David Littman has died.

I never heard of David Littman before I started to learn about human rights, and then as it connects to Israel and an international "cooperation" that holds the only Jewish state to a standard of perfection different from any other state. This phenomenon is seen best at the United Nations, and particularly the Human Rights Council. Littman served as representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism in Geneva, where the HRC meets. I first saw him excoriate the HRC in no uncertain terms for hypocrisy in promoting political rather than humanitarian concerns. Here is an illustration:



He spoke out repeatedly and appropriately, and here he explained his recent activities promoting human rights at the HRC:



I learned what an extraordinary life this man lived. That his wife, Gisele, writes under the pen name Bat Ye'or about the status of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands and authored Eurabia. How many that condemn this book have read it?

I learned later that in 1961 he helped rescue of 530 Moroccan-Jewish children in a secret Mossad mission, posing as a tennis-playing, Christian English gentleman living with his wife and baby in Casablanca. The details of "Operation Mural" only came to light when a documentary was made in 1986.



For his service, Littman was conferred the "Hero of Silence" Order by the Israeli government in 2009.

To me, Littman defines what it means to be a liberal Zionist. This liberal is not opposed to the nation state because it is the mechanism for which self-determination and human rights are most optimally obtained by peoples and individuals. This liberal speaks against violations of human rights by using a single 21st Century standard of universality as a point of departure, based on principles of individual liberty and dignity that states and non-state entities must respect, protect and fulfill, free from discrimination. Rights do not include freedom not to be insulted, or protection of ideology, or freedom to destroy the system on which the rights are secured. This liberal believes that the worst violations that involve the most people and suffering deserve the spotlight of action and attention. There are limited resources overall for implement and enhance human rights protection.

Littman knew all this only too well. The world is less because he represents too few, and this post is, among many, a small testament to his accomplishments to better humankind.

I hope you will take the opportunity to learn more about this champion of human rights for all, but especially those most vulnerable with the least voice.

This is "Islamophobia"

You see, it's all in the head, this claim about Muslim hatred of Jews. If it does exist, it's just a few, extremists, which does not include the Muslim Brotherhood, which is moderate and meets with our government officials.

Pro-Israel advocates, Israel, the Jewish people are in fantasy land. There is nothing to be concerned about.

Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi Launches MB Candidate Muhammad Mursi's Campaign: Mursi Will Restore the "United States of the Arabs" with Jerusalem as Its Capital

Indeed, the above is a simply a figment of the imagination or a Zionist deception and existential threat against 1.5 billion adherents of Islam.

So it goes.

A World Divided Between the Antagonistic Right and Left

As of late, there is little desire or inclination to blog about much of anything. Does all the energy I see expended in the blogosphere even matter when it comes to making change? There exists a proliferation of posts, to be sure, that day after day cover the same old things, adding to the white noise. Does it accomplish anything of substance?

A problem in blogging is the need to imagine every insight is unique and indispensable. Nothing could be further from reality. To read, think, reflect and learn is more personally satisfying than trying to knock heads with others that do not care for any views besides their own, mockingly so, based on narrow agendas, paying lip service to toleration of others, yet adopting the fundamental approach of us versus them.

All of which brings me to this post. Peter A. Joseph is chairman of the Israel Policy Forum, a think tank that supports responsible U.S. diplomacy to achieve a sustainable, negotiated two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Joseph wrote an op-ed a couple of days ago that captures some of what I've expressed above. His subject matter was the boundaries dividing American Jewish opinion on Israel, and its policies regarding Palestinians. He says:

In truth, American Jewish advocacy, like Israel’s political realities, is complex and cannot be addressed effectively through sound bites. But that is exactly what voices on the fringes have offered as their efforts have been directed at rallying political bases rather than advancing reasoned policy concepts. Instead of staking out principled, nuanced positions that reflect an understanding of competing narratives, both sides have adopted an oversimplified rhetoric that feeds fierce debate in the American Jewish community and shrinks political space for pragmatic policy.

Ironically, while the American Jewish left is more vocal than ever, it also has become more irrelevant. While correctly promoting the idea that there is not only one way to be pro-Israel, the left has joined with the right to fuel a with-us-or-against-us paradigm that has resulted in the highly charged debate. The left’s vocal and consistent condemnation of the Israeli government, as well as its lack of sensitivity to Israeli public opinion, has significantly undermined its pro-Israel claims. Consequently, it has never been more politically expedient for politicians and community leaders to disassociate from liberal Zionists.

