Brooklyn College Political Science Department Denies Equal Free Speech And Academic Freedom To Pro-Israel Students And Faculty

January 31, 2013

Source: Gatestone Institute 
By Professor Alan M. Dershowitz
Submitted by Correspondent Tom Ifrach, Middle-East Studies, Ben-Gurion University


The international campaign to delegitimize Israel by subjecting the Jewish state—and the Jewish State alone—to boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) has now come to the most unlikely of places: Brooklyn College. The political science department of that college has voted to co-sponsor a campaign event at which only pro-BDS speakers will advocate a policy that is so extreme that even the Palestinian Authority rejects it.

The poster for the BDS event specifically says that the event is being “endorsed by…the political science department at BC.” The BDS campaign accuses Israel of “Apartheid” and advocates the blacklisting of Jewish Israeli academics, which is probably illegal and certainly immoral. The two speakers at the event deny Israel’s right to exist, compare Israel to the Nazis and praise terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

The president of Brooklyn College claims that this co-sponsorship does not constitute an endorsement by the college and that this is an issue of freedom of speech and academic freedom. But when a department of a university officially co-sponsors and endorses an event advocating BDS against Israel, and refuses to co-sponsor and endorse an event opposing such BDS, that does constitute an official endorsement. Freedom of speech, and academic freedom require equal access to both sides of a controversy, not official sponsorship and endorsement of one side over the other. The heavy thumb of an academic department should not be placed on the scale, if the marketplace of ideas is to remain equally accessible to all sides of a controversy.

I have no problem with a BDS campaign being conducted by radical students at Brooklyn College or anywhere else. Students have a right to promote immoral causes on college campuses. Nor do I have a problem with such an event being sponsored by the usual hard left, anti-Israel and anti-American groups, such as some of those that are co-sponsoring this event. My sole objection is to the official sponsorship and endorsement of BDS by an official department of a public (or for that matter private) college.

I was once a student at Brooklyn College, majoring in political science. Back in the day, departments did not take official positions on controversial political issues. They certainly didn’t sponsor or endorse the kind of hate speech that can be expected at this event, if the history of the speakers is any guide. The president of the university says this is a matter of academic freedom. But who’s academic freedom? Do “departments”—as distinguished from individual faculty members—really have the right of academic freedom? Does the political science department at Brooklyn College represent only its hard left faculty? What about the academic freedom of faculty members who do not support the official position of the department? One Brooklyn College faculty member has correctly observed that:

[B]oycotting academics is the opposite of free speech. It symbolizes the silencing on people based on their race and religion.

Does the political science department not also represent the students who major in or take courses in that subject? I know that as a student I would not want to be associated with a department that officially supported boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. My academic freedom would be compromised by such an association. Also, I would worry that a department that was so anti-Israel would grade me down or refuse me recommendations if I were perceived to be pro-Israel, or even neutral. I would not feel comfortable expressing my academic freedom in such a department. I’m sure there are many students at Brooklyn College who feel the same. What can they do to express their academic freedom? Should they fight fire with fire by advocating boycott, divestment and sanctions against the political science department or against Brooklyn College? Would that too be an exercise of academic freedom?

If I were a Brooklyn College student today and an opponent of BDS against Israel, I would not major in political science. I would worry that my chances of getting into a good law school or graduate program would be put at risk. I would pick a department—or a school—that was less politicized and more academically unbiased.

Academic freedom does not include the power of department or faculty members to proselytize and propagandize captive students whose grades and future depend on faculty evaluations. That’s why academic departments should not take political positions that threaten the academic freedom of dissenting students or faculty.

