Guy DeWhitney on Government by Heretics Crusaders

My ideal of government:
Un-self-consciously, individual humans that are raised to feel a profound duty to protect all aspects of seldom/individuality that neither “picks someone’s pocket nor breaks someone’s leg” and a profound respect for the notion that we are all one and what goes around not only comes around, it DIRECTLY affects us; i.e. “successful” assholery damages a psyche’s ability to make ‘good’ choices in the future.Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

UC Irvine Israel Hate Week; Hamas Elephant sits on Prof. Mark Levine


This week UC Irvine is hosting a Liberation of Palestine week in place of the usual Israel Apartheid Week; this apparently is how the MSU shows that it is trying to reach out to Jewish students there in the wake of their contretemps – i.e. convictions for violating other folks’ civil rights – involving the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren.

It gets harder and harder for the Hamas-lovers to keep their “narrative” depicting Israel  as colonizing oppressors of the peace-loving indigenes of all faiths from falling to pieces. They call it a narrative, I call it telling a story; call me naïve but, I think that people’s lives should depend on facts, not self-serving fantasies.

This year UC Irvine prof. Mark Levine has put in his two drachma’s and seems a bit put off that he is not as hated by his enemies as he seems to wish he were; he might as well be a jilted beau begging David Horowitz to notice him again.

“Dear David,
It’s been too long…”

since my name was mentioned on your site; got to keep those search engines primed so I can stay above the mainstream radar. (Emphasis added by me)

“… I was a little surprised that I was not part of your just published list of dangerous, Jew- (self-) hating, Nazi-loving supporters of Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions against Israel. Maybe I’m not good – sorry, evil – enough to have made the A-list of Israel-bashers featured in your April 24 New York Times ad . But not even your full list, with 1,004 professors, journalists, artists, activists and organisations(sp)? Was there really no room for me, one of your original 101 most dangerous professors?”

Wow, this reads to me like Mark is proud of being everything listed above! He certainly shows little sign of desiring to clear up any “misconceptions” that David Horowitz, or anyone else, might have about him in these regards.

“Indeed, the new list, like the old one, is much longer than the sample you’ve presented. You’ve only scratched the surface; you should hire more interns. Let me help you a bit; you can add me now.
While adding my name, …”

Mark, Mark, maybe you should just take out an ad on if you need the exposure that much, this is getting embarrassing for us all.

“…perhaps you might consider the implications of so many people from all walks of life joining the BDS movement: they have decided that decades of illegal Israeli occupation, massive settlement construction, the destruction and theft of much of the natural resources of the West Bank and Gaza – from olive trees to precious water resources – and the systematic detention, torture and murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians, have done grave harm to Palestinian society.”

Holy hyperbolic horse-hockey Virginia, that sentence has has more virtue as fertilizer than all the guano in Africa; let’s take it apart a piece at a time.

Decided? More like emotionally bullied with lies and distortions long enough to sign a petition in more cases than not.

“…decades of illegal Israeli occupation,…”, how about decades of relentless lies and the miss-labeling of Gaza and the West Bank as “occupied” territories when in all legal reality they are disputed territories, which label carries a whole different set of implications from that of territories that deserves the term occupied (like northern Cyprus).

As to the charge of systematically murdering Palestinians; yeah, right!

“  These crimes against the Palestinians involve such a wide spectrum of Israeli society and government that calling for the boycott of Israeli institutions, divestment from the Israeli economy and sanctions against the government is both a necessary and moral response to this situation.”

“You argued in the New York Times ad that supporting BDS is akin to supporting the Nazi attacks on Jews in the years leading up to the Holocaust. You have labelled anyone who accuses Israel of murdering Palestinians – which is actually a statement of fact, not an accusation – a terrorist or supporter of terrorism. This is, of course, nonsense.”

What is nonsense is the big lie that it is possible, let alone desirable to “boycott Israel”!

“Trying to stop a brutal occupation – that the entire world outside of Israel and the United States considers illegal – by using non-violent methods that have been adopted by activists around the world, against systematic human rights abusers, has nothing to do with supporting terrorism. Rather, it is one of the most effective methods available to Palestinian and global civil society to stop ongoing Israeli state terrorism.”

Really? Okay fine. If that really is the case then please Mark, what sage advice do you have regarding effective tactics to be used against the the Fatah and Hamas leaderships who are so openly guilty of – how did you put it – systematic human rights abuse and ongoing pseudo-state terrorism directed at Israelis and Palestinians alike?