The American Jewish right shares equal blame. It has sought to capitalize on the left’s failings, seeking to turn Israel into a partisan tool that can be wielded against President Obama and undermining bipartisan consensus support for the Jewish state. Faced with a choice, many organizations, community leaders and politicians quite naturally align themselves with the right, lest they risk alienation from a comfort zone of support for Israel. Others are disengaging from Israel advocacy altogether to avoid the seemingly endless debates that often resemble a dog chasing its own tail.

Similar divides extend into political discourse between activists. This helps illustrate why knowledge and durable solutions often are beyond grasp of activists. So long as the divisive mind set predominates, which denies the existence of any other truth besides one's own, the path to obtain a secure environment where humans take precedence over ideologies will be much longer and rockier than might otherwise be experienced.

"Peddling" the Palestinian cause

We have seen and heard too much of this. One occasion is illustrated by the following, courtesy of MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, without whom we would continue to be in greater ignorance as to what is being said in Arabic, so often different from what we are told in English.

MEMRI is called a "tool" of Israel by many who "peddle" the Palestinian cause, but rebuttals to the substance of what is being communicated are rarely, if ever, heard. As if what is being said does not matter in the least. It comes from MEMRI and that is all that counts. This way of looking at things escapes me. 

Now to the story, and a brief comment afterwards. .

Faysal Al-Qassem: A Gazillion Times More Syrians than Palestinians Have Been Killed

Following are excerpts from an interchange between Al-Jazeera TV host Faysal Al-Qassem and Lebanese journalist Salem Zahran, on a program that aired on April 10, 2012 : Faysal Al-Qassem : How do you account for this denial? The Syrian media give you the impression that nothing is happening there. The Syrian people are concerned only with barbeques, and they all hang out in the parks. Today, Syrian TV has run programs on the massacre of Deir Yassin in Palestine, at a time when the Syrian people is being massacred in Idlib, in Deir Al-Zour, in Homs, and in Hama. By God, how can you make a mockery of the people this way? Is this the time to be talking about the massacres in Palestine, when the Syrian people is being massacred in all the towns… Salem Zahran : No, Dr. Faysal Faysal Al-Qassem : How do you respond to this denial? Go ahead. Salem Zahran : First of all, it's beneath your dignity not to talk about Deir Yassin… Faysal Al-Qassem : Just answer the question, don't give me a lesson in morals. I'm asking you a question, so answer it! Salem Zahran : Just a moment Firstly, it's an honor for Syria and its media to deal with the Deir Yassin massacre… Faysal Al-Qassem : What about the massacres of Deir Al-Zour, Hama, and Idlib? Thousands are being massacred on a daily basis. Who are you kidding? Salem Zahran : The Deir Yassin massacre is part of our history and heritage. Palestinian blood is our blood. Faysal Al-Qassem : What about the Deir Al-Zour massacre? Salem Zahran : Don't interrupt me. Faysal Al-Qassem : What about the massacres of Deir Al-Zour and Idlib? People are being salvaged from the rubble, and you direct your camera at Deir Yassin?! Salem Zahran : When you're done, let me know. Faysal Al-Qassem : Go ahead. Salem Zahran : First of all, Palestinian blood is our blood. Faysal Al-Qassem : It's the same old record: "Palestinian blood." What about the Syrian blood? Salem Zahran : You should not disparage our history, our heritage, and our culture. We've lived for Palestine, and we will die for Palestine. Faysal Al-Qassem : And you are also "peddling" the Palestinian cause. Salem Zahran : Don't interrupt me or I won't talk. Faysal Al-Qassem : Is this the time to be talking about Palestine? A gazillion times more Syrians than Palestinians have been killed. Salem Zahran : You make tens of thousands of dollars in Doha, so you don't care about Palestine. But for us, Palestine is the frontier, the land of return, the main cause. All the rest are trivial details… Faysal Al-Qassem : Right, hundreds of thousands dead and homeless are trivial… Salem Zahran : Palestine is the main cause, and the Syrian media should be commended for mentioning Palestine. We will not make Palestine disappear for the sake of anything else. Dr. Faysal, I didn't think you would fall into such errors… Faysal Al-Qassem : Call me a traitor and a collaborator. Anyone who doesn't believe your lies is a collaborator. […] The loaded clip does not run, but can be found here. "Peddling" is standard fare for many Arabs to deflect that Arabs cause more Palestinian people to suffer than Israel does. This type of "concern," exposed by the TV host as a ruse, is too easily promoted with the adoption of the Palestinian narrative as a form of incontrovertible truth. I see the deception in how Palestinian refugees are treated compared to international refugees, particularly by their brethren. Why does collective "right of return" cancel the individual's right not to return, but resettle? I think many Palestinians would choose the path to live anywhere in the Arab world, like any other Arab may, according to my understanding. This would allow them to exercise their rights and decrease those who wish to return to Israel. Many that violate human rights, and others, want to get rid of Israel and Jews, for essentially religious or ideological reasons. Here again "peddling" occurs, to obscure negative intentions, under the guise of self-determination and human dignity, while most Palestinians are denied agency to choose or take responsibility. These situations are not hard to connect when one is able to step away from the singular narrative as the only truth. Stepping away can be difficult, particularly when a one sided consensus predominates a group and creates an echo chamber where ideas are not rigorously tested against each other. Without honest and deliberative discourse, the quality of analysis is average, and leads to poor decision making where democratic Western values ultimately pay the price.