I can understand the department of political science sponsoring a genuine debate over boycott, divestment and sanctions in which all sides were equally represented. That might be an educational experience worthy of departmental sponsorship. But the event in question is pure propaganda and one-sided political advocacy. There is nothing academic about it. Would the political science department of Brooklyn College sponsor and endorse an anti-divestment evening? Would they sponsor and endorse me, a graduate of that department, to present my perspective to their students? Would they sponsor a radical, pro-settlement, Israeli extremist to propagandize their students? Who gave the department the authority to decide, as a department, which side to support in this highly contentious debate? What are the implications of such departmental support? Could the political science department now vote to offer courses advocating BDS against Israel and grading students based on their support for the department’s position? Should other departments now be lobbied to support BDS against China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, the Palestinian Authority or other perennial violators of human rights?

Based on my knowledge of the Brooklyn College political science department, they would never vote to sponsor and endorse an anti-BDS campaign, or a BDS campaign against left wing, Islamic, anti-Israel or anti-American countries that are genuine violators of human rights. Universities, and some departments in particular, are quickly becoming more political than academic. This trend threatens the academic freedom of dissenting students and faculty. It also threatens the academic quality of such institutions.

The Brooklyn College political science department should get out of the business of sponsoring and endorsing one-sided political propaganda and should stop trying to exercise undue influence over the free marketplace of ideas. That is the real violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Shame on the Brooklyn College political science department for falsely invoking academic freedom and freedom of speech to deny equal freedoms to those who disagree with its extremist politics.


Jewish Democrats still unhappy with corrected party platform, which omits clauses on Hamas, refugees and borders | The Times of Israel

September 7, 2012

Democrats who followed or attended their national convention in Charlotte this week generally insist it was energizing, interesting, and reaffirmed for many the argument against Mitt Romney and for Barack Obama.
But the platform debacle – which saw the party dropping mentions of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the only instance of the word “God” and several pro-Israel provisions from its platform, only to have to hurriedly reinstate God and Jerusalem – won’t disappear so quickly from memory if Jewish Democratic leaders have their way. Some have started to call for blood.
The platform was handled “by children,” one Jewish leader in Charlotte who asked to remain anonymous told The Times of Israel.
In the kind of scathing critique that reporters heard from multiple sources this week, the longtime Jewish activist said, “The people responsible for the platform did such a terrible job working on the wording because they did not conduct an inclusive process with members of the [pro-Israel] community. That’s what led to this problem, and those people should be held responsible.”
What’s more, some pro-Israel activists are far from satisfied even with the corrected language in the platform.
Said longtime Democrat and prominent law professor Alan Dershowitz: “I would like to see the president make statements over the course of the coming weeks which re-affirm what was said in the 2008 platform, not only with regards to Jerusalem, but in regard to the borders, the refugees and with regard to Hamas,” he said. Off-the-record, other Jewish Democratic insiders echo the objections.
The 2008 platform had demanded “the isolation of Hamas until that organization renounces terrorism and accepts other requirements of the peace process,” insisted that “any settlement of the so-called ‘refugees’ question in a final settlement make a future Palestinian state, not Israel, the destination for Palestinian ‘refugees,’” and noted “that it’s not realistic to expect [the] outcome of negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
