lk
|
|
response 163 of 203:
| 
May 23 06:37 UTC 2002 |
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 13, 2002
Editor's Note: The following is a letter from Laurie
Zoloth, Director, Jewish Studies Program at San
Francisco State University, dated Thursday, May 9.
Dear Colleagues,
TODAY, ALL DAY, I have been listening to the reactions
of students, parents, and community members who were
on campus yesterday. I have received e-mail from
around the country, and phone calls, worried for both
my personal safety on the campus, and for the entire
intellectual project of having a Jewish Studies
program, and recruiting students to a campus that in
the last month has become a venue for hate speech and
anti-Semitism. After nearly 7 years as director of
Jewish Studies, and after nearly two decades of life
here as a student, faculty member and wife of the
Hillel rabbi, after years of patient work and
difficult civic discourse, I am saddened to see SFSU
return to its notoriety as a place that teaches
anti-Semitism, hatred for America, and hatred, above
all else, for the Jewish State of Israel, a state that
I cherish. I cannot fully express what it feels like
to have to walk across campus daily, past maps of the
Middle East that do not include Israel, past posters
of cans of soup with labels on them of drops of blood
and dead babies, labeled "canned Palestinian children
meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under
American license," past poster after poster calling
out "Zionism=3Dracism, and Jews=3DNazis." This is not
civic discourse, this is not free speech, and this is
the Weimar Republic with brown shirts it cannot control.
This is the casual introduction of the medieval blood
libel and virulent hatred smeared around our campus in a
manner so ordinary that it hardly excites concern-except
if you are a Jew, and you understand that hateful words
have always led to hateful deeds.
Yesterday, the hatred coalesced in a hate mob.
Yesterday's Peace In The Middle East Rally was
completely organized by the Hillel students, mostly 18
and 19 years old. They spoke about their lives at
SFSU and of their support for Israel, and they sang of
peace. They wore new Hillel t-shirts that said
"peace" in English, Hebrew and Arabic. A Russian
immigrant, in his new English, spoke of loving his new
country, a haven from anti-Semitism. A sophomore
spoke about being here only one year, and about the
support and community she found at the Hillel House.
Both spoke of how hard it was to live as a Jew on this
campus how isolating, how terrifying. A surfer guy,
spoke of his love of Jesus, and his support for
Israel, and a young freshman earnestly asked for a
moment of silence, and all the Jews stood still,
listening as the shouted hate of the counter
demonstrators filled the air with abuse.
As soon as the community supporters left, the 50
students who remained praying in a minyan for the
traditional afternoon prayers, or chatting, or
cleaning up after the rally, talking -- were
surrounded by a large, angry crowd of Palestinians and
their supporters. But they were not calling for
peace. They screamed at us to "go back to Russia" and
they screamed that they would kill us all, and other
terrible things. They surrounded the praying
students, and the elderly women who are our elder
college participants, who survived the Shoah, who
helped shape the Bay Area peace movement, only to
watch as a threatening crowd shoved the Hillel
students against the wall of the plaza. I had invited
members of my Orthodox community to join us, members
of my Board of Visitors, and we stood there in
despair. Let me remind you that in building the SFSU
Jewish Studies program, we asked the same people for
their support and that our Jewish community, who pay
for the program once as taxpayers and again as Jews,
generously supports our program. Let me remind you
that ours is arguably one of the Jewish Studies
programs in the country most devoted to peace, justice
and diversity since our inception.
As the counter demonstrators poured into the plaza,
screaming at the Jews to "Get out or we will kill you"
and "Hitler did not finish the job," I turned to the
police and to every administrator I could find and
asked them to remove the counter demonstrators from
the Plaza, to maintain the separation of 100 feet that
we had been promised. The police told me that they had
been told not to arrest anyone, and that if they did,
"it would start a riot." I told them that it already
was a riot. Finally, Fred Astren, the Northern
California Hillel Director and I went up directly to
speak with Dean Saffold, who was watching from her
post a flight above us. She told us she would call in
the SF police. But the police could do nothing more
than surround the Jewish students and community
members who were now trapped in a corner of the plaza,
grouped under the flags of Israel, while an angry, out
of control mob, literally chanting for our deaths,
surrounded us. Dr. Astren and I went to stand with
our students. This was neither free speech nor
discourse, but raw, physical assault.
