sure do have strong emotions about paper and ink.

Imagine how easy hostage taking would be in an Islamic bank:

"Give me all your money or the book gets it!"

Later, "Stop him, he's getting away!"
"We can't sir, he's got a bic lighter and a Koran!"

Does this mean that if an Iraqi killed an Iranian, he'd get in trouble if the bullet pierced a Quran? Does this mean that women should cover themselves with Korans so they won't get beaten or raped?

Does this mean that Israelis should carry Korans so the splodeys won't bomb them for fear of hurting a Koran?
In fact, what an idea: issue orders to carry Korans on all buses and in all stores, terrorist bombers would then be guilty of haram.

What more to know about this man, willing to kill, WILLING TO KILL, over a book?

What a retarded dolt. Heck, I didn't kill my stepmother when she threw out my Wolverine #1, which is worth a lot more than a Koran according to Barnes and Noble.

Charles: Your failure to reply to my question (#86) appears to be a tacit admission that you agree with DAFKA EDITOR's characterization of David Bernstein.

I'm saddened to note it. Intentional misrepresentations such as those made by DAFKA EDITOR do grievous damage to the fight against anti-Semitism.

If DAFKA EDITOR is a Jew, where can I get my foreskin back and leave the fold? Being a Zionist and a Jew are most certainly not the same thing, if I could point to a rising number of evangelical Christian Zionists as evidence of an exception. You could also find Orthodox Jews that disagree with the State of Israel, but that's another story. The point is that a political outlook and a faith are two different things, and it saddens me that people are attacking the latter for those not espousing a certain type of the former. Leeches like DAFKA EDITOR that demand unconditional support for the State of Israel from every good Jew are themselves poor examples of people of a faith that has long prided itself on values such as tolerance and education discourse.

Randy (#109) wrote:

Charles: Your failure to reply to my question (#86) appears to be a tacit admission that you agree with DAFKA EDITOR's characterization of David Bernstein.

I direct your attention to the notice at the beginning of every page of comments:

Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.

#105 Geepers: ah, like Sigmund said, we all have our inner Taliban, so I sympathise ;-) - no apologies necessary, it's not like it was really offensive, come on. I understand what you mean there, cos you were responding to foobar's own argument on that.

I do think Susanna is firm and ballsy enough for a 'little' girl. I'd say the little guys in her class are the ball-less ones, rather than the professor... or perhaps too LLL to care. I mean, really, why did no one else speak out? they must either worship this professor for "daring" to do something outrageous (trying to picture the mentality by which bringing antisemitic conspiracy theories into class is 'cool'...), or feel intimidated.

I'm looking forward to more updates on this story.

Seems pretty simple to me: Kadhim says publicly that he PERSONALLY knows and believes that the Protocols are a FORGERY.

End of story.

/crickets

Charles: Thank you for replying. I had, in fact, noted the disclaimer. I asked your opinion of the comment and you declined to reply to the question.

Interpreting your failure to reply as a tacit approval of the sentiments expressed is not much different than your interpretion of Eugene Volokh's original post.

@51 foobar

"I myself am quite tired at this point, but I shall try to slog on.

For a female to confront an Arab man like this-- directly and publicly-- is probably not going to get constructive results. She appeared to be browbeating him relative to the culture he is used to. It is his automatic impulse to feel that if he backs down to a woman, he will "lose face" and appear emasculated.

May I recommend a good book on this type of thing:
The Silent Language by Prof. Edmond T. Hall. It's a classic.

She also presumed too much of their level of sophistication, which can seem insulting or patronizing. "

As late a date as this is in commenting...excuse me, but what country are you residing in?
As a female myself, and an American citizen I have the right to speak up to anyone with a question. If you are alluding to Ms.Klein to conduct herself in that taxpayer paid class as though she's under shari'a law you are thoroughly bemused with whatever you're smoking.
She had every right to challenge his tactics of 'teaching' anti semitism. She. Is. There. To. Learn. The. Arabic. Language. From. A. Native. Of. ME. She is not there to be 'educated' in conspiracy theories.

Dear Jon, RE your inquiry in 110.

I only know Dafka editor from reading him here and on his website. I get the distinct impression, that yes- he is Jewish.

Not being Jewish myself I don't know what the practice is for saving those things. Perhaps you could consult with a mohel.

Cloning may also open up some additional possibilities for you. I've read that some scientists somewhere have cloned ears, so this would be somewhat simpler , I think.

Good luck!

Am I the only one that doesn't even get how Randy #109 and #110 Jon can draw their wacky conclusions from #11 Dafka Editor's post?

I thought he was clearly pointing out how Bernstein is not making a valid argument, but just approaching this with total neutrality and carelessness as if it was only about free speech, where instead it's about defending a lie made out of antisemitic propaganda and used for incitement to hatred for all Jews, be they supportive of Israeli policies or not, or half and half, as may be the case. So Bernstein's use of "campus Zionists" was indeed very sly and unnecessary and politicised choice of words, when this is not even about one's politics. Read B.'s post again. B. is implying the Arabs would have a similar item to the Protocols, but invented by Jews - oops, Zionists - for anti-Arab propaganda, to complain about! so the "campus Zionists" should shut up. Man, that was so ridiculous as well as sneering.

So where's the "demand for unconditional support" in #11, huh? of what, besides? The fact that this professor was defending the undefendable is to the one thing to be unconditionally stated, that's the point. Whatever one's political ideas.

Or am I wrong? I'm baffled by those posts...

And yet again another of my humorous posts is drowned out by contentious volleys.

Sigh.

;-)

#110 Jon

If DAFKA EDITOR is a Jew, where can I get my foreskin back and leave the fold? Being a Zionist and a Jew are most certainly not the same thing, if I could point to a rising number of evangelical Christian Zionists as evidence of an exception.

Take the skin off a cocktail weiner and go then.

No, not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews, but Dafka Editor is correct in pointing out that Arabs use "Zionist" interchangeably with "Jew." The fact that you are so adverse yourself, as a Jew, to being associated with the word "Zionist" to the point that you would want your "foreskin back" (har har), shows that Dafka Editor is right about the intended innuendo from Bernstein.

Bernstein implies that it is the campus "Zionists" that are the problem, but not us "good" Jews. You appear to be under the same misconception. When I see that opinion being expressed, I am reminded of the bigot who justifies his hatred by saying, "I don't hate all Blacks, just the N*ggers." Dafka Editor is also right in reminded us that even the "good" non-Zionist Jews' asses are on the line. I hope you, and all of us, learn this before it is too late.

Zaza: You are certainly entitled to that unique interpretation of my remarks although nothing I wrote remotely substansiates your interpretation.

I believe that DAFKA EDITOR misrepresented David Bernstein and it appears that David Bernstein agrees: [Link: volokh.com...]

BTW, At no time did I mention any "demand for unconditional support." In the future, please do try to not let your imagination get the better of you.

#119 freedomsound

I beg to differ. I get the impression that DAFKA means to say that "the anti-Jewish Left/Arabs" have co-opted "Zionist" to make it an exclusively negative phrase. He seems to think that all good Jews should be Zionists in what he takes as the positive denotation of the word, but that the label "Zionist" is now carries strongly negative connotations and thus should not be used to describe what are, in fact, ZIONISTS! My point (and one Bernstein has now made on Volokh) is that not all Jews are Zionists. That is much different than saying "not all blacks are n*ggers" as you put it, it is more akin to saying "not all blacks are good athletes" or "not all Jews are rich" - i.e., my statement is true, whereas saying "not all blacks are n*ggers" is playing a racist game of semantics.

But, like Bernstein, I support the right of the State of Israel to self-defense. I am just, to say the least, ambivalent in my opinion about whether or not it should have been put there in the first place. And I am half-Israeli, with family living there, so it isn't as if I'm someone with no vested interest.

Further, having recently graduated from college, I can tell you there is a large difference between some of the "Zionists" as I (and I think Bernstein) use the phrase and anyone else. There are Zionists, for instance (in fact, I remember reading commentary posted by one on this very blog last year, anyone remember/know where it is?) who believe that Palestinians should be "ethnically cleansed" out of Israel. I certainly would not wish to be counted among that group, just as you, if I assume you're white (if not, I can think of an apt analogy otherwise) would likely not consider yourself a white supremacist (or would you?)

#120 Randy

BTW, At no time did I mention any "demand for unconditional support." In the future, please do try to not let your imagination get the better of you.

If you go back and read what zaza actually wrote, both your post #109 and jon's post #110 were referenced by zaza.

In the future, please do try not to let your self-righteous indignation get the better of you.

#121 Jon

I beg to differ.

Let's hope it doesn't get to that point.

freedomsound:

Thank you for that reminder. I will try not to let it get the better of me in the future.

Perhaps I did misunderstand zaza's closing remarks:

So where's the "demand for unconditional support" in #11, huh? of what, besides? The fact that this professor was defending the undefendable is to the one thing to be unconditionally stated, that's the point. Whatever one's political ideas.
Or am I wrong? I'm baffled by those posts.

It seemed to me at the time that she was, in fact, including me there by specific reference.

#117 Zaza

DAFKA's demand for unconditional support of Israel, as I've read it, is implicit in the statement:

"Judaism has been inextricably linked to the Holy Land for millenia."

But this is all tangential to the point you're perhaps accusing me of defending. I am not. Kadhim, first of all, is a graduate student, and it irks me to see many people giving him more dignity than should be afforded someone of his stature in the way they reference him. Nevertheless, he is quite clearly an idiot and has no place teaching.

Randy (#114) wrote:

Interpreting your failure to reply as a tacit approval of the sentiments expressed is not much different than your interpretion of Eugene Volokh's original post.

Well, no, that's not correct at all. Eugene Volokh posted the email from Kadhim himself, then wrote that he didn't know who was telling the truth (even though Kadhim's email contained several very obvious falsehoods). The DAFKA editor posted that comment on LGF's open comment system, with no input whatsoever from me -- except that I wrote the code that allowed him to do so. Since I have a very clear disclaimer that opinions expressed in our comments do not necessarily reflect my own, these cases are not even remotely similar.

Thank you for taking time out for the amplifiction of your position, Charles. I think it answers my question. Your efforts are always appreciated, if sometimes misunderstood.

#120 Randy: the "unconditional support" part was what Jon wrote in #110. I made it clear I was referring to both posts. Didn't make anything up.

The part I don't get about yours is how can you twist Dafka's Editor observations on Bernstein's comments the way you did.

You were the one to misrepresent the points DE was making. Also, your demand that Charles respond to your question or else you'll take it as tacit consent to the straw man you set up is the kind of tactics Tony Soprano would be proud of. Take it as a compliment.

And of course Bernstein would say he's misrepresented, doh. Didn't even have the gut to spell it out clearly. No, just an oh so sophisticated hint of sarcasm in that "campus Zionists certainly wouldn't want to open up that can of worms, lest pro-Israel professors start facing inquisitions initiated by Arab and leftist students". And now he's explaining that as:

merely being Zionist or pro-Israel is considered racist, or anti-Arab, so if instructors can be fired for not specifically clarifying their lack of personal prejudice every time a controversial subject comes up, you can guess who the eventual targets will be, as they sometimes already are in Europe.

In other words, he's making excuses for the Arab "point of view" by saying no one should raise controversial subjects even when the subject of controversy is a demonstrably false lie that had a big historical role in nazi propaganda.

This latter explanation by Bernstein proves Dafka Editor's points even more clearly.

and I gotta ask again: where are the equivalents of the Protocols that the Arabs could be mad about...? since he drew a parallel, he'd better have something to make that parallel on... and his choice of "inquisition"... yeah, yeah, just people getting authoritarian about shutting up another's "point of view". Firing him would violate the first amendment blah blah blah. What bollocks!

And this pearl:

I think the Jews of Israel would be better off living in, say, New Jersey

And that "way to play the Holocaust card!". Sheesh, it's like hearing one of the ISM 'activists' speak.

Why is it that newbies seem to think that they are entitled to know everything that Charles thinks? Would you be this obnoxious if Charles invited you, as a new acquaintance, to his home?

#38 Foobar,

You wrote:

Just for the record: many Arabs and many Iraqis believe the Protocols and lots of other fairytales. They also believe that a man can be suddenly possessed by a djinn who overtakes him and throws him into convulsions or a kind of epileptic fit as he writhes on the ground.

That may very well be true. I believe fairy tales too, specifically that my beloved Boston Red Sox will win the World Series in my lifetime. That doesn't mean that it's OK to offer up a forged document used to persecute and kill people and present it as fact which Professor Kadhim seemed to do. Doing so, in fact, should certainly qualify one for dismissal.

Not to beat a dead horse--I learned first hand how some of the more repugnant regulars here can pile on when one dares to deviate from the company line--but I think you're really wrong on this one.

#122 freedomsound: thanks, exactly - I didn't see that before posting...

#125 Jon: I'm not "accusing", I'm not understanding or appreciating the twisting of observations made by Defka Editor which I think were quite precise and not as you'd put them.

Also, when you say:

DAFKA's demand for unconditional support of Israel, as I've read it, is implicit in the statement:

"Judaism has been inextricably linked to the Holy Land for millenia."

So what? That's as neutral a fact as you could find. It just IS like that. I mean, seriously...

How can a statement of fact imply demand of unconditional support for some political position that DE didn't even talk about but is inferred to be there? only in the warped perceptions of those who think Israel being relocated to NJ is "okay", and jsut as well, and a quick comfy solution to that little problem of Arab antisemitism.

Expecting that a professor doesn't teach the Protocols of Zion in a class as if it was a neutral thing, without unequivocally teaching about its history, its origin, its being a forgery, and what it was used for - is first of all professional requirement. As said already above by other posters too. Disguising this as Freedom of Speech is so dishonest and illogical.

I'd say the closing patronising bit from Bernstein

I recognize that these are troubling times for friends of Israel, and for Jews. But suspending our rational faculties isn't going to help matters.

also confirms that Ivory Tower syndrome as Dafka Editor rightly said. It's gone from "No big deal, move along, no antisemitism", to "No big deal, move along, yes, theres a huge antisemitic lie being passed on as credible and still open to debate, but come on, it's just freedom of speech"...

Absurd, and I'll cut here or I could go on for a lot longer.

The “Conventional Wisdom” was that Iraqis would rather be free than sovereign. We were wrong, and they deserve neither. I don’t care about Abu Abbas Kadhim, His equivocations fully meet my expectations. He obviously passed the Evasion 101 class that is offered to all Arab students before their respective US visa is approved.
The problem is that I, a Californian, must pay the salaries of these hate mongers (The Hindu reference as a proof) – it may be time to take back the public universities from the imposters who run it now.

#131 Zaza

There are "neutral facts," yes, but when people use them, they are often not to neutral ends. Judaism, while once less universalistic than I believe it to be now, is not any more "inextricably linked" to Israel - in the sense that it requires Jews to support the State of Israel (Zionism) - than is Christianity. Further, as DAKFA is a group that believes Hillel has come under "Arab influence" and isn't pro-Israel enough, forgive me if I may have read too much innuendo into the "neutral facts" being presented.

Bernstein wasn't referring to all Jews as Zionists, and I think that there is a distinction to be made is something I've made clear in #121.

That said, I agree that the Freedom of Speech argument is spurious if the facts are as Susanna Klein presents them. I don't think Bernstein should be chastized for questioning the facts given that he wasn't there. The instructor's idiocy is also beyond question, something I saw also noted on Volokh (although I think they were questioning his intelligence, while I've decided to go ahead and say it's beyond question). However, if the facts are not as presented by Ms. Klein, e.g. the instructor gave context for his statement (although his letter, as quoted on Volokh, shows his context to be extremely flimsy)...aw hell, there's no point defending HIM, he's obviously out of line, just in his letter of response to E. Volokh. There's no "debate" to be settled about who wrote the Protocols - just because many Arabs wish to argue that it is not a forgery doesn't mean there's actually a debate on the matter. My issue has not been with the situation in the classroom, it has been the argument about the use of "Zionism" by Bernstein.

