Documentary Exposes Surging Campus Anti-Semitism

Truth Revolt, May 10, 2017:

The anti-Semitism on today’s college and university campuses “has metastasized into a cancer,” says Charles Jacobs, special consultant on the recent documentary Hate Spaces: The Politics of Intolerance. The title pointedly takes aim at the college fad of  “safe spaces” to protect minorities from bigotry and oppression — unless you’re Jewish. Anti-Semitism is not merely tolerated in higher education; it is “tacitly encouraged,” wrote Andrea Peyser at The New York Post, “by the frequent inaction and support of woefully politically correct administrators and radical leftist professors.”

Hate Spaces examines that ugly phenomenon, which often masquerades as anti-Israel activity such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sactions (BDS) movement. The documentary, put out by the Americans for Peace and Tolerance organization, of which Jacobs is president, notes that anti-Semitism at Hunter and elsewhere is fueled by well-funded organizations with missions to destroy Israel, particularly Students for Justice in Palestine, the nationwide organization which the Horowitz Freedom Center has been targeting with its Stop the Hate on Campus campaign.

Hate Spaces is executive-produced, directed and written by Ralph Avi Goldwasser, who 12 years ago helped create the documentary Columbia Unbecoming, in which students and graduates of Columbia University describe being intimidated by professors for expressing pro-Israel views. “Since then, it’s only gotten worse,” Goldwasser told Peyser.

As an example, Peyser reported that the Million Student March last year at Manhattan’s Hunter College, part of the City University of New York, devolved from a rally for students demanding free tuition and lodging other grievances into a frenzy of Jew-hatred. “Death to Jews! Death to Jews!” the crowd chanted. Hunter’s president and student leaders released a tepid statement a day after the rally condemning the anti-Semitic comments. Too little, too late.

Other examples: a screening of a pro-Israel documentary last year at UC Irvine drew protesters who blocked the exits and chanted, “Long live the intifada!” A pro-Palestinian group slipped mock “eviction notices” under the dorm room doors of students perceived to be Jewish at New York University in 2014 and at least a dozen other campuses since then.

Near the film’s end, noted attorney Alan Dershowitz says, “We have to do more, we have to fight harder . . . because the facts are on our side, morality is on our side, history is on our side.”

Read more and order your copy of Hate Spaces here.

Sarsour’s Anti-Semitism Campaign Minimizes Anti-Semitism

by Ariel Behar
IPT News
May 9, 2017

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet political prisoner and Jewish Agency chairman, put forth a “3D test” to distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Criticism crosses into anti-Semitism when it delegitimizes or demonizes Israel, or subjects it to double standards. Thus, when Israel is cast as evil, when only Israel is held accountable in a conflict, and when Israel’s fundamental right to exist as a Jewish homeland is questioned, criticism crosses into anti-Semitic territory.

Through her actions and statements about Israel and Jews, celebrity Islamist activist Linda Sarsour fails the “3D test.”

In a recent Newsweek article, Sarsour argues that she has been labeled an anti-Semite because of her participation in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement. “This is a deliberate attempt to smear me, as a prominent leader in the progressive movement,” she told the magazine. “They’re basically criminalizing and defaming my work calling for human rights in Palestine. They equate activism on Palestine with anti-Semitism and that is an unfortunate equation.”

“The reason why Israel gets singled out in this debate is because the majority of military aid … goes to Israel … which they use to occupy Palestinians,” Sarsour said in a radio interview last month on SiriusXM radio.

Sarsour’s answer is a self-serving attempt to divert attention away from her own words. It ignores her support of sharia law, her failure to denounce terrorism committed in the name of Islam, and her support of the violent Palestinian “resistance,” all of which aligns her with anti-Semitism.

Sarsour also tries to shut down those who cite her record of celebrating terrorists and advocating radical positions by calling the critics Islamophobes. “Linda Sarsour is a Palestinian Muslim American woman in a hijab and she has the audacity to be prominent in this country, the audacity to resonate with communities outside her community,” she said, speaking in the third person in the SiriusXM interview. “How dare I do that? How dare I defy every stereotype that Islamophobes have of me.”

Yet, she’s nakedly intolerant of beliefs other than her own.

Sarsour famously tweeted, “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” That’s not a statement critical of the Israeli government or of settlement building in the West Bank. Instead, Sarsour believes the entire concept of a homeland for the Jewish people is flawed, is “creepy.”

And Sarsour wants nothing to do with you if you believe in and support the state of Israel. That goes for Jews who might try to stand in solidarity against anti-Muslim bigotry. In her worldview, Zionism and feminism are mutually exclusive. “You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none,” Sarsour told The Nation. “There’s just no way around it.”