The platform produced ahead of the convention “wasn’t anti-Israel,” said the Jewish leader who spoke to The Times of Israel anonymously. “It wasn’t bad. It’s just that [the drafters] are children on this, and there was no adult supervision. They don’t understand that there has to be continuity of language. They threw out the previous platform and wrote a new one from scratch.”
That inexperience led the Democrats to the embarrassing primetime television spectacle of attempting to forcibly restore language about God and Jerusalem to the platform on Wednesday through a voice vote on the convention floor – a measure that was loudly booed by some delegates in the half-empty hall.
The Jewish activist’s description of the original platform rewrite process was confirmed by a Democratic official, David Harris of the National Jewish Democratic Council, who said Wednesday, “The party platform is not held up from the previous election. A fresh document was created.”
Harris did not himself criticize party officials for the foul-up, instead preferring to add to the praise other Jewish Democrats had for Obama’s decision to reopen the platform, even at the cost of negative media coverage.
“I’d say it’s a pretty significant moment for any political party to reopen a political document like this at the request of the President of the United States,” said Harris.
The Jewish leader agreed. The platform crafters erred by “trying to align [the platform’s language] with the White House’s policy. The White House’s policy is no different than it was under Bush. But policy is different from a platform. They’re not the same thing.”
“The president’s decision to reinsert some of the language,” said the leader, “was a rebuke to those who did this.”
The word “rebuke” figured heavily in Democrats’ version of events by Thursday.
Dershowitz suggested to Algemeiner on Thursday that the boos in the convention hall on Wednesday came from “rogue elements” of the far left. He said the vote on the forced reinsertion of language on God and Jerusalem made him “frankly very happy… because I think it alerted everybody to the fact that this group within the Democratic Party poses a tremendous danger to the bipartisan support for Israel that has characterized American politics since 1948.”
“We caught them, and the president rebuked them basically,” he added.
The Jewish leader who spoke with the Times of Israel, a man intimately familiar with Democratic Party institutions, dismissed the boos from the convention floor, saying they were “mostly about God” rather than Jerusalem.
“The people in the room that early in the day were from the far left of the party. Some of them didn’t understand the process, because it wasn’t previewed for them. So they didn’t like the process, and they were reacting to inserting God” into the platform, he said.
Pressed, however, as to whether C-SPAN’s footage of Arab American activists booing indicated that some convention delegates may, in fact, have been angered by wording over Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the Democratic leader conceded, “There were some anti-Israel activists in the crowd who made a lot of noise.”
As they pick up the pieces of the PR debacle, Jewish Democrats are pointing fingers at two names especially: former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler and Georgetown University professor and defense analyst Colin Kahl.
Wexler could not be reached for comment. Kahl did not return emails requesting comment.
The platform changes don’t reflect “the views of Democrats,” said the Jewish leader, or even of a minority as Dershowitz believes. Rather, it was Wexler’s and Kahl’s bungled misunderstanding of what a platform is all about that led to the primetime hiccup and “hurt the president.”
Many Jewish Democrats were still unhappy about the reinserted language on Thursday.
“They still did not reinsert [language saying] Israel is our most reliable ally in the Middle East. And they did not reinsert [language saying Palestinian] refugees will return to a Palestinian state. Those are fundamental parts of the special relationship” between the US and Israel, said the leader.
Dershowitz, too, was “not satisfied…..and I communicated this to the White House.”
Democrats are now looking to move past the incident, which is why it is difficult to get any Democratic insider to speak on the matter on record.
But the public quiet hides behind-the-scenes agitation. Democrats have witnessed, spectacularly, their clumsiness on Israel, even from such veteran and intelligent operators as Wexler and Kahl, insiders acknowledge. They will likely be much more careful on the issue in the 61 days that remain till November 6.