Finally, although you make take it to be Ivory Tower elitism on his part, I believe Bernstein's imploring Jews not to leave their reason behind in this issue is a good remark to make, and point you to those who wish to see the Palestinians "cleansed." They're around, it's not just a bogeyman I've created.

Note Bernstein's use of the phrase "campus Zionists".

I wrote that, assuming Kadhim's version of the facts is true, "Kadhim can't be disciplined by the university simply because he chose not to condemn an anti-Semitic myth that came up in class; and campus Zionists certainly wouldn't want to open up that can of worms, lest pro-Israel professors start facing inquisitions initiated by Arab and leftist students, to be decided by typical campus kangaroo courts." In many campus circles, merely being Zionist or pro-Israel is considered racist, or anti-Arab, so if instructors can be fired for not specifically clarifying their lack of personal prejudice every time a controversial subject comes up, you can guess who the eventual targets will be, as they sometimes already are in Europe.

Am I the only one who thinks that this "explanation" is outrageous ? - What is Bernstein thinking about ? Remind him that the notorious cases of academic discrimination were not based on political ideology of the victims - but rather on nationality, ethnicity and yes - religion (you dont think that the Cambridge or Oxford guy would have discriminated against an Israeli Arab - do you!).
Bernstein and the poster Jon earlier are the classical "Wicked Sons" (read the whole thing on Passover). The "zionist" argument is no accepted by the enemies (of the free society). Their arguments sound much like the mirror image of Abbas Kadhim argument.

#134 urbachg

I will refrain from replying in the ad hominem fashion into which this is rapidly devolving, as I am now a "wicked son" for insisting that there is a difference between being a Jew and being a Zionist.

I will note, however, in response to #134, that there is no "Abbas Kadhim" argument. I have said - twice now - I think Kadhim is in the wrong and deserves to be canned. I will note, however, that Bernstein is right in that Kadhim can't be fired for refusing to condemn the Protocols in class. He CAN, however, be fired for teaching that there is a legitimate debate on the matter - there is not. It is clear that Kadhim is not the type of person, to say the least, that ought to be teaching a class (although I've never been a proponent of graduate students teaching anyway, but maybe that's a result of my particular college experience).

But I digress: this mindless and repetitive lumping of myself with someone who defends Kadhim's ilk is rapidly taxing my patience. I suggest those of you who do wish to be reasonable examine DAFKA's web site at:

www.dafka.org

And note that these people are almost as mindless in their conspiracy theorizing as those that wrote the Protocols and those that believe them to be true.

I also point you this article, buried in Volokh, for support of my statement.

I say again "Zionist" and "Jewish" are not the same thing, and I vehemently oppose any attempt to lump the two. The thing is, though, Bernstein is the one refusing the conflation, and those of you attacking him for doing so are the ones implicitly making it!

mommydoc (#129),

Why is it that newbies seem to think that they are entitled to know everything that Charles thinks? Would you be this obnoxious if Charles invited you, as a new acquaintance, to his home?

Well, quite possibly yes:

‘The Six Days of War’ he said, ‘I’ve read that piece of shit, I’ve read it twice.’

Thanks to zulubaby and her awesome search skills and big memory. :-)

#135 Jon

I suggest those of you who do wish to be reasonable examine DAFKA's web site at: [Link: www.dafka.org...]

And note that these people are almost as mindless in their conspiracy theorizing as those that wrote the Protocols and those that believe them to be true.

I also point you this article, buried in Volokh, for support of my statement.

In what way does the Dafka website or the article you link to support your statement that, "these people are almost as mindless in their conspiracy theorizing as those that wrote the Protocols and those that believe them to be true?"

#137 freedomsound

I'll start at the end and work my way back. The DAFKA founder interviewed in the latter article, in speaking of groups like Hillel, claims they've been bought off by Arabs. At my campus Hillel, there was some dissension (I assure you, not spurred by Arabs or the broader Muslim community, as both are miniscule there) about whether or not the chapter should include in its mission statement that it supports Israel. The feeling was that was irrelevant politicking. I agree. DAFKA believes those of us who think of the issue this way have been bought, apparently.

But let's put it more simply. We'll start with the premise, espoused broadly by supporters of the idea that the Protocols is a legitimate document (I've not read it, so you'll forgive me if I can't delve into specifics), that Jews are conspiring to - and having some success in - controlling the world.

Therefore the premise on which we judge those espousing that view to be...well, whatever you'd like to call them, it's fine with me, is:

Jews are conspiring to - and having some success in - controlling the world.

Now, let's see what DAFKA says:

"And who pays for all this? Oh, yes, the European Union, fearful of 15 million Muslim immigrants and subject to oil bribery will willingly resort to the old staple of antisemitism and blaming the US, and even the turkeys in our own State Department to some degree as our website will show. But the real financier of it all is Saudi Arabia. And DAFKA will show you how."

Sounds an awful lot like the Iraqis you see interviewed in the press now and then that think the US is attempting to steal their oil as part of a Zionist conspiracy - and they to, can show you how!

I certainly don't deny that Israels Arab neighbors are capable - and regularly perpetrate - despicable acts against Israel and humanity in general. Nor am I stupid enough to believe that Israel perpetrates even 1/8 of the atrocities Arabs claim it does. As I said earlier, I question the logic of the foundation of the State of Israel, but I adamantly support its right to fight terrorists.

On the other hand, when I get a pamphlet from the Israeli Embassy explaining that settlement activities in the West Bank are legitimate because the West Bank is "no-man's land," I see a nation behaving immorally. Israel's Arab neighbors have given the Palestinians no quarter and merely used them as an excuse to harrangue Israel. Anyone can see that. Obviously, then Israel has a right to defend itself from threats coming from within the West Bank and Gaza. However, I do not see how building settlements there is helpful or a fundamental right and practice Israel should undertake. But the Israeli delegation here in Washington has no problem disseminating a poor rationalization for it. My problem is with individuals who "support Israel" by cheering like Laker's girls for policies like that. And those are the type of people I see involved in groups like DAFKA.

Also an observation: I think American Jews are becoming a lot more hawkish on this than actual Israelis. I've seen anecdotal evidence, and perhaps some statistics now and then to indicate this. But I suppose there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics"

Slightly OT, but definitely a related controversy, not sure if it has been covered in the past on LGF, but, here's another scholar and gentleman monster raving loony SOB giving his learned perspective on current events spewing anti-American and anti-Israel hatred, this time at Canada's Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, in the person of philosophy professer Michael Neumann.

Some choice quotes from Herr Doktor Professor Neumann (who's Jewish, incidentally, wtf?), in an exchange with the website Jewish Tribal Review:

"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it."

This statement can be read narrowly or broadly. So the JTR webmaster asks him for clarification: "Am I reading this right? ... You say you are 'not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding ... except so far as it serves that purpose.' Is this the foundation of your teachings as a philosopher?"

In his response, Prof. Neumann reportedly writes: "If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."

(Prof. Neumann admits he spoke "carelessly" during his exchange with JTR, which he regarded as confidential; and insists "I do not lie or obfuscate in anything I write, because that would hurt the Palestinians." Regarding the above-cited statements, he told me he would "neither confirm nor deny having made" them.)

(Throws red meat to the pack, backs away quickly...!)

#140 Mandrake

That guy isn't even worth reponding to. Anyone who doesn't care about the "truth" is an idiot for 2 reasons.

1) People always want the truth

2) Anyone who understands #1 will care about the truth if for no other reason than to manipulate it to their own ends

But beyond that, this is another example of something my Israeli grandmother (she fled Iraq to Israel on its foundation and lost a sizeable family fortune to the Arabs in doing so) is fond of saying - beware the extremists on either side. This guy is beyond the pale.

jpost picked up the story

Re: 140 Mandrake's link:

Sounds like that guy's applying for a job at Berkeley (or Columbia, or Georgetown, etc...)

DAFKA writes:

"He reminds me of an intellectual who would tell the Nazis he shouldn't be thrown in the oven with the rest because he's special from all those other
Jews. He's wiser and has a fancy law degree. But into the oven he would still go as a Jew."

My maternal grandfather was, as the Nazis would say, a "full-blooded Jew." I believe that this means that I, too, would have been thrown into the oven.

I take it that you would find it unacceptable for me to defend the Berkeley professor's right to say patently false things in class. I'm a hypocrite or perhaps a self-hating Jew. Let's look at the logic off this:

(1) My ancestry is such that had I been at a different time and place in history, I would have been killed by racist genocidal criminals.
(2) Someone else said something which supported views held by these criminals. The something is false, and its falsity has been thoroughly proven.
(3) I think that he had the right to say it, though I do not approve of the sentiments.

Therefore: I am a hypocrite.

So taking away someone's rights is acceptable as long as someone of your ethnicity would have been killed by people who agreed with that person at a different point in history. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a horribly racist sentiment. Civil liberties are OK until race becomes involved. Which of the following would be acceptable?

(1) An African-American who condemns slavery reparations. After all, he would have been a slave 150 years ago.
(2) A white person who condemns Apartheid. After all, he could have been killed in a race riot because of his skin color, had he been in S. Africa at the time.
(3) A (non-Jewish) German who condemns the Nazis. After all, he would have been drafted, and killed on the eastern front at the right time and place by the Russians. Just because he was a German.
(4) A Hindu who condemns Hindu violence against Muslims in India. After all, he would have been killed had he been in the right place in Gujarat last year.

It seems to me that by your logic, all of these hypothetical people are hypocrites, the only difference being that the sentiment is "acceptable." But hypocrisy is not defined by the correctness of sentiments, only by their logical content. (An alcoholic who condemns heavy drinking is a hypocrite, though his sentiment is correct.) Since by your logic it is not hypocritical for a Jew to condemn the Nazis (though it is for a non-Jewish German), this seems like blatant and disgusting racism.

I get the distinct feeling this blog leans right. Or its readers do...

Lucas Winman: No one is arguing that he doesn't have the right to say it. But there is an appropriate time and place to exercise those rights. As the instructor of a class teaching the Arabic language his duty was to teach the language, not to bring up his inflammatory views. Since he exercised his right inappropriately, he is subject to the consequences. Such is the price of freedom. He doesn't have the right to that job. It is dependent upon performance.

If George Bush stated publicly, in his capacity as POTUS, that some researchers had concluded that Blacks have smaller brains and therefore less intellectual capacity without refuting the now-discredited study, how long would it be before the vast majority of US voters (especially the left, Jon) would be calling for his impeachment.

This isn't about the right to free speech. It's about when it is appropriate to exercise it, and in what capacity.

If DAFKA EDITOR is a Jew, where can I get my foreskin back and leave the fold? Being a Zionist and a Jew are most certainly not the same thing, if I could point to a rising number of evangelical Christian Zionists as evidence of an exception.
the

So you are a jew that doesn't think the jews deserve a country of their own, even a tiny state the size of new jersey. Hey, what about your apartment? Can we take over your living room? Call you an evil colonialist zionist if you resist?

Will you share your girlfriend?

Tell me, did you ever protest against what was happening in Sierra Leone? Or do you onley hate jews like yourself?

I was mad, but now I pity you.

Jon: if I'm not awfully mistaken, I blieve the real hot topic on which Arabs (generlaisation) and any person in their sane mind (ditto) don't see eye to eye is the support for the EXISTENCE of the State of Israel.
No, scratch that, not support. Mere acceptance.

And if I'm not awfully mistaken pt II, I think by Zionism one implies the support for that EXISTENCE. Right?

Which can be combined with just about any political position. It's only Arabs and leftists that intend Zionism as that "unconditional support" and usually with the following addition: "for the Israeli army purposefully killing the poor children of innocent Palestinians that have nothing to do with terrorism", or a variation thereof.

I genuinely don't pretend to know a lot about all this or be knowledged on many historical details, mind you, there's far more knowledged people than me posting on this blog - so I'm glad to stand corrected if I'm talking any bs here, but I thought that much was pretty much established... and that of course, the people who use that "Zionists" in the same sense as above are not going to really acknowledge they're buying into pure propaganda.

Bernstein is arguing he wasn't there. Ok. It's not enough to support his argument at all. And he's not disputing the fact the professor dodged the issue of veracity of a lie, in fact, defended his "right" to teach about a lie as big as that, and with such historical implications as that, as if it was something that still deserved the benefit of the doubt. And then, defended his "right" to not be brought to task for that, in the name of free speech which has nothing to do with this.

So at the very least he's defending total lack of professionality by a professor, and his lack of sense of responsibility.

It's enough to totally disqualify his argument.

#147 PIGLET

You're right, I don't think Jews deserve a country of their own. I'm perfectly happy as a Jew in the United States, which I am proud to call my country. Explain to me how one becomes "deserving" of a country? By getting 6 million of one's race killed? (< That's the Holocaust card) Brother, can you spare a dime, because if that's your logic, we ought to divy up some other parts of the world and dole 'em out!

I don't want your pity; I'd rather have your irrational ire, PIGLET. And for the record; I've never protested against what's happening in Sierra Leone, but then again, I've never protested against what's "happening" in Israel.

#147 mommydoc

You're also right, I would be happy to call for his impeachment. But then again, I've also noted that this professor, now for the third time, should be fired. I don't think that's the issue that's polarizing between the left and right here.

... Jon, still in response to your #133, the last bit - yes, in this context here in the discussion here it is indeed a straw man you created. Because nowhere is Bernstein referring to 'those who wish to see the Palestinians "cleansed" ' . Instead, by his patronising, unbelievable ending remark, he was referreing to anyone who'd protest against a teacher using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and saying they're still "disputed" and so he's "not taking sides here". Bernstein is referring to all who complain on this as deranged. Deprived of their senses.

And also, he is assuming only Jews would have a problem with the Protocols being taught in class...

It's not a matter of absolutes for him. It's all one big relativist balloon. And outside of it is reality.

See, I'm having a lot of trouble believing this sort of thing is happening for real, and that people would be making that sort of observations for real...

So that'll be all I have to say.

149 Jon writes:

You're right, I don't think Jews deserve a country of their own. I'm perfectly happy as a Jew in the United States, which I am proud to call my country.

Thank god most Jews don't feel like you.

You wrote:

I get the distinct feeling this blog leans right. Or its readers do...

Well, most American Jews are liberal and/or Democrats. In polls, routinely well over 60% of American Jews identify themselves as members of the Democratic party.

And an overwhelming majority of American (and non-American) Jews, regardless of party affiliation or political stripes, support Israel's right to exist - all the while loving America too.

You are in a tiny, tiny minority. Again, thank god for that.

#148 Zaza

I really think you're reading too much in to Bernstein. But returning to the issue of Zionism, I suppose it is a bit grey as you are now making me aware. Let me clarify my position. I believe Israel has a right to defend its existence, but I don't believe it had a "right" to exist, if that makes any sense. In the classical sense a Zionist is someone who says the State of Israel as a destined thing for Jews; sort of like Manifest Destiny. Respectfully, I disagree. As you may see from my rather flip comment to PIGLET above #149, I don't believe any state like Israel can exist by some "right." However, like any state, now that it exists one certainly cannot rationalize its destruction or the terrorizing of its citizens. Hence I support Israel's right to defend itself against the slaughter of innocent citizens by Arabs. One can only hope that it is a fair and equitable society. The largest problem I have with the State of Israel is that despite the fact that it's something of a democracy, it is the policy of the State (confirmed for me in a lecture given by Ehud Barak on my campus) that it is to remain a Jewish state. Duh. But that means that it will always be controlled by Jews and Jews will take the necessary measures to insure that it stays that way. Someone asked Mr. Barak what happens when, because they are reproducing at a much larger rate, Israeli Arabs outnumber Israeli Jews. Disenfranchise the Arabs? Then it's not really much of a democracy anymore. (Incidentally, Barak didn't have a response, and it wasn't as if he was ignoring the question. There was just no good response)

Maybe it's the fact that I'm fortunate enough to live in America, where people don't have to worry about their particular demographic being disqualified by the very nature of our government...maybe it's that fact that makes me wary of Israel on that principle.

But again, I've digressed. My point - Zionists (and I think these are the people to which Bernstein was referring - they are certainly the people to whom I'm referring) believe Israel *had* a right (in a very large, as I've noted, Manifest Destiny sense) to be created, not just people who believe that Israel has a right, now that it exists, to continue doing so.