“But insisting that Jews need not apply if they subscribe to the belief in a Jewish homeland in Israel is an anti-Semitic double standard,” StandWithUs researcher Lauren Post wrote in the Forward. “Too many leftists already ignore anti-Semitism unless it’s rhetorically convenient, so perhaps it’s unsurprising that Sarsour’s brand of feminism demands that we give up our liberation movement for some nebulous greater good.”

Women who disagree with Sarsour about feminism are met with sometimes profane attacks. She attacked ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, saying she deserves an “a$$ whippin’,” and that she’d like to “take [Hirsi Ali and Islam critic Brigitte Gabriel’s] vaginas away- they don’t deserve to be women.”

New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, called Sarsour out on her hypocrisy and double-standards after she was invited to give a commencement speech at CUNY School of Public Health in Brooklyn. Hikind highlighted Sarsour’s dishonesty in a recent op-ed published in the New York Daily News.

“Until recently, she’d convinced a lot of people that she stood for progressive liberalism, stood for feminism, stood for dignity, human rights and all of the things that people who favor the liberal left say they stand for, too,” Hikind wrote.

“But there’s an old saying: You can’t hide the crazy.”

That “crazy” includes embracing Rasmieh Odeh, a convicted terrorist whose participation in a 1969 grocery store bombing in Jerusalem killed two college students. Sarsour called it an honor to be in Odeh’s presence after Odeh announced her intention to plead guilty to naturalization fraud.

Sarsour “associates with terrorism and supports terrorism,” Hikind told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “Her record, her involvement, her statements, is just beyond the pale. What kind of message does that send?”

It is not clear if Sarsour is feeling the heat or has other motivations, but she is orchestrating a broad campaign to insulate herself from questions of whether she fails the 3D test and crosses into anti-Semitism.

When vandals desecrated a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis, Sarsour made sure everyone saw her helping raise money to repair the damage even though those cemeteries likely included (shudder) Zionists. Still, her efforts garnered unquestioning national attention.

“This is another way for us to publicly defy the stereotype that Muslims and Jews are not communities that can get along,” she told National Public Radio.

Sarsour also appears in a video produced by the anti-Israel group Jewish Voice for Peace, in which she said a “conversation on anti-Semitism is so critical at this moment.” But that good deed can’t be done without qualification, as she says accusations of anti-Semitism are often “used by the right wing against Palestinians and those who are pro-Palestine … [to say] that we are anti-Semitic, or because we’re critics of the State of Israel that means we are anti-Semitic.”

Anti-Semitism is a problem, she says in the video. It’s just not as bad as racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. Most Jews are white, after all, and therefore do not face systemic discrimination in employment or housing. “And we need to make that distinction.” Again, Sarsour offers a self-serving answer meant to define a problem on terms best suited for her. It’s a gross misrepresentation that minimizes the threat of anti-Semitism in America.

The latest FBI hate crime data, covering the year 2015, shows Jews are targeted more than twice as often as Muslims in hate crimes motivated by religious identity. In fact, Jews account for more than half of all hate crimes based on religion, with 664 documented incidents in 2015, compared to 257 targeting Muslims.

Generally speaking, activism is something worth celebrating. But Sarsour is notorious for her controversy and her double-standards. And praising Sarsour as a “champion of change” does harm to the legitimate struggle for human rights, and for the fight against anti-Semitism. We need not embrace someone who defends and supports extremism in the name of social justice.

You can defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but not conservatism

Hamid Mir | Wikimedia Commons

Conservative Review, by Jordan Shachtel,  April 27, 2017:

With UC Berkeley’s unwillingness to provide actual security measures for conservative speakers, the school has made it crystal clear that there is no room for free expression on its campus.

The academic institution has, however, welcomed prominent radical Islamists with open arms. Speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry are granted space at Berkeley, so long as they fit within the accepted political framework.

Since the turn of the century, the California school has become a cesspool of radical indoctrination that is rampant with Islamic supremacists. The school has not only turned into America’s chief promulgator of anti-American ideals, it also has become a breeding ground of anti-Semitism.

April 13 marked the 10-year anniversary of an overtly pro-Osama bin Laden speech hosted by the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Berkeley.

The shocking audio, in which the speaker demands that fellow Muslims not condemn the international terrorist, has been preserved by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Osama bin Laden … I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?” Amir Mertaban, the former MSA West president, said at a MSA conference of the now-dead al Qaeda chief.

“If you sit here and you start saying ‘jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith,” he added.

In 2004, a Berkeley MSA conference hosted Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who called for fellowmujahids” (warriors for Islam) to take up arms and form a Muslim theocracy. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has described him as “a charismatic imam who promotes anti-Semitism, violence and conspiracy theories that blame the U.S. government and Jews for attacks by Islamic terrorists.”

