Well, sadly, this week, Russia suffered suicide bombings on Moscow's subway, leaving 39 dead and then double suicide bombings occurred in the Russian territory of Dagestan, killing 12 more people.

Western media normally gives little attention to Islamist fronts in Russia and elsewhere, as the media participate in the vile and pathetic Obamism that all Islamic violence will end if Israel can be forced to surrender to Islam.  All that is happening to the world at the hands of the Islamists would have been prevented if the rest of the civilized world would have joined with Israel during the suicide bombings of 2001 to 2002 (about which I wrote in my novel, the Second Catastrophe) and helped defeat Radical Islam.  When the world decided that suicide bombings were a tactic that could be used against Jewish civilians, without penalizing the perpetrators (and in fact rewarding them!) then the world ensured that these immoral tactics would be used against an ever-widening group of "Infidels".   Ah, what starts with the Jews seldom ends with the Jews.

Muslim refugees in Chechnya are moving into Dagestan.

Zaur Gaziyev is a representative of an organization in Dagestan called the Memorial Human Rights Group.   He is quoted today in the Los Angeles Times as saying that hardline Islamic sentiment is growing in Dagestan.  He blamed both sides for violence - the police and the Islamists.   But note what he had to say about the Islamists:

"They are just religious fanatics.   We understand that if, God forbid, they come to power, the first people they lead to slaughter or, at best, expel from the republic, will be the human rights activists who did their best to protect their rights."

Professor Jonathan Driver (Archeology) writes to me, and I write him back:

-----Original Message-----

From: Jonathan Driver [mailto:driver@sfu.ca]

Sent: March 30, 2010 6:29 AM

To: howard@brantcord.com

Subject: Ozlem Sensoy

Dear Mr. Rotberg,

I am responding to your message expressing concern about the content of an opinion piece written by Ozlem Sensoy for the Vancouver Sun.

Simon Fraser University encourages its professors to take part in public debates on important issues, and we also expect professors to bring controversial topics to our students for discussion. Not everyone will agree with Dr. Sensoy's views, but this is clearly a subject that generates a wide variety of opinions and we are fortunate to have a local newspaper that tries to provide its readers with different views of the debate.

One of the purposes of granting tenure to professors is to give them the freedom to express well-researched unpopular or controversial ideas without fear of reprisal. We would never consider denying tenure to a professor because she had expressed controversial views in public.

Sincerely,

Jon Driver

--

----------

Jonathan C. Driver, PhD, RPA

Vice-President, Academic and Provost

Professor of Archaeology

Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada driver@sfu.ca

Telephone: 778 782 3925

Fax: 778 782 5876

www.sfu.ca

(Note by HR:  Professor Driver is an Archeologist specializing in animal bones)

I am very sad about the superficial way in which you chose to respond to my serious concerns.

Would you give tenure to a Nazi?

Do you agree that there is something called Islamofascism?

Would you give tenure to an Islamofascist working to undermine our fundamental freedoms?    If you do not agree that radical Islam has fascist policies, then would you ever worry about the promotion by a Professor of supposed "religious" beliefs if those beliefs supported violent acts towards, and forced submission by, the supposed infidel opponents of that religion.   Assume I am not talking about Islam.  If there was such a religion, mixed with a vile political ideology of domination and the termination of individual human rights and traditional western rights for women, children and ethnic or religious minorities, would you talk in the same terms? Would you welcome a professor with such views to your university and then defend such views as part of the university's role to protect "controversial" positions?  Assume that I am not talking about Professor Sensoy - where is the line which you would draw? 

Don't bother to write back if you just want to make superficial statements.  We can get that from the Sun.

The position you are taking, like the position of many academics in England, is working successfully to destroy freedoms for all except the politically correct and the supporters of radical Islam who are given full reign to put together events like Israel Apartheid Week which do not meet minimum academic standards, at the same time that mob rule acts to censor speakers with whom they disagree.

Ultimately your defense of Professor Sensoy is a defense of inadequate standards.  Anyone who writes seriously that power is embedded for all time in favour of certain elites, and no election, not even one that gives power to Obama, changes the power structure, obviously has such shoddy academic positions, that they cannot be defended by rational academics.  The purpose can only be a nefarious one - such as embedding for all time the right for Islamofascists to censor their enemies, while the defenders of freedom cannot talk because Professor Sensoy and her vile ilk have decided who is the victim and who is the victimizer.

I am concerned that our great-grandchildren will be faced with Sharia Law and dhimmitude, and the persecution of Christians because they are supposedly powerful.   All those who cling to simplistic notions that Islamofascist words, intimidation and violence are to be the main beneficiaries of mantras that all opinions are equally valid (moral equivalency)and that all morality is the same (moral relativism), are misunderstanding the difference between "controversial" and "totalitarian".  If the professors and the teachers are being convinced that it is the professors, the teachers and the human rights commissions who will decide who gets to express an opinion (which is the essence of Professor Sensoy's position, as she cheers on the mob at U. of O.), that truly is a totalitarian position.  You cannot deal with that simply by saying you must tolerate controversial positions.  What would you have done in 1943?

Yours truly,

Howard Rotberg

Professor K. Magnussen

Dean, Faculty of Education

Simon Fraser University

Here is the article by Professor Sensoy:

On Tuesday, a speech by controversial American Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa was cancelled because of fears there might be physical violence.

One of the arguments I've heard over and over about the cancellation is the "free speech" argument: Coulter has the right to say whatever she wants. This, her supporters argue, is what free speech means and what Coulter is being denied.

What people who launch the charge of "free speech" (and other charges such as "anti-democratic", "censorship" and "lighten up, it's just entertainment") fail to acknowledge and understand is the social concept of power.

Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, classism and anti-semitism are not about individual acts of discrimination (what some conservative commentator might have specifically said to offend someone or some group). These terms do not primarily refer to acts of discrimination (expressions of prejudices like Coulter's). They refer to systems of privilege that "normalize" a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.

That is why Coulter's speech is not just "free" (i. e. bias-free, objectively sent out into the atmosphere). The effects of her speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups.

That is why scholars of race relations and critical feminists would argue that so-called reverse-racism or reverse-sexism do not exist. Because of this difference, individual speech acts have different consequences in the social world.

A useful example is that of the electoral franchise for (white) women in North America. While women had to agitate for the right to vote and could certainly be angry with men during that period and perhaps even launch angry and hateful speech at men, women could not grant themselves the right to vote. Only men could grant suffrage because only men held the institutional positions to do so. Hence, while both groups could be prejudiced against the other, only men's prejudice against women was backed by institutional power, creating a significant difference in the impact.

The "isms" words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.

From this framework, we can see how free speech is a slippery problem. Ironically, it seems to surface when there is a need to stifle speech that challenges social power (which is what the U of Ottawa students were doing, challenging the inequitable social power relations that Coulter's "speech" upheld).

In a parallel way, while "left wing" voices might not receive the kind of caution that Coulter did from Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, to be aware of Canada's hate speech laws, it doesn't matter: The effect of Coulter's speech is not the same as the effect of marginalized speech.

So is "reverse" free speech at issue here? Is Coulter the victim of censorship? Are all expressions defensible as free speech?

If freedom of speech means anyone can say or print whatever they want, why was James Frey famously fried for embellishing about his own life in his Oprah's Book Club selection? Why was the issue there "lying" and not "freedom of speech?"

Not long ago, I remember a lot of hullabaloo in the news about some unkind TV ads about Stephane Dion and puffin poop. I don't remember that incident framed as an issue of free speech. Those were rightly characterized as "attack" ads. No one I heard dared defend the Conservative party's right to free speech.

There is also a type of context-appropriate speech. For example, the morning baby-talk I know many of you use when chatting with your kitty-witty or puppy-wuppy would probably be inappropriate at a job interview or with friends at the pub.

The point is, we live with these types of speech limitations every day, limitations governed by social norms. When the "free speech" card is played (by those whose speech aligns with power structures, like Coulter), it is a defensive response to their perspectives and power being challenged. The "free speech" discourse protects power and privilege by acting as a shield against such challenges. If you dare challenge free speech as a normal social value, you dare challenge the founding ideals of Western-style democracy.

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster "free speech" in the West.

Whether it's humorous "jokes" about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or "real" remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance. You can't just say whatever the hell you want.

University of Ottawa students embody the spirit of student activism. Thank you, students.

The Big Picture for Anti-Semitism:

Toleration of, and submission to, anti-Jewish aspects of Islam and its Apologists

I am a child of a Holocaust survivor;  my father's parents and younger sister died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and he spend four years as slave labour.

Although by profession I am a lawyer and a developer of affordable rental housing for low income working people in Canada, I also have a degree in Modern History, and have been studying the Holocaust for about forty years.  I also have written four books, three of them about the ideology of anti-Israelism that has been sweeping the West, particularly Europe, but now is very much part of world view of America’s new President, and some of his closest advisors.

Fortunately, the American people are smarter and more moral than their president, as support for the State of Israel is near record levels. Unfortunately, with the development of Iranian nuclear weapons and missile technology and the near-surrounding of the tiny state of Israel by Iranian-backed and armed genocidal terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, the foreign policy of the American president assumes critical importance for the security of the Jewish homeland. Shockingly, less than 70 years after the Holocaust, we are forced to worry whether Arab and Iranian threats of genocide against the State that they have never accepted in their midst, together with the appeasement, even support, from many in the West, is the fate of another six million Jews.

The most shocking aspect of today’s anti-Semitism is that it is in fact excused by leading intellectuals, media and politicians because it is an inherent part of a major religion, the second most popular in the world.  As I have written in my new book, TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed, the anti-Semitic parts of the Koran and the inculcation of anti-Semitic attitudes by Muslim media, imams, education systems and totalitarian dictatorships, whether purportedly secular or theocratic, seem to be somehow tolerated in the West, as part of kindly and respectful multiculturalism.   In this way, we welcome to Western countries, people who have the most vile attitudes to Jews, based on their upbringings and education, and no effort is made to screen which have rejected these attitudes, and are willing to be re-educated, and which bring to our shores the vile prejudices which will make life increasingly difficult for Jews in the West - as we are now seeing in European countries with high Muslim populations from Sweden to Britain to France and elsewhere.

And then, as part of this cursed ideology of what I call Tolerism, we are told that we must self-censor ourselves or support the “politically correct” media and universities, in preventing the communication of any ideas or thoughts that might somehow offend the sensibilities of the intolerant.   The future then in this scenario, is one of decreasing freedom of expression to avoid offending or even humiliating an ever-increasing population of those who are offended by the very idea of a Jewish homeland in historic Jewish area, settled long before Islam was even invented, and who are taught to hate every Jew worldwide.  To them, Jews are both a barrier to the success of a world wide caliphate, and possibly supporters of the ultimate historic humiliation – the restoration of a Jewish nation in the Middle East, that gives liberal democracy, technological and economic progress, and rights to women and gays.   The very notion that Israel gives rights to its minorities, including Arab Muslims, and that those Muslims have more fundamental liberal rights in Israel than they do in any Muslim country, is the ultimate humiliation.

Accordingly, all Western attention must be continuously directed to the sideshow of the Middle East imbroglio – the fate of the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza who, as it were, became “orphans” of Israel having successfully defending itself against the third war by the Arabs attempting to destroy Israel which as a result of defending itself, ended up with more territory than it started with.

When the Arabs found themselves to be the darling of certain western intellectuals, the very history and status of these “disputed territories” (as they surely are in international law) could be transformed into a colonial-like (European-like?) “occupation”.   The issue of whether Israel could rejoice at finally be able to access its holy sites, long prohibited by supposedly moderate governments like Jordan, and whether Israel’s security could be enhanced by an increased buffer between those who stop at nothing (including sending their children as suicide bombers) and by erecting a security fence and wall, were all ignored by the Tolerists whose loyalty was to those who would be the agents of another Holocaust.

And so, whatever Israel has done, to try to assist the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve their supposed goal of a state alongside tiny Israel, the liberal west has spurned these attempts at peace no less than the Arabs themselves.   From the Oslo Process, and its staged sovereignty and Israeli support for Palestinian security forces to Camp David with its offer of sovereignty on 97% of the disputed territories, shared jurisdiction over Jerusalem (which is never mentioned in the Koran but is the historical centerpiece of Judaism as home to the Holy Temple), to the recent attempt by Olmert to accomplish the same thing, with offers of financial assistance, to the outright unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Israel has tried everything consistent with basic security needs, to address the supposed concern of both the Western world and the Islamic world for the “plight” of the Palestinians.

No matter that the Palestinians have almost never lived up to any agreement signed, and no matter that the Palestinians and even supposedly moderate Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan (who supposedly made peace with Israel) still broadcast on their media, and place in their educational curricula the most crude and hateful anti-Semitic myths, from the blood libels to the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

How many times are we told that criticism of Israel does not imply anti-Semitic standards? The issue should have been once and forever settled by the great former Russian dissident, Natan Sharansky, former Israeli cabinet minister, who spelled out clearly for those who need it, the exact difference between fair criticism and continual disproportionate criticism from people who seem to be pre-occupied with criticizing this country, when twenty or thirty nations at any one time are practicing the most horrendous breach of human rights including murder of minorities or dissidents. Sharansky’s “3 D test” was aimed at piercing the “veneer” of seemingly legitimate criticism of Israel, a task made all the harder because, as he put it, “this hatred is advanced in the name of values most of us would consider unimpeachable, such as human rights.”

To help distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Sharansky’s 3D test is as follows:

“The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism."