I don't think Jews deserve a country of their own. I'm perfectly happy as a Jew in the United States, which I am proud to call my country.

As long as you're happy, what else could possibly matter. Absolutely sickening.

Lucas-

I take it that you would find it unacceptable for me to defend the Berkeley professor's right to say patently false things in class. I'm a hypocrite or perhaps a self-hating Jew. Let's look at the logic off this:

Lets stop there and look again. Good start, but then you went off track.

The Berkeley professor, and , for that matter, any professor at any public university doesn't have any such right. That "right" doesn't exist.

It simply is not possible to connect "instructors making patently false statements" to the concept of "public university" as if these were two extremes of an issue and we needed to seek some compromise. The basic issue at work here has nothing to do with Jews, Zionists, Muslims, hypocrites, self-hating, free speech or anything else. The only usage of "patently false statements" that can exist under the concept "public University" is to demonstrate how they are patently false and have no other place at all in a universityabsent that demonstration.

I would find it most unacceptable for anyone to claim, let alone defend any one's "right" to present patent falsehoods merely as "points of view"

That the particular patently false notion here can be directly connected with fanning the same flames that led to a World War that killed milions of Jews and millions of others too might also be of import to some, but none of that changes the basic issue.

I guess this has all been said though sufficient times and, as the instructor proves, not only is it possible to to do, some people will not only support this non-existent right, they wil do so repetedly and with enthusiasm.

In what I gather is a sort of LGF shorthand:
feh.

But then again, I've also noted that this professor, now for the third time, should be fired. I don't think that's the issue that's polarizing between the left and right here.

Wrong, Jon. Check the subject of the thread again. That is exactly the issue. The Zionism issue is a strawman that was thrown in by Bernstein and his apologists, like you, to try to discredit Susanna Klein and her supporters.

And if you don't believe in Israel's right to exist as the Jewish homeland, you're not much of a Jew. Check the story of the four sons in your Hagadda, assuming you have one. You are behaving exactly like the proverbial "wicked son." And just like the German Jews who looked down on the Eastern European Jews, and thought they were too German to ever be subjected to antisemitism by their Fatherland. Right up until they got loaded on the boxcars. Or, for some of them, right up until they breathed in the gas.

And it's not just about the Holocaust. It's about the two diaspora before that.

#134 urbachg

Am I the only one who thinks that this "explanation" is outrageous ?

Nope. I honestly could not believe what I was reading. I was like, "whoa, he's got to be kidding". It's becoming a familiar feeling these days.

#135 Jon: one note - I don't care what other arguments or theories DAFKA supports, I haven't read that site yet, and it's not relevant here. The argument DAFKA Editor was making above in #11 was a sound one - and Bernstein's last reply confirmed it even more - and very specific and not at all what you or Bernstein twisted it into.

So it's you who perhaps should avoid ad hominems and stick to the precise points argued, rather than trying to disqualify in toto by bringing in irrelevant things.

And once again, over and over: Bernstein was not even referring overtly to any conspiracy theories intended to build up some anti-Arab propaganda, and much less to the DAFKA site as you do - he just alluded vaguely and sarcastically that there exists something akin to the Protocols, so the "Zionists" on campus might as well shut up or they'll be challenged on their own anti-Arab Protocols.

It's so fucked up as an 'argument' that if you don't see it or don't see a problem with it, then it's... I don't know. There's not a word for this.

#151 SoCalJustice

I hope you read #152 I've written, because you've conflated my statement - that I don't think Jews "deserve" a country of their own - with the notion that the country has no "right to exist." I think I've already clarified this sufficiently, but by way of example:

Tell me, do you think Brits "deserve" a country of their own? No, they just have it. Does Britain have a right to continue it existance? Yes. Of course. To defend itself? Yes, of course. No one "deserves" a country. Or do you fancy yourself the arbiter of such things?

And again, don't forget, I have family in Israel, and I'd prefer not to see them overrun and slaughtered [particularly my two cousins currently serving in that country's military, although I also would not welcome the demise of my uncle, aunt, or grandfather (in Holon), nor that of my great uncle (in Jerusalem)].

By the way, not that it's important at all to the discussion, but I'm happy 60% of American Jews are liberal/Democratic. It keeps them from being associated with some of those (I said *some* please note that before accusing me of generalizing) on the other side who want us in Israel merely to speed the return of their version of Christ, who will promptly condemn us Jews to the fires of Hell.

157 Jon writes:

I hope you read #152 I've written, because you've conflated my statement - that I don't think Jews "deserve" a country of their own - with the notion that the country has no "right to exist."

Ok. The overwhelming majority of American Jews not only support Israel's current existence but also believe the Jews deserve a state.

You're the first person I've ever seen split hairs as such, and I've never seen any polling data conducted amongst Jews suggesting their feelings one way or another on the deserve question - but since the support for Israel amongst the Jews of the world is so overwhelmingly strong, I'll go out on a limb and say most (if not all) feel that Israel deserves to be a state.

That has nothing to do, btw, with whether one feels that the Palestinians deserve a state.

But from what you're arguing, I'll take it that you don't feel they do. That doesn't sound very left-wing to me.

PIGLET
Not all people born Jews are Jews or Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Prehaps it's wrong to assume taht your Jew next door is a Zionist. And I don't knowabout some Jews.
Dafka editor is right, return to the whole land was the central part of Jewish identity of thousands of years. The land of Israel is one of the most important (if not the single most important) features of Jewish character, it something that ties together all of us -- secular and religious, Sephardic and Ashkenazi.
To be an anti-Zionist is to be an anti-Semite.

So jon, you now live in a country settled under
manifest destiny, thru the intentional displacement and slaughter of the original occupants.

Maybe you should go rent "cast a giant Shadow."

#156 Zaza

First off, I have not made any ad hominem remarks whatsoever, except to call DAFKA conspiracy theorists. While that may be irrelevant (and I admit, after reading your last post, I've allowed myself to stray too far from the original topic here by delving into DAFKA EDITOR's post to attempt to show that to use the term "Zionist" is not anti-Semitic propaganda), I have also no tried to disqualify, in toto, as you've mentioned, any other arguments made here. Is it a freedom of speech issue? I believe I've made my stance on that clear.

1) We do not know what happened in that classroom.

2) (a) If the instructor stated that "Iraqis believe the Protocols to be true" and did not express that the Protocols ARE true, I don't believe this should even be an issue, (b) unless he refused to clarify, as Ms. Klein alleges. In that case, he should be fired.

3) If the instructor taught that there is legitimate debate to be had about the Protocols, he should be fired.

4) If Ms. Klein fabricated or exaggerated, he should not be fired.

Bernstein, to be honest, gets too convoluted in his response to LGF to make it worth my time trying to defend it. I am currently much more upset - and I suppose this is my fault to begin with, as I have strayed far from Bernstein - that I've unearthed people as unreasonable about this (not you, though) as those to which I THOUGHT Bernstein was referring. For instance:

#153 - "As long as you're happy, what else could possibly matter? Absolutely sickening."

"Happy" in my post (149) is quite obviously a throwaway term. The author of #153 chose to take issue with that rather than the real question I have about Zionism - "Why do Jews 'deserve' a country?"

#155 mommydoc

You're exaggerating to say that either Bernstein or I are using Zionism to discredit Susanna Klein. Bernstein brought it up merely to point out that IF (2)(a) above is true, then pro-Israel groups should be careful lest the face the Leftist ire you all think me to be purveying. Now, whether or not this is an issue in the first place depends on whether or not you you think he should be fired for even (2)(a). But, like Bernstein, having not been in the classroom at the time, I don't want to play hypothetical games. I'm much more interested, due to my argumentative nature, to post this and see what further attacks have been made on me re: Zionism. I am willing to concede that the Freedom of Speech thing is likely a red herring, and to be honest with you, I don't know why Bernstein would bring it up in the first place.

160 piglet writes:

So jon, you now live in a country settled under manifest destiny, thru the intentional displacement and slaughter of the original occupants.

Not only does he live here, but he tells us in post 149 that:

I'm perfectly happy as a Jew in the United States, which I am proud to call my country.

But don't worry, I'm sure Americans don't deserve to live here either, right Jon?

What a meaningful argument.

Did I say meaningful? I meant useless.

#160 PIGLET

I'm aware of that (Native American displacment). It's lamentable, but I'm not a left-wing crybaby. Nations rise and fall on such things. If you make the argument that the Jews by force displaced and colonized, I'd say, yeah, that's too bad, but as time passes it's just a fact of life. The problem is not with that, it's with the notion that the Jews 'deserve' it.

#158 SoCalJustice

I'll take it as a compliment that I'm the first person you've seen to split hairs as such, but then again my studies were largely informed by philosophy and some attempt at logic, so splitting hairs is important to me. As I think you can see, it makes a difference in things. But you ask whether or not I think the Palestinians 'deserve' a state. My answer is that like the Jews, Palestinians don't deserve a state by virtue of the fact that they are Palestinian. It is just the easiest solution to the problem. Just as some countries (since we're talking about anti-Semitism) didn't want to absorb all the displaced Jews, none of the Arab countries are willing to absorb the Palestinians. Because Israel, as I've said above, is to remain a "Jewish" state, it refuses to do so (and they mostly don't want to come aboard as neighbors in that situation anyway). Therefore the solutions are:

1) status quo
2) cleanse the Palestinians
3) Arab countries absorb the Palestinians
4) Israel absorbs the Palestinians
5) Palestinians get a state

This raises an interesting question, though. Is Israel there because the Jews 'deserve' it, or merely because no one else wanted us all? If it's the latter, that changes the argument somewhat.

#162 SoCalJustice

If you think you "deserve" to live here, you need a lesson in humility. Tell me, what did you do to deserve living here? You'll note that I am "proud to call it my country" because I'm happy that circumstances stuck me here instead of say, Liberia.

#152 Jon:

Let me clarify my position. I believe Israel has a right to defend its existence, but I don't believe it had a "right" to exist, if that makes any sense.

Not really. It's an obvious contradiction. But don't let that stop you from holding on to it.

Though, you know, the point is not what positions *you* have. The point is that the Protocols were forged to attack all Jews, even before Israel was established as a state. And it's absolutely, definitely, unquestionably not good that that propgadanda is introduced carelessly into any school.

So making it a political issue, and right vs. left wing one to boot, is absurd, to say the least.

Cos people believing that shit, are not going to give a toss about what your political positions are.

Zionists (and I think these are the people to which Bernstein was referring - they are certainly the people to whom I'm referring) believe Israel *had* a right (in a very large, as I've noted, Manifest Destiny sense) to be created, not just people who believe that Israel has a right, now that it exists, to continue doing so.

Which makes it all the more absurd for anyone to have a problem with Zionism.

Like the mere existence itself was tainted.

Where have I heard this before... oh right, little cute nazi things like the Protocols. Right.

Now if you'll excuse I'll follow that exit sign cos the air in this parallel universe where contradictions are supposed to make more sense than logic is getting a bit too tight...

163 Jon writes:

I'll take it as a compliment that I'm the first person you've seen to split hairs as such, but then again my studies were largely informed by philosophy and some attempt at logic, so splitting hairs is important to me.

I wouldn't take it as a compliment. It's an absolutely useless distinction.

Most people think "right to exist" means the same thing as "deserves to exist."

Pat yourself on the back all you want about your studies and attempts at logic, it really doesn't advance the conversation one bit. Especially since the overwhelming majority of Jews (mostly because of an understanding of the history of the Jewish people), feel that not only does Israel deserve to exist, but that it's a necessity.

It seems to me that most Jews in the U.S. are not Orthodox or Conservative. Meaning, they are either Reform (i.e. not particularly religious, or Torah-driven) or secular - yet support for Israel still runs so amazingly high in Jewish communities. Thankfully, support for Israel is fairly high amongst Americans in general.

#165 Zaza

The Protocols were written by Russians about 35 years before there were any Nazis. Just a matter of clarification.

Hypothetical:

I establish a group of, let's say, 100,000 people who believe that we, the Foobarians, have a right to our own nation. Let's assume that we successfully wrestle Baton Rouge, LA away from the state of Louisiana and declare it the free nation of Foobaria. We compromise with the previous residents of Baton Rouge at the time that we occupy it, but eventually they renege on the compromise and try to destroy us.

There are two questions here:
1) Why do we deserve to occupy Baton Rouge in the first place?

2) If we have, and some agreement has been reached (tenuous and half-existent, as it may be in the case of Israel, since one side starting shooting before they thought about signing on the dotted line - the Arabs, for those of you who think me to be that far Left, I'd like to clarify), do when then have a right to defend the territory we've occupied?

The answer to 2 is obviously "yes," and there you have my stance on Israel. I think the jury's out on 1, and so far rather than give receive any reasonable answer to what I believe is an eminently reasonable question, I've only heard attack after attack after attack.

164 Jon:

If you think you "deserve" to live here, you need a lesson in humility. Tell me, what did you do to deserve living here?

First of all, no way in hell will I ever get a lesson in humility from the likes of you.

Second of all, I deserve to live here because the Constitution grants citizens the right to do so, and I happen to be a citizen. When such citizens also not only obey the laws of our land but are also productive and/or charitable members of American society, then they are all the more deserving.

Same goes for naturalized citizens, and other non-citizen legal immigrants.

I also feel extremely lucky to be born American, but that doesn't make me feel any less deserving of being governed by any other rights under the Constitution.

If you don't feel you deserve to live here, feel free to leave anytime.

#166 SoCalJustice

I refer you to #167, as well. Also, since you're speaking for "the overwhelming majority of Jews" and claiming that they believe Israel is a necessity, and as I certainly don't mind an internecine argument between members of my faith and, as some would have it, ethnicity, do explain to me why Israel is "a necessity." By the way, if you yourself are not Jewish - or for that matter, even if you are - it shows a lot of gall to call a lot of Reform Jews "not particularly religious." Although then again, seeing what some Christians are doing to the Episcopals now (a friend and frequent debater of mine called the Episcopal Church a "glorified social club"), I am not particularly surprised.

#168 SoCalJustice

Now it is *you* who is splitting hairs. You're lucky enough to be born a citizen of this country, this country grants you the Constitutional right to live on its land yada yada yada.

I am not about to leave the country because I don't think I did anything to deserve being lucky enough to be born into it. You're telling me when something good happens for you, even if you didn't do anything to deserve it, you throw it away? Now that you're here, I certainly agree you can be a good citizen, but it still doesn't provide rhyme or reason as far as an explanation for what you did to deserve that citizenship in the first place, or for that matter, what anyone did to be deserving of a country in the first place. A cursory glance at world history shows that nations don't rise and fall by "deserve." And if you'll look at #163 in my response to PIGLET, you'll note that I have no qualms about that. My qualms (and it's really only a question that still goes unanswered) are when you tell me a country "deserves" to exist.

I can't keep checking this page, as fascinating as this conversation has been. Also I note that it probably disturbs some people that this is straying from the intention of the thread. Therefore I offer this. I've given an email address with this comment. I hope if anyone wants to continue a rational discourse with me that they will use it as I am sincerely interested in understanding you people.

Note that this discussion deteriorated from a simple case of an anti-Semitic lie being perpetrated – on my dime – in a public education facility in my State, to a discussion on the subtle and not so subtle differences between the Jew and the Zionist and the Israeli existential question coupled with Israeli policies in the West Bank (or should I say Judea and Samaria).
So we have, supposedly, serious people like the Bernstein fellow weigh in, with a bunch of bs – further blurring the obvious – Buck Fernstein – hiding behind mumbo jumbo free speech nonsense – mangling words and sentences so you don’t know whether he is coming or going.
In this particular episode – the Arab instructor committed an affront to any truth loving person, Abused our resources, offended many and threatened (me personally) a minority group. We should not allow it to stand.

Judea and Samaria are divided North and South, not East and West ; )

I agree, kick the bastard out.

169 Jon:

By the way, if you yourself are not Jewish - or for that matter, even if you are - it shows a lot of gall to call a lot of Reform Jews "not particularly religious."