Two years later, Mr. Ali spoke at a UC Irvine pro-Hezbollah (which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization) conference and was received by chants of “Allahu Akbar!”

Later that year, to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, Islamic supremacists at Berkeley held an anti-Semitic hate fest, shouting for the destruction of Israel.

The UC’s Islamic supremacy complex is far from a thing of the past.

In 2015, Berkeley hosted Omar Barghouti, leader of the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel. Today, Berkeley continues to be a cesspool of Islamic supremacist indoctrination.

The California school partners with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history, and a suspected Hamas front group – on annual “Islamophobia” reports and conferences.

The annual confab, which took place last week, featured Zahra Billoo. She is the director of CAIR’s San Francisco-Bay Area chapter. Billoo has, in the past, accused U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism and has advised her allies to thwart FBI investigations.

The Berkeley-CAIR “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” was started by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a professor at the school. Bazian is the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Semitic hate group that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Bazian has, in the past, called for an intifada (violent uprising) in America.

Berkeley’s indoctrination efforts have clearly had an effect on the individuals matriculating there. Check out this shocking video released in 2014 by filmmaker Ami Horowitz. It highlighted how students reacted much more negatively to an Israeli flag than to an Islamic State flag.

Berkeley is no place for conservatism, yet the school seemingly has no issue with radical Islamists who seek to overthrow the country and impose a theocracy on America.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for CR. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Also see:

The One Lesson of the Holocaust

By Daniel Greenfield, April 24, 2017:

Yom HaShoah comes and goes. A day for looking back at what has happened and a day for looking away from what will happen.

Millions of dollars have been spent building memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, even as Iran is spending its millions on building another kind of memorial to the Holocaust, in the form of nuclear technology that will be used to finish that piece of history that the Islamic terror state claims never took place.

Millions more are spent, by some of the same groups that claim an interest in Holocaust education, on bringing Muslim migrants to America and Europe to carry out the promise of an Islamic apocalypse in which, as the Hadith 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 the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” That is what the Islamic Holocaust looks like. And it’s underway.

A Jew is murdered in France. Another in Jerusalem. And another and another.

The Final Solution, with its immediate extermination of the Jews, has been replaced by the Two State Solution, an intermediate process in which the land on which Jews can live in security is partitioned into smaller and smaller pieces.

The Lebensraum of Islam demands ever more breathing room. And fewer breathing Jews. Israel is carved up into smaller indefensible ghettos. The number of places where the world decides that Jews can be allowed to live, shrink. The rest become “settlers” who must be evicted for the sake of peace. Even if the place they’re “settling” is Jerusalem. The oldest Jewish city on earth.

And this Two State Solution, this intermediate process, has the almost universal backing of the major Jewish organizations who are so very deeply concerned about the Holocaust. It has the backing of the diplomats and politicians who put out canned statements urging that we learn the lessons of the Holocaust. The only lesson they have learned though is that another Holocaust needs better marketing.

It is comparatively easy to build a memorial. You hire the architect, raise the money, buy the land and then cut the ribbon. It is a much harder thing to do something about the need for those memorials in the first place. That is what learning the lessons of the Holocaust is about.

It is easier to build another memorial than to look into your heart and ask why two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community was still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House… when the lives of millions of Jews were on the line.

From FDR to Obama, American Jewish leaders had two opportunities to stand up to a liberal icon and save Jewish lives. No amount of memorials can disguise the fact that they learned nothing.

The reassurances from American Jewish leaders that Obama meant well, that he will not sell out Israel and that he cares sounded familiar. The American Jewish leaders of the 30’s and 40’s echoed the same sentiments. Even as the St. Louis was turned back and its passengers were sent to the gas chambers, even as every effort made to aid or save Jews from the Holocaust was frustrated and shut down with the active complicity of the liberal American Jewish leadership who were loyal to FDR.

The same people who let millions die went on to light candles and issue their hypocritical sanctimonious statements of mourning for the dead.  More candles have been lit. More memorials have been built. But the lessons of the Holocaust continue to go unlearned.

Regardless of which administration is in office, the Two State Solution and any support for the Islamic terrorists seeking to exterminate the Jews, as they have already exterminated many of the Christians in the region, must be fought. When we fail to do this, then whatever our politics are, we abandon our obligations to the dead and to the living.

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the details of how it happened don’t really matter. Had Hitler not come to power, had Germany not turned National Socialist, the Holocaust would have happened anyway. Stalin had one planned too before his death. Had it not been Hitler or Stalin, it would have been someone else. It still might be.

The Holocaust did not happen because of intolerance or fascism, as most liberals would like you to believe. It happened for the same overriding reason that any person or group of people is murdered. Because the Jews lacked the means of defending themselves against it.