We now return to the issue of the anti-Semitic attitudes built into the Koran.  While our intellectuals, media, entertainment industry, and academics supposedly are free to critique everything in our society, the criticism of Islam, and its anti-liberal attitudes to women, to gays, and most of all towards Jews, are by tacit agreement, off-limits for all discussion.   Just ask popular Dutch politician Geert Wilders, on trial not for incitement against Muslims per se, but for critiquing the anti-liberal elements of the religion.  Just ask Phyllis Chesler, the great American feminist, who is now shunned by American feminism, for daring to desire to bring basic human rights to Muslim women who in some countries are kept in a servitude and secondary status resembling the seventy century.   And just ask me, whose first book was essentially banned by Canada’s monopoly book retailer.  This was a novel about Israel under the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada, and about an academic, obsessed about the Iranian plans for nuclear bombs (I wrote this back in 2002),  who gets himself into trouble for making some politically incorrect comments.

Young Islamists shouted me down and called me a “fucking Jew” without any action by police.  More bizarre still was the refusal of the organized Canadian Jewish community and literary community to agree that this threat to our freedoms must be nipped in the bud;  and so I have had to impotently watch (and continue to write) from the sidelines, while cultural and moral relativism, combined with moral equivalency, have deprived us from even objecting to the ideology – radical Islam – that pose the supreme threat to Jewish freedoms and in fact Jewish lives, world-wide.

The American inaction, and seeming tolerance for the madmen running Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, that they have long promised to use against the civilians of Israel, combined with the inaction and seeming tolerance for anti-Semitic and in fact anti-liberal attitudes among Islamist immigration to the West, has left the Jews, in a once-again tragic situation.  We see a sad rush to submit our liberal values to more militant Islamic values.  We see an attempt to find Islamophobia behind every objection by the West or its Jews to the loss of our liberal freedoms of expression and the loss of our rights to speak out -against the very notion of the dhimmitude of non-Muslims in an ever-increasing Muslim caliphate and institution of Sharia law.  We see that our elites have abandoned our values, including the value of the tolerance for, and even love for Jews, in favour of an ideology infused with anti-Semitism, both to our Jewish individuals and our Homeland.  

Even Jewish organizations are attacked on the basis of spurious claims of a “Israel lobby” which somehow has dual loyalties because only of its support for Israel’s right to exist, when academics who peddle this nonsense (the Jews are far too argumentative and fractious a people ever to be able to come together for any “conspiracy”) would never dare to question the loyalty of Muslims, where a much greater body of evidence, seems to demand care in watching individual “radicalized” Muslims in the army (remember the Fort Hood terrorist massacre?), or in universities or in separatist media (should Al-Jazeera be the main source of news for Western Muslims?)

The vile ideology of cultural relativism, and our sad abandonment by many of all our historical values of fundamental Justice and human rights, has put the Jews once again in the firing line.   In Britain, the totalitarian poltical correctness means that the media, when reporting on attacks by violent radical Muslim teenagers on Jewish girls in buses, dares not describe the attackers as “Muslim”, but rather as “Asian”, as if Hindus, Sikhs, or Buddhists are attacking Jews.

The denial of the reality from where the threats emanate, the complicity with illiberals for financial or political gain, the obsession to find a “peace plan” that would ever satisfy militant Islam, short of the murder and removal of the Jews of Israel, and the shunning and persecution of those who would “blow the whistle” has brought us into a tragic situation.  

We Jews, many of whom, like me, lost substantial parts of their families in the Holocaust, are too often standing by – yes, like “sheep”, while a vicious anti-Semitism takes root around us.   Our leadership has been in denial;  eschewing the difficult work of alerting the world to Muslim anti-Semitism, they have too often spent their time chasing skin heads and minor irritants from the right.

Too many Muslims, themselves good people, are unwilling to stand up for what is right, when their more radical co-religionists seek to impose a racist and violent agenda.   The issue becomes more acute with each passing year.  

American liberals with the full complicity of the academy and the media, obsess about how to satisfy unlimited Palestinian demands, as if anything short of making Jews dhimmi minorities in a Muslim caliphate would placate the Muslim world.  The cognition that the problem is not Israel, but rather Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and especially secular modernity, feminism, rights of gays, and the like, seems to escape so many of our elites.   It is as if they have never stopped believing that the Nazis were a little bit right – Jewish morality and its gift of justice and ethics to the world is more of a problem than those who would rebel against such Justice and Ethics.

Therein lies the Big Problem.   An intelligent human can separate the big issues from the small ones. When Obama in his first major foreign policy speech at Cairo praised Islam for having embraced tolerance and justice to the same extent as America, he was prostituting American values and its Biblical heritage and “submitting” American values to its enemies.   Islam means “submission”. This submission relates both to the individual submitting to the demands of the Koran, including its negation of the goodness of Christianity and Judaism as legitimate worshippers of the same God as Allah, and also to the task of Jihadist enforced submission against the Infidels by any means possible.

As a highly educated Jew, with degrees in both History and Law, I think I can see the Big Picture.   With every Muslim immigrant who is not screened for anti-Jewish and anti-Christian attitudes, with every child of such immigrants becoming radicalized by Muslim Student Associations and the like, with every act of “Tolerism” in our culture, my position and that of my children and grand-children becomes ever more tenuous.  With every media program attempting to draw moral equivalency between  Palestinian terror supporting organizations and semi-states with a Jewish state that has numerous Muslims as Judges, including on the Supreme Court, that has Muslims in the diplomatic service and that protects Muslim and Christian holy sites, I feel that my worst fears are being realized.

It is very difficult now for pro-Israel writers – even the greats like Canada’s David Solway and America’s Phyllis Chesler to get books published or essays carried in print publications.  Israel is being delegitimized, and I know that I am delegitimized, as a pro-Israel writer.   The first step in murder is to delegitimize the victim as a human being deserving of life. Our universities allow “Israel Apartheid Weeks” and take scholarships from vile Arab states to support more Muslim students and Muslim studies, without any academic discussion of whether such programs are inherently anti-liberal, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. In Canada, two of the three major newspapers have columnists who are extremist in their anti-Israel views.  

And yet, the Harper government in Canada is one of the most moral in the world in terms of its support of Israel.   That makes me proud as a Canadian - but it is unlikely to be enough in a world where the American president seems to lack the resolve to stop Iranian nuclear weapons, and most European governments are overtly anti-Israel.

I wrote my novel, The Second Catastrophe, warning of the possibility of a Second Holocaust, back in 2002, when I saw how the world was tolerating suicide bombings against Israeli children and how the Iranians were already talking of creating a nuclear bomb to be used against Israel.   My book was essentially banned by the monopoly book retailer in Canada, and the Jewish organizations shunned me.   The big picture is much worse today than it was then.  My newer books, unlike my first book, do not even get reviewed in the mainstream press, no matter how many good things are written about them on the internet.  But, it is that Big Picture we must address, before it is too late.  I know that what happened to me is just a minor symptom of what is happening to Jews worldwide.   If the situation deteriorates in the next seven years, the way it has in the last seven, we are in big trouble.

Howard Rotberg’s fourth book is TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed (Mantua Books). It is available from Amazon or from the publisher directly at www.howardrotberg.ca.

Some of you are wondering about giving back my degrees to University of Toronto.  I do not feel it is a publicity stunt, although good grief we can use a few more of those if they help to expose the evil being perpetrated in the name of the Palestinian cause.

To understand my real purpose, read the following extract from Natan Sharansky's seminal article on anti-Semitism in the current age,

"3D Test of Anti-Semitism:
Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization

Recognizing the "New Anti-Semitism"

Moreover, the so-called "new anti-Semitism" poses a unique challenge. Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, "new anti-Semitism" is aimed at the Jewish state. Since this anti-Semitism can hide behind the veneer of legitimate criticism of Israel, it is more difficult to expose. Making the task even harder is that this hatred is advanced in the name of values most of us would consider unimpeachable, such as human rights.

Nevertheless, we must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism."

Now you understand:  I am giving back to the University of Toronto what they are "gifting" to the Jewish State by allowing Israel Apartheid (sic) Week to take place - the university is allowing anti-Semitism by allowing the demonization, application of double-standards, and the delegitimization of the State of Israel.

And by returning my degrees, I am showing that I see that the University of Toronto is no longer the legitimate and fair educational environment in which I studied more than 30 years ago - accordingly I wish to delegitimize the University of Toronto insofar as it relates to my life.   i am mailing back the degrees;  I no longer want to be associated with the place.

That is the best way I can hit back.

I see that someone has taken over the Comments section, deleted all previous postings and turned it into an advertising space for watches and other such stuff.

Guess what?   This was done without my permission and I don't know how to fix it.

 I have written a number of books and essays, but the Main Stream Media of course has a hard time with intellectual arguments based on history and law, which are the fields in which I have degrees.   What seems to work best for PR is symbolic stuff that the media can cover without thinking too much.    So I have decided to return my degrees to U of T as a protest against the hatefest called Israel Apartheid Week.   Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the U of T President:   (P.S.  I am retired from the practice of law so do not absolutely need my degree as a precondition of practicing law)   Please pass this along to whomever would be interested…

Dear President Naylor:

I am a graduate of University College (1973) at which time I had the honour of standing first among the students in the Department of History. I received an excellent education, specializing in the history of values and ideologies.   Then I attended, and graduated from, the Faculty of Law, in 1976.

I have tried to live a life of ethics, respect for individual human rights and social justice, and service to my profession and the community.  I have won awards for my service to my municipality in volunteering on municipal committees and for my development of affordable rental housing for low income working people.  I have a record of writing about race relations and participating in conferences meant to accomplish respect for diversity in the context of adherence to foundational Canadian values.

I am ashamed that University of Toronto hosted the first Israel Apartheid Week, and continues to make its facilities available to this distortion of “free speech and respect for diversity”.   I read your February 24 remarks on freedom of expression and diversity, and sadly, I feel that you misstate the basic issues.    My university is now known as the birthplace of this vile hatefest.

The University would never allow an “Islamic Apartheid Week” because of course the speakers would be violently attacked by mobs of illiberals who have brought with them to the University no respect for free speech but only a respect for their upbringings where they were taught that Jews and the Jewish State are evil, and inferior.

I am disgusted that in a time of war against our liberal values, University of Toronto chooses to support one side, and that is the side that supports the war against our freedoms and our civilians from Sderot to Manhattan, from London to Madrid, and from Buenos Aires to Mumbai.

I myself have had my lectures shouted down and my books effectively banned.    See http://www.scragged.com/articles/how-i-became-a-banned-author-in-canada.aspx

I know that freedom loving writers like myself no longer have the freedoms that you are so proud of extending to people who support the murder of Jewish children, less than a century after the Holocaust.

I do not advocate censoring them, unless they pass into hate crimes, and even then I am not supportive of use of the criminal law, in all but the clearest of cases.   But the notion of feeling compelled to have such an event in effect sanctioned by the University is clearly wrong.   If they want to speak such words, there are, I am sure, other facilities that would welcome them.

I hereby adopt the positions taken in the following two essays:   http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=610&PID=0&IID=2778

and http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/13/human_rights.htm#B1

We have now reached a stage where Jewish students and others identifiably Jewish fear for their safety at various universities in North America and Europe, and where various Jewish speakers are denied permission to speak because of Islamist intimidation.    We have now reached a situation where various student groups, such as the Muslim Students Association are being funded by radical Islamist groups, and where various University departments across the “free world” are becoming beholden to radical Islam due to financial funding from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

I am sure you have read how young Muslim students are being “radicalized” at universities in England, and such was the case with the attempted terror attacker on the Delta airlines jet on Christmas Day.

The situation at English universities and even at York University has gotten out of hand.  To the extent that your views are infused with cultural and moral relativism, I suggest that the University of Toronto is poised to eventually join those institutions where Jewish students will be viewed as “offensive” per se to Muslim students and other illiberal antagonists who apply double standards and factually incorrect legal and historical judgments against the Jewish State, and interpret Islam as holding Jews and Christians to be second class citizens, which is the real apartheid that your University will not allow to be discussed.  Moral equivalency is not appropriate between liberal democrats and terror supporting illiberals.   

I feel such shame to have been associated with a University that feels that its facilities must be given to those who would destroy our freedoms, and one which fails to understand that tolerance is a two-way concept.   Your moral equivalency is misplaced. Israel is the first front in a war that has already come to our shores.   That war has nothing to do with “sharing” land, but is about an attempt to enforce Western submission to Islamic values, including Sharia Law.

I have recently written a book called TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed.   You might be interested in reading it, although I must warn you that while Chapters Indigo carries 8 different titles by or about Noam Chomsky, my works have been banned by Canada’s monopoly book retailer because they are “offensive” to illiberals.   

My grandparents and aunt were gassed to death in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and my father was slave labour there and barely survived.   For years, I felt that it was possible as a Jew to attend the University of Toronto and still publically adhere to the biblical value of justice.   Unfortunately, in your quest for “tolerance” you have abnegated the historical values of our country, based on Justice being a more important value than Tolerance.   My father and his family were certainly not helped by “Tolerance” and I dare say that a continuation of the trends at your university will make it impossible for my grandchildren to attend there. My daughter has two degrees from University of Toronto and my son-in-law has three degrees from U. of T.   I believe that if present trends continue, no further members of my family will be able to attend University of Toronto.    By abnegating all standards in the name of freedom and tolerance, and by failing to stand for Justice over Tolerance, you are party to the decline of a once-great university.

Please take me off all mailing lists for University of Toronto, University College, and the Faculty of Law, whether it be for financial solicitations, reports or magazines.

I am removing from my office wall my two degrees from University of Toronto.   I shall be mailing them back to you.

Shame on you.

S. Howard Rotberg B.A., LL.B

Rotberg Development Group

Brantcord Group of Companies

Southern Ontario Affordable Housing Inc.