See the appositive "or Torah-driven." If you think it's galling to say Reform Jews are not as religious or observant as Othodox or Conservative Jews - so be it.

It's almost funny watching you tell someone that they are showing a lot of gall.

You know what, you convinced me. There is no overwhelming evidence of American (or international) Jewish support for Israel, whether for its continuing existence or for the deserving foundations of its creation. What was I thinking?

All that "next year in Jerusalem" stuff. All the billions and billions of dollars donated. All the time and energy spent ensuring Israel has the means to survive in an incredible hostile neighborhood. I'm sure those Jews don't feel Israel deserves to exist.

In 170 you write:
Now it is *you* who is splitting hairs. You're lucky enough to be born a citizen of this country, this country grants you the Constitutional right to live on its land yada yada yada.

I don't think it's splitting hairs one bit. I am both lucky to be born here, and deserving of living here.

It might not fit into your concept of deserving, but it fits mine.

Then you write:
A cursory glance at world history shows that nations don't rise and fall by "deserve."Actually plenty do, and certainly many Regimes that deserve to perish rise and fall based on exactly that concept. But I don't see what that has to do with anything.

My qualms (and it's really only a question that still goes unanswered) are when you tell me a country "deserves" to exist.

Actually, I answered it in post 162 and 166. It's a meaningless concept. There are hundreds of countries on the planet - whether or not they are deserving of their existence has zero impact on how any one of those governments or populations go about their daily lives.

Everyone (aside from you and the prophets of your particular philosophical strain) thinks they are deserving of a state. See the Basques, Kurds, Romani, Palestinians, etc... In fact, many people in certain states feel they are deserving of better states. That's why they come here. God bless them, too.

171 Jon writes:

I hope if anyone wants to continue a rational discourse with me that they will use it as I am sincerely interested in understanding you people.

Take your non-deserving, condescending tripe elsewhere, please.

/Sorry for that Charles.

Natural Law rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as affirmed by the Bill of Rights, are nowhere contingent upon whether anyone else thinks I/you/we deserve them. Ditto state sovereignty.

#174 SoCalJustice

My last post on this thread.

Whether or not someone thinks they are deserving of something does not make it so. I'm sure when you were a little kid you thought you were deserving of a lot of things upon which your parents might not have agreed.

I agree with what you said:

Actually, I answered it in post 162 and 166. It's a meaningless concept. There are hundreds of countries on the planet - whether or not they are deserving of their existence has zero impact on how any one of those governments or populations go about their daily lives.

It would be a meaningless concept, except people are using it as a rationale for their behavior. See my post on the hypothetical Foobarians. If I can convince a group of people that they all deserve something, is that rationale for everyone else to believe those people deserve it? I think it's only productive to agree to disagree on this point.

But on another:

See the appositive "or Torah-driven." If you think it's galling to say Reform Jews are not as religious or observant as Othodox or Conservative Jews - so be it.

It *is* galling. I don't know your specific denomination, but assuming you're not in the Mel Gibson strain of Catholicism, but are yourself a Catholic, what would you think if Mel Gibson took it upon himself to tell you that because you ascribe to Vatican II you aren't as religious or observant? The "observant" modifier you've added here makes it a bit different, but the "or" before "Torah-driven" doesn't really work to excuse calling Reform Jews irreligious.

As for this:

You know what, you convinced me. There is no overwhelming evidence of American (or international) Jewish support for Israel, whether for its continuing existence or for the deserving foundations of its creation. What was I thinking?

It was not my intention to profess there isn't overwhelming support for Israel. Rather, my snide remark was meant to elicit from you, since you are so keen to serve as champion for those supporters, a reason that fits my definition of "deserve." But since we are at loggerheads over the applicability of that definition, I won't expect any response of that sort. If you'd prefer to continue on the issue, as I said, I'm now open to it in private. Thank you.

#175 SoCalJustice

I can't be sure whether to laugh or cry when I note that I live in a world where making a polite offer results in that response. Not very Christian of you.

#176 Mandrake

My point exactly. You cannot rationalize the existence of a nation on some notion of "deservedness" vested in its people.

# 178 Jon

My point, of course, is that the present day fact of Israel's existence renders the question of whether it is "deserved" in anyone else's eyes irrelevant, which is what SoCalJustice has been trying to say. As long as they can hold it, they "deserve" it.

178 Jon:

I can't be sure whether to laugh or cry when I note that I live in a world where making a polite offer results in that response. Not very Christian of you.

Pick either, I hardly care. BTW, I'm not Christian.

And read what you wrote again in 171.

Polite? Please, you can't even detect your own condescension.

# 180 SoCalJustice

Alright, "you people" was perhaps the wrong phrase. Would "you" be better?

BTW, I'm not Christian.

That's OK, neither was Jesus, and he's been the best Christian so far.

#181 Mandrake

Well now we've come full circle (I'm aware that I've broken my pledge but I can't pull myself away). It's a semantic difference, if you put it that way. I agree that they should hold it, and I agree they have a right to defend it. I just don't call those things "deserve."

179 Mandrake:

I knew you were backing me up in 176.

Although, I'm hardly surprised that Jon thought you were making his point.

Jon (#167),

I establish a group of, let's say, 100,000 people who believe that we, the Foobarians, have a right to our own nation. Let's assume that we successfully wrestle Baton Rouge, LA away from the state of Louisiana and declare it the free nation of Foobaria. We compromise with the previous residents of Baton Rouge at the time that we occupy it, but eventually they renege on the compromise and try to destroy us.

Steve:

Here, put yourself in the shoes of one of my friends: let's say the US is involved in a war that's popular (for some reason) but you find completely irrational. I'm stretching a bit here, but let's say that US troops are assisting the French in invading the great cheese-farming regions of central Asia. Freeing this country, Cheddaristan, offers little to anyone except the French and the Cheese industry (which President Gouda has close ties to). A friend of yours dies in the invasion. You're accused of disrespecting him because you still oppose the Cheddaristan invasion.

Just what the fuck are they teaching in junior college now a days any way?

My last post on this thread.

FLW.

181 Jon writes:

Alright, "you people" was perhaps the wrong phrase. Would "you" be better?

Ok, I'll back off here.

I apologize for any and all of my hostile comments.

You have a right to think what you do, and I have a right to think it's irrelevant - just as you have a right to think I'm a moron.

FLW?

#185 SoCalJustice

"You have a right to think what you do, and I have a right to think it's irrelevant"

That's why they call it mental masturbation.

#183 Geepers

You know, I'm certainly not offended by the implication that I went to "junior college," but if you mean that as a disparaging remark, you shouldn't slight those kids that way. Those are the only colleges where they still teach practical skills anymore. I went to one of those East Coast liberal arts schools / bastions of traitors that I'm sure some of you love to hate.

In the end, I hope the administration of the college will call him in and have a private talk with him to explain to him what went wrong and give him some guidance so he can avoid the problem from happening again.

Folks, we do not have a society in which a person makes a mistake and get fired for his first faux pas. Calling for him to be fired is not appropriate.

The Iraqi seemed to indicate that the Protocols came up in context with the issue of Iraqi culture when he alluded to the "Iraqi oaths." I construe this to mean the dogma or "Articles of Faith" that the Baathists required the Iraqi people to subscribe to for the last 30 years. Evidently, belief in the Protocols somehow figured into or were included in these Articles of Faith or dogma.

The college administration can ask him to avoid talking about this subject in the class for the future.

I didn't get any sleep last night. Sorry if I'm not very articulate at this point, but calling for him to be fired over a first problem like this is way too extreme. We do not operate a society in which a person makes one mistake and is doomed on a first offence.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a student requiring an instructor or professor to say what the student demands the instructor to say. In any case, it is too premature to demand that he be fired.

#167 Jon
Your discussion of fictitious Foobarians and Foobar, which you mean to equate to Jews and Israel, is not accurate. You ignore history and create a fairy tale in its place.

If you base your thinking on lies -- which includes lies of omission, obtained by equating a fairy tale to reality -- then you are not establishing a good foundation for reaching a valid conclusion.

Here is a summary of a piece of that history.

"Israel, in fact, has a millenial and continuous history more ancient than that of most other nations. Its international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible: uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the British Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the UN partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence."

"The Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained. The return to Israel has continued throughout the centuries, and 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated with the reestablishment of a Jewish state." -- Myths and Facts 1982, ed. by Davis & Decter, pub. by Near East Report.

What I am suggesting to you, Jon, is that by arguing from a fairy tale, and insisting that the fairy tale is equivalent to reality (which it most definitely is not), amounts to erecting a straw man in place of the case for Israel and then knocking down that straw man.

The case for Israel is based on the history of Israel and the Jewish people. And it takes into account the history of other states.

And those who demand that Israel prove its legitimacy, but do not also demand that other countries also prove their legitimacy, are holding the Jewish state to a different criterion than all other states.

That avoidance of applying the same criteria -- demanding that a state prove its right to exist -- to all the other states is IMO blatantly unfair. Some consider it to be the modern form of anti-semitism adapted to the Jewish state. Whatever you choose to call it, it just does not seem fair to me to have a different standard for one state and ignore the other states. If Israel must prove its right to exist, then let all states prove their right to exist. It's only fair.

Jon, in case you come back.

You write in 169:

By the way, if you yourself are not Jewish - or for that matter, even if you are - it shows a lot of gall to call a lot of Reform Jews "not particularly religious."

I think you were making an issue where there is none, just because your positions were being attacked.

It is definitely galling when Orthodox Jews say they are more Jewish than other less strict groups. It is not galling, IMO, when they say they are more religious.

I think it's an objective fact to say that one who keeps Kosher and observes the Sabbath is more religious than one who eats pork and lobster, while driving (or working/spending money) on Shabbat. Does being Orthodox make someone a better person, or a more spiritual person or a even a better Jew? No. Absolutely not. But it does make them more religious. Be galled if you must be.

And then you write in 177:

It *is* galling. I don't know your specific denomination, but assuming you're not in the Mel Gibson strain of Catholicism, but are yourself a Catholic, what would you think if Mel Gibson took it upon himself to tell you that because you ascribe to Vatican II you aren't as religious or observant?

Horribly analogy. The split in Catholicism between the Traditionalists and those who respect the current papal heirarchy (from what I understand), has a lot to do with removing the collective blame on the Jewish people for the death of Jesus. If that's the case, it has nothing to do with who's more religious, but who's more enlightened and interested in reconciliation with other faiths.

The divergences in Judaism arose for entirely different reasons - chief among them the desire for some to be less religious (or observant - whatever) than other more strict groups.

#188 foobar
As to what should be done with this instructor who used his classroom to spread hateful lies, I think that the message that the universities should send out, and that Berkeley in particular should send out, is one of consistency.

If they are not consistent with regard to how they treat the spread of ethnic hatred, then they are creating different categories of legitimacy for spreading ethnic hatred, and they are implying that some ethnic groups are deserving of being victimized.

Let me give an illustration. Would Berkeley tolerate the use of their classrooms for spreading lies about Muslims, lies that could be used, or that have been used, to generate hatred of all Muslims? Would an instructor who did that keep his or her position?

Or substitute African-Americans. Or Hispanics. Or substitute homosexuals and imagine hate-mongering in the classroom against them. Or any other such group. Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I am opposed to an instructor's using a university's classes for hate-mongering against any of these.

What I find difficult to understand is that hatemongering against Jews is somehow put into a totally different category, and it is examined in isolation, apart from the universities' famous policies of political correctness and sensitivity. I think that there should be some consistency.

Or if there is objection to curtailing classroom hate-mongering against Jews, then let it be open season on all groups. What I don't understand is: why just the Jews? This does not seem fair, IMO.

#191 EE

Or if there is objection to curtailing classroom hate-mongering against Jews, then let it be open season on all groups. What I don't understand is: why just the Jews?

Because only the Jews have enough Jons to petition for their own people's vilification and de-legitimization.

Ain't we sophisticated? /s

Me 190:

Make that "horrible" analogy.

#193 SoCalJustice

It is a weak analogy. You're right, I was just giving you a hard time time because I could. You should, for future reference, however, use "observant" instead of "religious." The strength of one's faith isn't determined by whether or not they eat pork.

#192 freedomsound

It's interesting how my attacking the notion of "deservedness" became a vilification of my own people. But I've read further through this blog now, and found, contrary to my opinion, there's much irrational hatemongering. And here I thought this was a largely reputable discussion. It's nice to see someone like SoCalJustice who can be the bigger man and agree to disagree in a civil way, especially because I was not being entirely conciliatory myself. But it's followed by someone accusing me of villifying my own people because I think that some of them believe something I disagree with. Congratulations, Ann Coulter, you've Coulterized America.

But in response to

#191, EE, I don't know anything about the state of liber and slander put against any of those groups in the classroom, but I do know that something gets done for the people who have the most organized "screaming." That's the way this country works. That's why counsels that work on the Hill for $80G a year leave and get $5 million a year lobbying the same people they used to work for. There's no Hispanic group on campuses, to my knowledge, dedicated to pointing out this sort of behavior, nor is there an Arab or Muslim group. The Right is happy to think that the faculty is Left enough to already be enforcing the rights of those people, but I would be happier, personally (and I think it would be more reflective of the true ongoings of the world) if those people screamed a little bit more. There would certainly be fun in the chaos. But for now, we Jews have captured the hearts of the moderate Left and most of the Right, so we get the Shield of Pity. Hell, you can't even refuse its coverage - you see what happens when one does.

Whew! Just got in from a heavy day of being a leech as
one of your higher intellects in here called me.

Pretty amazing the comments my posts got today. Too many to respond to so let me respond to a group to
#'s 92, #113, #117, #128, #113 (I think) , #148, #134
in just great big old blog. These take a lot of time.

#1 We at DAFKA are not conspiracy theorists. We are reporters and do a lot of research. We have sources in the Middle East and are affiliated with some of the best
Middle Easten research orgnaizations and news organizations such as MEMRI and CAMERA. As for conspiracies: Well, gee, the Saudis are pouring billions into our unviersities and sending Arab students to write in our campus newspapers, and oh, gee, just how could the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion be told to young students in a US campus by an Arab who obviosuly adheres to the ideas of militant Islam and wants Israel destroyed? We're just nuts I tell ya! Read our articles under News and Commentary on the left menu then decide yourselves. We only cite 'conspiracy theoies" from the likes of Yosef Bodansky and Daniel Pipes who
advise our national leaders. Guess what? There is a huge movement afoot by the Arab League to destroy
in stages Israel (sh! a conspiracy theory). The fascist
Arab world really wants "peace" and "justice". All those
21 terror attacks a day on Israelis are the "Zionists"
own faults!!! How stupid of me. The constant arms smuggling by Arabs in the PA is justified. The Israelis are racists because they allow 21% of Israel to be Muslim but the Arabs are "freedom fighters" who just can't stand to let Jews live in a country called Palestine
and must have them removed or killed.

And as for Bernstein and Jon: DAFKA was started because I got sick and tired as a reporter and activist of seeing pictures of Jews blown to smithereens because they were Jews while other Jews just blah blahed in Blogs on the internet. Most people are ignornt of the true history in the middle east (that is why Kadhim likes to teach people the Protocols are true and Israel stole
the Holy Land from the "Palestinians", a made up Arab
nationality in 1967 by the Egyptian Yasser Arafat. Some people walk the walk and some talk the talk. You either
recognize who the real facists and racists are (the Arabs), who is instigating the murder, and who refuses to accept less than the annihilation of the other side.
Bernstein says he supports Israel but its Jews should live in New Jersey. Jon thinks Israel shouldn;t exist, he knows nothing of history yet thinks he's a smarty pants.
IF THEY WERE JEWS IN ISRAEL, EVEN ANTI-ZIONISTS
IF THE ARABS CAUGHT THEM ALONE THEY WOULD KILL
THEM. but that's ok, let them feel very intellectual. They can blog and bullshit and do nothing to really understand this War On Terror is no different than when the allies fought Nazi Germany. And Israel and the US are the allies (and maybe the UK).