There have been two Jewish responses to the Holocaust, on the one hand promoting tolerance and assimilation and on the other hand the State of Israel. Tolerance has done nothing to prevent the hatred and murder of Jews. In many cases it has actually served to promote it.

Every Muslim attack in Europe and America can be laid at the door of tolerance. When a Jewish woman is thrown out of a window in Paris or a Rabbi is beaten in Brussels, the true perpetrator is “tolerance”.

The State of Israel stands as the only meaningful response to the Holocaust. Rather than building stone memorials and going back to business as usual, the State of Israel is not only a living future for the Jewish people, it is a response to the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because it could happen to a people who couldn’t defend themselves. The State of Israel with its armies and borders was the best physical defense against it happening again.

Today the two responses to the Holocaust are battling out to the death, Tolerance and Assimilation vs the State of Israel. And the State of Israel is getting the worst of it. The teachers of tolerance blame Israel for the failure of their own ideology, manifest in the rising hatred of Jews around the world. If Israel wouldn’t exist, somehow Jews wouldn’t be hated, their thesis goes. As if Anti-semitism had been discovered lying around in a dustbin sometime after 1948.

But it is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel. The left has pushed Israel to the wall, because it represents the inversion of their ideology, it represents the reality that the best hope of the persecuted is not in multiculturalism or in tolerance classes, but in taking responsibility for their own safety and survival.

Also see:

Analyzing Palestinian Propaganda on CNN: Rashid Khalidi on “Fareed Zakaria GPS”

zakaria-and-khhalidiCAMERA, February 20, 2017:

On Feb. 12, 2017, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi was invited onto CNN’s global affairs program hosted by Fareed Zakaria (Fareed Zakaria GPS) to defend and justify the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. This followed an interview on the same program a week earlier with French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy where he charged the BDS campaign with being “an anti-Semitic campaign” which “takes its roots a long time ago, 60 years ago, in the fringes of dying Nazism.” Lévy’s words so enraged Khalidi and other proponents of the anti-Israel campaign that Khalidi complained to the host, then appeared himself on the show the following week.

Khalidi, an experienced propagandist, used classic propaganda tactics (name-calling, transfer/association, glittering generalities, logical fallacy, bandwagon, plain folks, and card stacking, as described by the The Institute for Propaganda Analysis) to defend BDS, and to delegitimize Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem, much as he had done several weeks earlier on WBEZ’s Worldview.

Fareed Zakaria, with a history of skewing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, helped Khalidi along, not only providing him with an unfettered platform to disseminate his misinformation, but having photos and drawings televised to illustrate Khalidi’s  deceptive analogies, and in the case of Jerusalem, disseminating some half truths of his own.

Here are the facts on BDS and Jerusalem, followed by an analysis of the propaganda disseminated on Zakaria’s CNN program.

BDS: The Facts

Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist Natan Sharansky has proposed a test for the “new anti-Semitism” which he describes as the three D’s—double standards, discrimination and delegitimization— to indicate whether a movement, organization or campaign is anti-Semitic in nature. The BDS campaign employs all three: it uses double standards to single out the Jewish state for delegitimization and discrimination.

Proponents of the BDS campaign have made it clear that they oppose Jewish self-determination and that their ultimate goal is the elimination of a Jewish state in the region. This is what they say:

“A Jewish state in Palestine, in any shape or form, cannot but contravene the basic rights of the land’s indigenous Palestinian population…most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sellout Palestinian—will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”(Omar Barghouti, founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel)

“..That [the real aim of BDS is to bring down the Jewish state] should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.” (A’sad AbuKhalil,Stanislaus State College political science professor and supporter of BDS)

“…civil society says Israel is the oppressor, not the settlements.…” (Hind Awwad, national coordinator of the Palestinian BDS national committee)

“…we wish to report and confirm that our corporation boycotts all Israeli products and services, and encourages other institutions, companies and individuals to cease and avoid all economic, academic and cultural activity that supports the racist state of Israel until that state dissolves itself…”(Paul Larudee, International Solidarity Movement, Free Palestine, and BDS activist)

“So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state…I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential… Ending the occupation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean upending the Jewish state itself.” (Ahmed Moor, political commentator and BDS activist)

In addition to the BDS activists’ articulated goal of eliminating a Jewish state, their actions demonstrate anti-Semitic motives rather than a quest for civil rights. Here are just a few of the numerous examples of how Jews are singled out for bullying by BDS activists:

  • As part of its “Globe to Globe” festival in May 2012, London’s Shakespeare Globe Theatre invited companies from around the world to perform Shakespeare’s plays in their native languages. After the Palestinian Ashtar company performed Richard II in Arabic, BDS activists attempted to shut down the Israeli Habima company performance of The Merchant of Venice in Hebrew.
  • Regarding Justin Bieber’s 2011 performance in Tel Aviv, BDS activists reportedly threatened Justin Bieber’s Jewish manager with “the Jew manager will die.”
  • In August 2013, BDS activists protesting the performance of Israeli jazz musician Daniel Zamir at Johannesberg’s Wits University, chanted and sang out “Shoot the Jew.”
  • In August 2015, BDS activists in Spain pressured organizers of a music festival to exclude singer Matisyahu from performing unless he publicly denounced Israel and declared his support for a Palestinian state. The American performer, who was singled out solely because of his Jewish identity, refused to cooperate and his performance was canceled. But following fierce criticism by the international press, Spanish government and others of this overtly anti-Semitic action, organizers reinstated the Jewish singer’s participation in the festival. A Spanish court has now admitted a criminal complaint against the BDS activists, filed by an association of human rights lawyers fighting against anti-Semitism.

The BDS campaign against the Jewish state has been condemned as anti-Semitic by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union(CDU) party, France’s Supreme Court, and the UK’s Minister of Justice:

The German CDU party passed an anti-BDS resolution comparing it to the Nazi boycott of Jews in 1930’s Germany, noting that, “Who today under the flag of the BDS movement calls to boycott Israeli goods and services speaks the same language in which people were called to not buy from Jews. That is nothing other than coarse anti-Semitism.”

In France, BDS is considered a hate crime; The French Supreme court upheld the anti-BDS Lellouche law to rule promoters of BDS guilty of anti-Jewish hate and discrimination and as a result of this law, a major French bank shut down the account of a BDS group.

The UK Secretary of Justice Michael Gove has slammed the BDS campaign as “indulging prejudice” and a new manifestation of an old anti-Jewish hatred.

BDS: The Propaganda

Here is what Khalidi said regarding the BDS campaign (interspersed with the author’s comments in italics):

Khalidi: “[The statement that the BDS campaign is anti-Semitic] is grotesque, in a time when there is real anti-Semitism, Jew hatred that is being publicly expressed by people who are supporters of President Trump …that people are talking about boycott, divestment and sanctions as anti-Semitic.”

This is an example of how Khalidi uses the tactic of “name-calling” –i.e. “grotesque”– to discredit the charge.

Khalidi: “Many of the people who support it are Jewish, so presumably they’re self-hating?”

Khalidi employs a logical fallacy—a false extrapolation– to imply that because someone is Jewish, he or she cannot be anti-Semitic. In fact, the radicals who support BDS and single out the Jewish state for demonization and delegitimization include Jews on the margin who publicly distance themselves from mainstream Jewry and its support for Jewish self-determination.

Khalidi: “Moreover, this is a time-honored tactic. The Boston Tea Party was a boycott, Selma, Montgomery– every major campaign in civil rights involved boycott– the South African freedom struggle used boycott, divestment and sanctions as a central element. But why are the Palestinians not allowed to do this?”

Here, Khalidi uses the propaganda techniques of “glittering generalities” – i.e. vague, emotionally laden phrases like “time-honored tactic”— to evoke a positive feeling, and “transfer” of the positive cause of civil rights to the negative one of BDS. In fact, neither the Boston Tea Party—a protest act by colonists who were unfairly taxed by a government in which they had no representation; nor the civil rights marches in the 1960’sthe non-violent demonstration for African American voting rights; nor the Montgomery bus boycottwhere African Americans refrained from using segregated buses in which they would be forced to the back, were in any way akin to the BDS movement. These were all examples of colonists and citizens attempting to secure their own constitutional rights through non-violent demonstrations. They were not, as BDS’ often violent actions are, an attempt to obstruct other people’s constitutional rights (for example, the rights of Jews or Israelis to gather, speak or perform), or to delegitimize a state and to deny another people’s right to self-determination.

Khalidi: “There’s absolutely nothing anti-Semitic. Boycott, Divestment and Sanction says Israel has to end the occupation, Israel has to treat its discriminated-against, second-class Arab citizens–20% of the population–equally, and Israel has to give Palestinians who lost their homes, whose homes were stolen in 1948, the right to get those homes back and/or to return. There’s nothing anti-Semitic in that.”

Khalidi is using the technique of “card stacking” – manipulating the audience’s perception of an issue by exaggerating one side and repressing the other. Here, he deliberately misrepresents the status and situation of Israeli Arabs, and the issue of Palestinians who became refugees in 1948. He stacks the cards by falsely implying that Arab citizens of Israel do not enjoy equal rights under the law and that Israel stole Palestinian homes and continues to discriminate against those who became citizens. He hides the fact that Arab citizens enjoy the same voting rights, civil rights and representation in parliament as do other citizens. And he hides the reason why Palestinians lost homes, namely, because their leaders urged them to temporarily vacate their homes while they waged an aggressive war against the nascent state of Israel. Instead of presenting the facts, card-stacking propaganda exaggerates or downplays information in order to suit the propagandist’s goal.