Progressive Zionists and the Chilling of Intellectual Expression

Another excellent post over at Israel Thrives about Progressive Zionists, asking what do they stand for? Where I sadly concur is with the following:

But perhaps the worst disservice that progressive-left Jews do to their fellow Jews is in the stifling of discussion and debate. Because progressive Jews have absorbed much of the Palestinian narrative, they find all sorts of topics verboten.

[...]

They won't discuss the centuries of Jewish dhimmitude under the boot of Islamic imperialism. They won't discuss the recent construction of Palestinian identity, its connection to Soviet Cold War politics, and how this is an Arab people with a Roman name that refers to Greeks. They won't discuss Arab and Palestinian Koranically-based racism as the fundamental source of the conflict. They won't discuss the Palestinian theft and appropriation of Jewish history. They won't discuss "Pallywood." They won't discuss the historical connections between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestinian national movement. They won't discuss the perpetual refusal of the Palestinian-Arabs to accept a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one. They won't discuss the Arab-Palestinian indoctrination of children with Jew hatred. And they won't discuss Human rights violations against women, children, and Gay people in the Muslim Middle East. And they would much rather discuss the virtually non-existent white supremacist threat over the real threat of the rise of radical Islam throughout the Muslim world under the false banner of "Arab Spring."

I have been planning to write about a recent study, The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California, by the California Association of Scholars, that illustrates, among other things, how one sided intolerance results from what is an activist approach, rather than a scholarly approach, to learning about controversial issues.

This helps explain why the narrative of the anti-Israeli proponents and many Progressive Zionists is disproportionately Palestinian to the exclusion of others. The activist desires social "justice" for the oppressed and includes an expectation that disadvantaged groups have the right not to be offended (except for Jews) in the educational and political landscape. It allows for reaction to ordinary insults and disagreeable opinions to be classified as intolerable acts of bigotry.

But it gets worse. According to the report, activist politics, "sharply lowers the quality of academic teaching, analysis, and research," and results in "troubling deficiencies" in student knowledge and achievement, "an inevitable consequence of any substantial influence of radical politics in academia, because its characteristic interests and modes of thought are the very antithesis of those that should prevail in academic life."

The report maintains that colleges are the primary breeding ground in the USA for anti-Western and anti-Zionist values to take hold, as compared to other institutions where a different orientation prevails. Not to mention, when one half of the spectrum of political thought is virtually missing in action, how can the education itself be considered competent?

John Stuart Mill famously said: "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that." Can we really understand the case for one side without thoroughly grasping the case for the other side? Each answers and helps define the other.

Here, the result is that many students are woefully uniformed in terms of issues like the Arab-Israeli conflict, US and Western civilization, and matters of domestic and international affairs. Instead, there is reliance on a singular ideological narrative, full of holes, where true believers attempt to outdo one another to prove bona fides, as those that dare to scrutinize the dogma are stigmatized.

My view is that Progressive-Zionists will have to resolve the competition between the two competing interests. It seems they are so afraid of doing something wrong that they cannot act in furtherance of what is right.