When the definition of who is right (democracy, freddom of religion, women's rights, rule of law
as found in Israel and the US) is defined against
(religious intolerance, hate, misogyny despotism
and neglect) only then will people on both sides cease to be blown up as the right side prevails over the wrong one. In the meantime DAFKA cares about PEOPLE, not blogs or bullshit. Bernstein and Jon are what we call in Yiddish shmucks. Plain and simple. Their views on Israel's existence and Zionism grow from opinions and emotions not from logic of true history and their failure
to support the Right murders more people. That is the reality. That is what DAFKA endeavors to expose.

I do not recall in any blog I wrote criticizing Hillel. Whoever made the accusation (the putz, Jon?) should retract it. I do think that if there are groups whose intent it is to destroy Israel and still calim to be Jewish
that they should not be given aid by Jews to facitliate that quest.

As for Zionism and Judaism as being separate. Christain Zionists are Zionists because they believe Jews deserve a homeland in Eretz Yisrael, their ancestral home (not the made up "ancestral home" of some Arabs who emigrated to the region in the 20's and 30's and for the most part did not own any land, despite all the lies.) Early Zionists prior to 1948 bought every inch of land...it was theirs legally. Many lost theirs in 1948 in the West bank and Gaza. Israel got it back in 1967 and even the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords agreed they had rights to some of it--on paper. meanwhile in their own media they say ALL of Israel is theirs. Arafat was born in Egypt, Sharon was born in the Holy Land. Who has more rights to live there? My heart aches for a 16 year-old boy who was killed by flack from
Hizbollah in the North of Israel because he was a Jew.
Meanwhile fatasses like Bernstein and Jon expostulate about how Israel should not exist in a safe intellectual setting. Learn the reality of the Jew as a target shmuckos, you may be one one day if the likes of Khadim convince enough generations of American students in schools that the Protocols are true. A recent Pew poll showed antisemtic beliefs by college students in the US are on the rise. Wonder why?

Finally Zionism is not racism. Judaism is a religion not a race as being an Arab is. Zionism is actually an archaic idea because it called for the creation of a Jewish homeland and that is reality now. Jews who believe themselves to be real Jews (not my parents were but I have a Christmas tree) are not really ionsits anymore in a post-Zionist world. But the Arab PR guys canl fend off accusations of antisemitism by calling Jews Zionists
then only calling to kill them as Jews in private. That again is the reality. Kadhim would like to see America turned into a Muslim fascist nation and Israel destroyed and he carried that into the classroom. That is why he must go.

Even Jesus was murdered because of betrayal by Judas.
The Warsaw Ghetto saw the Jewish police load the cattle cars. Jon and Bernstein aren't as smart as they think they are. But whtever they do, by lending support to the likes of Kadhim they encourage the killing of more innocents in the real world.

Charles, sorry for the ad hominem, but i don't like being called a leech which incidentally is someone who gloms off another. I can't figure out where the appelation comes from. Anyone who has been to the [Link: www.dafka.org...] website and wishes to dispute the validity of what we say (except jon and bernstein who are beyond help), feel free to email us at [Link: www.dafka.org...] Claiming that Judaism and Zionism are separate is like saying Arabs can't possibly hate jews because they are semites too. The word antisemite was coined in Germany in the 19th century to specifically mean Jews. Zionism at least prior to 1948 was a fundamental core of Judaism and kept the faith alive for
2,000 years. Zionists ARE Jews despite all the academic bullshit.

DAFKA EDITOR

EE (#189, #191),

Once again excellent posts.

I'm curious EE are you, or are those your initials?

jon (#177),

My last post on this thread.

zulubaby (#184),

FLW

LOL. Right as always zulubaby.

#195

Since I've been called a putz and challenged on my source:

The Hebrew word dafka has various meanings. Kaplan said he liked the definition meaning "in your face," saying that the group was founded largely because Hillel groups and centrist Jewish organizations had a "weak-kneed" response to anti-Israel activists on the nation's campuses.

Furthermore, Kaplan expressed disdain for progressive Jewish groups, saying he believes such organizations are funded by Arabs.

"I think there are some supposed peace groups which purport to be Jewish that get money from Arabs, and they get into Hillel under the guise of being for a two-state solution when what they really want is the dismantling of Israel."

If you're Kaplan, DAFKA, you're quoted as saying that here. As for citing Daniel Pipes, he is not the most uncontroversial figure, himself. As you like to undermine leftist self-loathing Jews, why don't you turn some of those skills on him and look critically.

Zionism was certainly NOT the core of Judaism for 2000 years prior to 1948. I quote here from Uri Ram's article in Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, Dec99, Vol. 6 Issue 4. The article appears on page 325.

The Zionist Movement, the generator of modern Jewish nationalism, emerged in the late nineteenth century in Russia and Eastern Europe. In the 1880s the first national Jewish settlers arrived in Palestine...

This tells us two things. First, that Judaism somehow made it from, depending on your study of the religion (there's wiggle room), from the 6th century BC(E - if you're an academic) to 1880 without "Zionism." Granted, for part of that time, the Jewish nation was in Israel - Judea - Palestine (the term "Palestinian," I'm sorry to tell you, was NOT coined by Yasser Arafat in 1967 - the Romans named the land Palestine in 135 AD/CE after a Latinization of "Philistine" [see Lewis 1995 page 31] and the people that lived there, until it became Israel could fairly enough be called Palestinian) but let's say since the failed Bar-Kokhba revolt of 135 and the renaming of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina. So from 135 until the 1880s is not 2000 years.

And, not to be petty and correct your Yiddish, but since the non-Israeli side of my family is from Eastern Europe, the word you wanted was "schmuck." Call me that if you'd like, but the fact remains I am not a Jewish Nationalist, therefore I am not a Zionist, and I am still a Jew. Since we don't have a fine institution of Popehood or something like that, I don't think by your decree you can excommunicate me from my Judaism just because I'm not a Zionist. But if you wish to issue another screed, by all means, continue.

Putz

Jon,

Does any country deserve to exist? For example, let's take France. Does France deserve to exist? Why?

If you ask me, countries deserving to exist is a very odd position to take. In what instance does a country deserve to exist? At best, you'll have to refer to a Hobbesian view of life being nasty, brutish, and short except insofar as the state can make them not do so; essentially, this means that a country only deserves to exist in that it enriches the lives of its citizens.

Logically then, we can draw a continuum of countries degree of deserving to exist based on how well they improve the quality of life of their citizens. I'm afraid that if we do this, your little pet countries (whether fictional like "Palestine" or factual like the Saudi entity) are going to be considerably less deserving of existing then the zenith of evil, apartheid, and colonialism that we find in Israel. If this isn't self-evident (why Israel provides a higher degree of enrichment of its citizens' lives then Arab countries), I can document it.

Now, let's briefly address the issue of a right to exist. Do countries have a right to exist in and of themselves? Generally speaking, there's nothing that identifies a country's existence in the absence of other countries; each country's existence is contingent on their recognition by other countries. Still, just as dollars exist (if you don't believe me, try bartering at your local 7-11), we can establish that countries have a right to exist somewhat outside of mutual recognition; generally preceding mutual recognition, a group of people has to establish some sort of territorial control, either through force, guile, or some combination of the two.

In 1945, France was essentially created through guile; the French resistance was largely immaterial in the war effort. In 1948, Israel was created through a combination of force and guile. I will put forth to you that force is more admirable then guile, as it shows that the Israelis actually cared enough about their country to force its creation, therefore Israel has a greater right to exist then do the French.

But, in general, Jon, I think that you've lost the forest for the trees. While your pseudo-philosophical parsing may provide for some interesting conversations, you really should begin to look at the bigger picture a little bit. While you're not sure that Israel had a right to create itself, there are millions of Arabs trying to make damn sure that Israel doesn't exist any more. Perhaps this is of no concern to you, except insofar as you have family there. Let's just say they were magically whisked away to America and America would be safe for Jews forever. Would you still oppose Israel's right to exist in the first instance? Would you do so knowing that that very same argument is used by those who seek to deligitimize Israel's existence? And if your argument assisted them in actually going and killing every Jew, would you still do it? You've already asserted that Jews have a right to defend themselves; do we have a right to defend ourselves metaphysically as well as physically? Or, as in the case of this despicable instructor, are we meant to merely take the hits as they come?

And if everyone had believed as you do, do you think that the civil rights movement would have ever taken off of the ground? After all, can't rock the boat... wouldn't want to be seen as an uppity Jew and all that - when we're defending ourselves.

Dafka Editor (195),

Boy, you jump to wild conclusions on the scantiest of evidence. I think the Jews in Israel would be better off living in New Jersey because they would be safer there, free from the not-so-distant threat of nuclear annihilation from Muslim fanatics. I am in no way against Israel, nor against its existence or legitimacy in any way. If you are too blind to even see who your friends are, you should let someone else edit the pro-Israel website.

As for other LGFers who object to even raising the free speech issues: (1) they will get raised regardless of you think, because the First Amendment protects Kadhim, and there is no Protocols of the Elders of Zion exception to the FA; and (2) any breaches in the FA used against anti-Semites will eventually be used against Jewish supporters of Israel, and in saying that I am not in any way drawing a moral equivalence. There has already been a case in Australia where a newspaper and its columnist were fine because the columnist criticized the terrorist activities of the Palestinians.

Geepers:

LOL! You got it baby!

Jon (#198)

Call me that if you'd like, but the fact remains I am not a Jewish Nationalist, therefore I am not a Zionist, and I am still a Jew.

Seriously Dude, who cares? Be what ya wanna be.

Take your pick:

Shmuck - Self-made fool; obscene for penis: derisive term for a man.

Putz - Slang word for "penis." Also used when describing someone someone as being "a jerk."

Meanwhile, several counter-demonstrators dressed as suicide bombers walked around with signs pinned to their backs saying "$25,000 for my family! Thanks Saddam and Saudi Arabia!" and "I fight for justice by killing Jews."

The tactic definitely gained the ire of the SJP protesters, one of whom trailed Susanna Orah Klein -- who was dressed as a female bomber, complete with a hijab, or Muslim head-covering -- with a sign calling her a racist.

[Link: www.jewishsf.com...]

I think I'm in love. Susan, you are the best.
Brave and smart. Thank You.

Jon #198,

Please feel free not to descend into self-parody.

As for citing Daniel Pipes, he is not the most uncontroversial figure, himself.

And why is that?

the term "Palestinian," I'm sorry to tell you, was NOT coined by Yasser Arafat in 1967 - the Romans named the land Palestine in 135 AD/CE after a Latinization of "Philistine" [see Lewis 1995 page 31] and the people that lived there, until it became Israel could fairly enough be called Palestinian

What a bit of word-parsing! You, me, and everyone who reads this blog knows damn well that the word palestinian in its modern sense connotes palestinian Arabs. Prior to 1948, all of us know damn well that the word Palestinian connoted Jews, while Arabs in ther region were called (generally) Southern Syrians. And all of us know that modern day so-called palestinians have absolutely nothing in common (genetics, heritage, culture, language, etc) with those who lived in Roman Palestine.

So from 135 until the 1880s is not 2000 years.

It's a rounding error. A lot of times people do that. It might help your arguments if you didn't phrase them in a condescending manner, like you did here.

Jon #195

Putz, shmuck, schmuck, the spelling is irrelevant. The meaning of the word is important. A meathead with no brains...

First, who I am is irrelevant. But certain leftist groups both here and in Israel have on occaision been proven
to have received Saudi money via indirect routes. In Israel recently a PhD candidate who wrote of another
Deir Yassin south of Haifa admitted on the stand when he was sued by a veteran's group that he fabricated the entire story. A protege of Pappas he admitted he received $8,000 to concot the research indirectly through Arafat. The story is in the DAFKA archives.
You have the 503(c) records of every "Jewish" proPalestinian group? Do you belong to JVOP which used to have a website saying it's doubtful Jews ever lived in the Holy Land? And it now had links to the Arab press that prints the blood libel stories? maybe you don't get money, you're jsut what Lenin called a "useful idiot".

Wow, you read a book. Yes, the term Zionism as a political movement was coined in he 19th century.
As for Jewish claims and yearning for the Holy Land,
next year in Jerusalem has been said at Passover for 2,000 years. Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible as being Jewish over 650 times. Not once in the Koran.

I did not say Palestine was coined by Arafat. The Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" was. Prior to 1948
a Palestinian meant a Jew. Palestinian stamps and passports all were in Hebrew. Learn to read carefully.
At the start of Oslo arafat tried to claim his Arabs were the offspring of the Philistines, the source for palestine as you said that the Romans renamed Israel and Judea as an insult to the Jews after the revolt . Now he tries to claim they were the Canaanites to suggest they lived there before the Jews. it's a myth and a lie to disposess Jews. And you side with these people? next year in jerusalem, the foiundation behind Zionsim has followed the faith for 2000 years.

As for your being a Jew. I can;t excommunicate you. You do that yourself. "One Jew is responsible for all others". You may have Jewish ancestry, but your embracing the Arab facists who would destroy Israel
(as you really do do) excommunicates yourself. Why do you do it? Out of ignorance? Out of ego? To diss mommy and daddy? To feel revolutionary? Or are you just a "useful idiot". The Jewish Police in the Waraw Ghetto felt like you. What did it matter if they were Jewish? They found out they went to the camps with the others.

I think shmuck was an adequate description. Go away, sonny, your sophistry bores me.

DAFLA doesn't get info like you from blogs, boobie. We work with professional news agencies and money does get to these grrouos from the Arabs.

#200 Ariel

I don't understand how you guys are so myopic. I have been agreeing with you all along that there is no notion of "deserve" involved in statehood for Israel, and been posing my question to those who would argue (as it was when I first posed it) that Jews "deserve" the country.

Now, as you continue on to assert that because I question that argument for the foundation of Israel I obviously don't give a rat's ass about it's continued existence (save for my own selfish reasons) I assume you skipped the portions of my posts where I said I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend itself from the Arabs who, as you say, want to push the Israelis into the ocean. Well, you didn't say "push them into the ocean," but I didn't think you'd mind my taking that liberty.

Wow, did I write all dem typos above...tsk tsk.

I believe Israel has a right to defend its existence, but I don't believe it had a "right" to exist, if that makes any sense.

None.

#209 zulubaby

Throughout the day I've started to get the feeling that the reason it doesn't make sense doesn't lie on this side of things.

#205 ariel

I will try not to seem condescending. I did not, however, mean to nitpick and accuse DAFKA of a rounding error. I am saying that the nationalism of which he speaks was non-existent except as his "Next year in Jerusalem" until the 1880s.

#206 Dafka

I've noticed that your accusation that I've misquoted you disappeared. I know that the claims of the Palestinians regarding Canaanite or Philistine ancestry are false, but there have certainly been Arabs in Palestine for centuries, as there have been Jews. But it's certainly daft to think it was a de facto Jewish nation for those centuries. I think it's mindboggling, though, that you continue to assert I'm in bed with Arab fascists just because I disagree with you. What's crazier is that people seem to believe it. I've gone through the looking glass.

Well, this killed a lot of time. The issue guys is that Jews
Arabs and Christians who are all Israelis are being killed by the Islamo-fascists who want israel destroyed.
ot out of any goodwill to help "Palestinians" or whatever you wanna call the lifetime welfare cheats of the world and their leadership that steals from them. Ariel, that is why the DAFKA site refers to them as Arabs, not Palestinians. Can you cite me any ethnic difference that makes them palestinians? Was there ever a country Palestine? Is there a dialect? is their a palestinian religion? They are just ARABS. Period. The fact they used the word palestinian, and that an Arab shmuck in a camp under Arafat BELIEVES he's one is certain. The point is had the world and the press acknowledged the truth early on, things would be different. The West bank by the same token was coined by Jordan for the press.
It is Judea and Samaria Israel is being pressured to give up. Imagine the temerity of Jews, named after Judea of all places, to want to keep their biblical homeland. By the way 76% of Judea and Samaria has nobody living on it and Jewish "settlers" (another euphemism) comprise 3% of the land there. And the Arabs kill them

Bernstein, it;s not freedom of speech for Kadhim to teach his students the Protocols are true. It's slander against the Jewish people and teaching others to believe so. Slander is not free speech. Sophistry is fun on campus but the protocols were used to kill millions of Jews.