Khalidi: “Property rights? What’s anti-Semitic about property rights? The right to live in your homeland? What’s anti-Semitic about that?” An end the longest occupation in history? What’s anti-Semitic about that?”

Khalidi uses the “plain folks” strategy here to falsely imply that BDS is “of the people” with the same goals as any plain folk. But BDS is not about property rights, the right to live in your homeland, and ending occupation. It is about denying Jewish property rights, the rights of Jews to live in their homeland by eradicating the Jewish state.

Khalidi: “I think that when you are defending the indefensible as Bernard-Henri Levy and many extreme supporters of Israel are doing, you have no alternative but to resort to smears and slurs against the people who are, in my view, making a very, very strong case that the United States has not done, that the international community has not done what it said it wanted to do in terms of stopping occupation, settlement, land theft, and that it’s up to people, ordinary people to try and push their government and push people with a moral conscience to put pressure on Israel so that it stops all of these violations of human rights and of civil and property rights.”

For his dishonest finale, Khalidi mixes “name-calling” – calling Levy “extreme” – with role reversal – suggesting that it is Levy, and not Khalidi, who is the one “resorting to smears and slurs.” He again uses “card stacking” as he manipulates the facts and reverses the role of the attacker and victim. He culminates with the propaganda technique of “bandwagon” calling on all those “with a moral conscience” to jump on the bandwagon and join the BDS movement.

Jerusalem: The Facts

The status of Jerusalem is contested: Israel considers Jerusalem – both western and eastern– the country’s eternal, undivided capital based on its historical, religious and political claims to the holy city. Since Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, following 19 years of division during which Israeli Jews were excluded from the eastern part, the government through successive administrations has vowed never to re-divide the city again. In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed a Basic Law declaring reunified Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel, while providing for freedom of access to each religion’s holy sites.

The Palestinians view eastern Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, which it considers Arab territory that Israel is illegally occupying. While Palestinians reject Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, they claim eastern Jerusalem – with holy sites to three religions – as the capital of their future state and view the permanent status of western Jerusalem to be subject to final negotiations.

International law firmly establishes the right of Israelis to settle and reside anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an area which includes eastern Jerusalem. This international legal right is vested in political and legal agreements drawn up in the post-World War I years between 1919 and 1923. A Mandates System established in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, was contained in the Treaty of Versailles and other peace treaties made with the Central Powers. The Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers officially recognized Palestine as a mandated state for the Jewish people at the 1920 San Remo Conference. The San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 served as the basis for the future administration of Palestine which would henceforth be recognized as the Jewish National Home, as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The resulting 1922 Palestine Mandate, which incorporated the resolution into its preamble, confirmed Jewish historical and national rights and converted the Balfour Declaration from a statement of British foreign policy to binding international law.

According to Article 6 of the Mandate, “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use” was to be encouraged. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying that nothing in the U.N. Charter’s chapter on the administration of Mandate territory shall be construed ” to alter in any manner” the rights of people and the terms of “existing international instruments” (for example, the Mandate).

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar who served as U.S. under-secretary of state under the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, explained that “the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.”

Jerusalem: The Propaganda

The host, Fareed Zakaria, in his introduction serves up his own propaganda on Jerusalem.

Zakaria: “In 1949, negotiators drew a green line that divided Jerusalem in two. Israel controlled the west, Jordan the east. It was so divided until 1967 when Israel began to occupy the east during the Six Day War.”

Zakaria is using the technique of “card stacking” where he emphasizes the facts that suit him while hiding those that do not. He emphasizes that Jerusalem was divided in two but hides the fact that this was a ceasefire line as a result of an Arab aggressive war. He hides the fact that Jordan destroyed Jewish holy sites and illegally annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem, in a move that only Pakistan recognized . He hides the fact that under Jordan’s occupation and in violation of the same ceasefire agreement, Jordan denied Jews the rights to their burial and holy sites in Jerusalem.

He emphasizes Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem but hides Jordan’s aggression that led to Israel’s capture of this territory. Zakaria hides the circumstances under which this territory, which includes Judaism’s historic holy sites, came under Israeli control: During the 1967 war, Israel appealed to Jordan to stay out of the war, but despite this appeal, Jordanian forces fired artillery barrages from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Although Israeli forces did not respond initially, not wanting to open up a Jordanian front in the war, Jordan continued to attack and occupied UN headquarters in Jerusalem. Israeli forces fought back and within two days managed to repulse the Jordanian forces and retake eastern Jerusalem.