Literary website: www.howardrotberg.ca

Blog:  http://secondgenerationradical.blogmatrix.com/

Who Killed Nodar Kumaritashvili?

Was it the track that was made unreasonably fast and dangerous, all for the better entertainment of the fans?

Was it the Canadian Olympics folks who banned other teams than Canada from practicing on the track before this week, so that Canada would be more likely to win and the others would find out late how fast it really was?

Was it the gross negligence of the designers of the facility by having unprotected steel beams close to the most dangerous part of the track, without anyone bothering to put protective padding on the steel?

Not exactly – we all killed him.   We who let ourselves be snowed by the sports bureaucrats, the big corporations, the self-aggrandizing politicians, and especially the corrupted mainstream media to cheer on this multi billion dollar monstrosity …

We killed Nodar Kumaritashvili…now do the right thing and call off the games…..

 Bread and Circuses

A Contrarian View of the Vancouver Winter Olympics

“B.C. is the Best Place on Earth, yes I know….

Because Gordon Campbell told me so.”

The phrase “bread and circuses” describes handouts and petty amusements that politicians use to gain popular support, instead of gaining it through proper public policy. The phrase is invoked not only to criticize politicians, but also to criticize their supporters for giving up their civic duty to promote social justice and not just big “shows”.

In British Columbia, where the growth and distribution of marijuana is the largest single industry, worth some $7 billion dollars a year, it might be argued that “bread and circuses”, Vancouver-style is better described as “marijuana and circuses”.

And the biggest circus of all is the Winter Olympics.

What would you think, in the aftermath of Haiti’s devastation, of a city in an earthquake zone, that has not bothered yet to complete seismic upgrades to many of its schools, but, at the same time is boasting about the multi billion dollar Olympics, a true “circus”?

Vancouver is home to the writer Douglas Coupland, most famous for his book, Generation X.  I recently had the opportunity to view his superb 2007 film, Everything’s Going Green, about being a young adult in Vancouver, and finding a way to live well in this, Canada’s most expensive place to live.

If you want to know about the real Vancouver, not the one portrayed in government public relations ads, including the boastful and narcissistic provincial motto “The Best Place on Earth”, watch this movie:  Coupland simply nails it, in terms of showing a culture without values - except for the worship of esthetics and the tolerance for the white collar crime and the marijuana industry, and the corrupted embrace of Vancouverism – a set of “Lotus Land” values where esthetics, greed,  worship of tranquility and nature, and a home with a view supplant the traditional Canadian religiously inspired values of hard work, social justice and family values. Nowhere in Canada are young working families shut out of the good life as they are in this city and province that give property tax grants and property tax deferrals, without any means test, to wealthy seniors, but fail to follow the lead of most provinces and U.S. states when it comes to policies promoting affordable rental and owned housing for “working people”.  

Lotus Land values imply not only the use of the Lotus drug brought to the shipwrecked mariners of Tennyson’s great epic poem, but also a rejection of family and children in favour of “getting in early” to secure the best spot on the beach.   In Vancouver terms, this manifests itself in the self-satisfaction of those who got in early to the housing market and then protect their lifestyles in their $1.5 million dollar bungalows, by making sure that the politicians keep their property taxes low – by passing on the full costs of new development, some of which, (like municipal planning studies and the cost of parks and libraries) are, in other cities, born by all homeowners as an expense of the city property tax revenue as a whole.  By jacking up the cost of new housing by having “the developers” pay these expenses, and hence pass them on to the buyers as part of the typical $800 per square foot purchase price, this makes new housing prohibitively expensive. This just happens to benefit those who got in early because their property values must escalate to keep pace with the cost of new construction.

Lotus Landers boast about the beautiful new condo towers downtown, whose thousands and thousands of small one-bedroom $425,000 units, are hardly suitable for family formation – but of course they were never meant to, as a significant portion are owned by speculators, often living offshore, or by drug gangs laundering their profits.   So when Olympic visitors wonder why there are no lights on in half of the condo units, they should realize that only a portion of the occupants have left town for the Olympics – the rest are not occupied at all.

The protagonist in Everything’s Going Green is shocked when a friend of his seems to “go straight” by opening a dairy operation.   Then the friend shows him the secret rear part of the factory which is a huge marijuana grow-op.   The dairy is a money-losing front, meant to hide the reason for the large hydro bills. More shocking still, he finds that after his father loses his job, both his father and mother install a marijuana grow-op in their basement, to maintain their lifestyle.   He, himself, gets involved in white collar crime, and the movie concludes with him finding redemption and rejecting the white collar crime which he had embraced and therefore the slanted values of Vancouver as he and his girlfriend drive away from the city, poorer but cleansed of the corruption that has affected the very soul of “The Best Place on Earth.”

But the reality of Vancouverism matters little.   What matters most is the “show”.  That is why Vancouverites are continually obsessed about the City’s rankings on lists of most beautiful cities, most livable cities, most sustainable cities, and the like.   Just like the Emperor who was wearing no clothes and whose advisors were afraid to point it out, Vancouver’s place on a “livability” ranking matters not if most people cannot afford to live here, without participation in the drug distribution business or white collar crime. 

Sustainability too surely implies a housing market that can sustain all economic classes.

And so, Vancouver, insecure with its fundamental heritage as a harvester city – harvesting lumber, minerals, and the now scarce vacant land worth nearly as much as gold – can further its pretense of being a “world city”, whatever that means.   In the short term it means putting on the best Winter Olympics ever, which, as part of being the best, will make the most money for the “people that matter”, notwithstanding the benefits are so sadly failing to percolate down to the common working man or woman.

But aren’t there important legacies?   What about the new Sea to Sky Highway linking Vancouver to Whistler?    Well, that just makes it easier for the rich people who weekend at their minimum $1 million dollar ski chalets in Whistler.

What about the much needed housing built for the athletes and to be brought into the market?   Well, read about how one large complex was “sold” to the taxpayers on the basis that one third of the building would be “affordable” units, but then by the time it was built the government excused the developer from that obligation.

What about this being the most “Green” Olympics ever?   Well, flying hundreds of thousands of people into the City and out again, and flying the hundreds of thousands of Vancouverites fleeing the disadvantages of closed roads and gridlocked traffic by escaping to Hawaii or Palm Springs for a couple of weeks, increase the carbon footprint rather substantially.  

What about that new skytrain to the airport?   Again, just a perk for the rich folks who use the airport frequently for business travel and holiday travel.   The poor suckers who live out in the suburbs of the Fraser Valley have to wait for public high speed transit, while they sit in the gridlocked traffic everyday, and listen on the radio how pure Vancouver is for not having any expressways and how the suburbanites (who can’t afford to live in the city) are responsible for auto pollution, while the yuppy baby boomers in Vancouver ride around on bicycles, along the seawalls and beach paths along the ocean.

Surely, it helps the taxi drivers and such?   Well, actually the taxi drivers five days before the start of the Olympics have been complaining that business is actually down so far -  as all the dignitaries and Olympic folks are being driven around in large SUVs loaned by General Motors to the Vancouver Olympic Committee for the duration of the games, while the cabbies fume.

But, isn’t this really about the Olympic spirit, the beauty of international competition and the putting aside of all politics, as athletes test their skills one against the other?

Well, if you believe that, you must be smoking too much “B.C. Bud”. Firstly, the Olympic spirit is a manufactured public relations by those who financially and otherwise benefit from what is only a source of expense and exasperation to those asked to fund it. The Olympic “spirit” died at Munich in 1972 when terrorists wiped out the team of one participating nation, Israel, without an appropriate response by the IOC, and the IOC allowing the Arab nations to politicize the games by boycotting the ceremony for the slain athletes.

What about the partial boycott of the Moscow games?   What about Hitler using the 1936 Berlin games as a propaganda exercise?  The Olympics, like everything else in this world has a political aspect.   Shouldn’t we be honest and admit that we are in the middle of a war against the West by radical Islam.  I read that the security expenses for the Vancouver Olympics will come in at something like three times the budget.   Somewhere, we must ask if in wartime, it is still appropriate to carry on like nothing is happening.   Does Sports trump everything?

Perhaps that is part of the appeal of the Winter Olympics:   it is so white, and I am not talking about just the snow.   With the exception of a few, like the celebrated Jamaican bobsled team, this is a competition among white people, with Japanese, Koreans and Chinese, generally from above average incomes (able to do sports that are expensive), and we don’t have to deal with all those southern Asians, Middle Easterners, and Africans who are terrorizing and killing and trying to force us into submission and to give up our freedoms and rights for women and children.   The Show takes us back to how it “used to be”;  but is that a mature and healthy response to reality?

Secondly, technology has overtaken the idea that athletes are competing fairly against each other.   A recent report states that the Engineering School of UBC has developed faster ski surfaces for the skis of the Canadian team.    So skiing, bobsledding, luging, and snowboarding now all depend to some extent on the technology of the equipment to give a small “edge” to the user. Then biotechnology, has allowed the pharmaceutical edge to pass from outright doping to techniques like blood doping, carboloading, or whatever the medical experts have managed to come up with which is not yet against Olympic rules.

But the Show must go on.    The people of Vancouver actually voted on February 22, 2003 whether they wanted to host the Olympics. The results were 64% in favour of the Olympic Bid.   The voter turn-out was 50%.

So we cannot blame the politicians for the fact that we now content ourselves with Bread and Circuses or Marijuana and Circuses.   The Roman poet, Juvenal, who is credited with originating the term, Bread and Circuses in a poem, circa 100 A.D., understood that the people themselves, have a responsibility to not accept bread and circuses as a substitute for proper civic life.   He wrote:

“… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

Howard Rotberg, who divides his time between Vancouver and Southern Ontario is the author of Exploring Vancouverism:  The Political Culture of Canada’s Lotus Land.

His newest book is TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed (Mantua Books).  His website is www.howardrotberg.ca

WHAT IF ISLAMISTS OVERTHREW THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?

By Howard Rotberg

Dear me, I worry so much about the future of our freedoms in the West, as so many begin to “submit” to the values and demands of Radical Islam, or what is called “Islamism”.

The other day, I began to worry what would happen if the Islamists took over the American government and placed one of their own in the White House.

I started to think about the agenda that an Islamist President would fulfill.   Here are some of my thoughts:

1. He would make it clear that the American Constitution and the history of American freedoms were no more exemplary than the history of Islam.   He would argue that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.   Instead, he would say, they overlap and share common principles.  He would be clear in his moral equivalence between America and the totalitarian Islamic regimes.   He might go so far as to say the “common principles” were justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. And if he got away with comparing the American Justice system and the tolerance of most Americans with the totalitarian justice systems of the Islamic states and with comparing American tolerance to the intolerance of peoples who riot and kill if they think political cartoons are offensive, then he would go further: He would assure everyone that it is Islam that has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibility of religious tolerance and racial equality.   If the American people were too stupid to know about the persecution of Christians and Jews in Muslim countries (including the often-ignored fact of nearly a million Jews being expelled from Arab countries in the ‘40s and ‘50s), then that would just make his task all the easier.
2. He would as quickly as possible give out important awards, like the Medal of Freedom to those complicit with the goals of Radical Islam, who head NGOs and United Nations bodies that support the notion that the Israelis are the new Nazis and the Palestinians are the new Jews.   And he would announce such awards on a date of symbolic significance to the Jews – Tisha B’Av, the historic day of mourning for the loss of the Jewish temples and the occurrence of other national tragedies, so that the Jews knew that he was putting them in their place, for the sooner they got the message, the better.
3. He would make a quick symbolic snub to Eastern Europe so as to emphasize that the quid pro quo for Russian support of Islamists (outside the former U.S.S.R only of course) would be the removal of defensive missiles from Poland.   He would drive home the point by not informing the Poles very much ahead of the announcement and would make the announcement on September 17, 2009, which everyone in Central Europe knew was the 60th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, followed by the annexation of eastern Poland to the USSR. This would be another important symbolic act to show how in the future the world would be divided between Radical Islam, Russia and China.

4.     To further the goals of Radical Islam, the U.S. must be dramatically weakened from the inside, including its once strong and proud economy.  He would have to create unheard of budget deficits.  He would make a budget that spends more than any other in history, creates the largest deficits in history and imposes the largest tax increases in history.  He would spend over a trillion dollars more each year than he took in, and would project a cumulative deficit within ten years of $14.29 trillion – more than the country’s GNP.  That way, the U.S. would end up being owned by China and other foreign lenders and the American people would be so preoccupied with their economic woes, there would be little regard paid to the increasing rate of Islamification of its culture and freedoms.

5.     Any captured terrorists would be given civilian trials, with the same constitutional rights as American citizens, rather than giving them military trials like enemy soldiers receive. This would show that Islamic terrorists are really the same as American citizens and would make it difficult to secure convictions.  It would also make it difficult to keep anti-terrorist measures secret, because they would be subject to pre-trial discovery of civilian trials.

6.     He would change many of the terms that are meant to suggest American values are superior to Islamic values.  He would downplay any sense that America is at war with radical Islam.  In fact, he would avoid using the term "Global War on Terror" [GWOT] and instead use "Overseas Contingency Operation.”

7.     He would refer to any terrorists that kill dozens of Americans on American soil not as “terrorists” or “murderers” or “agents of Islamism” but as mere “extremists” – making such killers no more evil than, say, right-wing Republicans.   He would not do anything to stop Islamists infiltrating the American military.

8.     He would assure Americans that acts of terrorism that obviously should be caught by American authorities, were in fact business as usual, and if he was on vacation during such incidents, he would not bother to return to work.  That would show that not only were the terrorists winning but that was entirely normal.