Jon, why don't you convert to Islam and go live under dictatorship? The Arab press is replete with sophists like you for the Arab cause against Israel and the US.

Sheesh, I gotta write more conspiracy theories... ;-0
I yam outta heah...

#196 Geepers
Thanks.

David Bernstein #201,

I think the Jews in Israel would be better off living in New Jersey because they would be safer there, free from the not-so-distant threat of nuclear annihilation from Muslim fanatics.

Ah, I'm sure that your humane calls for the resettlement of Jews are just as strident as your calls for resettling the palestinians on the other side of the Jordan. After all, we know that Israel has nukes, is an apartheid, colonialist enterprise, etc., and therefore the palestinians are in much more imminent danger then the Israelis. Perhaps we should resettle all of the Arabs in Indonesia, to make them safe from the rampaging Israelis.

Or perhaps you've understood the point of my ridiculous statements when they're reversed.

As for other LGFers who object to even raising the free speech issues: (1) they will get raised regardless of you think, because the First Amendment protects Kadhim, and there is no Protocols of the Elders of Zion exception to the FA

Please define exactly how firing Kadhim would violate the sub-clause: Congress shall establish no law that precedes the rest of the FA. Kadhim has the right not to be thrown in jail for this words and thoughts; he does not have the right to government sponsorhip guaranteed by the first amendment. Would you support a white student getting a science Ph.D. while writing his thesis on how black people have smaller brain size's then white people?

and (2) any breaches in the FA used against anti-Semites will eventually be used against Jewish supporters of Israel

Look, if Jewish supporters of Israel have to rely on lies to make their case - and lies discredited for quite some time - they should be thrown out of the academy as well. The thing is they don't - their case is rock solid based on the facts. Also, if a Jewish instructor in Hebrew decided to teach the class 101 reasons why the Saudis are evil, he should lose his job. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, using old canards about Jews trying to control the world seems like it doesn't get the smallest bit of a rise out of you; you would even equate this (a lie-based out-of-context statement) to a fact-based in-context defense of Israel. Quite simply, that's inarguably not a valid comparison. The academy should teach people to 1) work from facts and 2) use logic. Given that Kadhim violates the first and the Jewish defenders of Israel (and presumably the non-Jewish ones, unless you believe that only Jews can support Israel) don't violate either (AFAIK), there's really no reason to support him from a Golden Rule perspective. (Incidentally, if there are supporters of Israel who don't rely on facts and logic, they too should be skewered.)

There has already been a case in Australia where a newspaper and its columnist were fine because the columnist criticized the terrorist activities of the Palestinians.

So does that mean that no criticism of Arabs shall be permitted, however justified? What ever happened to academic debate? Or are we only meant to restrict academic debate to math and physics, philosophy and religion (except Islamic studies), and the politically correct corners of international relations? Does it not matter that the kind of draconian speech codes you appear to be advocating (never criticize Arabs and/or palestinians) violate the First Amendment in ways that Kadhim could only dream of?

#211 DAFKA

The 3% the settlers live on is also where all the water is. The part Israel so desparately wants to retain control of have the aquifers that supply the country. But I'm not siding with the "Arabs" on this. They should take what they can get and shut up. Would be generous if the Israelis would share the water with them, though. And by the way, if you don't believe me, that Arab-fascist organization National Geographic ran a map some time back showing where the water is under the West Bank.

And suddenly I've also become anti-American. It's great the propaganda this guy is trying to swing around.

201 Prof Bernstein writes:

As for other LGFers who object to even raising the free speech issues: (1) they will get raised regardless of you think, because the First Amendment protects Kadhim, and there is no Protocols of the Elders of Zion exception to the FA;

Professor, I don't object to the discussion of FA issues at all with respect to Kadhim. That's a separate issue from his fitness as a lecturer at Berkeley.

Sure, he can't be fined or jailed for saying that Jews wrote the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - if that's in fact what he said. But, if he said it, could he potentially be reprimanded by the administration?

An FA discussion seems less important to me than discussing the newly implemented U.C. academic freedom standards that seemingly allow Professors to go off topic in their classrooms and express their political beliefs - no matter how "unpopular" or, in this case, factually incorrect, ignorant and hateful (again, if Kadhim said what it is reported he said). He didn't actually deny responsibility for the statement in his email to Professor Volokh.

The question then becomes whether or not the Berekely administration will do anything about it. And whether or not under the new, relaxed standards of academic freedom, the administration can do anything about it.

First Amendment considerations don't apply to Berkeley's ability (even though it's a public university) to reprimand Kadhim should the administration so desire, right? I mean, if, for example, a professor went on a crazed, homophobic rant in the middle of a physics lecture, the FA wouldn't prevent Berkeley from reprimanding the professor, would it?

#215 SoCalJustice

Per the First Amendment angle, I'm reminded of research I did last year on Intelligent-Design Theorists. I guess the question is this: when does something become rationally debatable? If myself and three other people believe it, and one of us happens to have a Ph.D, can we then teach agnostically on the subject? From what you gather from Ms. Klein and Mr. Kadhim, when given the chance to condemn the Protocols as a forgery, Mr. Kadhim instead kept quiet, as 'between the parties involved, the matter is still being debated' because 'neither side has conceded the other is correct.' That is preposterous reasoning. I think, First Amendment, Berkeley rules, whatnot - if someone teaches that way, he/she should be fired.

So I'm agreeing with you. Just amplifying.

#213: I didn't say the Jews should be forced to move to NJ, or even encouraged. I just said they would be better off there, as in safer (and, for that matter, richer, for that matter). The fact that it's unjust that the Jews are not safe in Israel in the long term has nothing to do with whether they are in fact unsafe there. If you can't understand the difference between despairing for the safety of Jewish Israelis and thinking ill of Israel or Israelis, there's really no point in trying to respond to your other comments. But I will say that if you think that the government will only punish "lies" if you allow it to punish speech, I think you have a very naive view of government.

Jon

Which accusation of a misquote are you referring to that "disappeared'"?

Interesting thing, Jon, then I got work to do:

I just read a study about "Jews" llike you who support the dismantling of Israel for the Arabs. Seems they usually have parent issues which they carry through life-respect or something. Either that or they get Saudi money!!!

More conspiracy theories!!!

Jon #207,

I don't understand how you guys are so myopic.

Again, condescension doesn't help your argument. It just makes you look like an asshole.

I have been agreeing with you all along that there is no notion of "deserve" involved in statehood for Israel, and been posing my question to those who would argue (as it was when I first posed it) that Jews "deserve" the country.

Well, insofar as anyone can presume to consider outward measures of improving the life of its citizenry, it's a fair case that Jews deserve their country moreso then just about anyone else. That was the point of the first part of my post.

Now, as you continue on to assert that because I question that argument for the foundation of Israel I obviously don't give a rat's ass about it's continued existence (save for my own selfish reasons) I assume you skipped the portions of my posts where I said I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend itself from the Arabs

There you go assuming again. Assuming + condescension = not a good combination. I read your posts and they were very clear to me.

However, if you're going to bring up "points" (and I use the term generously) in which you parse the difference between deserving and right to exist, you should expect that some people will try to tackle those points. And just because when doing so, they don't come up with your very same conclusion doesn't mean that they didn't read your posts (more condescension, however subtle).

I understand that you believe that Israel has a right to exist now. The point I was making in #200, and which you would have noticed if you weren't myopic is that Israel had more of a right to exist at its genesis then just about every other country that has been created in the last seventy years or so, including as an example to make things more concrete and fact-based, France.

Jon #210,

I did not, however, mean to nitpick and accuse DAFKA of a rounding error. I am saying that the nationalism of which he speaks was non-existent except as his "Next year in Jerusalem" until the 1880s.

Fine, but a lot of people, when writing documents, use shorthand. And its condescending to assume that they're not doing so, and that you would never do so.

To take a trivial example, most people say Christianity celebrated 2000 years of existence in the year 2000. But then we have the facts that Jesus was born four years away from the zero year, that Christianity wasn't a separate religion for some time, early Roman Christianity had little to do with Catholicism, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Still, it's a fair shorthand to say that Christianity has existed for 2000 years and it's condescending to assume that someone doesn't know of these things without first asking them.

I know that the claims of the Palestinians regarding Canaanite or Philistine ancestry are false, but there have certainly been Arabs in Palestine for centuries, as there have been Jews.

Again, you're falsely representing the argument. The fact is that before 1948, the proto-Israelis were the ones calling themselves Palestinians; the Arabs called themselves Southern Syrians. There is no gain made to your POV to say that there were Arabs living in Palestine for years; we all know this, and we all know that they had no distinct national identity during this time. For much of it, they were ruled by Turks or other foreigners; certainly, the last time there was an "indigenous" Arab ruler of Palestine, he didn't create any organizational structures referring to Palestine as an entity distinct from the rest of the territory of the Arabs, again invalidating your obfuscation that Arabs have been there for ages.

If I make a brief aside, obfuscation doesn't help arguments. Clarity does. And that's my condescension of the day.

#218 Dafka

It boggles my mind that you think anyone could take you seriously. I go from saying, verbatim "I support the right of Israel to defend itself against the Arab terrorists" to wanting to dismantle the State of Israel and give it to the Arabs. You live in California, don't you? Man, they got loonies from all sides of the spectrum out there!

No offense to those of you who are not loonies. And none to Arnold, who will soon govern you.

Jon, Jon, Jon...

All the water for Gaza comes from Israel. The PLO propagandists claim Israel is stealing their water in the media here. Bet it's the same regarding the West Bank.
The Hizbollah and Syria tried to block Israeli access to
water from the Galilee until the US intervened with the UN. National Geogrpahic had been caught by CAMERA and Honest Reporting .compresenting biased and incorrect stories about Israel and the territories. Fact is the PA pressures reporters in the territories at the point of a gun.

As for being unAmerican..Arafat was Saddam's number one ally and still is. Arafat has killed 40 Americans and
won't even extradite his killers. You sipport the PA and want another mini Arab Iran there that still supports killiing our soldiers in Iraq...UnAmerican? Duh...

And David, you have a very unrealistic attitude or compassion for Jews who are murdered...

Enough..mebbe later but I doubt it. Visit the website if you wanna kvetch.

#219 Ariel

I appreciate your patience with me; I realize I sometimes devolve into condescension but only because it feels like what I've been saying has been skirted every time I say it, albeit not by you...well, I get the impression slightly by you by bringing up France. It's a red herring. I believe you were making the point (am I wrong?) that Israel had more of a right to exist at its genesis than some other countries by the manner in which it came to exist. My claim all along is that no country can assert, within the bounds of reason, Manifest Destiny. Clearly the way in which the Jews acquired Israel is more admirable than the way France regained its statehood, as you've pointed out. But this isn't hitting the notion of "deserve" that I've trying to get at. The point is, I don't think it makes sense for a Zionist to argue that Jews got Israel because they deserved it. Now that they've got it, of course they should fight for it. And you've as much as stated that you see my point. So that makes me happy. My point in arguing with others before was not to condescend in assuming they were just too dumb to get what I was saying (and I'm not calling them dumb now, either) but rather to try and make them see what I was implying, because from their responses, there was no indication that they got it before they disagreed with it. I see that you get it, however stupid you might think it is, but you're entitled to that, since you clearly get it.

Did I forget my keys in here???

Ciao...

Jon never once said that Israel should be dismantled nor does he imply it at all. From what I gather, although he supports Israel he doesn't think that any state 'deserves' to exist.

I'd be interested to see the study about Jews like Jon. Do you have a link handy for it?

Jews like Jon hmmm. Has a ring to it doesn't it? Could be a new group.

#221 Dafka

Considering there are websites that claim to dispute the information on CAMERA and HonestReporting.com as having an Israeli bias that overrides the "facts," why would I believe something there anymore than I ought to believe something spouted by Nat Geo? Or, for that matter, you conjecture about the West Bank. Geologically, it makes no sense that most of the water in the West Bank would come from the interior of Israel. Are you next going to tell me you have evidence that Arabs doctor geological surveys? Surely you see why this appears implausible. Also, anyone that hasn't made up their mind on an issue and has done any sort of studies in college involving criticism will tell you that there are never any unmediated "facts". While I tend to think this is too much of a PoMo way to look at the world, when someone tells me they have all the "facts" on their side, I am skeptical. Especially when it's not just some of the "facts" it's ALL of them.

David Bernstein #217,

Would you mind referring to my posts with my name? It makes it easier to see the thread of the conversation.

I didn't say the Jews should be forced to move to NJ, or even encouraged. I just said they would be better off there, as in safer (and, for that matter, richer, for that matter).

Is it really a value-neutral statement to tell people that they would be better off if their country didn't exist? For example, in a possible future, let's just say that there's an independent Palestine. We can presume that this country, based on past performance, would have high unemployment, low living standards, high infant mortality, low GDP/capita, etc; in short, in every conceivably measurable way, it would in fact be far inferior to the condition that the palestinians had when they were under the control of Israelis. Do you think that the palestinians would find it offensive for you to tell them that they should cede their country back to Israel in order to have these better standards? Is it conceivable that others might take exception to your statement, however factually accurate it is?

If you can't understand the difference between despairing for the safety of Jewish Israelis and thinking ill of Israel or Israelis, there's really no point in trying to respond to your other comments.

I can understand the difference. Please feel free to reply to my comments.

Despairing for the safety of Israel (as a Jewish state) is something that everyone here does a bit of. However, there are ways to phrase this despair and ways not to do so. For example, telling people in NYC that they shouldn't live in that pearl of a city because it might be the target of another attack is probably a fair statement. However, instead of trying to tell people not to live in provocative ways (better not rock that boat), might it not be better to stand up for what's true and right? To briefly change topics, do you think that civil rights' advocates would have ever gotten their argument off of the ground if they had worried about the safety of black people instead of trying to do something to make black people safer?

But I will say that if you think that the government will only punish "lies" if you allow it to punish speech, I think you have a very naive view of government.

I'm not saying that the government should punish speech. I wasn't clear enough about this, and for that I apologize. I tried to imply what needed to be said more clearly; academics should punish those who, in the academic community, do not rely on facts and logic. Just as if a physics professor falsified his studies on neutrons, if an international relations professor falsifies statements before his class (and even more so for a language instructor!), that should be considered problematic. Or perhaps you have no problem with a white biologist trying to prove that blacks are stupider then whites, and having government funding to do so?

#224 Mar M

As it might surprise some people here, there are other people of the same inclination as me. Perhaps we will form a group, although again, probably to the surprise of some here, I'm not arrogant enough to name it after myself.

Ariel,

We basically agree. I originally made the New Jersey comment only in response to Dafka editor's claim that I wasn't a Zionist. I didn't want to claim false Zionist credentials. Right now, unlike a true Zionist, I'd be happier if there were 11 million Jews in the U.S. than the current 5.5 each in Israel and the US, because in the abstract the opportunity to have our own country isn't worth the very real risk of nuclear annihilation. But that's in the abstract, and does not diminish my support for Israel on the ground.

Jon #222,

I believe you were making the point (am I wrong?) that Israel had more of a right to exist at its genesis than some other countries by the manner in which it came to exist.

Yes, this is my point. If we are ever going to speak of countries deserving to exist, Israel deserves to do so moreso then many others. Since most people who discuss Israel's not deserving to exist do not do so for other countries, and since the concept of deserving to exist is fairly empty - I find it hypocritical to tackle Israel first, which, by any measure, deserves to exist moreso then many other recent countries.

My claim all along is that no country can assert, within the bounds of reason, Manifest Destiny.

Yes, a claim to Manifest Destiny, of any sort, does not lie within the bounds of reason. However, Israel does have a right to exist, inasmuch as any country does. And that's the point that you need to remember: if any country had a right to exist at its genesis, it's certain that Israel did at least as much as many of them.

#225,

Considering there are websites that claim to dispute the information on CAMERA and HonestReporting.com as having an Israeli bias that overrides the "facts," why would I believe something there anymore than I ought to believe something spouted by Nat Geo?

I have no idea about the factual dispute re: water. However, I'm curious as to which websites claim CAMERA and HonestReporting override the facts with being pro-Israeli. I've read their stuff for a while on and off, and I've not seen any evidence for this. Please feel free to provide links.