The topic of "Humanitarian Racism"

Over at Israel Thrives, the topic of humanitarian racism is under discussion. It is an important topic for several reasons. Racism should not be tolerated in any form.

Those who loudly proclaim to be "anti-racist" should not practice racism under the guise of acting as humanitarians or proponents of human rights. One need only examine the Durban Conference in September, 2001, and particularly the NGO Forum, to understand. Read about Durban here. Check out the narrative of Tom Lantos here. Look at some photos here. The photos below say it better than anything.

  

  

This from "humanitarians," no less.

As was mentioned in the Israel Thrives post, Manfred Gerstenfeld addresses contemporary humanitarian racism head on. The humanitarian racist considers that the non-white or weak cannot be held responsible for their acts, even if they commit major crimes. Humanitarian racists also deny the existence of racism among people of color. He quotes Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

“I studied social work for a year in the Netherlands. Our teachers taught us to look with different eyes toward the immigrant and the foreigner. They thought racism was a phenomenon that only appears among whites. My family in Somalia, however, educated me as a racist and told me that we Muslims were very superior to the Christian Kenyans. My mother thinks they are half-monkeys.”

Her foundation to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture is here.

The underlying views of humanitarian racists are welcome in mainstream media and prevalent among the intelligentsia, who happen to disproportionately identify as progressive or Left. Regarding Israel, this comes out through the almost complete acceptance of the Palestinian narrative and its many falsehoods, its continuous promotion that Palestinians are purely victims and not also perpetrators of criminal acts. By adopting such a skewed and intellectually crude perception of reality, humanitarian racists have become supporters, allies and enablers of the worst Palestinian behavior.

Despite what else one may be, to consider Palestinians responsible for their criminal acts and aggression, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, like any human being should similarly be responsible, is not racist at all, humanitarian or otherwise. Except if one trends into Orwellian territory that "humanitarian" racists generally occupy.

GOP Hate Causes American Problems, While Europe is So Cool

I read a diary post this morning, written by an American who lives in Germany, which purports that life across the European continent is similar for all, and certainly better than in the USA, a place from which he "survived" to become an expat. Over time, through numerous posts, this diarist seems duty bound to argue from his German perch that Europe is somehow a better place, and America is to be admonished because of its problems.

Today, we are told, Republicans cause the problems. They are a scourge and hate Progressives more than they love America, so much that they want to bring us the scenario of "The Hunger Games," a story of a post-apocalyptic world controlled by a highly advanced metropolis that holds absolute power, where children are selected by lottery to compete in a televised battle in which only one person can survive.

I do not support Republicans in most of what they say, but do black and white approaches that demonize generally help to resolve issues? Or do they help reinforce preconceived notions and take us farther away?

When some say the GOP hates Progressives more than they love America, I ask myself if they have considered how much Progressives hate the GOP? More than they love America? To read the prevailing Progressive narrative, one would think only the GOP engages in hate and only Progressives love America. 

Surely, America is a mess, but to me the truth is that both of the political parties have contributed, and we kid ourselves to believe it is just the other side.

I was also interested to see how easily a work of fiction, made for profit and entertainment, can be used to paint, in black and white, a complicated world, showing how subject people are to manipulation. Many who think they know better are no less immune from being indoctrinated by simple narratives that push their buttons.

As to the substance of the diary, that America is not fair and needs to improve, there are few among the readers unaware that other industrialized nations provide broader health coverage than in the USA. Or that average and especially poor Americans are under the gun economically. Yet there has been little concern for the vulnerable, in truth, and much more focus on the IPhone than on poverty, by Democrats and Republicans alike. Why pretend otherwise, as if one side has done so great and it's the fault of everyone else?

Yes, America has many problems that rise from the pull between liberty and equality. But the perception from a relatively secure, wealthy environment is perhaps skewed? So far as I know, the European economic picture is in its own shambles, particularly in places removed from the wealthier regions. Europe is not just Germany, but Belarus, Spain, Georgia, Kosovo and Greece, too. Just under the surface, across the continent are racial, ethnic, religious and political tensions that appear far more threatening than what exists in the USA. There is a growing democracy deficit occasioned by the EU, and a climate of human rights and tolerance where freedom of expression has become a criminal activity. 

Europe does some things fine. Good for Europe. But does that really have to do with American inequities? I would rather fix what is wrong here, absent demonization that makes progress virtually impossible, than be like Europe as it presently exists, or to imply that it is so much better because an expat in Germany has health care coverage. Europe has problems galore and and is in no less trouble than the USA, and perhaps much more so than many critics surmise.