Why Are These Jewish Foundations Funding Antisemitism?

February 28, 2012

(Listed by YidWithLid)

Analysis of the projection: Media Matters had the influence over the media

Donation
Jewish Foundation Donors To MMFA
$2,225,000
Stephen M Silberstein Foundation
$400,000
Pritzker Family Foundation
$400,000
Sandler Foundation
$362,500
Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, Inc.
$275,000
Bernard & Audre Rapoport Foundation
$250,000
Joseph H and Barbara I Ellis Foundation
$150,000
Community Foundation of the United Jewish Federation of San Diego
$85,000
Barbra Streisand Foundation
$55,000
Lear Family Foundation
$50,000
Rebecca and Nathan Milikowsky Family Foundation
$50,000
Scott A. Nathan Charitable Trust
$43,500
Jewish Communal Fund
$35,000
Beatrice Snyder Foundation
$35,000
Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland
$30,000
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
$25,000
Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund
$20,000
Peter and Linda Solomon Foundation
$12,500
Engelberg Foundation
$5,180
Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
$5,000
Glickenhaus Foundation
$5,000
Joseph & Florence Mandel Foundation
(MORE)

Barbara?

rosenbergradio.com(Media Matters Firsters | Washington Free Beacon)At a book signing event Monday evening in Washington, D.C., Media Matters for America (MMFA) chief David Brock refused to distance himself from the borderline anti-Semitic language used by one of his senior employees.
We “don’t feed the trolls,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, MMFA’s executive vice president, when asked if Media Matters condones and stands by the use of the term “Israel firster,” a borderline anti-Sematic slur that is regularly employed by MMFA writer M.J. Rosenberg.
“I’m not going to get in a debate about tweets,” Rabin-Havt said, intervening to field a question that was directed at Brock.
Rosenberg, however, has not just used the epithet on Twitter. He regularly employs the phrase in articles published by the Huffington Post and other outlets.
And now the controversy is spilling into the Jewish nonprofit world.
Several of the nation’s most preeminent Jewish charities are facing criticism for donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to MMFA.
Five Jewish charities in some of the nation’s largest cities have donated nearly $600,000 to Media Matters since 2006, according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller. The bulk of the donations came between 2008 and 2010.
A number of the charities in question are tied to the centrist Jewish Federations of North America, an umbrella organization that includes some of the country’s largest Jewish nonprofits, including those in New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C.
News of the donations surprised some Jewish and pro-Israel observers who have condemned Media Matters as a fringe outlier that promotes views contrary to those of the mainstream Jewish community.
Jewish donors “have no idea how this organization has turned into a bigoted group,” Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer and Harvard professor who recently launched his own “personal war” against Rosenberg, told the Washington Free Beacon.
Since his hire in 2009, Rosenberg’s articles have focused on the power of the so-called “Israel lobby,” which he believes has placed a pro-Israel chokehold on the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Rosenberg has also appropriated the “Israel firster” phrase, a term that has its roots in the white supremacist movement.
Many Jews—particularly wealthy philanthropists—are unaware that Media Matters is condoning this type of content, Dershowitz told the Washington Free Beacon.
“Many Jews just couldn’t care less—and then there are … the M.J. Rosenbergs who work to destroy Israel,” Dershowitz said. “I would urge donors to reconsider their gifts.”
Asked if he was surprised to learn that Jews are fiscally backing Media Matters, Dershowitz responded, “Some Jews supported Mussolini and Stalin, so why should we be surprised?”
Of the five Jewish charities that have donated to Media Matters, the most prolific is the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, which has given the group $362,500 since 2007.
CJP president Barry Shrage did not respond to multiple requests seeking comment. However, a statement on the organization’s website states that it is not directly responsible for the donations that were made to Media Matters through its funding arm.
“CJP is now—and has always been—one of Israel’s strongest supporters,” the statement said. “The grant in question was from a Donor Advised Fund, and not from CJP’s communal funding allocations.”
Donor-advised grants are primarily controlled by the funder.
“While owned and ultimately controlled by CJP, [donor advised funds] do not involve communal funds, but rather reflect the interests of those individual donors,” the statement said.
The CJP said that it does “reserve the right to reject a grant to organizations whose missions are in conflict with our own and we have done so on several occasions.”
Dershowitz, who has ties to the CJP, said that while he disagrees with their decisions to fund Media Matters, Jewish donors should be granted the freedom to give to any organization they choose.
Joe Berkofsky, communications director for JFNA, the umbrella group that oversees several of these charities, including the CJP, recommended that the WFB “contact the individual Federations, which in fact are the actual custodians of the funds.”
The other charities that have given to MMFA include: The Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego, the Jewish Communal Fund in New York City, the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties.
Each of these organizations either declined comment or did not return calls for comment.
A source close to JFNA described the entire funding controversy as “bullshit.”
“People request funds to be allocated from their endowment funds and donor advised funds that are housed at federations,” the source said. “They are not direct allocations by the federations. Federations serve as their philanthropic bank for donations to charities. Unless it’s Jews for Jesus or al-Qaeda, the requests are accepted.”
Jewish philanthropists and other experts said that although these charities have been directed by their funders to donate to Media Matters, they have a responsibility to exert oversight and prevent donors from making grants to organizations that subvert Jewish values.
“Media Matters is currently in the business of paying for and spreading anti-Israel and anti-Semitic invective, and these donations—which do not comport with Jewish communal values—are funding that organization and its work,” said Josh Block, a Middle East analyst and former top official at a pro-Israel group.
Block added that “these Jewish organizations have a special obligation to stand up and declare that funding groups using rhetoric that the ADL, AJC, and Simon Wiesenthal Center have all identified as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel is simply not appropriate—unless of course they agree with Media Matters and neo-Nazis that it is a good idea to call elected officials and other pro-Israel Americans ‘Israel firsters.’”
“I’m not surprised that federations are funding these far left liberal agendas,” said Richard Allen, founder of JCC Watch, an organization that tracks New-York based Jewish nonprofits. “I think there’s a group within these federations that is diverting Jewish community money for nefarious political purposes, and it needs to stop.”
Jewish philanthropists associated with the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington—which did not donate to Media Matters but has taken heat for its funding of a local theater company that staged a series of plays condemned as anti-Israel—said that the funding dispute reveals a systemic problem.
“Sadly, Federations around the country are largely in the hands of secular liberals who have little sense of what’s actually Jewish, much less what’s pro-Israel,” said Michael Steinberg, a Maryland resident who stopped contributing to the Washington Federation for these reasons.
Louis Offen, another Washington-based philanthropist, added:  “I’ve got liberal tendencies, but they don’t go in the direction of support for [those who use the term] ‘Israel firsters’ and M.J. Rosenberg.”