9.     He would make it clear that Iran should be able to acquire nuclear weapons, which its leaders have been threatening to use against Israel since Rafsanjani in the late ‘90s.   He would promise to “engage” and talk and talk, even if the Iranians heaped scorn on his tactics and even when military intelligence made it clear that the nuclear program was absolutely for military and not just civilian purposes.  

10.  He would make it clear that Israel would be on its own (at least up until an Iranian first strike nuclear attack killed an estimated 200,000 Israelis) and he would delay the delivery of “bunker busting” bombs promised to be sold to Israel.  He would also delay delivery of helicopters and other military hardware so as to pressure Israel to do nothing in the face of a threatened nuclear war.

11.  He would make Israel the object of his demands, and demand nothing from Arab countries or the Palestinians.  He would try to stop all Israeli settlement even within established cities, if they were on “disputed” lands.    He would thus create a situation where the Palestinians had no interest in compromise, since all demands were only made on the Israelis.

12.  He would befriend radical Islamist professors and Americans with records of terrorist violence against American institutions, so young Americans would know who he deemed worthy of the respect inherent in friendship, and they would understand the way of the future.

13.  He would make it clear that the only “radical” part of Islam is Al Qaeda, and therefore there is no threat to America from any other Muslims, who after all, as pointed out in point one above, are tolerant and followers of justice just like all Americans.

Oh, dear.  I think we have a problem.

Howard Rotberg is a Canadian writer.  His latest book is TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed.

I shall try to behave myself.

The Michael Coren Show - Week of Jan. 25, 2009

Cable 36 (channel 9 in Toronto), ExpressVu - 651/Star Choice - 355/Look - 19.

The Michael Coren Show airs every evening at 6:00 PM and is repeated the following day at 12:30 PM.

MONDAY, Jan 25 - Start the Week. National Post editor John Turley Ewart, activist Andrea Calver and columnist Lorne Gunter.
TUESDAY, Jan 26 - On The Hill. Federal politics.
WEDNESDAY, Jan 27 - This Week panel. Columnist Marianne Meed Ward, journalist David Menzies and debut guest Howard Rotberg.

Here is a report from Debkafile which updates the horrible game the Obama fools are playing.

Obama finally forswears tough sanctions on Iran. Jerusalem says nothing

DEBKAfile Special Report

January 6, 2010, 12:14 AM (GMT+02:00)

Letting Iran off the US hook

Taking advantage of the ado surrounding the failed airliner bombing and the new prominence of the al Qaeda peril, the Obama administration has finally given up its sanctions strategy for averting the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was tasked with the public announcement: "The Obama administration wants to keep the door to dialogue open with Iran," she said Jan. 4, then added a remark which let Iran off completely of the American hook: "…although the United States has avoided using the term deadline, it cannot wait indefinitely to hear form Iran."

Her words explicitly backtracked on statements by other senior administration officials, including National Security Adviser James Jones, in recent interviews that Tehran's deadline for responding to international proposals expired on Dec. 31. DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report that Tehran sees Washington as so eager to reach the negotiating table that it is falling back from effective penalties step by step, including an embargo on refined oils and benzene, and even willing to forgive Iran's failure to meet a highly publicized international deadline.

"Our goal is to pressure the Iranian government, particularly the Revolutionary Guards elements without contributing to the suffering of Iranians," Clinton explained.

Threatening Iran's Revolutionary Guards instead of its regime is nothing but a feeble face-saver, our Iranian sources maintain, since the IRGC, whose financial operations and its management of Iran's nuclear program subsist on alternative "black market" economic mechanisms is hardly vulnerable to international sanctions.

The Guards command a world network of thousands of straw companies, which defy investigation - even by American experts. Their funds are not moved through banks but around the illegal channels of international crime and drug cartels in countries outside US scrutiny. The IRGC is therefore not afraid of the fading US threat of sanctions.

In Jerusalem, the Netanyahu government persists in clinging to the Obama administration's coattails on the Iranian nuclear menace, keeping up the pretence that sanctions are still a viable option. On Jan. 2, a senior Israeli diplomat in Washington was quoted as saying that in back-channel conversations “Obama has convinced us that it’s worth trying the sanctions, at least for a few months.”

Another official, deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon, predicted confidently to an interviewer: "The US will impose sanctions against Iran within a month."

Two days later, the Clinton statement showed Israeli officials to be woefully lagging behind the times with regard to decision-making in Washington. There, the Iran crisis has been taken back a whole year to square one. Obama administration wasted this year in barren diplomatic engagement against Tehran's iron resistance to any changes in its nuclear objectives, while the Netanyahu-Barak government frittered the year away by playing follow-the-US leader and keeping Israel on the sidelines of any initiative against an avowed enemy.

By contrast, Iran spent the year celebrating another leap forward in developing its nuclear weaponry and missiles, the while binding its ally Syria and proxies Hizballah and Hamas to mutual defense pacts should the US or Israel conjure up the temerity to strike its nuclear facilities after all.

Middle East & Israel Breaking News » Israel » Article

Dec 10, 2009 1:18 | Updated Dec 10, 2009 2:16

Hamas preparing advanced rockets and 'offensive' tunnels

By YAAKOV KATZ

Print Subscribe E-mail Toolbar

+ Recommend: What's this?

Israel is likely to face advanced Iranian weaponry, long-range rockets, large missile silos and dozens of kilometers of underground tunnels connecting open fields with urban centers in the event of a future conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, according to the latest Israeli assessments.

A Kassam rocket crew in Gaza [file].
Photo: Channel 2 [file]

SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region  |  World

Since Operation Cast Lead ended almost a year ago, Hamas has increased its weapons smuggling and today operates hundreds of tunnels along the Philadelphi Corridor. It has smuggled in dozens of long-range Iranian-made rockets that can reach Tel Aviv as well as advanced anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles.

Hamas is believed to have a significant number of shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles and 9M113 Konkurs, which have a range of four kilometers and are capable of penetrating heavy armor.

In addition, Hamas is believed to have today a few thousand rockets, including several hundred with a range of 40 kilometers and several dozen with a range of between 60 and 80 km. Intelligence assessments are that Hamas smuggled the missiles into theGaza Strip through tunnels, possibly in several components.

Iran already supplies Hamas with 122mm Katyusha rockets that are smuggled into Gaza in several pieces and then assembled by Hamas engineers.

One of the main lessons Hamas learned from Cast Lead was the need to reinforce its defenses and as a result has invested efforts in digging additional tunnels, which connect open fields with homes belonging to key operatives as well as command centers.

The idea is to enable freedom of movement for the operatives between different battlefields, which it found difficult during Israel's ground offensive inGaza earlier this year.

Hamas has also increased its use of civilian infrastructure, particularly mosques, which the terror group already used quite extensively for storage and launching rockets during the operation. Hamas is believed to have taken control of almost 80 percent of the mosques inGaza, using them to store weapons and set up command-and-control centers.

Hamas, is "padding" itself as well by setting up its command centers in large apartment buildings. This way, it believes, the IDF will not attack them by air, and will need to send ground forces deep into the population centers, where it will lose its technological advantage.

In addition, Hamas is hoping to increase the effectiveness of its rocket capability during a future conflict and has created large missile silos.

Hamas has also recently increased its efforts to dig what the IDF calls "offensive tunnels" close to the border with Israel, which the terror group could use to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap soldiers.

These tunnels are believed to be of strategic value for Hamas, which would only use them for large-scale attacks and high-value targets.

It is quite awful to know what is coming ahead of time, and then be ignored by the mainstream when you try to tell them.

In 2003, I released a novel where the main character, a professor, was writing a book called the Second Holocaust where he claims that a Second Holocaust has started which will culminate in Iranian nuclear attacks against the almost 6 million Jews of Israel. I am not saying that Iran will be successful against the Israeli IDF, but the concern that occupied my  mind when I wrote the book has become a lot more concrete and worrisome.

Furthermore I had the professor in the book get in trouble for some politically incorrect language at a lecture;  then after the book came out, I got in trouble, not for what I said, but for what an 18 year old part time book clerk and member of the Muslim Students Association fabricated that i said.

My book, The Second Catastrophe:  A Novel about a Book and its Author was banned by Chapters in Canada and was never picked up in the U.S., despite good reviews.

Last week, Mantua Books released my new book, TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed, in which I warn that politically correct tolerance has morphed into the ideology of Tolerism, and that Obama is one of the main symptons, where tolerance towards the illiberals has become excessive and tolerance has become more important than justice.  Again, I was too prescient,  As we know, last week, an Islamist who was still a psychiatrist in the U.S. army despite all kinds of talk about how the Muslims in the U.S. should support Muslim countries rather than America, how America in responding to 9/11 was warring against all of Islam, rather than fighting terrorist groups, and who had worshipped in mosques led by two radical Islamists, killed twelve fellow soldiers and injured 33 more.

Yelling the traditional chant of Jihadists, "Allahu Akhbar" as he opened fire in a pre-meditated attack, the media and Obama the Dunce reacted in typical politically correct, morally relativistic terms.

The first Washington Post article took 11 paragraphs to even mention that the attacker was Muslim!

President Obama, put in a couple of disgraceful performances wherein he shows why he is one of the last people in the U.S. who should be President in a time of war against the West by Radical Islam:   Even on Saturday, by which time more information had come out about the Islamist ideology of the attacker (who should always be described as a "terrorist" - except that the politically correct, morally infantile Obama has abolished the word - Obama unbelievable declined to mention that this attack was by an Islamist, or was caused by the Islamists who indoctrinated the terrorist.

Instead Obama said, (and I am not joking):  "We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing." This has got to go down as one of the most ridiculous statements by an American president in history.   We KNOW already what Islamist hatred causes their people to do.   Where has Obama been?   Of course he knows it too, but feels the need to downplay the fact.  That is why some Americans are belatedly worrying about the Islamic background and the spirtual mentors who influenced this smooth talking, no action, poseur.

Incidentally, it took me 5 minutes from hearing the initial report to find out:

Hasan attended the mosque in Silver Spring Maryland where the imam was at the time Faisal Khan.   Faisal Khan was a supporter of the demonstrations in Washington by Muslims who wanted Sami Al-Arian released from jail.   Sami Al-Arian is the disgraced professor from Florida who pled guilty to one count of conspiracy (other counts were dropped as part of a plea bargain) to assist a terrorist entity, namely the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  Al-Arian refused to comply with a subpoena to come to a Grand Jury to testify against an alleged co-conspirator and was convicted of contempt of court, in addition to the original charge, which really bothered some of the activists in the Washington area Muslim community.

Then,  it was discovered that the Islamist doctor had attended a mosque in Virginia headed by an Islamist imam, which was also attended (at the same time) by two of the World Trade Centre terrorists.    There is no evidence of direct link, but this shows what kind of crowd and imams he associated with.

But if the American people were not concerned that their future Commander in Chief hung out with the America-hating Rev. Wright and the ex-terrorist Bill Ayers, and with other anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic ideologues, I guess they don't see anything wrong with radical Islamists who hate America serving in the armed forces.

Again, my book is prescient and again I watch the inevitable results of what I warn against.  I derive no pleasure, none at all, from being right.

Then last week I made a post about the danger that our current cultural relativists will soon attack the moral foundations of Remembrance Day.  I sent a copy of the essay to a number of newspapers who of course declined it, without even bothering to write back, as they must consider me some kind of flake.

But yesterday, I found that what my essay warns against has already started.  Of course, it has started in Britain first.   Which is par for the course.  I am going to reprint the article from the website from one of these left wing pacifist British Christian churches, who seem happy to cheer on the Islamification of their country which, based on other areas of the world where Muslims are in control, will inevitably mean that the Christian churches, left wing or not, will not be tolerated.   Toleration as I have argued in my new book is only a one way street.

Here is the report;  I have emphasized certain ridiculous points by adding bold face type.   Mark my words, this is the next frontier in the Left's assault on decency, morality and our historic accomplishments as liberal democracies:

from http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/10504:

We need a more inclusive Remembrance Day

Remembrance Day, 2009:   What are we Remembering?

By Howard Rotberg

In our current world of cultural and moral relativism where we are supposed to believe that we should tolerate and respect every culture and every belief system equally, Remembrance Day is more and more the last bastion of traditional patriotism.

When we remember the soldiers who gave up their lives, or were disabled, for the maintenance of our way of life, our liberal democracies and our freedoms, we necessarily hold that our way of life is superior to those whose totalitarian illiberal governments forced the necessity of war upon us.

Cultural relativists would have us believe that Tolerance is the new primary value, and that if all peoples are equally deserving of respect, pacifism is so obviously more moral than war, since if everybody is like us, who would bother to attack us, and even if they did, submission to their values would, according to the relativists, be a lesser evil than fighting them.

In my new book, Tolerism:  The Ideology Revealed (Mantua Books), I suggest that adherence to a tolerant worldview has now passed beyond mere respect for the idea of diversity – and become an ideology that holds that we must have, not only a sympathy but an indulgence, that is an excessive leniency, for beliefs or practices conflicting with our own. At times, I contend that this ideology contains not only an undue tolerance of the illiberals, but a disturbing element of self-hatred, cultural masochism, and delusions about the difference between social tolerance and political tolerance.   I explore the issue of what limitations should be placed on Tolerance and whether Tolerance should be trumped by Justice.

To understand the full dimensions of what Remembrance Day must be in 21^st century Canada, it is necessary to canvas some other commemorations that have sprung up in our increasingly international culture.

First of all, are we in Remembrance Day mourning all soldiers of every state, or only those who proudly represented liberal democracies against such forces as Nazi Germany?