What is the matter with Western pride?

At FrontPageMagazine is an article entitled, Western Survival Depends on Western Pride, by David J. Rusin.

Rusin implores that Westerners take care to protect and promote our core values. Not only have they improved humanity by their theory and practice, but they serve as our best weapon to defend ourselves and help the liberals and democrats living under illiberal systems.

It is absurd, yet necessary, to note that reading or citing FrontPage does NOT make one a (fill in blank). Actually, diverse sources help in the liberal search to understand the issues. Far too many ideologues from both sides adopt an echo chamber approach that requires conformity and examines sources as more determinative than the substance offered. I think that such an approach helps explain why there is so much demonization and corresponding inability both to hear what others actually say or to acknowledge one's own errors.

Rusin says:

Warraq declares that if their system is to endure, Westerners must acknowledge that “the great ideas of the West — rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy — are superior to any others devised by humankind.” Likewise, it is critical to compare Western ideals to those of the Islamists, which are antithetical to liberty and increasingly threaten it.

Many Progressives these days fail to adequately see that the very Western system they oppose, through Israel and the USA, is the one that in reality affords them the opportunities and freedoms that are limited or nonexistent elsewhere. What do they offer as a replacement to the Western model? A dream? Imagine their situations if they were in Egypt, Iran, China, if they opposed the state or system similarly.

Daniel Greenfield put the matter into perspective in the context of his article discussing the crisis of Jewish Leftists, when he said:

When Peter Beinart praises the Muslim Brotherhood as non-violent, does he imagine that when Qaradawi praises Hitler for doing Allah’s work and calls for Jewish genocide that the Brotherhood cleric means every Jew but Beinart?

I think this applies to these Progressives by analogy. When it's all said and done, they are also seen as the enemy by those who wish to impose their ideology over us all. Yet, they assert that to stand for Western values, under attack, is somehow to hate, when it is actually confronting a hatred and intolerance that no one should have to endure in a peaceful world that cares for human dignity.

Abuse and Intolerance practiced by a "Progressive" Blogger

I usually refrain from things like this, but today I decided it was better to address what I see as a matter of intolerance and hypocrisy.

Sometimes I like to comment at a site called "The Progressive Zionist." (TPZ) One would imagine, with that moniker, it is a place where tolerance and respect for different opinions would prevail. After all, that is part of what "progressive" means to me.

Often, when I comment there, I am treated with great disrespect, told that I hate ALL Muslims, or that I am a Republican and should just admit it. My comments have been censored. Ironically, the last time I was called the a Republican I had just made a comment that was to the ideological left of the position being proffered. No matter. Although I NEVER use profanity or initiate gratuitous and personal insults or attacks on integrity, I cannot report the same in return.

Many at TPZ, in my experience, love to invoke name calling as a means of discourse, even as they pretend to occupy the high, honest, intelligent road. Although the site says it is "A haven for those seeking intelligent conversation on Zionism, Culture, Politics and Life" it is often just the opposite. Demonization is frequent. Censorship  Others are called deranged, dishonest. Take, for example, this comment directed at me and a blog where I contribute, "Israel Thrives," from about 10 days ago, by a fellow named livosh1:

Wow, volley. Just came to this now. I, for one, am very glad to have seen you give a dishonest right-wing troll all the respect he deserves. And count me in as one who favors taking whatever action is necessary to prevent hateful, lying, Republican bigots from vomiting all over your blog. As you said, they have their own hate site where they spew their vitriol; you should feel no obligation to tolerate such dishonesty and hatred here.

I can only speak for myself, but this seems like a hate filled comment, much more so than anything I write. It illustrates what I have noted above.

Today, a diary was written at TPZ about Gilad Atzmon, infamous to many for his antisemitic, anti-Zionist beliefs and writings. Yet to some anti-Israel Palestinians, like Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad, Omar Barghouti, and a host of prominent professors and activists, Atzmon is now considered to agree with the ideology of Zionism and Israel.

The diary I refer to is here. It was penned by a contributor named fizziks. He used this post by Elder of Ziyon as his source.