And guest Rashid Khalidi provides more.

Khalidi: “In 1947, the United Nations when it gave legitimacy to the idea of a Jewish state and an Arab state said that Jerusalem had to be a separate entity. And the United States has said, and other countries have said, that until there is a final status resolution of the question of Jerusalem, nobody should change the status there, including moving embassies there, proclaiming it your capital, building settlements–there are 200,000 Israelis living illegally in occupied Arab East Jerusalem today. All of these things in the eyes of American policy– until President Trump was elected – and in the eyes of every country in the world – are illegal until and unless the Israel and the Palestinians come to terms about Jerusalem.”

Khalidi similarly uses the “card stacking” technique as he talks about the “separate entity” (corpus separatum) recommended in the 1947 UN General Assembly partition resolution. He hides the fact that the Arabs all rejected this resolution, so that it never went into effect, and further nullified it by aggressively attempting to annihilate the Jewish state. Similarly, while he categorically states that the United States views Israeli habitation in eastern Jerusalem to be “illegal” and that it has declared that embassies should be barred from Jerusalem until there is a final status resolution, he hides the fact that there is no unified US view about Jerusalem. While the State Department does not officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital and does not recognize Israel’s effective annexation of the eastern part of the city, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995 to initiate and fund the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. This was followed by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act signed by President Bush in 2002, maintaining the commitment to moving the embassy and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. U.S. presidents, caught in the middle (including President Bush), have viewed these Congressional Acts as advisory and have regularly exercised presidential waivers to temporarily suspend the move of the embassy to Jerusalem “in order to protect the national security interests of the United States.”

With such disingenuous techniques employed on a mainstream U.S. news outlet, with the help of a CNN journalist, in order to influence public perception on controversial issues, it is no wonder that more and more people are talking about “fake news.” (To view the tape, click here.)

What’s Holding the Arab World Back?

anti-semitismPublished on Jan 30, 2017 by PragerU

What’s holding the Arab world back? Why, by nearly every measure, are Muslim nations so far behind the West economically, culturally and scientifically? Bret Stephens, Global View columnist for the Wall Street Journal, explains.

The Anti-Semitic Islamophobia Hoax

boschYou can’t fight anti-Semitism without exposing Islamophobia as a lie.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield. January 10, 2017:

Fighting Islamophobia is trendy. But it also often becomes a means of enabling and expressing hatred toward others. Especially Jews. It doesn’t take much digging into campaigns against Islamophobia to find the anti-Semitism lurking underneath the bright lights and polished logos.

The Ford Foundation, which in its time had played a key role in the anti-Semitic Durban hatefest, hosted a forum titled, “Confronting Islamophobia in America Today.” Participants included Linda Sarsour, who had promoted the anti-Semitic Muslim practice of throwing rocks at Jews and appeared at a rally for a pro-Hezbollah organization, along with Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, who had defended Ahmadinejad’s call for destroying Israel and described such a proposed atrocity as a sentiment born of “legitimate anger.”

Why was the Ford Foundation privileging the persecution fantasies of Islamist bigots who believe that plotting the genocide of millions of Jews is somehow rooted in “legitimate anger”?

The loudest voices inveighing against Islamophobia often justify Islamic terrorism, explicitly or implicitly, even while they whine that being associated with Islamic terrorism is a form of Islamophobia. Indeed the campaign against Islamophobia has, among its agendas, the legitimization of Islamic terrorism.

If Islamic terrorism, and its underlying supremacist hatred of Jews, can’t be discussed, then it also can’t be condemned. And, in a perverse twist, Islamic terrorists then become the victims of Islamophobia.

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has been fundraising aggressively for its “Islamophobia Project”. The FCIR is the work of Trevor Aaronson who had attempted to dismiss anti-Semitic Muslim terror plots against synagogues as an FBI conspiracy.

The FCIR’s Islamophobia Project is run by Trevor and Roqayah Chamseddine.

Roqayah has written for Mondoweiss, an anti-Semitic website which has published Holocaust deniers and runs articles with titles like, “Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power.”

She has written at Electronic Intifada that the attackers would “smash the settler state” and destroy the “vast Zionist settler-colonial project, i.e. Israel”. She has defended Islamic terrorism against Jews, writing that the, “choice of what methods of resistance are used, be it armed or unarmed, are to be left entirely up to those occupied.”

At Mondoweiss, Roqayah Chamseddine also expressed support for Tarek Mehanna, who had been convicted of providing material support to Al Qaeda, and praised the Islamic terrorists of Hezbollah.

Roqayah praised Mehanna’s “powerful statement” in which the Al Qaeda supporter describes how he watched on “September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children”.