“And make no mistake, Israel’s actions at all levels of the occupation constitute state terrorism on a grand scale. That other countries equal or surpass Israel’s oppressive policies does nothing to lessen the shamefulness and utter immorality of its actions during the past 45 years.”

You are quite right, the excesses of one country do not excuse the lesser crimes of another; but, you my friend do need to feel shame given that you willingly fail to mention those other governments at least as often as you do your boogeyman Israel!

“Realities of the occupation
Really, David. Rather than fabricating accusations against individuals and gatherings (as a group of more than 100 professors who responded to your ad demonstrate in their rebuttal) and more broadly making scurrilous accusations of blood libel against critics of Israel, who, in fact, include increasing numbers of Israeli and diaspora Jews among them – I invite you to think seriously about the costs of decades of Israeli occupation, both on Palestinians and on Israelis. You might still not consider BDS the best method to combat the occupation, but I’m confident that once you take the time to understand the realities of life under occupation for millions of Palestinians, you will join me in the struggle for justice, peace and human rights in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

I will help you understand the realities that Palestinian society faces … an almost 50-year occupation, an utterly hypocritical set of Western policies towards them and … corrupt, incompetent and often brutal ‘self-government’.

Oh, sorry Mark, I thought for a moment you were referring to the Palestinian leadership there at the end; I forgot that Leftist racism allows the “oppressed races” little self-direction or admits that anyone non-Western can possibly set their own course into the future; it must have been Jews that planned all those Hamas and PA TV shows for kids that teach them to hate Jews and celebrate suicide bombers!

This next bit is the funniest, most disingenuous offer I have seen in months!

“Perhaps the problem is that you really have no idea what life is like for Palestinians. You might recall that some years ago when we debated each other on some Fox interview programme, I invited you to accompany me to Israel and the occupied territories and to live as a Palestinian lives for several weeks. If you did, you might better understand what it feels to be Palestinian and experience the brutalities, humiliation, indignities, threats, stresses and often misery of life under occupation or as a multi-generation refugee. That offer still stands.
In fact, I’m reiterating it now: Come to Palestine with me, let’s bring a cameraperson and spend ten days or two weeks in the West Bank and Gaza, living with Palestinians in their villages near land-hungry Israeli settlements, surrounded by the separation wall, attempting to farm their land or graze their flocks against constant settler attacks and Israeli-imposed closures – or just trying to live a decent, dignified life.

I will introduce you to Palestinian activists, academics, artists and journalists, as well as their Israeli colleagues who – if you’re willing to listen – will help you understand the realities that Palestinian society faces against the combined onslaught of an almost 50-year occupation, an utterly hypocritical set of Western policies towards them and two decades of corrupt, incompetent and often brutal “self-government” at the hands of the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas.”

Descending to the vernacular; Rolling. On. Floor. Laughing. Out. Loud.!!!

Leftist activists in the West Bank and Gaza are hard put to protect even their own people from the peace-loving locals! But, they are good at protecting the locals from those nasty Western rapist-enticers!

Well Virginia, read the rest… I have to run on down to Irvine; maybe Mark and I can open a can of Coke and work things out.

Barack Obama vs. International Law

From Muslim World Today
By Caroline Glick
US President Barack Obama consistently couches his demand that Israel prohibit Jewish people from constructing or expanding our homes and communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in legal-sounding language.
Obama has called settlements “illegitimate.” And he has said that Israel “has obligations under the road map,” while referring disparagingly to “settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell have repeatedly uttered similar statements.

By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel’s capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw. After all, if building homes for Jews is a crime, and Israel is not prohibiting Jews from building homes, then Israel is at best guilty of enabling a crime to take place, and at worst, it is a criminal state.

It makes good political sense for the Obama administration to make its case against Israel in this fashion. According to a survey of US public opinion published in early 2006 by the Boston Review, whereas only 7 percent of Democrats support going to war to spread democracy – versus 53% of Republicans; 71% of Democrats – versus 36% of Republicans – support going to war to help the United Nations “uphold international law.” What this poll shows is that for Obama supporters, the idea that Israel should be treated poorly because it is in breach of international law resonates deeply.

The problem with the Obama administration’s characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as “illegal.”