Was I afraid? No, really more sad that I could not
protect my students. Not one administrator came to
stand with us. I knew that if a crowd of Palestinian
or Black student had been there, surrounded by a crowd
of white racists screaming racist threats, shielded by
police, the faculty and staff would have no trouble
deciding which side to stand on. In fact, the scene
recalled for me many moments in the Civil Rights
movement, or the United Farm Workers movement, when,
as a student, I stood with Black and Latino
colleagues, surrounded by hateful mobs. Then, as now,
I sang peace songs, and then, as now, the hateful
crowd screamed at me, "Go back to Russia, Jew." How
ironic that it all took place under the picture of
Cesar Chavez, who led the very demonstrations that I
took part in as a student.
There was no safe way out of the Plaza. We had to be
marched back to the Hillel House under armed SF police
guard, and we had to have a police guard remain
outside Hillel. I was very proud of the students, who
did not flinch and who did not, even one time, resort
to violence or anger in retaliation. Several community
members who were swept up in the situation simply could
not believe what they saw. One young student told me,
"I have read about anti-Semitism in books, but this is
the first time I have seen real anti-Semites, people
who just hate me without knowing me, just because I am
a Jew." She lives in the dorms. Her mother calls and
urges her to transfer to a safer campus.
Today is advising day. For me, the question is an
open one: what do I advise the Jewish students to do?
Laurie Zoloth,
Director, Jewish Studies Program
|
lk
|
|
response 170 of 203:
|
May 24 06:47 UTC 2002 |
Good grief, I think I'll be moving from a Democratic section to a
Republican section (25 to 6) next fall. Which enables me to refer
to the following source (excerpt from):
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rubin052002.asp
Mary Robinson, War Criminal?
by Michael Rubin
She was the driving force behind the Orwellian "World Conference against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance." At the
conference, Robinson presided over little more than an intellectual pogrom
against Jews and Israel. She remained largely silent as the preliminary Asian
Regional Conference in Tehran (to which Israel was excluded) inserted
blatantly racist statements into the conference agenda. She failed to speak
out when, on the grounds of the U.N. conference itself, the Arab Lawyers Union
distributed pamphlets depicting hook-nosed Jews as Nazis spearing Palestinian
children. In the same tent where nongovernmental organizations depicted Israel
as a "racist, apartheid state," were distributed fliers entitled, "What if
Hitler had won?" The answer: "There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian
bloodshed." While Robinson takes no responsibility for enabling the greatest
single display of anti-Semitism in 50 years, she failed to lift a finger when
the South African government denied visas to European anti-slavery activists
critical of human rights in Islamic nations like the Sudan, where over two
million people have perished in a war since the regime in Khartoum declared
a jihad against non-Muslims in 1983. Either black Sudanese are less worthy
of concern to the human-rights commission, or it would be inexcusably
politically incorrect to actually protest human-rights violations conducted
in the name of Islam.
Robinson's post-Durban record is little better. On April 15, Robinson's
commission voted on a decision that condoned suicide bombings as a legitimate
means to establish Palestinian statehood (six European Union members voted
in favor including, not surprisingly, France and Belgium). The vote came after
Robinson initiated a drive to become a fact finder to investigate the
now-famous massacre in Jenin (also known as "the massacre that never
happened"). Curiously, in the months preceding Israel's incursion into the
U.N. refugee camp in Jenin, suicide bombers launched from the camp wearing
explosives likely bought with European money killed more than 100 Israeli
civilians. However, for Robinson, a massacre is the deaths of seven
Palestinian civilians in a war zone (47 Palestinian militants and 23 Israel
soldiers also died). The deaths of more than 100 Jewish civilians by suicide
bombers is worthy of little more than deafening silence interrupted by an
occasional pithy statement of moral equivalence. The world still waits for
Robinson to use her bully pulpit to call for an investigation of the terrorist
murder of Jews (but then again, such an inquiry might lead uncomfortably close
to UNRWA and European Union officials ).