This is what the face of the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting’s Islamophobia Project looks like.

Despite this, the Islamophobia Project anticipates a grant from the Knight Foundation to fund its work. And the Islamophobia Project already promotes JVP’s so-called Network Against Islamophobia.

The Network Against Islamophobia and its “No to Islamophobia” events are actually designed to promote the JVP hate group. JVP or Jewish Voice for Peace consists of former Jews recruited to defend the Islamic war against the Jewish State. It is telling that “fighting Islamophobia” requires attacking Jews.

JVP has co-sponsored rallies featuring support for Hamas and its leader gave an interview to a Holocaust denial website. After outrage grew over this latest JVP act of hate, the hate group claimed that the interview had been obtained under “false pretenses”. Its bigots even disrupted a New York City Council memorialization of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

The “No to Islamophobia” events attacked and appropriated the Jewish celebration of Chanukah to spew hatred against the Jewish State. Instead of criticizing this ugly outpouring of bigotry to fight “Islamophobia”, the mainstream media wrote up glowing reports of the hate group’s anti-Semitic antics.

“No to Islamophobia” was interlinked with various Islamist hate groups including American Muslims for Palestine, a group with Hamas links that celebrated a murderer of Jews, and CAIR, which had invited a Holocaust denier to its conferences. Islamists have a history of awkwardly using fake Jewish allies like JVP in its campaigns to spread anti-Semitism and muzzle any conversation about Islamic terrorism.

A JVP protest against the 9/11 Museum featured a handful of elderly leftist radicals and Muslim women in burkas and young girls in hijabs holding up signs reading, “Jews Say No to Islamophobia”.

Not only was there no Islamophobia, but there were Islamists appropriating Jewish identity to protect the Islamic supremacism that is killing Jews, along with Christians, Yazidis and countless others.

There has recently been some debate over the intersection between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. And there are explicitly anti-Semitic interpretations of this intersection by Islamists and their allies.

A familiar defense by Muslims accused of hating Jews is to argue that they are also “Semites”.  Some have even urged appropriating the term to refer to Islamophobia. This isn’t a denial of the accusation; it’s a shameless semantic move to eliminate the ability by Jews to call out Muslim anti-Semitism.

The more mainstream approach is to insist that Muslims are the “New Jews” on account of being the most persecuted minority. But even the recently “goosed” hate crimes statistics put the lie to that.

The rhetoric of Islamophobia inevitably trends toward colonialist messages, appropriating and displacing the identities and cultures of the groups persecuted by Islam. Mohammed founded Islam as a religion of colonialism. The Ummah model fosters an Islamic globalization in which Saudi, Iranian and Qatari money are used to consolidate a worldwide network of former colonies into a proposed Caliphate.

ISIS is a brute force derivative of a far more sophisticated global industry of Islamic colonialism.

Jews have always been the leading edge of resistance to Islamic colonialism. Mohammed’s religious colonialism appropriated Judaism and then sought to legitimize it by eliminating the Jews.

Modern Islamists continue to use the same Mohammedan anti-Semitic rhetoric internally; descriptions of Jews as “pigs and apes” or the “killers of prophets” abound in the literature and speeches of both “moderate” and “extremist” groups along with the infamous genocidal Hadith which claims that the Day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims exterminate the Jews.

But externally, Islamists have deployed a sophisticated vocabulary of political victimhood centered on the use of Islamophobia as a shield to silence criticism of their supremacist bigotry and violence.

The greatest victims of the Islamophobia narrative are the targets of Islamic violence.

Historically some of the greatest victims of Islamic supremacism, from Mohammed’s demand that the Jews and Christians be ethnically cleansed from the Arabian Peninsula to the last century of Islamic persecution with everything from pogroms with knives to sophisticated bombs, have been the Jews.

And yet to criticize Mohammed’s violence is “Islamophobic”. And the FBI’s effort to stop Muslim terror plots against Jewish synagogues is also somehow rooted in Islamophobia. Needless to say, Israel’s refusal to allow its population to be exterminated by Muslim colonialism is also Islamophobic.

Jews are the only surviving minority group in the region with their own independent state. The latest calls by the Islamic colonial project for its destruction come under the guise of fighting Islamophobia.

The Islamophobia hoax is not merely a denial of anti-Semitism. It enables anti-Semitism. The biggest proponents of the hoax, such as Hatem Bazian, have rich histories of persecuting and hating Jews.

Some Jewish organizations have come to believe that they ought to be fighting both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. But that is as impossible as aiding both the perpetrators of crime and their victims. Muslim Anti-Semitism is enabled, empowered and protected by the Islamophobia narrative. The only way to fight back is to expose Islamophobia as the lie that Islamist bigots use to shield their bigotry.