Then, too, since the road map was approved as a mere cabinet decision – as opposed to an international agreement – the Netanyahu government has no legal obligation to actively advance it. Indeed, if it wishes, it can abrogate Israel’s acceptance of the document at any time simply by calling for another vote.

More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration’s perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem.

Like the US, Israel is a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which among other things prohibits all forms of discrimination against people on the basis of religion and nationality.

Consequently, Israel is barred from discriminating specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. As a binding treaty, this convention takes precedence over the nonbinding road map. Indeed, given the road map’s prejudicial position on Jewish building it can be reasonably argued that the road map itself calls for a breach of international law.

Finally, there is always the claim made by Israel’s critics that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal by dint of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. That convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its population to occupied territory. Legal authorities have long disputed whether this convention is applicable to Judea and Samaria, but even if it is applicable, according to Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School, it “only proscribes state actions.”

Bell explains, “The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live.”

Whereas upon examination it is clear that the Obama administration is wrong in insinuating that Israel is in breach of its international legal commitments through its refusal to bar Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the Obama administration’s own policy toward the Palestinians places it in clear breach of both binding international law and domestic US law.

On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council passed binding Resolution 1373. Resolution 1373, which was initiated by the US government, and was passed by authority of Chapter VII, committed all UN member states to “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts.” Resolution 1373 further required UN member states to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven” to those that do.

In 1995, the US State Department acknowledged that Hamas fits the legal definition of a terrorist organization. Today, due to its policies toward Hamas, the Obama administration is in breach of both Resolution 1373 – that is, of international law – and of US domestic law barring the provision of support and financing to foreign terrorist organizations.

According to an internal State Department document cited Wednesday by the Atlas Shrugs Web site, the US has already transferred or is in the process of allocating $300 million dollars to Gaza through USAID and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Since Hamas controls “humanitarian” organizations in Gaza, and Hamas has openly and repeatedly stolen “humanitarian aid,” there is little doubt the transfer of funds to Gaza constitutes indirect assistance to Hamas and is therefore prohibited by Resolution 1373 as well as by US statute.

The Obama administration is further in breach of international and domestic US law due to its attempts to coerce Israel into opening international passages between Israel and Gaza to enable trade and commerce with Hamas-controlled Gaza and to end or curtail travel restrictions for people between Gaza and Israel.

Resolution 1373 stipulates that all states must “prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls.” Given the fact that the Gaza side of the border is controlled by a terrorist organization, any significant relaxation of Israeli border controls puts Israel at risk of facilitating the movement of terrorists and permitting direct and indirect support to terrorists.

So too, Resolution 1373 requires all states to “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice.”

Yet rather than calling on Israel to arrest all persons working with Hamas and operating in its territory, the US itself pledged $900m. to rebuilding Gaza. Moreover, it is demanding that Israel allow the importation of dual use materials such as cement into Gaza which will enable Hamas to rebuild its infrastructures that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. It is also attempting to coerce Israel into transferring cash to Hamas-controlled banks in Gaza.

Then, too, as Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, US-supported Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad recently acknowledged that the US-financed PA continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists.

Multiple news reports in recent days have indicated that the Obama administration is working to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government that will include Hamas. US efforts to legitimize the incorporation of a terrorist group in a Palestinian government are a severe violation of US and international law. This is the case since it would clearly involve aiding a designated terrorist organization and helping to provide it with a safe haven.

Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to which the Obama administration is providing assistance – again, in apparent breach of international and US law. The administration is also aiding Hizbullah. Ahead of his June 4 address in Cairo, Obama met with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. He also invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be present at his speech at Cairo University.

Shortly before the White House meeting, Egyptian legal authorities alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood provided material support to Hizbullah terrorists in Egypt. These Hizbullah operatives – and their Muslim Brotherhood partners – were allegedly engaged in a plot to commit massive terrorist attacks in Egypt whose goal was the illegal overthrow of the government. That is, the Muslim Brotherhood was allegedly involved in a terrorist conspiracy led by Hizbullah – a designated foreign terrorist organization. Furthermore, the plot was apparently hatched by Iran – which the US State Department has designated as state sponsor of terrorism.

By meeting with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood suspected of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect assistance to Hizbullah – again in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.