David Bernstein #228 - Please feel free to address the other points then.

Mar M #224 - LOL!

#229 Ariel

I'll look into getting sources for you on the claims against CAMERA and HonestReporting.com. However, I'd just like to note that I don't think it is hypocritical to tackle Israel "first" re: the notion of "deservedness," because it is unique in having a large and very vocal contingent in this country that makes that argument on occassion. I just don't think you can buy a country on the back of 6 million of your own dead and the world's sympathy for failing to do anything about it. If the world was truly sympathetic, they would've welcomed more Jews into their own countries with open arms, much as if the other Arabs were truly sympathetic to the Palestinians, they would welcome them as citizens instead of leaving them for decades in squalid refugee camps on their borders, a stateless people. But that's a digression. We're not disagreeing about anything important anymore.

A professor can be disciplined for incompetence, including incompetently repeated anti-Semitic myths known by all competent scholars to be false as true (that's my view, not all courts would agree). But it's not clear yet that the UC instructor did that, he claims he merely reported what Iraqis believe without endorsing that belief, and many LGFers would seem to want him punished even if he just did that, which would clearly be unconstitutional.

As for your graduate student example, a graduate student at a state university has the absolute First Amendment right to engage in a serious research project regarding whether one race is smarter than the other, if the project is indeed serious (i.e., follows the established protocols of his discipline). If it's merely racist nonsense, then he can be thrown out of the program for incompetence.

Jon #231,

. I just don't think you can buy a country on the back of 6 million of your own dead and the world's sympathy for failing to do anything about it.

That's precisely the point. Israel didn't buy its existence on the backs of six millions. The Holocaust didn't create international sympathy for Jews which caused all of Europe to support Jews. In fact, if you look at the War of Independence, you'd be hard-pressed to find any European support for Israel at all. From handing over the Taggart forts to the Arabs to blockading Mandatory Palestine from weapons (widely understood as helping the more well-equipped Arabs), there can be no doubt that, in real life, Israel didn't buy its existence with six million dead.

Israel bought its existence with six thousand dead, 1% of the population of the entire state, who fought in the War of Independence. If the Israelis had relied on international sympathy in 1948 instead of fighting tooth and nail, we wouldn't be having this debate; there would be no Israel.

DAVID BERNSTEIN:

Please read my exegesis of the "Iraqi Oaths" on my entry posted at #188. Didn't you or Eugene say you didn't understand that? Just something for you to consider.

232 Prof. Bernstein writes:

But it's not clear yet that the UC instructor did that, he claims he merely reported what Iraqis believe without endorsing that belief, and many LGFers would seem to want him punished even if he just did that, which would clearly be unconstitutional.

Well, I think it's a combination of that plus the fact that most people here don't believe Kadhim's account. I admit, I'm highly skeptical, based on a combination of Ms. Klein's story, Kadhim's email to Prof. Volokh and the surrounding facts.

In his email, he wrote:

As you know, this issue of authenticity and the identity of the author -- or authors -- of the Protocols has not been settled between the Middle Eastern disputants (that is to say, no one said to the other, "you are right.").

Even if that was the position he took in the class (and I'll stipulate that it is for purposes of this discussion), it's an amazingly troubling position if he didn't follow up with a comment to the effect that, in reality, the "Protocols" are a forgery regardless of what the prevailing wisdom is in the Middle East. That at least has to border on incompetence.

Because Kadhim then writes:

I am not in the business of endorsing one view over the other, at least in that debate that happened in the class.

That's highly suspect, but if true - it's an incompetent position, no? If, in his class a debate took place where one student said Anwar Sadat was assassinated for signing a peace treaty with Israel and another student said Anwar Sadat was killed while bungee jumping off the Sears tower, would the lecturer be incompetent if he didn't "endorse one view over the other"?

David Bernstein #231,

But it's not clear yet that the UC instructor did that, he claims he merely reported what Iraqis believe without endorsing that belief, and many LGFers would seem to want him punished even if he just did that, which would clearly be unconstitutional.

If I were a religious Christian, and a biology professor at UC Berkeley, would it be fair for me to merely report that many religious Christians believe in Creationism? Or would I be expected, as a professor, to either 1) not mention Creationism or 2) if I mention it, say that there is no scientific support for it?

As for your graduate student example, a graduate student at a state university has the absolute First Amendment right to engage in a serious research project regarding whether one race is smarter than the other, if the project is indeed serious (i.e., follows the established protocols of his discipline).

If you were on the committee vetting his grant, would you support him getting that grant? If he cited (long discredited) studies about the relative sizes of brains when asking for that grant, would it be problematic?

Or even if he cited those long discredited studies while teaching a class in molecular biology (tangentially related to biological differences based in race), and let's assume that someone in the class brought it up (to make the situation parallel to Kadhim's version of the events), would it not be appropriate for him to be punished if he didn't say that those studies were long discredited?

#233 Ariel

I don't understand. Israel got its statehood before the War of Independence actually began, correct? Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that Israel accepted the deal given them and declared statehood, the Arabs promptly declared (or at least began fighting) a war, Israel won, that's that (obviously not that), but as far as independence is concerned.

When I said on the backs of 6 million, I meant in justifying the claim for why Jews should get that land in the first place. Or is it just coincidence that it happened when it did? My knowledge of that time period is premised mostly on anecdote from my mother's side, who moved to Israel at that time.

The main point of my comment wasn't that he has a right to say what he said. Had that been the main point, I would have given an argument. Rather, I pointed out that DAFKA's charges of hypocrisy (Bernstein's hypocrisy and by extension, mine) were founded on racism.

I do think that a professor has a right (perhaps not given by the first amendment, but not all speech rights are) to say something that's wrong so long as it's not germane to class. If a teacher consistently does this, then he should be fired for failing to teach the class--taking away valuable class time. His job, however, was to teach the Arabic language. If he succeeded at that, then fine. If not, then he shouldn't be allowed to teach anymore. However, if a chemistry professor says something offensive at the beginning of class, then proceeds to teach a good chemistry lesson, where's the problem? (Of course if the teacher says false things about the subject of the class, then he is plainly failing to teach.)

Furthermore, the chain of events is in dispute. The prof. claims that Klein misinterpreted him. The other students mentioned in a Daily Cal. article agree with him, and say that Klein was frequently a disruption in class (links on Volokh's website). The whole issue seems like a non-starter.

I just clicked through to an article about this. There are two points noteworthy here:

First, some of the other students in the class have filed complaints against her for being disruptive. This is not good.

Second, more importantly, it appears from the article that she has threatened or menaced the professor. If this is true, there may be hell to pay. She could get into tons of trouble for this and maybe even go to jail.

*After the discussion about the document, Klein stormed out of the classroom, warning there would be repercussions for Kadhim, said Brid Beeler, a student in the class.*

[Link: www.dailycal.org...]

If Miss Klein cannot control her anger and menaces people, this is very serious. The more Klein is exposed here, the more she appears to be out of control and a loose cannon. The question is: how dangerous or violent is she?

Some thread!

#138 Jon said, long long ago--

On the other hand, when I get a pamphlet from the Israeli Embassy explaining that settlement activities in the West Bank are legitimate because the West Bank is "no-man's land," I see a nation behaving immorally.

I can't see the problem here; maybe you can help me see where you are coming from.

Under the League of Nations mandate, Jews and Arabs were free to settle anywhere in Palestine, though of course the Brits immediately violated the terms of the mandate by barring any Jews from settling east of the Jordan River and severing that territory from "Palestine."

Post-WWII, the United Nations proposed partitioning the remainder of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, but the plan allowed Jews to reside in the Arab state and vice-versa.

In 1948, the invading Arab armies prevented the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine. Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria, called them the West Bank of Jordan, and rendered those lands just as Jew-free as the rest of that country. Jordan's annexation of this territory was recognized by the UK, Pakistan, and (as of its founding in 1965) the PLO, and rejected by much of the rest of the world. While many Arabs fled from the territories that became the State of Israel, and some hostile Arab villages were deliberately depopulated by Israeli forces for arguably legitimate military reasons, the Arabs that chose to remain within Israel during the war were allowed to stay and were granted citizenship.

The Israeli army ousted the Jordanians from the West Bank in 1967, and Jordan, once it had lost the territory, ceded its (almost universally unrecognized) claim to the land to the PLO.

Given these facts, please explain why Jews should be barred from dwelling in this territory. Is there some law or moral principle that says that once a Judenrein country conquers territory, the territory thereupon become Judenrein for all time?

Second, more importantly, it appears from the article that she has threatened or menaced the professor.

The same article that claims:
"Police said she dressed up as a suicide bomber and spat on a student during the rally, in which she said she felt threatened when she was physically restrained from walking through Sproul Plaza. "

Not mentioning that the "rally" had a fake IDF checkpoint, and that her costume was a witty counter protest to their "Jew hate Street theater."

Hey, how about if a group of jewish students did a "street theater" reenacting burka clad women using a razor to perform female genital mutilation. Free speach and all that ...

#240 Ben F

Settlement in West Bank is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49. If the best you can do is to say that the Palestinians routinely violate the Geneva Convention (I've heard that reply many times), good for you. But I wouldn't hold the Israelis to the same pathetic standards as the PA. One scofflaw doesn't need to breed another. So in more direct response, there is no law that says a country conquered by "Judenrein" is always "Judenrein," but there is a treaty, to which Israel has been a signatory since 1951, that says: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." I'd say encouraging people to build settlements counts as "transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Don't get me wrong; I understand the security issues at stake in the West Bank. But security and settlement are two different policies.

And this, Ben F., is not directed towards you, but rather at a broader sentiment I've detected. Earlier on I was asked to give the reason why, if I believe states aren't founded on "deservedness," do I think the Palestinians "deserve" a state. I said I did not think they "deserve" one, but that giving it to them is really the only viable option, unless the other Arab countries absorb them, or you think that the festering status quo is fine. So for those of you that seem to encourage a policy by which Israel doesn't give an inch, are you in favor of merely enforcing the status quo? Or do you think 1) the other Arab nations can be compelled to absorb the Palestinians or 2) there is some other mechanism of "dealing" with them?

And to clarify the above by "give an inch" (because I can already see what's coming) I'm not suggesting Israel make massive concessions to the Palestinians. I certainly don't think they should give them Jerusalem, especially because I don't like the fact that Muslims appropriated the Temple Mount for no good theological reason (they made one up later). What I meant was merely allowing them to have a state. And they need water access. I think that in this whole thing, the biggest security risk for both sides is going to end up being water. The land there supports too many people because of technology, and unless they really kick up expensive desalinization efforts, they are going to have some serious problems in the future. Especially if countries controlling various watersheds to the Jordan start erecting damns a la Turkey and their little tussle with Syria.

...and by "damns" I clearly meant "dams." It's late. Goodnight.

#242 Jon

The Geneva Convention article you quote applies to occupied territories. Those territories are not occupied. No state has any claim on those territories but Israel.

#194 Jon

It's interesting how my attacking the notion of "deservedness" became a vilification of my own people. But I've read further through this blog now, and found, contrary to my opinion, there's much irrational hatemongering. And here I thought this was a largely reputable discussion. It's nice to see someone like SoCalJustice who can be the bigger man and agree to disagree in a civil way, especially because I was not being entirely conciliatory myself. But it's followed by someone accusing me of villifying my own people because I think that some of them believe something I disagree with. Congratulations, Ann Coulter, you've Coulterized America.

Your generalizations and prejudices are incorrect, I happen to be a life-long Democrat; so Ann Coulter, or any other bogeyman, sorry bogeywoman, does not figure into the equation.

The fact is, Jon, that despite your narrow worldview of Liberals vs. Conservatives, and the hive mentality you subscribe to which dictates where any issue must fall within those parameters, being pro-Israel or anti-terror does not necessarily make someone a Conservative Republican warmonger.

You complain of unfair accusations leveled against you, all the while making outrageous claims against your perceived enemy, that is, anyone you suspect of being to far to the "right" for your liking.

You compare those who believe Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism as being "as mindless in their conspiracy theorizing as those that wrote the Protocols and those that believe them to be true." That is a particularly nasty and tasteless example of turnspeak on your part, turning the blame on the victim with the Protocols. It is classic vilification, Jon, and it is a favorite technique of the Nazis, and now the Islamic terrorists.

As for de-legitimization, it is hard to imagine a more direct statement of de-legitimization than "I don't think Jews deserve a country of their own."

No, Jon, I don't think I misunderstood you. In one foul swoop you both de-legitimize and vilify your own people. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

#225 Jon

I was wondering if your parents had any children who lived?

Oops! Excuse me, but the Arabs who are FASCISTS and their leaders who STEAL AID MONEY FROM THEIR OWN PEOPLE (courtesy the USAID) would never LIE, right?
Their accusations of water theft must be true, no? The fact they send children to blow up Jews on buses says nothing about them even after they names streets and stadiums after the killers and pay bounties. Right?

As for your usual Ramallah bullshit about the Geneva Convention. I always laugh my head off at the palestinians and Arabs spouting international law then sending out suicide bombers to kill children and women.
for your information, the Oslo Accords, LEGALLY SIGNED BY THE PA LEADERSHIP acknowledges the settlements are to be NEGOTIATED and that Israel has legitimate claims over SOME of the West Bank and Gaza
subject to final NEGOTIATIONS and as per UN RESOLUTION 242 which says Israel must withdraw from SOME of the territories to SECURE BORDERS. The Arabs broke the agreement. Barak even gave the suckers half of Jerusalem and 97% of the West Bank
and all of Gaza but the Arabs still attacked. Israel also offered to repatriate close to 100,000 Arabs and offered 30 billion dollars in reparations payments to the Arabs and a chance to be relocated to the US or EUrope. The average "Palestinian" would take that gladly but Arafat refused continuing on the jag to destroy Israel. jon, you are not an international attorney and jsut repeat the distortions and lies out of Ramallah so why not stfu?

Ok, you think you are still a Jew but support those who kill Jews. Maybe you are? You know what a KAPO was?

Going to bed.

#238 Lucas Wiman
Maybe you can explain how my comments were based on racism as Jews are not a race. Judaism is an idea,
a religion, Anyone can convert to judaism and Jews come in all races and colors.

#239 Foobar
You need to go look at earlier blogs about this. The Daily Cal article was full of inaccuracies and never said she "frequently" disrupoted the class. That class is full of proPalestinian supporters who are perfeclt content
to lie to dispute a "Zionist". Read earlier blogs and learn the truth. Susannah disrupted nobody, she stood up to
indoctrination of antisemitic lies by a prefessor who wanted his students to believe in a Jewish world conspiracy. In Kadhim's later emails he changed his story twice and still insists the protocols are fact.

Now I am really going to sleep...ZZZ

#167 Jon:

The Protocols were written by Russians about 35 years before there were any Nazis. Just a matter of clarification.

Gee, you're so smart, thanks for the history lesson.

Weren't they used by nazis for propaganda purposes to prepare for the genocide though?

That's what I was referring.

Just a matter of clarification.

As for your "take on Israel" and the jury being still out on why Israel needs to exist - well, you can believe what you like. But what you outline there is not a logical argument. It's totally abstract, totally ignoring what nationhood means, both in general, for any people, and in the specific, for Israel.

But just as a question, and if you said this already I must have missed this: do you think a Palestinian State has a right to exist?

#248, she has no right to menace the professor.

Geepers (#136)

My pleasure :-)

.. ok I see the answer to that "right to exist" question was already given.

Arguing in the abstract is pure sophistry, Jon (and Bernstein also, since he does the same). You can argue anything and its opposite in that way. With no relation to reality and history, it becomes just a waste of time. Just a way to show how clever you are in arguing for arguing's sake.

I'd like my country to be moved to California cos there's a better climate there. Does that make it a valid point? Of course safety is a more serious thing than weather. But. States are not founded on security issues. They are founded on the continuity of a historical community defined as "people". Then, when they're attack, they defend themselves. They don't pack up and move. You're arguing for perpetual displacement and exodus there. If you think that's just as well too, well, try and argue that in front of a few Kurds.