Elder of Ziyon's site is one of the best. The Elder exposes the anti-Israel mentality that predominates among far too many. He looks at Arab news media, much like MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch. He is also critical of many on the Left that comprise or enable the anti-Israel movement. He actually admires Robert Spencer and others that speak out against Jihad and Jew hatred. Comments at his site can be vicious, especially toward Progressives, and I have objected to some on occasion, as a Liberal. Fizziks, however, can source The Elder and receive glowing comments.

Of course, I know that fizziks is not a Muslim hater or Republican, even as he relies on The Elder. In jest, I "warned" fizziks in a comment that doing might risk him being called a hatemonger and Republican, while also addressing the content concerning Atzmon. I wanted to point out a clear example of a practice where TPZ treats some people differently than others, for basically offering the same kind of content. Such disparate conduct in other venues would be classified as discrimination.

Never one to pass up an opportunity, in steps the person of Volleyboy1, the main administrator of TPZ. What follows is his response to me, and my replies. I am sorry that my first comment has gone to the hereafter, censored by him, but I suggest that one can read what follows and come to his/her own conclusion as to what transpired.

volleyboy1 Mar 14, 2012 11:59 AM

Note to oldschool: You're post was delected because you are not welcome to come in here and simply start talking crap about what I may or may not think about this.

Unless you have something to say about the issue - please refrain from posting here. This is not high school and if your previous post is going to be how you want to do things then you are not welcome to post here.

Oh and if you come back with another "BUT I'M BIENG CENSORSED... " comment - that too will be deleted. There are other sites on the web in which to trash me or other Center / Center Left Zionists - but you sure as shit are not going to do it here.

oldschooltwentysix Mar 14, 2012 01:02 PM

I trashed no one, but merely pointed out the disparate treatment, that a contributor here can approvingly use a source that many here would be deem a hate site based on the content, while others who offer the same content are labeled haters.

I did speak to the issue as well, by offering more of what The Elder wrote and a remark about Atzmon.

If you want to practice discrimination, by treating like circumstances differently, you have that power, but I think you abuse it.

Perhaps if you did not take EVERYTHING so personal so as to make every grain of sand into a mountain, there would be more diversity and ability to discuss things. But it seems you only approve that which pleases or adores you.

You may not see yourself as a censor, but that is exactly what you are doing here, and I fail to see a good reason why. What is the problem with letting me make a point and adding to the conversation, which I did with a good-natured comment that seems to have struck a nerve by showing the disparity one encounters at your site. Or is it now above any reproach?

Why are you so oversensitive that you cannot see that my mild poking at people here that rush to label me and others was amply illustrated through the diary? After all, I am not the one that labels. Or must I now contribute anonymously to avoid the discriminatory treatment?

oldschooltwentysix Mar 14, 2012 01:14 PM

One more thing. Your first sentence really takes the cake. You were not the diarist and my now censored comment in no way at all simply started talking crap about what YOU may or may not think about this.

Are you REALLY of the view that YOU, as compared to issues presented, are so important to me? I suggest you look at what you wrote and how it sounds.

The irony that the diary created has played out to a tee.

If you had not made such a big deal about it, my comment would have come and passed. It is just my view, after all. But the fact that you censored what was a completely appropriate comment and opinion not only deprives others the chance to consider the opinion, but gives it a greater prominence because you seem to fear the message itself. And that says something important about tolerance and the respect for real discourse.

In an abusive act of censorship, these comments were scrubbed from the site, but before that happened, a note appeared that the last one above was removed by the moderator. In response, I wrote: 

oldschooltwentysix Mar 14, 2012 01:30 PM

It's too bad that I did not save the original comment. You leave the impression that it was improper and deserved to be censored, and tarnish me as a consequence. That is wrong, but no one will ever know. That is why you abuse your power. Yet you call this progressive? I will henceforth make copies of my comments.

The most surreal part is that you not only make it seem as if I wrote something directly to you, which is not at all the case, but that you make yourself so important. Honestly, I think you are the one with the obsession, so much so that you cannot tolerate disagreement from me, it seems, in any fashion, which says a lot about the values you instill at your site.

Carry on!!

Predictably, this was then scrubbed.

Interestingly, shortly after my remarks, I noticed the sourcing to Elder of Ziyon also vanished! It was replaced by one to the Electronic Intifada (probably obtained from The Elder). The title of the diary was also changed, from "Pal. Arab" to "Anti-Israel" activists, even though the letter was sent by, according the the new source, "Palestinian writers and activists," and described by The Elder as rabid Israel-haters whose "single-minded aim is to take away the Jewish right of self-determination."