Then there is the US’s direct assistance to the Lebanese military. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Lebanese military provided direct assistance to Hizbullah operatives in carrying out their illegal war against Israel. Since then, expanding Hizbullah influence over the Lebanese military has been copiously documented. Consequently, by providing direct US military assistance – including weapons – to the Lebanese military, the US government is arguably in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.

Going back for a moment to the Palestinians, Hamas of course is not the only terrorist organization that is materially assisted by the Obama administration’s policies. As Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post last month, the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian computer center named for arch Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel’s coastal highway in which 37 civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were murdered.

As Marcus and Crook note, the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to the Palestinians from being used “for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of terrorism.”

Obama, the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law. And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand, and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other, it is clear that Obama’s respect for international law is mere rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand an end to his administration’s contempt for the US’s actual – rather than imaginary – legal obligations.

Wither Jerusalem? From Frontpage Mag

Whither Jerusalem?
By: Richard L. Cravatts | Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The stridency of the Obama administration’s attitude about Israeli settlements in the West Bank has stunned some observers, not the least of whom is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. … What is stunning about this latest U.S. policy is that the project in question is in Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, in an Eastern Jerusalem neighborhood that, if the Palestinians have their way, ostensibly will be the capital of their putative state; more disturbing is the fact that U.S. diplomats have now decreed that Israeli construction in Jerusalem itself constitutes the forbidden settlement activity.

Speaking to the Jerusalem Post in July, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was clear that the U.S. considers building projects in East Jerusalem to be in violation of the settlement “freeze” that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have been calling for; Kelly said very pointedly that “We’re talking about all settlement activity, yes, in the area across the line,” meaning that, henceforth, any territory beyond the 1949 Green Line is to be off limits to Jews. Mr. Netanyahu did not hesitate to immediately reject the U.S.’s suggestion to facilitate the redivision of the Jewish state’s sacred capital, tersely but directly asserting that Israel “cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem.”
In characterizing East Jerusalem—or any part of Jerusalem, for that matter—as territory that Israel “occupies” but over which it enjoys no sovereignty, the Obama administration is misreading, once again, the content and purpose of 1967’s U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 that suggested an Israeli withdrawal “from territories” it acquired in the Six Day War. Critics of Israeli policy who either willfully misread or deliberately obscure the resolution’s purpose say that the Jewish State is in violation of 242 by continuing to occupy the West Bank and Jerusalem, including what is mistakenly now referred to as “Arab” East Jerusalem. But the drafters of Resolution 242 were very precise in creating the statute’s language, and never considered Jerusalem to have been “occupied” by Israel after the Six Day War. Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, one of the resolution’s authors, made this very clear when he wrote some years later that “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate . . . At no time in [my] many speeches [before the UN] did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.”

Along with their unwavering and various demands, including a “right of return” of all refugees and sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the Palestinians now insist that Jerusalem must be divided to give them a capital in its eastern portion as the location of their new state. But these have always been points for future negotiations, at least before the State Department gave public expression to its new view that East Jerusalem—a patchwork community where some 200,000 Jews and 270,000 Arabs currently live―has already been assumed to be the Palestinian capital, and that Jews should no longer build or live there. That view is troubling, and not just because of the settlement issue, Israeli security concerns, and the fate of the Shepherd Hotel project; it is troubling because it reveals a pattern in which Arabs endow Jerusalem with intense significance to serve purposes of political expediency. In fact, observed scholar of Islam and Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes, “An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it.” When Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank and purged Jerusalem of its Jews from 1949 to 1967, for example, Jerusalem’s stature declined. But Israel’s recapture of the territory in 1967 changed the political landscape, including an Arab desire for Jerusalem, suggesting to Dr. Pipes that “the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.”

Ever since the Camp David meetings in 2000 when Ehud Barak opened the door to a divided Jerusalem in his negotiations with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians have been relentless in creating a false impression of how important Jerusalem is to them, while, at the same time, they have de-Judaized Jerusalem and tried to obscure the Jewish relationship with and continuing presence in the holy city, something Middle East scholar Martin Kramer has called their desire to effect “a reversal of history.”