The charge of indirect responsibility for crimes against humanity is a
reasonable charge so long as it is levied against those whom the chattering
classes in Europe wish to condemn. Otherwise, dozens of Dutch peacekeepers
would be in prison now for handing countless Muslim men and boys to Serb
gunmen in a so-called U.N. safe haven. U.N. peacekeepers might be defending
their actions in The Hague for working feverishly to avoid taking any action
in Rwanda as all hell broke loose. UNIFIL observers might need to explain
under oath why they helped cover up Hezbullah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers
from across a border the secretary general himself certified. Speaking of the
secretary general, he might wish to explain, at least as a witness, why he
saw fit to meet with and legitimize Hezbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah just
two months after Nasrallah declared, "Jews invented the legend of the Nazi
atrocities." UNICEF director Carol Bellamy might want to explain why slaves
(oops.. "abductees" in U.N. and E.U. parlance: We mustn't antagonize the
Sudanese government) liberated by UNICEF in Sudan never returned home, but
ended up dead at government check points a day after UNICEF representatives
crowed triumphant and foreign journalists departed. Then again, with UNICEF
workers in West Africa trading emergency food and medical assistance for child
sex, why question a few dead Sudanese so long as the photo-op was successful?
The European Union and the United Nations are sick with self-righteousness,
moral equivalence, and appeasement, but Mary Robinson is just one symptom.
Worthy international causes have been hijacked for narrow political agendas.
Accountability has become a dirty word. And looking the other way, especially
regarding terrorism, has become a form of art. But then again, why reform if
bashing Israel and sponsoring forums to promote anti-Semitism can reinforce
your credentials in the eyes of your peers?
|
lk
|
|
response 172 of 203:
|
May 25 06:51 UTC 2002 |
An interesting intersection of false stories and anti-semitism:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001735
Best of the Web Today
By James Taranto
Monday, May 20th, 2002
'I Control America'
In her May 9 syndicated column, Georgie Anne Geyer makes the case that it is
in America's interest to be less supportive of Israel in its war against
Palestinian terrorists. That's a legitimate, if wrongheaded, point of view.
But in the course of arguing her case, Geyer makes two exceedingly dubious
statements that seem to perpetuate anti-Semitic myths. She writes:
Today, with Ariel Sharon and his far Israeli right in power, this uncritical
and unthinking acquiescence and even encouragement of every Israeli tendency
is disastrous for both countries. In fact, it led Prime Minister Sharon to
tell his cabinet recently, "I control America."
The Chicago Tribune, which ran Geyer's column, published a letter to the
editor from Nelson Borelli:
Georgie Anne Geyer quotes Ariel Sharon as telling his Cabinet, "I control
America."
Under the national and international circumstances, the Chicago Tribune cannot
ignore this monumental statement. If she is telling the truth, Sharon's
statement should be printed with large letters on the front page, followed
by an editorial. Selective inattention to the matter would be borderline
treason.
Indeed. But that's a big "if." We couldn't find any evidence anywhere that
Sharon ever said "I control America." A Google search, however, turned up a
similar quote attributed to Sharon, which seems to have originated in an Oct.
3, 2001, "report," datelined "Occupied Jerusalem," from an outfit called the
Islamic Association for Palestine:
According to Israel radio (in hebrew) Kol Yisrael, [Foreign Minister Shimon]
Peres warned Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American
requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli
interests and "turn the US against us."
At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every
time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I
want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure
on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
The Google search shows that this quote has spread widely on pro-Arab,
Islamist, far-right and far-left Web sites, but it does not appear to have
been reported by any legitimate news organization. The notion that Israel's
leader would assert the anti-Semitic canard that "the Jewish people control
America" does not, to say the least, have the ring of truth. And the
pro-Israel media-watchdog group Camera flatly calls the quote a hoax and says
"Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast exists."
Note that the Geyer version of the quote--"I control America"--seems to be
sanitized for an American audience, transforming an anti-Semitic myth into
a merely anti-Sharon one.
Here's another Geyer claim:
Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs
are all dogs, then you see Saudi-funded ads attempting to document eternal
Saudi-American friendship.
Now, it's common on Arab television to hear commentators and clerics liken
Jews to animals, and there probably are some extremist Israelis who
reciprocate the sentiment. But it's not even remotely plausible that an
American TV station would air an ad saying that "the Arabs are all dogs." Yet
Geyer's column making this assertion appeared not just in the Chicago Tribune
but also in the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Tulsa World. There's certainly
room for a diversity of opinions on the Mideast conflict, but even opinion
writers--and their editors--have a duty not to publish blatant falsehoods.
|