I used to live in Kitchener-Waterloo.  Some years ago, the remains of Nazi soldiers who had died in POW camps in Canada were disinterred and transferred to one cemetery in Kitchener, which has a sizeable German population.   And so, a few days after Remembrance Day, there takes place a gathering of some 400 to 500 people, at this cemetery of Nazi soldiers, where the German Remembrance Day, called Volkstrauertag, takes place.   In 2006, the German Ambassador to Canada decided to include in his speech there, a substantial remembrance of the Holocaust.   This so bothered the local German organizations that the Cooperative Council of German Canadian Clubs of Waterloo Region felt it necessary to write an Open Letter to the German ambassador noting that his talk “certainly fit into the theme of holocaust (sic) education”, but expressing their “community’s extreme disappointment that its focus created the impression of a political demonstration of ‘Vergangenheitsbewaltigung’  (meaning “"struggle to come to terms with the past").

The Kitchener Germans protested that this speech “missed its mark” because in their view the ceremony was for the purpose of remembering all victims of war and political persecution anywhere “and our compatriots in particular”. (emphasis added)

And so, a ceremony attended every year by local mayors, members of the legislature and parliament is meant by its organizers to remember and honour Nazi soldiers.   Are we comfortable with this?    Are we comfortable that nearly as many people attend this remembrance ceremony as attend the Remembrance Day ceremony at the cenotaph in downtown Kitchener?

Then, since 1995, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization has sponsored a Day of Tolerance on November 16^th each year, again an interesting counterpoint to Remembrance Day on November 11^th. On the UNESCO website is stated that the day “affirms that tolerance is neither indulgence nor indifference. It is respect and appreciation of the rich variety of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance recognizes the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. People are naturally diverse; only tolerance can ensure the survival of mixed communities in every region of the globe.”

It sounds so nice. But why must we in the liberal democracies “tolerate” beliefs and cultures that rob individuals, women, gays, or minority religions from all human rights.  Shouldn’t we be encouraged to speak out against such human rights abuses, rather than tolerate them?  I do not suggest we militarily free every oppressed group in the totalitarian parts of the world, but why is there a day to celebrate the rich variety of oppressive regimes?

UNESCO, by the way just elected a new president.   A Bulgarian parliamentarian overtook a large lead by the frontrunner, Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni.   Just to give an understanding of the absurdity of UNESCO-sponsored days of Tolerance, Hosni, who was the favorite to win, is a well-known supporter of cultural repression.   As stated by Mona Eltahawy in the Washington Post, Hosni “has alienated many Egyptians by suffocating cultural and intellectual freedom while giving a leg up to religious zealotry.”  She cites numerous examples of his preventing freedom of expression.  Then, in May 2008, he stated that he would “burn Israeli books” himself if he found any in Egyptian libraries.

Mr. Hosni tried his best to satisfy international concerns.  He wrote an article in the French newspaper Le Monde, where he apologized for the comments and said he would be willing to deal with Israel if he were elected to be UNESCO’s chief.

And yet, this modest apology led to a backlash among Egyptian intellectuals, who argued the culture minister was not abiding by the cultural limitations established by Egyptian institutions concerning normalization with Israel.   You see, while the world thinks Egypt is at peace with Israel, this country, which airs the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion on its television, actually bars cultural organizations and media from any dealings with Israeli officials and artists. 

So, this resulted in 15 prominent Egyptian intellectuals, including professors of literature, history, and international law, and prominent journalists, to write an open letter opposing Mr. Hosni’s election to head UNESCO. His apology for his book burning remarks and his willingness to deal with Israel in the course of his duties, caused these intellectuals to write:  “It is needless to emphasize that this character with such dreadful history is not fit for such great position that requires high levels of morality and integrity, as well as unrelenting support for human dignity and ethical transparency.”    And so, the chances of Mr. Hosni being the first Arab to head UNESCO were scuttled as much by hardliners in his own country as by western concerns.   But in the end, Hosni, as is usual in the Arab Middle East, blamed the Jews.  An article by Hadil al-Shalchi in The Huffington Post states that Hosni blamed a conspiracy "cooked up in New York" by the world's Jews for keeping him from becoming the next head of the U.N.'s agency for culture and education.

The point is that commemorations of Tolerance headed by intolerant people, or commemoration of Nazi war dead by people who get upset that the Holocaust be mentioned are all commemorations that are meaningless, in any positive sense.   As Canada takes in more immigrants, will these immigrants share in a Remembrance Day to remember why our soldiers die, or will they want their own remembrance days, commemorating values that may be very different than those of a liberal democracy?

One more example of the relativist undermining of remembrance will suffice:  Canadian Professor Anne Bayefsky, writing on January 27,  2005 in National Review Online points out that the United Nations commemoration of the 60^th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz made sure that there were no actual Resolutions coming out of the ceremony, so as not to offend the Arab states, which boycotted the event (the auditorium was half empty).  Of the 41 speakers at the event, only 5 dared to mention the word, "Israel" in their speeches, and such word was not mentioned in the speeches by the U.S., Canada, the European Union and Australia. Then, most amazing of all, at the ceremony that took place at Auschwitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfovitz stated:  "We have agreed to set aside contemporary political issues, in order to reflect on those events of 60 years ago in a spirit of unanimity."   The price, however, for unanimity is to abandon the notion that the Holocaust contains lessons for contemporary politics.  To concede as Wolfovitz did, that European leftists and the Muslims are offended by the lessons to be drawn, is to render the Holocaust into a meaningless symbol.

Bayefsky notes the irony of the constant repetition of the mantra "Never Again" when we fail to give primacy to discussions of what that means in the contemporary situation for the Jewish state: "Jews everywhere are indebted to the willingness and ability of Israelis to live and breathe self-determination.  When contemporary political issues are set aside and an affirmation of the centrality of the Jewish state's well-being is not key to a commemoration of the Holocaust, 'never again' is an empty phrase."

And so we return to Remembrance Day, 2009 in Canada.   Let us, as part of the education we give to our students, emphasize that we are remembering those who gave their lives for the maintenance of liberties in a liberal democratic state.   Let us not mistake multiculturalism (that is, the acceptance of diversity as long as the constituent parts all respect our main liberal democratic values) for cultural relativism, that leads to the position that all beliefs and cultures are equal.   Let us remember, but let us first put some context to that remembrance. And that context is that in Canada we remember with pride those who did not just die, but died for the purpose of maintaining a free and democratic country, which, while always capable of improvement, represents a political system and a cultural milieu of which we can be proud.

Howard Rotberg is the author of The Second Catastrophe:  A Novel about a Book and its Author (Mantua Books) and Exploring Vancouverism:  The Political Culture of Canada’s Lotus Land (CanadianValuesPress).  His new book, TOLERism:  The Ideology Revealed, (Mantua Books) will be launched in Toronto on November 22^nd.

Mantua Books is releasing my new book later this week.

It is already available through Amazon.com or by email from the publisher at:

mantua2003@hotmail.com.

I will post more information on the book in the next few days.

Mantua is also releasing at the same time the impressive collection of essays by distinguished Canadian author David Solway, entitled Hear, O Israel!

TISHA B’AV 2009: 

A Jew looks at America’s Scandalous Award to Mary Robinson

By Howard Rotberg

Tisha B'Av, the Fast of the Ninth of the Jewish month of Av, is a Jewish day of mourning to commemorate the many tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people, many of which coincidentally have occurred on the ninth of Av.   This year it fell on July 30^th.

Tisha B'Av primarily commemorates the destruction of the first and second Temples in Jerusalem, both of which were destroyed on the ninth of Av (the first by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. and the second by the Romans in 70 C.E.)   The Western Wall around the Temple, Judaism’s holiest place is the remains of the wall around the Temple. Arab revisionist history holds that there never was a Jewish Temple, all archeological verifications notwithstanding. Israel, since Jerusalem was reunified in 1967 tolerates Palestinian prohibitions against Jews wishing to visit the Temple Mount, now the site of an Arab mosque.

Although this holy day is primarily meant to commemorate the destruction of the Temple, it also the many other tragedies of the Jewish people, many of which occurred on this day, most notably the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492.

Traditional Jews who follow the Torah learn that when the twelve scouts sent by Moses to observe the land of Canaan returned from their mission, the majority spoke disparagingly about the land which caused the Children of Israel to panic and despair of ever entering the "Promised Land". For this, the Torah states that they were punished by God that their generation would not enter the land.  Moreover, because of the Israelites' lack of faith, God decreed that for all generations this date would become one of crying and misfortune for their descendants, the Jewish people.

Here is the list of calamities that happened to the Jewish people on Tisha B’av through the ages:

1. The First Temple built by King Solomon and the Kingdom of Judah was destroyed by the Babylonians led by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE and the Judeans were sent into the Babylonian exile.

2. The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, scattering the people of Judea and commencing the Jewish exile from the Holy Land.

3. Bar Kokhba's revolt against Rome failed in 135 CE. Simon bar Kokhba was killed, and the city of Betar was destroyed.

4. Following the Roman siege of Jerusalem, the razing of Jerusalem occurred the next year. A Temple was built in its stead to an idol.

5. During the First Crusade, 10,000 Jews were murdered on Tisha B’Av (1095)

6. In 1290, Jews were expelled from England on Tisha B’Av.

7. The Alhambra Decree of 1492, expelling the Jews from Spain, took effect on the 7th of Av, just two days before Tisha B'Av.

8. On the eve of Tisha B'Av 1942, the mass deportation began of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto, en route to Treblinka concentration camp.

9. The deadly bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires occurred on Tisha B’Av (1994).

10. The Second Lebanon War took place in the three weeks leading up to Tisha B'Av in 2006.

And now, on Tisha B’Av in the Hebrew year of 5769, being July 30^th 2009, a major catastrophe has again fallen on the Jewish people.   The actual event of which I am speaking may seem to be relatively unimportant – President Obama has awarded the Medal of Freedom to Irishwoman Mary Robinson.   Robinson presided over the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as it transformed itself to the almost single concern of vilifying Israel, and presided over the infamous Durban Conference.  The honour itself, however, is indicative of something much more important and ominous – the transition of the United States from being the leader of the free world and (on balance) a force for justice and freedom in the world to becoming a European-like rationalizer of injustice by emphasizing the supposed value of “tolerance” and “multi-lateralism” in a world of evil nations and transnational terrorists.   The giving of an honour to the woman who most epitomizes the evil of the Durban conference and the preoccupation with characterizing Israel as the new Nazis and the Palestinians as the new Jews, could unfortunately symbolize a turning point in American and world history.

Previously, the terrorism utilized by Palestinians with the support of Muslim nations, and the tolerance and funding of European nations, seemed to at least face a line in the sand with the United States. Jews thought they could depend on the liberal democrats of the United States to understand that terrorism is caused, not by the failure to give terrorists what they want, but by allowing and tolerating, even nourishing the climates of hate in which terrorists thrive.

And so, in the infamous Durban Conference of 2001, the United States under the leadership of Secretary of State Colin Powell drew a line in the sand, beyond which the Americans were not prepared to allow the conference to proceed (with American participation) – that an international conference on Racism, could not be hijacked to deal only with one political dispute in the world, given that this was a dispute over land boundaries (and no other political disputes were being discussed).  Moreover,  that it was in fact a racist agenda that it had been adopted by the Durban pre-conference (held in Iran!) to criticize Israeli counter-terrorism - in the absence of criticism of the terrorism itself – and to equate the six million deaths of  Jews in the Holocaust with Israeli self-defense against hostile militant neighbours and terrorist organizations, and to criticize Israel as being guilty of “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid”.   The American leadership withdrew from the conference.

The anti-intellectualism, the anti-liberalism, the anti-westernism, and indeed the anti-Semitism of the Arab and Muslim world joined with self-hating members of western Non-Governmental Organizations, were exposed in Durban as a major threat to Western civilization.  For those, who didn’t get the message from this conference, which ended on September 7^th, 2001, a mere four days later militant Islam attacked New York’s World Trade Towers.   President Bush took up the challenge and vowed to stop terrorism in the United States, and despite other weaknesses in his administration, he, for the main part kept this vow.   To Jews, the travesty of Durban followed so closely by the horrors of 9/11 indicated that once again the Jews were the canaries in the mine, and how the world views anti-Semitic persecution of Jews is a harbinger for the prospects for freedom and peace in the so-called civilized world.

In my novel, The Second Catastrophe:  A Novel about a Book and its Author (Mantua Books), the fictional author of the book-within-the-book argues that the Durban Conference in today’s war against the Jews is equivalent to the Wansee Conference in the Nazi war on the Jews.

But now the Americans have embraced a candidate of change.   Despite ominous past associations with a rogues’ gallery of anti-Israel and anti-American types (including, most importantly, having as a pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose message was not so much Christian as anti-American and anti-Israel), Americans, including an astounding 75% of American Jews, voted for Obama as President.

His very first acts on the international stage were promises to “engage” with the terrorist-sponsoring and genocidal nuclear-arming Iranians, and to bow to Saudis and to create an American “submission” to Islam by fabricating a view of history - by stating that “the truth (is) that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings … Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

By making “tolerance” the supreme American value as opposed to “Justice”, and then to equate America’s sense of tolerance with whatever that word means in Islamic countries, Obama prostituted centuries of American notions of freedom and justice to what only can be termed a first step in the “submission” to Islam.

And his promises of “engagement” with Iran were put on the back burner, as America watched impotently as the Iranian mullahs and their evil hit-man Ahmadinejad violently put down protests over election fraud and the restriction of liberties for the Iranian people.

In this, Obama seeks to bring America closer to the submissionist ideologies and practices of countries like Britain and France, which allow parallel systems of sharia law that deny Muslim women the great individual protections of Western human rights law, and which have altered both domestic and foreign policies to placate their growing Islamic populations.