I wonder if fizziks make these changes? Or is this just another example of a person who takes liberty to change the editorial content of a writer?

Yes, I suppose to some this is boring stuff. However, it shows that some who profess to stand for progressive values and open discussion will not hesitate to quash the slightest criticism. It serves as an example of the intolerance and abuse that can be found inside the "Progressive" world, especially from those that accuse the same negative conduct by others. It seems overly dogmatic and authoritarian to me, and I therefore felt it was worthwhile to show this episode in the light of day.

Jewish right to State of Israel NOT recognized under International Law

So says Boston University Law Professor Susan M. Akram at the One-State Conference held at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University last weekend.

There is no legal basis for a Jewish state, let alone the right of the Jewish nation to self-determination.

Take a listen:



Here are the words in black and white:

Israel’s claim of a state, on the basis of exclusive and discriminatory rights to Jews [sic], has never been juridically recognized. In other words, the concept of the Jewish people as a national entity with extraterritorial claims has never been recognized under international law. 

But Professor, Israel's claim of a state is not exclusionary or discriminatory, but the opposite.

Court recognition is not necessary under international law. Sovereignty is what matters, either a state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls or when when it is recognized as such by other states in a legal sense. Israel meets both international tests, among other indications. It has been recognized by the vast majority of states, the UN, the International Court of Justice, and scores of other intergovernmental and international organizations. 

Recognition is not a matter for the court to determine anyway. It is not "justiciable," meaning capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court of justice.

As for the recognition under international law of the Jewish people "as a national entity with extraterritorial claims" the Professor could not be more wrong.

The Jewish people have legal rights going back to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922. It took responsibility placing Palestine "under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home." It recognized "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Not to mention the findings of the Peel Commission of 1936 and UN Resolution 181 in 1947 that both recommended a Partition that would include a Jewish state. 

I suspect that Professor Akram would say that the 2004 advisory opinion of the ICJ in Wall Case was terrific. If so, even though I dispute its findings, I would suggest that it recognizes Israel is sovereign and that Jews have self-determination.

There are excellent resources that fully discredit Professor Akram. In 2011, several world-renowned experts joined to present an authoritative exposition of Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy, published jointly by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress. It explains clearly why the Jewish people deserve a state of their own and refutes all the major claims against Israel’s rights.

One must therefore ask why Professor Akram would promote what is completely wrong and misleading?

Which gets to the Conference itself. Harvard really dropped the ball. I agree with Harvard Hillel president Sara Kantor that:

Harvard’s name has a certain power and it seemed to be presented as a Harvard one-state conference. It lends a certain legitimacy that this conference didn’t necessarily have.

This was not a "Harvard" conference at all, but one organized by anti-Israel students and supporters, created to:

Educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization.

The Conference was sponsored by several student groups - namely, Justice for Palestine (HLS), the Palestine Caucus (HKS), the Arab Caucus (HKS), the Progressive Caucus (HKS), and the Association for Justice in the Middle East (GSAS).

Shmuel Rosner, senior political editor for The Jewish Journal said in the International Herald Tribune:

The event was less an academic forum than an activists’ party ... The program included just one speaker with first-hand familiarity with the peace negotiations.

The one speaker referred to was Diana Buttu, former legal advisor to the PLO and also an organizer of the event. Buttu is vehemently anti-Israel, and is not above giving false information in pursuit of the cause. (See video here and here).

As such, the reader may decide for him or her self about the Conference and Harvard's role. A CAMERA article offers more information about the main participants and responsibility of the university.

I would ask many of those who proudly call themselves Progressives AND Zionists, why is the Progressive Caucus part of this scene, so eager to hear and promote the likes of Ms. Buttu and other speakers at the Conference like Ilan Pappe and Stephen Walt, all avowed anti-Zionists? Where is the opposition to these people and what they stand for and are trying to do?

And to go further, is all this REALLY so small a part of the Democratic Party that all Democrats should see it as the work of a fringe? If so, how can one explain the Gaza 54, all Democrats, and the 91 Democrats that did not sign the Hoyer-Cantor letter? 

It is not as if the matter is pervasive, but is it prudent or wise to look away or treat as pariahs and deranged the people that identify what is actually taking place, such as what is shown above?