Media Matters boss paid former domestic partner $850,000 ‘blackmail’ settlement

February 27, 2012

(Commentary)“Not only will [the Media Matters controversy] be an election matter, I will personally make it an election matter,” Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School, told WABC’s Aaron Klein today. …AIPAC spokesman Josh Block criticized Media Matters staffers for making anti-Semitic comments late last year, the Truman Institute cut its association with him, claiming Block was trying to shut down “honest debate.”

(EYE)The irony is that this is the man [Brock] who’s been pushing to hire private investigators to look into private lives and finances of Fox News personalities in order to destroy them.

(Fox News) Media Matters chief David Brock paid a former domestic partner $850,000 after being threatened with damaging information involving the organization’s donors and the IRS – a deal that Brock later characterized as a blackmail payment, according to legal documents obtained by FoxNews.com.
In an acrimonious lawsuit settled at the end of last year, Brock accused William Grey of making repeated threats to expose him to the “scorn or ridicule of his employees, donors and the press in demanding money and property.” Brock claimed in legal papers that he sold a Rehoboth Beach, Del., home he once shared with Grey in order to meet Grey’s demands, which he called “blackmail” in the lawsuit.
Brock, 49, heads the non-profit Media Matters for America, which bills itself as a watchdog of the conservative media but has recently come under fire for allegedly coordinating with Democrats in what could be a violation of its tax-exempt status.
Brock’s bitter legal battle with Grey, who is described in a Sept. 14, 2010, police report obtained by FoxNews.com as his domestic partner of more than 10 years, began after Brock began dating Washington, D.C., restaurant impresario James Alefantis about five years ago. For the next three years, Brock and Grey traded angry accusations, which were documented in the police report and were the foundation of a pitched legal battle replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial malfeasance.
Read the police report detailing the lawsuit
Alefantis was also named as a defendant in Grey’s lawsuit.
In his response to Brock’s lawsuit, Grey “denies that he committed any “acts of blackmail.””
Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters’ finances after he accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions, including an $8,000 Louis Vuitton suit bag, paintings, a rug, a chandelier, a painted bust of a Roman soldier and a pair of carved wooden chairs upholstered with purple fabric. Those possessions were displayed in the Washington townhouse where the couple entertained liberal movers and shakers in happier times.
Brock took Grey’s threats seriously and called police in 2010. In the police report, filed by Metropolitan Police as a stalking incident, Brock accused Grey, also 49, of attempting to blackmail him with a series of emails threatening to “release specific derogatory information about [Brock] and his organization to the press and donors that would be embarrassing to him and cause harm to the organization …”
Brock took Grey’s threats seriously and called police in 2010. In the police report, filed by Metropolitan Police as a stalking incident, Brock accused Grey, also 49, of attempting to blackmail him with a series of emails threatening to “release specific derogatory information about [Brock] and his organization to the press and donors that would be embarrassing to him and cause harm to the organization …”
Some of those emails came out as the lawsuit, filed by Grey on Jan. 28, 2011, wound its way through Superior Court of the District of Columbia last year.
Read the complete lawsuit filed by William Grey
“Please finish this today so I don’t have to waste my time emailing anyone – Biden, Coulter, Carlson, Huffington, Drudge, Ingraham,” Grey wrote in a 2008 email.
Nearly two years later, Grey accused Brock of “financial malfeasance” and threatened to undermine Brock’s fundraising efforts.
“Next step is I contact all your donors and the IRS,” Grey wrote in an email dated May 19, 2010. “This is going to stink for you if you do not resolve this now.”
Brock said in court papers that he paid Grey “under duress.”
On March 8, 2011, Brock filed his own suit against Grey for more than $4 million, demanding Grey return the $850,000, plus pay millions more in punitive damages. The two settled two months ago under terms that remain confidential.(More)