And so, on Tisha B’Av, July 30^th, 2009, Obama made an even more shocking symbolic submission to foreign values, when he awarded a medal of freedom to Ireland’s Mary Robinson, the infamous former head of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the founder and chief organizer of 2001’s Durban Conference.  This award must surely be viewed with horror for those who hold out a future for our children of peace, freedom and the continuation of western standards of individual and human rights. This award to Jews must surely be seen as yet another catastrophe in a long list of catastrophes that have happened on Tisha B’Av throughout Jewish history.

Before turning to an examination of the abhorrent views and actions of Ms. Robinson, it is important to examine President Obama’s views in more detail. 

As I have just returned from three weeks in Israel at the time of writing this (July 31, 2009), I can perhaps give a view of how Israelis, in my recent discussions with them, are viewing Obama’s America.   Of course, this exercise is largely subjective, because Israelis, living in a liberal democracy hold a vast array of different opinions, but certain trends are discernable.

Israelis can be excused for wondering just who Barack Hussein Obama really is and what does he stand for.  Is he Black or white, Muslim or Christian, friend of domestic terrorists or mainstreamers, confidant of Edward Said or establishment Jews, brilliant writer of two autobiographies or purveyor of unacknowledged ghost written material, supporter of Arabs or Israel, lawyer attuned to human rights or community organizer attuned to collective rights, follower of Christian values or liberation theology positioned between Reverend Wright and Louis Farakhan, proud of American historical values or apologetic to the terrorists in accepting the responsibility of America and Israel for the “root causes”?

Obama, it must be conceded, is in fact a product of contemporary American culture, and it is that culture of cultural relativism and moral equivalency, which has been a concern of many Israelis for the last 10 years or so.   For even though George Bush was perceived as a friend of Israel, the political class in America has been inching back to the State Department’s philo-Arabism as opposed to the traditional liberal respect for the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.  When the New York Times publishes anti-Israel Jews like Tony Judt, and the Hollywood establishment did not understand the moral travesty that Steven Spielberg created from a script by anti-Israel Jewish writer Tony Kushner, in Munich, it can be argued that Obama is the result of what the American liberal culture has become, not the cause of it.

As someone interested in cultural history (the history of ideologies and values), and the author of three books on the subject, I try to visit Israel often.  I share the view (often ascribed to the “right”) that Israel is the front line in Huntington’s clash of civilizations or, to put it another, yet similar, way, is among the most important fronts in the War Against Radical Islam (called by those who haven’t the moral fiber to speak the truth, the War on Terror). 

And so, having been travelling around Israel for the last few of weeks, and listening to an assortment of Israelis and Israeli media, I have noticed an interesting reaction to what America is becoming under the President whose values and background are so inscrutable.  From an initial positive attitude towards someone who advanced so rapidly to the Presidency, only 6% of Israelis now view Obama as “pro”-Israel.   In no particular order here are some things they are thinking about:

In my travels around Israel, I see the huge accomplishment of a country that has an open immigration policy for every ethnicity of Jew who wants or needs sanctuary in a Jewish state where he or she can be free from prejudice or persecution.  From the light brown Sephardic Jews driven out of Arab countries, to the darker brown Jews of India, to the black Jews of Ethiopia, all, no matter their education or suitability to contribute to the country, are accepted.   Within a generation their children are (in reasonable numbers) successfully assimilated to the modern, western, technological society and culture of Israel.  

The politics of race here results in some odd voting blocks and coalitions, but there is very much an underlying consensus that every Israeli is who he is and does not pretend to be something else.  This holds true for the hundreds of thousands of Israeli Arabs living in peace with their Jewish neighbours, having representation in the parliament, an ambassadorship, a place on the Supreme Court, and in the case of the Druze Arabs, service in the army.   Unlike their cousins, who now call themselves Palestinians, the Muslims who stayed put, know who they are, and did not have to invent an identity.

Obama, from the Israeli viewpoint, is a mystery.   He somehow appears a post-racial poseur akin to Michael Jackson, bending race to the requirements of art and public adulation.  Is he his father’s son (an already married upper class Kenyan student who tired of Barack’s mother and went home) or his mother’s son (a naïve and largely expatriate academic from the Midwest)?  How can the son of a Kenyan and a white woman whose parents were from Kansas, and who availed himself of the fruits of the American affirmative action program, wrap himself in the mantle of oppressed black American males whose cultural impotency stems directly from the slave experience and a failed assimilation to American values?  The very notion that his blackness links him automatically to the black mainstream is, in this viewpoint, a fundamentally racist construct.  Skin colour matters less to Americans today than cultural values. In other words, the typical educated American would rather have a black lawyer or ball player as a neighbour than a white Appalachian.    The remaining prejudice towards blacks is not a function of skin colour as it is a reaction to perceived difference in cultural values.

Obama’s grandparents (who grew up in Kansas) took the main burden of raising him.   Where is Kansas and what was it named after?   That would be of interest to Israelis, but apparently not so much to American journalists.   Kansas after all was named after the Kansa Native American tribe who along with most Native Tribes were basically ethnically cleansed by white settlers with governmental and military backing. Before Obama apologizes to Muslims, perhaps he should apologize to American natives.

Or is Obama, like most young Americans who today fail to seriously study history, entitled to divorce himself entirely from ancestral deeds and heritage?   Have we post-moderns dismissed the traditional notion of examining someone’s family to understand their bearings?   Why then, does Obama obsess over the historical details of Israeli settlement policy and not the settlement policy of his ancestors in Kansas and Oklahoma?

Does Obama know that Mary Robinson’s appeasement of the derailing of the Durban Conference on Racism was not only to turn it into an anti-Israel hatefest, but also to extinguish the original hope to have the conference deal with the historical wrongs of slavery and colonialism, and obtain for African countries some measure of apology?  In fact, the first Black American President, in his eagerness to reward Mary Robinson’s conduct at Durban, also has created a slap in the face for the African countries who had such great hope at Durban.   Of course, not sharing a background in slavery like most other American blacks, and not wanting his white ancestors’ benefits from Aboriginal ethnic cleansing in Kansas and Oklahoma to see the light of the media, Obama neither understands nor empathizes with the hopes for redress that were dashed by Robinson.

Obama, in his few pronouncements about Israel, seems to lack any serious historical context.   This is not surprising to Israelis because there is far less justification for what the white American settlers did (including Obama’s great grandparents who owned property in Oklahoma, where some of the most serious injustices to Natives happened), than what Israeli settlers have done, which is to reclaim land which historically was Jewish for thousands of years, after a defensive war.   So when Obama hectors Israelis on their settlements, he is viewed as transparent and hypocritical.

Or is the American problem one of handing the complexities of American foreign policy - in an age of aggressive fundamentalist Islam’s attempt to seize control of massive areas of the world - over to a Georgia peanut farmer or an undistinguished Texas governor, or, as we have now, a public relations and internet savy “community activist”?

Israelis are rankled by Obama’s blatent double standards:

He is loath to “interfere” by seizing a historic opportunity to reverse Iranian Islamofascist tyranny in Iran and export of terrorism through Hizbollah and Hamas:  "It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling," he stated.  The fact that it was another inexperienced American Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, who projected American weakness, was instrumental in encouraging the Mullah’s Islamic revolution in Iran, is lost on the Obama crowd.  But, when it comes to Israel, Obama meddles in the greatest detail – demanding, contrary to previous commitments to Israel (as substantiated by Elliot Abrams), that no Israeli settlement be allowed even one inch of growth to accommodate new family formation.   To Jews who are attuned to the demographic realities of the Middle East, this is perceived ominously like an American proscription against Jewish births, and ties Obama to historical fascist oppression of Jews.

Moreover, Israelis who lived through the almost daily suicide bombings of 2001 -2002, the Hizbollah rockets on Northern Israel in 2006, and the 7 years of rockets from Gaza against Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon, are saddened to hear a one-sided concern from Obama.   Waxing eloquent about Palestinian suffering (which is perceived by most Israelis to stem in main from their own leaders’ rejection of Israeli peace offers including Camp David  in 2000 and Olmert’s offer in 2008), Israelis are irked that his sympathies do not extend to their suffering, too.   Israelis who are trying to explain to their children why hundreds of millions of hostile Arabs periodically attack their country, sponsor terrorist attacks, and now are joined by the Islamofascist state of Iran which (all the way back to Rafsanjani in the 1990s) has been promising to attain nuclear weapons and use them on the Jews.   And how do they explain that despite three thousand years of Jewish presence in Israel, the Palestinians reject the Israeli offer of an independent state, because they cannot also have their people return to the one small Jewish state (their rejection is based on the misleadingly named “right” of return.)

Perhaps the most obscene double standard of all, from the point of view of women, anyway, is that in a Muslim world that tolerates “honour” killings, Obama does not seem to notice.  A so-called liberal embraced by American women praises Islam for tolerance, when that tolerance includes the obscenity of honour killings and rapes.   Just check out the writings of the great American feminist Phyllis Chesler (now shunned by mainstream feminism) on the extent of honour killings and abuse of women in Islamic culture.

The cultural relativists have so fallen in love with Islam that they accept Islam’s right to abuse women and children.   They also seem to accept in this bizarre moral relativism Hamas’ right to make women and children into human shields.   They reserve their indignation for Israel’s self defense that targets rocket launching sites, after telephone calls to the civilians to evacuate, and when they do not and suffer casualities, Israel is held to be solely responsible.  

For Israelis, whether or not they are Torah observant, know that the Torah values justice more than anything.   The United States used to agree.  Now under Obama it appears that Tolerance is the new value of choice, and that tolerance leads to horrible double standards, and it is that underlying divergence of values that will separate Israel and the United States more than anything else.  The Democrats will portray their policy choices as reflecting “balance” and national interest;  in fact the Americans are following the Europeans towards a crisis in traditional values of Western civilization, wherein tolerance is seen to be at least as important as Justice.   One cannot emphasize too greatly that when Tony Kushner and Steven Spielberg portrayed the Israelis as vengeful in Munich, they were reflecting a sad cultural decline:  Rather than emphasizing  Justice, Spielberg reflected an adoption of Tolerance to the sad failures of the German authorities to bring the murderers at the Munich Olympics to justice, and to the distorted values of the terrorists themselves and the people who sent them on their dastardly mission.

By choosing to portray the victims as Shylock-like in their vengeance, Spielberg and his fans have made clear how much anti-Israelism depends on anti-Semitism.   Obama is the perfect president for a nation without values. When Michele Obama stated that with her husband’s election, she could finally be proud of America, that seems to me to say that at last America will change its values to approach the European Leftist abrogation of Justice and away from traditional American values which have been rejected as Right-wing and non-tolerant.   Formerly the “canary in the mine” with respect to injustice in the world, Israelis sense that they have been replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, dominated by Islamic dictatorships.   If the conscience of America is now Jimmy Carter, rather than Eli Wiesel, the Israelis feel that a Second Holocaust will be permitted by America.

The worry for an educated Jew, however, is that while a Canary in a coal mine was valued by the miners for detecting dangerous gases, the Jews of Israel will not be appreciated for criticizing moral values, especially when Israelis themselves are so far from perfect;  in fact, it can be argued, that anti-Semitism is in large part based on the resentment towards those preaching justice and goodness by those intent on injustice and murder.   Hitler’s policies of course breached most of the Ten Commandments.   American Jews who stand up for the values of Justice against the values of Tolerance are in danger of falling into Walt and Mearsheimer’s dastardly Jewish lobby.   Israelis with a perfect sense of the history of anti-Semitism, know the potential problem that Obama creates for the Jewish people.

Israelis are viewing Obama’s Cairo speech in a very different light than Obama’s young (and apparently historically ignorant) base in the Democratic party who equate eloquence with intelligence. To the Israelis, as recently pointed out by Sarah Honig, in the Jerusalem Post, Obama is making the mistake of using American prestige to in fact support democracy’s most rabid enemies, while being nasty to an embattled liberal democracy (whose “crime” seems to be what policies they have adopted after three wars against it by the Arab states, and numerous terrorist campaigns.)

As Honig puts it:  “As pro-democracy demonstrators are killed in Teheran and as its ayatollahs further their designs to arm themselves with nukes, the leader of the free world harps on Israeli settlements.  You can almost understand where he’s coming from.  Iran is a tough customer and crazy too.  It’s tempting not to rile it and to deflect criticism by focusing on some lonely remote outposts in the middle of Judea and Samaria’s barren moonscape.”   For Israel, unlike the Arabs or Iran, according to Honig, will “broadmindedly collaborate in an effort to appease its detractors.”

Americans with their wide-open spaces and huge country, have a hard time understanding a tiny sliver of a country, which under the non-lamented ’67 borders was a little as 9.5 miles wide, and which now finds itself surrounded on the north and the south-west by Iranian terrorist proxies, and which is being asked to add a state to its east, which in all likelihood will become, like Gaza, ruled by terrorist Hamas. Israel indeed has a love-hate relationship with America.

While American fans of Obama might accept his argument of equivalency between one of history’s greatest liberal democracies on the one hand, and a series of regimes that grant few if any individual rights and often promote abuse of women, torture and have abysmal justice systems, on the other, Israelis react to this claim with shock and horror.   Obama stated at Cairo that America and the Muslim world “share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”   To most Israelis, the man is either a lunatic or attempting the most disgraceful appeasement since Neville Chamberlain refused to react to the Nazi threat.   To Israelis, who, particularly in Haifa and the Galilee live near, and sometimes work with, moderate Muslim Arabs, there is a knowledge that individual Muslims, free of indoctrination and brainwashing by Muslim governments, can be good neighbours.  But they know Obama is wrong when he whitewashes the corrupted leaders of the “Muslim world”, for Israelis know better than anyone how those leaders have cast the Jewish State as the source of all blame for everything wrong in the world.