Writing in al-Hayat al-Jadida, in March of 2009, for instance, Dr. Tayseer Al-Tamimi, PA Chief Justice of religious court and Chairman of Supreme Council of Islamic Law, absurdly claimed that “Jerusalem is the religious, political and spiritual capital of Palestine,” meaning a Palestinian Palestine, and that “the Jews have no rights to it.” But the true danger of the Palestinian thinking about Jerusalem—and, indeed, about all of the Palestine that they covet, including Israel itself—was crystallized in Yasser Arafat’s own view that he expressed in a July 2000 edition of al-Hayat al-Jadida. “I will not agree to any sovereign presence in Jerusalem,” he wrote, referring to the thorny issue of who, Israel or the Palestinians, would have sovereignty of the Holy Basin, “neither in the Armenian quarter, nor in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, neither in Via De La Rosa, nor in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They can occupy us by force, because we are weaker now, but in two years, ten years, or one hundred years, there will be someone who will liberate Jerusalem [from them].”

“Liberating” Jerusalem, of course, does not mean transforming it into a pluralistic, open city where members of three major faiths can live freely and practice their religions openly. Liberating Jerusalem for the Palestinians would be more in keeping with the type of liberation that Transjordan’s Arab League effected when they burned and looted the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem in 1948, expelled and killed its hapless Jewish population, destroyed some 58 synagogues, many hundreds of years old, unearthed gravestones from the history-laden Jewish cemetery on the Mount Olives and used them for latrine pavers, and barred any Jew from praying at the Western Wall or entering the Temple Mount. That same predilection to destroy religious property was on display again shortly after Camp David when a crazed Palestinian mob took sledgehammers to Joseph’s Tomb, a Jewish holy site, and completely obliterated it as Palestinian policemen stood idly by and watched.

But false irredentist claims, Islamic supremacism which compels Jews and Christians to live in dhimmitude under Muslim control, and an evident cultural and theological disregard for other faiths— while troubling in the battle over sovereignty in Jerusalem—are not, according to Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, the most dangerous aspects of a diplomatic capitulation which would allow the Palestinians to claim a shared Jerusalem. … “In the world of apocalyptic speculation, Jerusalem has many other associations—it is the place where the messianic Mahdi [the redeemer of Islam] is to establish his capital. For that reason, some argue that it also should become the seat of the new caliphate that most Islamic groups—from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda—seek to establish.”

When Arafat gave expression to the eventual “liberation” of Jerusalem as a sacred and unending ambition for the Palestinian cause, he defined it as a recapture of what had been, and should be, in his view, Muslim land, just as the eventual extirpation of Israel and the reclamation of all of Palestine would accomplish. The establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem is the first important step in the long-term strategy to rid the Levant of Jews and reestablish the House of Islam in Palestine. “Jerusalem’s recapture is seen by some as one of the signs that ‘the Hour’ and the end of times are about to occur,” Gold suggested. “And most importantly, because of these associations, it is the launching pad for a new global jihad powered by the conviction that this time the war will unfold according to a pre-planned religious script, and hence must succeed.”

So far from creating a political situation in which both parties—Israelis and the Palestinians—feel they have sought and received equal benefits, such negotiations and final agreements would have precisely the opposite effect: destabilizing the region and creating, not the oft-hoped for Israel and Palestine “living side by side in peace,” but a incendiary cauldron about to explode into an annihilatory, jihadist rage. Those in the West who are urging Israel “to redivide Jerusalem by relinquishing its holy sites,” Dore cautioned, “may well believe that they are lowering the flames of radical Islamic rage, but in fact they will only be turning up those flames to heights that have not been seen before.” If the State Department and other Western diplomats are intent on mollifying the Arab street by pressuring Israel to divide Jerusalem as a peace offering to the Palestinians, it may well be setting into motion the exact opposite result: …

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, director of Boston University’s Program in Book and Magazine Publishing at the Center for Professional Education, writes frequently on higher education, politics, culture, law, marketing, and housing.

Read it all

Fascism One, Freedom Zero in Northern Cal

Imagine it’s 1940, and picture Adolf Hitler speaking at a US university, receiving a polite reception, while Winston Churchill is barred from speaking because his safety cannot be guaranteed.

It’s unthinkable, yet the very same pro-fascist dynamic is a reality in 21st Century America.