I believe the argument was that gay people should suffer the same way straight people do and therefor they should be considered by law in the same way for marriage… but it appears the shit hits the fan anyway… without gay marriage.


Prof. Alan Dershowitz at Oslo Symposium 2011

June 21, 2011
….Statues by Gustav Vigeland in Frogner Park in Oslo.
….. ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ……….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. ….. … ….. …..

NORWAY IS THE MOST ANTI-SEMITIC COUNTRY IN THE WEST…….

May 16, 2011
Hanne Nabintu Herland,
Norwegian Academic, Historian of Religions
and bestselling author. Her website is here

Media_http2bpblogspot_sagmaThe President of Israel, Mr. Shimon Peres’ critical comments on Norways reluctancy to follow EU, UN and USA in denouncing Hamas as a terrorist movement, are timely remarks. If one adds Harvard professor Alan M. Dershowitz article in the Wall Street Journal 30. March, it all makes me ashamed to be Norwegian. Under the title “Jews are not welcome in Norway,” Mr. Dershowitz told of his encounters with anti-Semitic Norwegian academics who made it clear that he was unwanted as a guest lecturer at Norwegian universities. This is how Norwegian intellectuals treat one the West’s most famous defense lawyers and an internationally renowned Harvard University professor.
I met Dershowitz in March during Oslo Symposium 2011. His description of the obvious anti-semitism and the lack of willingness to be objective that characterizes Norwegian academia, is flat out shocking. During my opening lecture at the same Symposium Conference, I pointed out that the lack of nuances that characterizes the Norwegian understanding of the realities in Israel and the Middle East are not only shameless, but historically inacurate.

For culturally we have much more in common with the Jewish people than one would think. Western civilizational values ​​has its cradle in the Greek and Roman contributions, but also, and especially when it comes to values, in the Hebrew-Christian contribution. The European humanistic view of the dignity of human beings regardless of rank, class or ethnicity carries deep impact from Judaism. These values are at the core of what it means to belong to Western Civilization today.
But today, Norwegians  reach far beyond the question of Palestine, and instead of supporting the only real democracy in the Middle East, namely Israel, we blackmail the Israelis in a manner as though we were still in 1939 at the time the socialist Hitler “zieg heil ” was shouted in Norway. For the Nazis were Left Wing, and came out of Germany’s Socialist Labour Party, they were not right-wing. The individuals in the Norwegian politically powerful positions that have pushed for these solely negative attitudes towards Israel for so many years, are responsible for creating a politically-correct hatred towards Jews that has made Norway the most anti-Semitic country in the West.
Norways largest newspaper VG recently showed a survey on what the Norwegian people think of the largest TV station, NRKs chronically negative covering of Israel. The question was whether the people feel that the coverage is done in an objective manner or not. 60% believed that the recent complaint by the Israeli embassy in Oslo is right in that the coverage is constantly negative towards Israel and highly biased.
When the democratic right to free thinking is restricted, and only one part of the story is told, democracy alters shape and turns into a totalitarian system of speech control. This is the situation in Norway. Today many Jews hardly dare walk on the street in Oslo without fear of being spat on, – and not from Muslims but of ethnic Norwegian misguided people who think they do the truth a service by bullying fellow human beings.