To Israelis, appeasement of evil today, means a bloodier and longer war tomorrow.   To America, its golden tongued orator will talk radical Islam into giving up all of its goals.  Leaning on Israel will, this line of thinking goes, lead Islamists to come to their senses. To Israelis, who actually have a long history of dealing with the Arab rejection of any compromise in their belief that every descendent of every Palestinian should be allowed to move to Tel Aviv, Obama projects nothing more than weakness and ignorance.  The Israelis have learned or ought to have learned by now – depending which politician one is viewing – that making concessions to Islamists is only viewed by them as weakness leading to more concessions.  Israelis believe that the Palestinians have a very different time frame than do leftist Americans and Europeans:  Palestinians are prepared to wait for 50 or 100 years, if necessary, for the resolve of the enemy to break.  Such is the purpose of terrorism – to break the will, to force submission, to make popular the idea of appeasement.

As young Americans leave organized religion in droves, many no longer accept the traditional concepts of good and evil.    They believe, like Obama, that the evil just need some more concessions.  America is in danger of losing the ability to understand how the “evil” of a Hitler or an Ahmadinejad compromises the ability of freedom loving countries to defend against mortal threats to Western civilization. To that portion of the Israeli population that accepts religious values, it is sad that the supposedly Christian leader of the world’s leading democracy was given his religious guidance by a minister as anti-American as Reverend Wright.   It is even sadder to see him deeply bow to the Saudi King and preach about the moral equivalency of Christianity and Islam.

To Israelis, even though Bush together with his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, were less than successful, at least they acknowledged that the U.S. was in a War with radical Islam, including Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.   It is sad to see that Obama has submitted to Muslim arguments that such Islamist organizations are on the periphery, instead of contaminating the mainstream.   Israelis have been reading recently how Al Jazeera, the dominant network for Muslims world-wide, in fact was set up by the emir of Qatar, to promote the ideals of the Muslim Brotherhood, which threatens the stability of Egypt, as well as being the dominant influence on Hamas.   Do Americans know this, and if so, do they care?   Do they believe a speech by Obama can compete with the hours of anti-U.S. and anti-Israel programming consumed daily by millions of Muslims?    As Zvi Mazel, formerly Israeli ambassador to Egypt, has recently written, “Al Jazeera leads an all-out war against Israel in which there is no room for true reporting. The purpose is to bring all Arabs to support the Palestinians and, more specifically Hamas, which is, after all, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  No efforts are spared to present the Palestinians as the ultimate victims.  Hamas representatives are warmly received by news anchors and commentators and they receive far more air time than the Palestinian Authority”.

One would think the media-savy American president, who relied so much on media support to win the election, would understand the power of Al-Jazeera and challenge its subversion of journalistic standards;  instead he is too busy “apologizing” and attributing the tension between America and the Muslim world to a “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations”.   Perhaps if Obama watched Arab media, read Arab textbooks, and listened to the sermons of certain imams, he would come up with another explanation of the tension between America and the Muslim world.

But alas, he appears to read less than he writes.   In an internet world of short newsclips and symbolic acts, be they of terrorists, or the symbols adopted by Obama himself, the symbolic significance of awarding a medal to Mary Robinson is, quite simply, to tell the liberal Jews of America that they have no future as liberal American Jews, reflective of Biblical values of Justice and human rights, but only as “tolerant” Americans.  That itself, given the contributions of Jews to American society and culture is a tragedy of the highest magnitude, equivalent to other tragedies that took place on Tisha B’Av.   What it says about the security of almost six million Jews to be free of another Holocaust, this time in our ancestral homeland, is too scary to think about.   When Obama says the champion of freedom is Mary Robinson, that is a tragedy for all Jews.

The Medal of Freedom is designed to recognize individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." It is a very significant award.

The best source on the evil represented by Mary Robinson is the first-person account of the late American Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos, himself a victim of the Holocaust.  At the time, he was the ranking Democratic member of the International Relations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and a founder of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.  Lantos, remember, was like most Jews, a loyal Democrat, and in fact was a strong opponent of perceived American unilateralism under Bush, right after 9/11, and a promoter of working through coalitions that later developed.  Lantos was appointed the leader of the American delegation to the Durban Conference, and, as such, was closely involved with the American’s attempted negotiations with Robinson that were unsuccessful in getting her to change the course of the conference.

In an essay in the Winter/Spring 2002 issue of the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University), Lantos published his account of the Durban Conference as “The Durban Debacle:  An Insider’s View of the World Racism Conference at Durban”.   It is most important to read this “insider’s” view of the woman who Obama has awarded a Medal of Freedom.

Lantos writes that "much of the responsibility for the debacle rests on the shoulders" of Robinson, who "in her role as secretary general of the conference, failed to provide the leadership needed to keep the conference on track."   Lantos also faults the Islamic states, and moreover argues that a failure by the U.S. to show leadership at the United Nations and its various organizations, created a resentment against American unilateralism (of course Bush later tried the multi-lateral route, without great success in that) which made it harder to control what happened at Durban.

Interestingly, for those who support Obama’s appeasement and embracement of cultural relativism and American apologies as the modus operandus of dealing with the enemies and their supporters in the War against Militant Islam, Lantos had some interesting points to make, which Obama should well study.   Lantos, the Holocaust survivor, argues in his essay, “The Durban Debacle”, that “(t)he international mechanisms that we have helped build to support a liberal international system, including the UN, require U.S. leadership to stay on track.  When we fail to lead, rogue regimes and hostile forces are quick to step into the breach to appropriate these mechanisms for their own propaganda and political purposes.  If we want to win our war against terrorism, we will have to stay engaged in the UN and elsewhere, promote American interests and values abroad and transform our coalition against terrorism into a new international order that supports pluralism, democracy and human rights.”  

Of course, the late Mr. Lantos is no longer around to see his Democratic party resolve to have America “lead” less and “submit” more to regimes that prohibit pluralism, democracy and human rights, by negating the fundamental differences the West has with the Islamist model.  

Even before the convening of the full conference in Durban, there were signs that Robinson lacked an understanding of, and sympathy for, the rejection of anti-Semitic acts of hostile Muslim states. There were a number of preparatory regional conferences, including one for Asian countries in Tehran.  Despite her assurances to the contrary, the Iranians were able to exclude Jewish NGOs and Israelis and other holders of Israeli passports from attending.   This Muslim racism made a mockery of the process to hold a conference against Racism.    In fact, Australia and New Zealand were also barred from attending the Tehran meeting because they were seen to be too supportive of Israel.

While Robinson was forceful in the regional pre-conference meetings in South America and Europe, speaking eloquently of the need for every country to confront its own racism, at Tehran she took the opposite approach.  Lantos notes that she spoke not a word about anti-Semitic textbooks and curricula in Arab schools, no appeal for the rights of non-Muslim minorities, no appeal to improve the horrible lot of imported domestic workers in Arab sheikdoms, no condemnation of the Taliban’s destruction of ancient Buddhist artifacts, and no plea for an elevation for the status of women in Muslim societies.  Said Lantos: “To many of us following these early developments, her silence was deafening.”

Lantos noted that the declarations adopted by the Asian nations in the ‘discriminatory’ environment of Tehran, under Robinson’s watch, amounted to a statement of intent to use the Durban anti-racism conference as a tool of propaganda and hate against the world’s only Jewish state.  The text accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and implementing a system of ‘apartheid”, accusations well beyond the limits of previous anti-Israel discourse.   And Robinson?   In a statement that Lantos found “baffling” she did not criticize this hijacking of the agenda to create a non-political conference against racism and not against specific states.  Instead she congratulated the delegates for coming up with a “Consensus”!    According to Lantos, she characterized this preliminary hatefest as a “productive dialogue between civilizations”.   When asked why, despite all guidelines, the Asian pre-conference had centred out Israel as the only source of racism in the world, she stated:  “The situation in the Palestinian occupied territories was brought up at the meeting and it was reflected in the final declaration.” 

Note the comment by Lantos:

“These comments (by Robinson) represented a pivotal moment in the evolution of the WCAR.   By appearing to condone the Asian conference’s efforts to place the Israel-Palestinian conflict on the agenda of the world conference, she betrayed its intentions and emboldened those intent on using the conference for their own political purposes.  From that moment the conference began to take a dangerous trajectory that became ever more difficult to correct.”

The world conferences on racism that were held in 1978 and 1983 were held when the world was showing a consensus against the Apartheid regime in South Africa.  It became clear that the Islamic states, with the appeasement of Robinson, were poised to win a propaganda war to shun, isolate and boycott a state, whose civilians at that very moment were being attacked by so-called suicide bombers, supported financially and morally by the complete Arab world.   By the use of the WCAR, the Islamic world hoped to portray the Israelis not as victims, but as the perpetrators and moreover wrap the Israelis up in the images of Nazis and South African racists.   And Mary Robinson helped them.

Prior to Durban, there were no substantial calls for boycotts against Israeli professors or the other university activism now sadly a part of the academic scene.   The fact that the United Nations oversaw such an event helped pave the way for illegitimate boycotts and one sided conferences now taking place at universities all over the world, including, sadly, universities in the United States and Canada.

The forgoing should be sufficient to disentitle Robinson from the award.  But the most important reasons are these:   First, according to Lantos, in discussions during the conference she "refused to reject the twisted notion that the wrong done to the Jews in the Holocaust was equivalent to the pain suffered by the Palestinians in the Middle East.  Instead, she discussed "the historical wounds of anti-Semitism and of the Holocaust on the one hand and ... the accumulated wounds of displacement and military occupation on the other."

The alleged moral equivalency between the Nazi final solution to the Jews and Jewish treatment of Palestinians is a morally corrupt position.  It is meant by many of its proponents to pave the way for a second “final solution” where the Jews of Israel are fair game for murder because of their alleged treatment of Palestinians.  Robinson not only permitted this nonsense to be spouted ad nauseum at Durban, the above quote from Lantos shows that she was a proponent of this ideological component of anti-Semitism.   If the Jews are as bad as the Nazis, then they too should be killed. Obama has no business giving the imprimatur of an American Medal of Freedom on one who subscribes to such views, and then uses her tenure at the head of a United Nations Human Rights Commission to popularize such views.

If Robinson is given a Medal of Freedom by Obama, it in effect legitimizes her abhorrent views that the lack of “freedom” of the Palestinians is an event comparable to the Holocaust of the Jews.  It must also mean that Obama finds nothing anti-Semitic in such a notion.   In fact that abominable position is a characteristic of modern anti-Semitism, just as surely as  the yellow badge that Hitler forced the Jews to wear was a characteristic of Nazi anti-Semitism.   Obama has in effect stated that anti-Semitic attitudes and actions are not a bar to receiving a Medal of Freedom;  it seems to me that such attitudes allowed to her to lead a very anti-Semitic organization, the UN Commission on Human Rights, dominated by anti-Semitic, in fact genocidal nations.  And thus her leadership of such nations whose idea of freedom involves the death of Jewish civilians constitutes a debasement of the idea of “freedom”.    American Jews, having witnessed numerous American professors argue that “terrorists” are really “freedom fighters”, now witness their President award a Medal of “Freedom” to one who accepts that the subjects of terrorism are really Nazis.

In fact the status of the organization that Robinson led became so problematic that it was reformulated and renamed the UN Human Rights Council.   After Robinson finally retired, others were at least embarrassed that a Human Rights commission should have as members Sudan (the Commission, after Robinson retired, refused to take action against Sudan regarding the genocide in Darfur in 2004, preferring instead to elect it as a member two years later), as well as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Cuba and Sri Lanka, all adjudging Israel (which was the subject of over one-third of country-specific resolutions).

Again, the attempt to vilify Israel is now complete, if Israel’s terrorist enemies are freedom fighters, and the American Medal of Freedom goes to the longtime head of a “human rights” commission which honours the abusers, and who helped establish the international principle that Israel is Nazi-like in its persecution of freedom fighters.

Surely, thoughtful American Jews must understand the Orwellian world that surrounds them.

Obama’s announcement on Tisha B’Av 2009 that Mary Robinson would get an American Medal of Freedom is in fact the third strike against American Jewry’s best hitter in the important game of whether anti-Semitism (in the guise of anti-Zionism) is to be unequivocably exempted from prohibited Racism. This strike comes contemporaneously with the growing acceptance by the culturally relativistic elites of a hands-off approach to Muslim Shariah Law allowing abuse of wifes and daughters. To American Jewish liberals, who have for generations understood American liberal values as most similar to Jewish values, the recognition that group rights of misogynistic religions can trump individual human rights, poses, to the thoughtful, almost an existential threat.    How many will allow their thoughfulness in this regards to challenge their financial and emotional comforts in the land where the streets were “paved with gold” is questionable.  You see, this third strike comes at a time when 75% of American Jews joined Obama’s team and thought he was on their side.

Would that American Jews have understood that the first black President should have been Colin Powell not Barack Obama and would that they have thrown their (supposedly) powerful lobby into getting Powell selected by the Republicans.   Yet the sad, if not outright pathetic, story of Obama’s manipulation of American Jews does nothing so much as disprove the meanspirited, perhaps anti-Semitic rantings of Professor Walt and Mearshimer, and other critics of the so-called lobby.

In fact the three strikes against American Jews (which are similar to what has happened already to British Jews) are as follows:

The first strike was academia (again a forum supposedly dominated by Jews) where the definition of “racism” was taken over by sociologists who imported into the concept a necessary prerequisite of the inequality of power and the use of words and action to perpetuate an imbalance of power, often to support a status quo. Therefore the weak can not be truly racist, as all words and actions are excused by the theory that they are seeking to end an unjustified inequality of power.   This sociological construct was then utilized by such philosophers as England’s John Honderich to somehow deduce that groups like the Palestinians were not only not racist to advocate killing of Jewish civilians but had a moral right to do so.