Also, Israel wouldn't be any safer in New Jersey or anywhere else. How many million Muslims who currently support the "Palestinian cause" are there in the US, and the entire world? The problem causing terrorism is not location. Even if Islam had already conquered Jerusalem, it still wouldn't void those dictates to Jihad. The push for terrorism is ideological. Not territorial. Well, both, but, more ideological than territorial.

So, aside from the way you argue your points which is so offputting, it's the logic that' missing.

And switching this back to 'right wing bigots trying to crush left wing dissent' or bringing in Coulterism is a very weak way of derailing the discussion which is very precise, and not about entire monolithic concepts of political affiliation.

Not serious.

#250 foobar: nah, you're still way off with that theme, it's got nothing to do with the issue here. I understand that threatened masculinity idea must be an obsession for you, but then, why don't you join some Wild Men seminar in the woods where you can vent your frustrations in front of a campfire, go on, I hear it's a lot of fun...

#242 Jon

Careful. You seem on the verge of joining Gordon in the shrill charge of genocide with your scare quotes here:

2) there is some other mechanism of "dealing" with them?

Who are the "palestinians" anyway? Apparently a significant number of them are actually Jordanians, Egyptians & perhaps Syrians. Therefore, in answer to

[D]o you think1) the other Arab nations can be compelled to absorb the Palestinians]?]

I would answer a resounding YES, they should be!! The "palestinians" do indeed have an inalienable right of return - to the surrounding nations from which they came. Of course those surrounding countries are still under the delusion that their purpose of anihilating Israel can be accomplished using the refugee proxies. That delusion needs to be shattered once and for all. The refugees should also be reminded in no uncertain terms that their Arab/Muslim brethren have been much more ruthless with them than the Israelis ever have.

#250 foobar

From what I've seen of your posts on the actual topic, the young woman in question has gone from making some rather bland challenges to a known fraud espoused by a foreign national teaching in a California state sponsored institution of higher education to some psycho lunatic threatening the instructor's very person. Curious job of demonization you've done.

Jon #242--

The "Palestinians" do not routinely violate the Geneva Conventions. The "Palestinians" are not SIGNATORIES to the Geneva Conventions. So they CAN'T violate it.

For like reasons, Israel CAN'T be an Occupying Power, because Israel is not occupying the territory of a SIGNATORY. (A High Contracting Party, if you will.)

I recognize that most countries of the world, including the U.S. Security Council, demand that Israel be viewed as an Occupying Power under the Geneva Convention. That does not make it true; it merely signifies that most of the world doesn't mind seeing this territory as Judenrein.

Most of the world treats UN Resolution 242 as requiring Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. In 1967, that would have meant returning those territories to Jordan and Egypt. The express predicate of 242 is the inadmisssibility of acquisition of territory via military conquest. But Jordan and Egypt had secured those territories via military conquest in 1948. So the traditional construction of 242 as applying not only to the recognized Egyptian and Syrian territory occupied by Israel in 1967 but also to the disputed territory captured by Israel in 1967 makes no sense whatsoever. No matter, it's the world's view.

In addition, Israel is not engaged in forced transfer of populations. Most of the settlements are authorized, some are not, but in all cases Israeli Jews are going voluntarily. It is far from clear that these activities are what are targeted by the Geneva Conventions.

Jews are an indigenous people in Palestine. The 1947 UN partition plan says as much. The Jews have deeper roots in the land than the Arabs, a fact which can be demonstrated in many dimensions. There is no legal or moral reason why Jews cannot settle anywhere in the region. (The converse is not true, because of the decades-long Arab record of "nationalist" violence against Jews and the total absence of any indication that they intend to break off.) If you concede that the Geneva Conventions apply here, all that you are doing is providing support for the Arab position that every Jew living on the wrong side of the Green Line is a war criminal whose murder constitutes "legitimate resistance to occupation."

Let's look at this another way. The PLO says that Jews living on the far side of the Green Line are illegally occupying Palestinian land. Israel says otherwise. Under Oslo, differences between the parties are to be resolved by peaceful negotiations between the two sides. That means that outsiders should not attempt to impose a non-negotiated resolution, and that means STFU about the international war crimes crap.

Allowing the creation of an Arab state in Palestine is an obvious solution to Israel's demographic problem. But a Judenrein Arab state in Palestine is guaranteed to be hostile and a danger to Israel. An Arab state in Palestine that allows its Jews to live in peace and equality will also peacefully coexist with Israel. Jewish settlements in land that is destined to become part of an Arab state in Palestine are the best guarantors of peace. Or do you disagree?

#254 Ben F

In response to your note about the Geneva Conventions (and in explicit disregard of DAFKA's, because he suddenly thinks asking Israel to uphold the principles a law is another Arab conspiracy - maybe the whole Geneva convention was a sham financed by the Saudis?), specifically this portion:

Allowing the creation of an Arab state in Palestine is an obvious solution to Israel's demographic problem. But a Judenrein Arab state in Palestine is guaranteed to be hostile and a danger to Israel. An Arab state in Palestine that allows its Jews to live in peace and equality will also peacefully coexist with Israel. Jewish settlements in land that is destined to become part of an Arab state in Palestine are the best guarantors of peace. Or do you disagree?

Personally I think the notion of calling a place simultaneously an "Arab state" and a "Jewish state" in contrary to the principles of democracy (as I said in a post above). However, for the sake of those that like to argue that Jews should be able to settle about wherever they'd like, I think you're better off proposing the Palestinians immediately form a state in all of the West Bank, and displace the pockets of settlers back into Israel. If the Palestinians formed a state, the state could be forced to prevent attacks by its citizens on Israel. Failing to do so (as I'm sure you believe it would, and you're likely right, whether by will or impotence to stop it) could result in more trouble for the Palestinians than Israel can give them now. Settle up front, then claim grievances after. More legitimate.

As for Oslo, I don't buy that one side can piss away their rights, but even granting that they've done and can do so, both they (and, irrelevant to you, I suppose) the US have been suggesting/asking that the settling be stopped and receiving no response save "we don't negotiate under attack" from the Israelis. Yes, the Palestinians got themselves into that situation (or Arafat screwed them into it by inciting violence) but it's not an excuse to continue escalation from the Israeli side, and settling is clearly that.

As for 242, let's assume that you're correct about meaning that it calls that those lands revert to "unconquered" status. You seem to assume, then, that they would all default back to Israel in the first place. (This can also serve in answer to #245 above) It's been awhile since I'd looked at a map of the various cantons into which the land was stupidly divided, but I don't believe the chunks in which the West Bank and Gaza sit were exclusive "Jewish" areas. The Israelis managed to consolidated a good bit of their territory into a more sensible arrangement by war, but I don't think anyone is asking them to move back into cantons separated from one another by islands of Arabs in a large-scale arrangement similar for both Jews and Arabs to what the Palestinians have w/ West Bank/Gaza.

I recognize that most countries of the world, including the U.S. Security Council, demand that Israel be viewed as an Occupying Power under the Geneva Convention. That does not make it true; it merely signifies that most of the world doesn't mind seeing this territory as Judenrein.

I think it means that most of the world wants Israel to live by the spirit of the law, rather than using its letter to antagonize people by schlepping my long-beared bretheren from Brooklyn over to outposts in the West Bank.

#253 NTropy

To say that it turns out that the Palestinians are largely of this, that, and the other descent but just happened to be living in the area works both ways. Israel, after all, is largely an immigrant state. But I agree wholeheartedly with you that the Palestinians have received much better treatment from the Israelis than they have from their Arab bretheren. I think I've said as much elsewhere.

#246 freedomsound

You being a life-long Democrat skirts the issue. Zaza had when writing that this isn't stifling of dissent with ad hominem attacks a la Coulter. But it is, because when I say I don't believe any state "deserves" to exist, since you evidently wish to claim, beyond the far more pragmatic notion that the state has a right to self-defense (my claim) I am suddenly myself a Jewish anti-Semite (or am I confusing words? that's what you call someone who villifies Jews, is it not?) It reminds me of Ann Coulter a la "if you disagree with Bush, you're treasonous." You accuse me of arguing in the abstract, with no idea of what nationhood means, just because I ask a question that only one person has had the tact to address in a meaningful way since I've asked it. But not only that. Oh no. Because I don't believe the Saudis pay people to infiltrate Hillel now I don't believe they are state-sponsored of terrorism. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a wide gap (in sensibility for the Saudis - or in believability for a rational human being) between paying someone to go to a campus Hillel meeting and paying someone "relief" for blowing themselves up. I specifically addressed this sort of ridiculous claim when I called its maker a purveyor of ridiculous conspiracy theories, and provided - twice, once because he accused me of fabricating it - his quote on the matter and its source. He did not refute the source, he went on to spout vitriol as consistently poor in both spelling and grammar as you might accuse me of being in logic. Furthermore, because I don't believe people "deserve" states, in this case Jews just by virtue of the fact that they are Jews, I suddenly - regardless of the other ~ 200 states in the world - only disbelieve that the Jews are less deserving than anyone else. Periodically someone from outside the thread pops their head in and sees what sort of distortion some of you regularly practice on my statements. It's really ludicrous that given those distortions, you accuse me of being a propagandist a la Goebbels.

And now, this time not as "famous last words," but as legitimate last words, I bid you all goodbye.

heh. We'll see how long that lasts.

Jon #237,

I don't understand. Israel got its statehood before the War of Independence actually began, correct?

Yes, but that statehood would have lasted a very short time if the Israelis had only relied on guile, as the French did.

When I said on the backs of 6 million, I meant in justifying the claim for why Jews should get that land in the first place. Or is it just coincidence that it happened when it did?

Well, if it was "on the backs of 6 million", wouldn't you have expected a wave of outrage against the Brits for abandoning the Taggart forts to the Arabs or for blockading the nascent state of Israel? It isn't just coincidence that Israel was created when it was; the massive number of displaced persons (DPs) who were Jewish at that particular time created the possibility for having a state of Israel. However, the deaths of millions of their (and our) brethren did not elicit world sympathy to the point where if the Israelis had not fought for themselves, the world would have stepped in on their behalf - much to the contrary, in fact. Therefore, I absolutely reject the contention that some mysterious notion of "world sympathy" created Israel. Conversely, you can argue that that was the case for France; they certainly didn't have to defend their borders after their (re-)establishment of a state.

#242,

Settlement in West Bank is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49.

Actually, it is not, for reasons that others have enumerated. In short, it is not because:

1) The territories do not have an "occupied" status. The only powers occupying those territories (Egypt for Gaza and Jordan for J/S) after the war of Independence ceded their claims to them later. Since Israel had already taken those territories in a defensive war, and they were not ceded to anyone in particular (as the powers didn't control them), those territories are disputed and not occupied.
2) There is no evidence that Israel forcibly transfers parts of its population into the territory. You can't play fast and free with a legal text just because it suits your interpretation.
3) Geneva Convention obligations are only between High Contracting Parties. The palestinians are not an HCP.

If the best you can do is to say that the Palestinians routinely violate the Geneva Convention (I've heard that reply many times), good for you.

Actually, this is a fair reply. It's not that the palestinians have violated the treaty once or twice - they have consistently done so. And it's not that other HCP's have followed the treaty consistently - they have not; there is a technical term for a contract/treaty which is honored more in the breach then not (which escapes me at the moment) but it describes a contract which no longer has validity.

Imagine if you made a contract with five subcontractors each of which would give you five different widgets for which you would pay each of them $25/widget. Let's say you already paid them. Three of them decide not to give you your widgets and the court system refuses to hear your pleas about their violations of the contract. Does this sound like a fair system? Would you continue paying the widget-sellers and hope for the best the next time?

But I wouldn't hold the Israelis to the same pathetic standards as the PA.

Ah, the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. I've also seen this argument many times and I find it quite pathetic. Here's my standard reply: what standards would you hold the PA to? For some reason, all of those in your shoes have been unable to come up with any standards at all; I hope you can do better.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." I'd say encouraging people to build settlements counts as "transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

You'd be wrong. Legal texts usually have very precisely chosen words. You can't disregard the ones that don't agree with your position.

Don't get me wrong; I understand the security issues at stake in the West Bank. But security and settlement are two different policies.

Security and settlement actually go hand in hand, as you would know if you actually understood the security issues. The reasons why settlements are built on hilltops (in short) are:
1) Passing armies would either have to take every hilltop (difficult) or be fired upon from above (not good). This is especially problematic for tanks, which move relatively slowly between the hilltops in J/S.
2) Passing planes or missiles are more easily detected from hilltops and should be detected as far in advance as possible. A missile or plane hits Israel within minutes of its detection from J/S anyway; why would you cut that time into seconds?

So for those of you that seem to encourage a policy by which Israel doesn't give an inch, are you in favor of merely enforcing the status quo? Or do you think 1) the other Arab nations can be compelled to absorb the Palestinians or 2) there is some other mechanism of "dealing" with them?

Personally, I'm in favor of palestinian reunification.

What I meant was merely allowing them to have a state. And they need water access. I think that in this whole thing, the biggest security risk for both sides is going to end up being water.

Actually, according to the US DoD in 1967 (just after the war), the minimum territory that Israel needs to defend itself includes almost all of J/S (except for a small portion in the northeast along the Jordan River). Given that tanks (etc) have only gotten more advanced since then, it would seem that minimal security requirements would at least have remained stable, despite whatever utopian fantasy of Arabs and Israelis living in peace you may hold.

Incidentally, you are correct in stating that the water issue is a very critical one. If, as you state, the hilltops control all of the water in J/S, and if the Israelis require that water (because their population, even if ethnically cleansed into Israel, would remain roughly the same) how would you reconcile the Israeli need for that water (and therefore the territory that supplies it) with the palestinian state without moving the palestinians into Gaza (which would create other water problems)? Given that you see the water issue as a real issue, what would you do? Would you leave the water in control of the palestinians to sell it to the Israelis? Would you do so even given palestinian behavior (i.e. without living in a utopian fantasy land)?

121 Jon wrote:

Further, having recently graduated from college, I can tell you there is a large difference between some of the "Zionists" as I (and I think Bernstein) use the phrase and anyone else.

Do you mind if I ask how recent and from where? Just curious.

I know you bid adieu in 255, but if you happen to come back...

Jon #255,

Personally I think the notion of calling a place simultaneously an "Arab state" and a "Jewish state" in contrary to the principles of democracy (as I said in a post above).

That's a very nice utopian fantasy. Perhaps we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, lions can eat with lambs, and we can beat our tanks into plowshares. But until that happens, I would put forth to you that the Israelis might require a state to defend their interests. Just like the Sahrawis don't have a whole lot of possibility to defend their interests now that their state doesn't exist (de facto), it's hard to argue that Jewish interests would be better served without Israel then with it.

If the Palestinians formed a state, the state could be forced to prevent attacks by its citizens on Israel.

How? Just like Hizb'allah attacks are prevented from the north?

Failing to do so (as I'm sure you believe it would, and you're likely right, whether by will or impotence to stop it) could result in more trouble for the Palestinians than Israel can give them now.

It would only be through will, not impotence. The palestinians, as it currently stands, have more policemen per capita then any other country in the world; if they wanted to, they could sit two policemen on every terrorist and still have enough policemen to do shift-work every eight hours.

As for Oslo, I don't buy that one side can piss away their rights

If you violate a contract, do you expect the other party to be held to it?

both they (and, irrelevant to you, I suppose) the US have been suggesting/asking that the settling be stopped and receiving no response save "we don't negotiate under attack" from the Israelis.

How exactly would you encourage the palestinians to come back to the negotiating table besides penalizing them for not doing so (i.e. settling)?

Yes, the Palestinians got themselves into that situation (or Arafat screwed them into it by inciting violence) but it's not an excuse to continue escalation from the Israeli side, and settling is clearly that.

I'm afraid not. Setlling != escalation. When one side is exploding school buses full of children, escalation is destroying whole villages, massacring those inside, etc. At best, settling is the most mild statement of displeasure that the Israelis can possibly make; it's not even close to on par with escalation which implies that the Israelis are doing more then the palestinians in order to exacerbate the situation.