Deep injustice lie in the fact that leading opinion makers in the Norwegian system have decided not to contribute to increased knowledge of international relations, but only reflect the politically-correct Left wing dictate. During Soviet times this was called propaganda.

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr-Store ongoing articles in international newspapers in defense of Hamas, reflects this naiveté which eventually becomes so great that one should be promoting suspicion of deliberate malice. His International Herald Tribune article February 15th is a disgrace. There is good reason to understand why parts of the Labour Party would rather have him as Minister of Health.
Then one could at least have stopped the harm this man is doing when it comes to degrading Norway’s international reputation. For Mr. Store is internationally ridiculing his own country by acting as a self-styled Hamas activist. He was recently caught lying in a live TV2 show, denying his continuous political talks with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. He only changed his story when the reporter told him Mr. Meshaal had spoken about his conversations with Mr. Store.
Because of the lack of political will to tell both sides of the story, Norwegians are denied objective information that could have contributed to public knowledge of the situation. The same happened in Iran in 1979 when the Marxists and other supporters of the naive dreams of the effects of armed revolutions “of the people”, hailed Khomeini. The Shah of Persia was overthrown and many Marxists shed tears of joy because the Iranian people now had their revolution. Today many also cry, but for quite other reasons.
The Norwegian medias total and uncritical celebration of the angry young men on Tahrir Square during the recent revolution in Egypt, is a similar example. It was remarkably quickly forgotten that President Mubarak at the last election had more than 80% of the population behind him. During his years in power, he enabled Egypt to become Africa’s fastest growing economy and one of the Middle East’s most expansive, secular and stable country, rated as a middle income country by the UN, with a national income per. capita increased by 40% from 2004 up till today. In recent years, Mubarak succeeded in bringing one million out of poverty and into a middle class, an accomplishment that further pushed economic growth.
Many questions can be asked when it comes to the situation in the Middle East, including Egypt. It is well known that the country has struggled with corruption, poverty and lack of religious freedom. Nevertheless, the conservative philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed that when the so-called dictators over time have made conditions better for their people, that is when revolutions come that often makes things worse again.
The lack of will to promote and highlight various aspects of what is really happening in Israel as well as in numerous other international issues, is thus one of the reasons why many Norwegians now stand together and push for a new course in Norwegian politics. We want an end to the propaganda and to the misleading image which is continually portrayed of Israel.

Besides being right on, she’s also HOT!

NOTE: The astute Norwegian blogger at Norway Israel and the Jews has more on Hanne Herland, who participated in the March symposium in Oslo regarding Norway’s problem with anti-Semitism. via tundratabloids.com and image via mobil.ba.no

…that should ruffle some Norwegian feathers



Noam Chomsky on Osama Bin Laden: stupid, inconsistent, and ignorant.

May 14, 2011

Noam Chomsky. Click image to expand.Noam Chomsky has shown his true colors in his recently published “reaction” to the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden.
He apparently thinks Osama Bin Laden is the innocent victim of a cold-blooded murder that is worse than if George W. Bush were to be assassinated in his “compound.” He doesn’t believe Bin Laden’s own admission of complicity in the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 via Alan M. Dershowitz @ hudson-ny.org

…Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel’s
‘Expansion Over Security’
at UCLA Lecture on ‘Palestine in Crisis’…

…And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn’t even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations.

…Chomsky changes his mind
 on WMDS in Iraq…

This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade.@ slate.com