The second strike was the adoption of the post-modern concept of cultural relativism.  Jews and American non-Jews alike were to be disabused of the notion that their culture emphasizing individual human rights was the only legitimate culture in the world, and in fact it was racist to disrespect those other cultures who grant no individual rights but only tribal rights or the right not to be disrespected or humiliated.  Such cultures could no longer be seen as bringing on their own humiliation by failing to equip their young for technology and economic prosperity or to respect peace and non-violence.  It was America and certainly it was Israel, according to these theorists, that was the “root cause” of the humiliation, rather than the behaviours and misdeeds of the cultures themselves.

The third strike, thrown by Obama on Tisha B’Av last is to tie American notions of freedom and justice to the notions permitted, even supported, by Mary Robinson at Durban.  Durban was allowed to stand for the proposition that Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians (notwithstanding all of the efforts made in the Oslo process and other deals made which the Palestinians did not honour) amounted to a Nazi-like genocide against the Palestinians.

Tom Lantos’ account of the tragedy of  Mary Robinson and the Durban Conference should be studied.   He met repeatedly with Robinson to challenge her acceptance of the Organization of Islamic States attempt to use the Durban Conference to delegitimize the Jewish State, and, together with Colin Powell, he held to their position that the Conference was not to be hijacked into involvement in one specific political dispute.

Lantos says that Robinson “refused to reject the twisted notion that the wrong done to the Jews in the Holocaust was equivalent to the pain suffered by the Palestinians in the Middle East.

Instead she discussed ‘the historical wounds of anti-Semitism and of the Holocaust on the one hand, and … the accumulated wounds of displacement and military occupation on the other.’”

Whether or not this language was reflected in the final conference draft, after the Americans and others had pulled out, this display of hateful power by the Islamic states and anti-American and anti-Israel NGOs, as appeased by Mary Robinson on behalf of the so-called United Nations, was a turning point in world history.   And the awarding of a medal for this conduct reflects a turning point (which we hope can be reversed in the future) in American history.   For Obama, the President whose moral judgments as a member of Reverend Wright’s congregation were called into question, has demonstrated the validity of all the concerns.   The misuse of history, the false equivalencies between the Holocaust and Israeli assumption of sovereignty after a defensive war where its very existence was at stake, the appeasement of totalitarians without a free media or academia to correct its Big Lies, all have been given an American stamp of approval. On Tisha B’Av.

When Obama spoke at Cairo, he exemplified the American submission to Islamic doctrines.   First, he had the nerve to equate all of the tolerance towards minorities, women, gays, and blacks – which were not achieved without great struggle in America, but are now supported by some very strong laws – and the great American Justice system with the non-tolerance of minority rights, women’s rights and the lack of Justice in Islamic countries today. While no one should expect a President to be unduly insulting to his hosts, the following words are reflective of a submission and an appeasement which will enable Muslim states to continue their unjust persecution of some of their peoples:   Obama stated that America and Islam “share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

If so, would Obama the Christian and his wife the feminist feel as comfortable living in Saudi Arabia or Iran as they do in Chicago or Washington?

The third strike, by comparing the Palestinian suffering under what is called an Occupation, to Jewish suffering under the Holocaust, does more than create the problem of moral equivalency, a particularly noxious form of moral relativism;  it in fact compares not only the sufferers (who surely should not be compared) but also the alleged perpetrators.   The success for Islamists and anti-Semites of all varieties was that an international conference with all the legitimacy bestowed by the United Nations, made it permissible in the future to compare the Nazi perpetrators of the planned extinction of every Jew on earth with the new Nazis, the Israelis.    And so, a world that came together to finally kill the Nazis could come together again, under the submissive leadership of Brown in England, Sarkozy in France and Obama in America, to kill the new Nazis, the Israelis.   Or, more likely, feel nothing more than Tolerance, as the Arab world, now supported by the soon-to-be nuclear power of Iran handles the actual genocide.

Tolerism, that excessive leniency towards the views of our enemies, is the ideological mask hiding the three strikes against the Jews:  allegations of racism and Apartheid against the Jews of Israel and their Jewish supporters around world, imposition of standards of cultural relativism, and finally on Tisha B’Av, 2009, the message that Mary Robinson was right – the Jews are the new Nazis.  

The American Jews have lost the first game in the series, whether they understand it or not.   It is time to wake up and understand the rules of the game.   The first step is to understand just what tragedy befell the Jewish people on Tisha B’Av 2009.

Aha, just as I have started a new series on the myth that Europe is a positive force in world history, the Jerusalem Post's great columnist Caroline Glick writes a superb column on Europe's anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and why Europhiles in Israel must re-assess their attitudes:

JPost.com » Opinion » Columnists » Article

May 14, 2009 21:31 | Updated May 15, 2009 16:48

Column One: The Europe of our dreams

By CAROLINE GLICK

Print Subscribe E-mail Toolbar

+ Recommend: What's this?

 

Israelis are wild about Europe. A poll carried out by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation last month showed that a whopping 69 percent of Israelis, and 76% of Israeli Jews, would like for Israel to join the European Union. Sixty percent of Israelis have a favorable view of the EU.

This poll's most obvious message is that as far as Europe is concerned, Israelis suffer from unrequited love. A 2003 Pew survey of 15 EU countries showed that 59% of Europeans consider Israel the greatest threat to world peace. A poll taken in Germany the following year showed that 68% of Germans believe that Israel is pursuing a war of extermination against the Palestinians and 51% said that there is no difference in principle between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and German treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.

And it isn't simply Israel that they hate. They don't like Jews very much either. In an empirical study published in 2006, Professors Edward Kaplanand Charles Small of Yale University demonstrated a direct link between hatred for Jews and extreme anti-Israel positions. A recent poll bears out the fact that levels of hostility toward Israel rise with levels of anti-Semitism.

According to a 2008 Pew survey, anti-Semitic feelings in five EU countries - Spain, Britain, France, Germany and Poland - rose nearly 50% between 2005 and 2008. Whereas in 2005, some 21% of people polled acknowledged they harbor negative feelings toward Jews, by last year the proportion of self-proclaimed anti-Semites in these countries had risen to 30%. In Spain levels of anti-Semitism more than doubled, from 21% in 2005 to 46% in 2008.

Not surprisingly, increased hatred of Jews has been accompanied by increased violence against Jews. Just last week, for instance, three men assaulted Israel's ambassador in Spain Rafi Shotz as he and his wife walked home from a soccer game. They followed after him and called out, "dirty Jew," "Jew bastard," and "Jew murderer." A crowd witnessed the assault, but no one rose to their defense.

Shotz was lucky. As Israel's ambassador he had two policemen escorting him and so he was not physically threatened. The same was not the fate of Holocaust survivors who assembled at Mauthausen death camp in Austria last week to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the camp's liberation by American forces.

As Jewish survivors of the camp where 340,000 people were murdered mourned the dead, a gang of Austrian teenagers wearing masks taunted them, screaming "Heil Hitler," and "This way for the gas!" They opened fire with plastic rifles at French Jewish survivors, wounding one in the head and another in the neck.

And Austria is not alone. From Germany to France, Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and beyond, Jewish kindergartens and day schools, restaurants and groceries have been firebombed and vandalized. The desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues has become an almost routine occurrence. Jewish leaders from Norway to Germany to Britain to France have warned community members not to wear kippot or Stars of David in public. Rabbis have been beaten all over the continent.

There is no state sanction for anti-Jewish violence in Europe. But in many places it is either brushed off as insignificant, or justified as a natural byproduct of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. In at least one case, the official downplaying of the significance of anti-Jewish sentiments and violence has had murderous consequences.

In January 2006 Ilan Halimi, a French Jew, was kidnapped by a gang of Muslim sadists. For an entire week, the police ignored the anti-Semitic nature of the attack - and hence the imminent danger to Halimi's life - in spite of the fact that his kidnappers made threatening phone calls to Halimi's parents where they recited verses from the Koran while Ilan was heard screaming in pain from his torture in the background.

In the end, Halimi was tortured continuously for 20 days before he was dumped at a railhead naked, with burns and cuts over 80% of his battered body and died of his wounds shortly after he was found.

SOME HAVE attributed the rise in European anti-Semitism to the rapid growth of Muslim minorities throughout the continent. This explanation has much to recommend it. Levels of anti-Semitism among most Muslim minority populations in Europe are exceedingly high. According to Kaplan and Small's study, European Muslims are eight times more likely than non-Muslims to be openly anti-Semitic. And Franco Frattini, the EU official responsible for combating anti-Semitism, told The Jerusalem Post last year that some 50% of anti-Jewish attacks in Europe are conducted by Muslims.

But while European Muslims are a major factor in the rise of anti-Jewish violence, they are a bit player when it comes to the overall prevalence of anti-Jewish attitudes. For example, with 46% of Spaniards negatively disposed toward Jews, and with Muslims making up only 3-5% of Spaniards, we learn that nearly half of Christian Spaniards are anti-Semitic. And as the 2008 Pew survey shows, European hatred of Jews is growing at a fast clip. Indeed, it is growing two and a half times faster than European hatred of Muslims.

In all likelihood, these negative trends for Jews are only going to escalate in the coming years. Politicians interested in being elected have already begun exploiting the rise in anti-Jewish sentiments to increase their electoral prospects. In the 2005 British elections, for instance, the Labor Party under Tony Blair depicted then Conservative Party leader Michael Howard as the hateful anti-Semitic icon Fagin from Oliver Twist in a campaign poster. Another Labor poster portrayed Howard and fellow politician Oliver Letwin as flying pigs.

This state of affairs bodes ill for Israel's future relations with Europe. In most cases, European politicians pander to the growing constituency of anti-Semites by adopting hostile policies toward Israel. These policies then serve to further justify anti-Semitic attitudes, and so the number of European anti-Semites continues to grow, and in turn, European hostility to Israel increases.

 

No doubt recognizing the political advantage to be garnered by attacking Israel, last year Spanish investigative magistrate Judge Fernando Andreu Merellesis decided to use a specious complaint submitted by the discredited Palestinian Center for Human Rights to launch a war crimes investigation against Israel's top political and military leaders. Against the stated will of Spain's state prosecution, Merellesis announced last week that he is proceeding with his investigation into claims that a dozen senior Israeli leaders committed a war crime when they approved the 2002 decision to target Hamas terror master Salah Shehadeh.

ALL OF this brings us back to Europhilic Israel. Due to the fact that the majority of Israelis have yet to get their way, and Israel continues not to be a member in the EU, EU courts lack the power to enforce their rulings against Israelis. Today the only thing Israelis need to worry about is that we will be arrested if we visit Europe. This is inconvenient, but not impossible to live with.

Were Israel to join the EU, however, EU laws would supersede Israeli laws. European courts could compel Israeli courts to enforce their rulings. Israel, in short, would find itself subsumed in a hostile political entity that could simply adjudicate and legislate it out of existence.

So what explains Israel's unrequited love affair with Europe?

There is no all-encompassing explanation for the EU's popularity in Israel. It is a function of a number of complementary causes. The most important among them is the abject failure of the Israeli media to examine European anti-Semitism and its implications for European policy toward Israel in any coherent fashion.

Rather than recognize that European anti-Semitism and its concomitant hostility toward Israel is the consequence of internal European dynamics, the Israeli media tend to cast both as a function of Israel's actions. Doing so certainly makes for neat, easily digestible news stories, but it also trivializes the situation. Moreover, by acting as though Israel's actual behavior is at all relevant to European treatment of Jews and the Jewish state, the local media effectively buy into cynical European moves to belittle the significance of anti-Jewish violence. They give credence to false European claims that the firebombing of synagogues is simply the regrettable consequence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Then there is the issue of Israel's constant quest to end its international isolation. For many Israelis, it is tantalizing to think that we can end our international isolation by joining the EU. The EU is seen as a club of rich and cultured countries with which Israel would benefit from merging. This view again is nurtured by the media, which have failed to report on the failure of the European welfare state model.

In light of the media's refusal to tell the story of Europe's hostility toward Jews and the Jewish state, or the story of the EU's severe economic problems, it is not surprising that precious few Israeli politicians have a clear understanding of Europe. Successive foreign ministers - from Shimon Peres to Silvan Shalom to Tzipi Livni to Avigdor Lieberman - have all voiced varying degrees of support for Israeli membership in the EU. Their statements have never been challenged in debate.

Finally, there is the nostalgia that many Israelis feel toward the old pre-war Europe from their grandparents' stories. That long gone Europe, where young women and men would walk along the promenades in Berlin, Paris, Antwerp and Prague holding hands and eating ice cream, breathing in the air of Heinrich Heine and Franz Kafka, has been kept alive in the imaginations of generations of Israelis. Many of them work today as leading journalists, movie directors and actors. For many Israelis, then, the myth of Europe is more familiar than the real Europe.

Looking to a future of an increasingly Jew-hating Europe it is clear that Israel and Israelis must quickly divest ourselves of our delusions about Europe. For Israel to competently contend with Europe in the coming years, it will be essential that both our political leaders and society as a whole gain a firm grasp of where Europe stands in relation to both the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

With a burgeoning and deeply anti-Semitic Muslim minority, and with a Christian majority increasingly comfortable with flaunting traditional anti-Semitic attitudes, dispensing with anti-Jewish myths ranks low on the priority list for most European leaders. In contrast, for Israel, gazing at this unfolding European state of affairs, it is clear that abandoning our adoration for a mythological Europe is one of the most urgent items on our national agenda.