Protestors at Berkeley, the campus once synonymous with the term “free speech,” forced the cancellation of Netanyahu’s speech there, as well as two subsequent speeches, in November 2000. The Jewish Bulletin of Northern California reported:

Hundreds of protesters shouting “Support the Palestinians, choose a side” and “No free speech for war criminals” blocked the gate leading to the Berkeley Community Theatre Tuesday evening, forcing the cancellation of a scheduled speech by former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Waving banners reading “Zionism=Nazism” and “End U.S. aid to Israel,” the crowd was estimated at more than 500 by the Berkeley Police Department and at 200 to 250 by observers…

The vitriol that greeted Netanyahu at Berkeley only worsened in the ensuing years. Anneli Rufus of the East Bay Express recalled that in 2001:

“…Students for Justice in Palestine had become large enough to stage a high-profile sit-in at UC’s Wheeler Hall. The group had demanded that the regents divest from companies with significant holdings in Israel. When the regents failed to respond, dozens of group members chained shut nine of the building’s twelve doors. They formed human chains to block two of the remaining doors and ushered students out of the building through the last door. Professor Gordon, who had an important class scheduled that day in Wheeler, burst through the chain of students only to be showered with spit and hit by a student…”

Later that year, 23-year-old Aaron Schwartz was walking toward the Hillel building as part of an obviously Jewish group celebrating the annual holiday Simchas Torah. According to accounts in The Daily Californian and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, one onlooker mocked the procession by goose-stepping in place, chanting “Heil Hitler,” and performing the Nazi salute. After punching Schwartz in the face and knocking him to the ground, the man and his two companions strolled away.

But many remember spring 2002 as the season the screaming really started. On spring break, someone hurled the cinderblock through the front door of Berkeley’s Hillel Center, scrawling the words F— JEWS nearby…

The same mentality was on display in spring 2002 at San Francisco State University, where pro-Israel students and elderly Holocaust survivors trying to hold a rally were stopped by violent protestors screaming “F– the Jews,” “Jews, go back to Russia,” “Too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job,” and “Get out or we’ll kill you.”

Threats of “we’ll kill you” appear to have led to the logical next step in the recent violent death of 38-year-old pro-Israel activist Daniel J. Kliman in San Francisco.

It appears that present-day northern California is to Jews what Mississippi in the early 20th Century was to African-Americans-the epicenter of explosive hate-although the same bigotry permeates much of the academic world.

That would include Concordia University in Montreal, where Netanyahu was prevented from speaking about the war against terrorism. Daniel Pipes, writing in the New York Post on September 17, 2002, described the violent scene:

“… he never made it onto the campus – because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot with the intent of preventing him from speaking…

The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience…
They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside.
They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto’s Globe & Mail
put it, “By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia’s main downtown building was
littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking
aftereffects of pepper spray.”

The police, saying they couldn’t assure Netanyahu’s safety, canceled the event…

On Thursday, Hanan Ashrawi, the former spokeswoman and colleague of Yasser Arafat, went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs to give a keynote speech at a symposium on “September 11: One Year Later.”

Protestors noted that Ashrawi is smack on the side of America’s enemies in the War on Terrorism. For example, while the U.S. government formally designates Hamas a terrorist group, Ashrawi states she doesn’t “think of Hamas as a terrorist group.” Also, she considers Israeli civilians living on the West Bank to be “legitimate . . . targets of Palestinian resistance” — that is, legitimate targets for deadly violence.

Yet the protestors did not block the terrorist spokeswoman from expressing her opinions (a mere year after the 9/11 attacks), and she is just one of countless pro-terror speakers who are welcome on US campuses. Sheikh Khalid Yasin, a convert to Islam, has been invited to numerous colleges to preach that terrorism is justified, homosexuals should be murdered, and Christian missionaries in Africa are injecting people with AIDS. …

Little wonder that when the genocide-espousing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University on September 24, 2007, the event did not seem out of the ordinary. His politely received speech was hailed by many observers as a fine display of one of the noblest ideals of institutions of higher learning -the free exchange of ideas.

Hardly anyone in the media noted that, the day before he departed for America, Ahmadinejad re-emphasized the two most heartfelt ideas to which he and his regime are dedicated–“Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” emblazoned on signs in a military parade over which he presided.

Were the deaths of America and Israel debatable propositions? For many in the academic world, the answer apparently is yes. After all, they would tell us, that’s what universities are for. Let all views be heard.

All views, that is, with certain exceptions, including the anti-terror message of the prime
minister of Israel.

Edward Olshaker is a longtime journalist whose work has appeared in History News Network, The Jewish Press, FrontPage Magazine, and other publications.

Most definately READ IT ALL