The right to a Jewish state

Recently, Prof. Shlomo Avineiri wrote about the failure of the Palestinians to accept the right of Israel to exist. “Shamir” in this case, is Prof. Shimon Shamir, who argued that Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s right to exist is irrelevant.

Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first to broach the idea. It remains uncertain whether he acted wisely in the manner he gave the issue such prominence, but what shocked many Israelis – not just Likud members – was the blunt and vulgar response given by official Palestinian spokespeople.

In their ferociously negative response, Shamir claims that the Palestinians “fell into the trap that those who demanded recognition of a Jewish state had set for them.” Yet apparently there was no fall into any rhetorical trap. Rather, this was an expression of a deep, internal ideological truth that to this day refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. Because as far as the Palestinians are concerned, the Jews are not a nation, but rather a religious-ethnic group.

Barry Rubin sharpens the point:

Note by the way something extremely important: To accept the existence of a Palestinian Arab state, Israel or Zionist ideology does not have to make any change whatsoever in its world view. It is not exclusionary. Palestinian nationalism is. For it to accept the existence of Israel–in real terms or even by signing a final peace treaty–requires a political and intellectual revolution.

And one of the ways you know peace is not near is that this revolution has barely begun. Examine Palestinian media, education, the statements (in Arabic) of leaders, mosque sermons, and so on, and you find few hints that there is acceptance of Israel’s long-term, much less permanent, existence. Of course, Hamas makes little secret of its view on the subject.

Fatah’s view is more complex. In private, some of its leaders know they cannot defeat Israel but won’t say so publicly and hope that a long-term battle of attrition will do what force of arms cannot.

I think it’s important to note that Professor Robert O. Freedman of Baltimore Hebrew University has also recently written:

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, it is necessary for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state to replace the image of the Jew as dhimmi, or second class citizen, with the image of the Jew as a member of a national group exercising legitimate national rights, just as the Palestinians themselves do. Once this is done, the chances for a long-lasting peace between Israel and a Palestinian state will be greatly enhanced.

Freedman, is also an active member of Americans for Peace Now. During Prime MInister Netanyahu’s first term in office Freedman often portrayed Netanyahu as a right wing extremist. Yet, at that time, one of Netanyahu’s demands was that the Palestinian Authority abrogate the parts of its charter that denied Israel’s right to exist. It wasn’t just a demand but also a recognition that the failure of the Palestinians to do so was a sign that they rejected the premises of a peace treaty. Yet the common approach at the time was to dismiss the language of the Palestinian National Covenant as obsolete. This is what Serge Schmemann of the New York Times commented the first time that the Palestinian supposedly dropped the language denying Israel’s right to exist, in 1996:

Though time and the Israeli-Palestinian agreements had rendered the charter largely obsolete, the formal revocation of the hostile clauses carried a great symbolic importance for Israelis. It was so important that Mr. Peres agreed to let some of the most notorious terrorists return to Palestinian lands to make it possible for Mr. Arafat to convene the entire Palestine National Council.

In an interview with Arutz-7 Prof. Yehoshua Porath found no evidence that the PLO had indeed ended its calls for the destruction of the Jewish States (to use the headline from the Schmemann article.).

Q. Shalom Professor Porat. Yasser Arafat sent a letter today to Prime Minister Peres announcing the changes in the Palestinian covenant. Does this letter convince you that the covenant has been changed?

A. No, he has only repeated the decision of the PNC. They have not defined which clauses will be changed, but have only made a general statement that they will change clauses which contradict the recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Q. Isn’t this only a matter of semantics? For he is explicitly stating that he will make the changes.

A. When he makes the changes, we will see. We will see what replaces the present clauses. Why are we in such a hurry to give him credit?

Q. We should give him credit because it is said that until now, Arafat has not made such a statement.

A. In an exchange of letters [with Yitzhak Rabin], Arafat said that he will change the covenant. Today he said that anything that contradicts the mutual recognition expressed in that exchange of letters, is now null and void. What has he changed? Does anyone know what clauses are changed? There is nothing new in this development. Clause 19, which says explicitly that the establishment of the State of Israel is null and void, I’m sure they will change first. But what about the clause which denies any connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel? What about the many clauses pertaining to the armed struggle? What about the clause that the Palestinians are the only rightful owners of the land? What about the clause in which the PLO claims the right to represent the Arab citizens of Israel? Do we agree with this? Does this constitute a “contradiction”? Does anyone know? No. The questions remain open, yet they have received credit [for the changes] enabling the continuation of the negotiations.

As I’ve written before, Article 20 of the Palestinian National Charter – which, as Prof Porath noted, denies the connection between Jews and the land of Israel – is a fundamental tenet of Palestinian nationalism. Even the “moderate” leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas cannot bring himself to acknowledge this. Instead newspapers quote Abbas’s glib response to the issue:

“It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic — it is none of my business,”

as if to dismiss its significance and instead focus on “settlements” as the major obstacle to peace, not the Palestinian refusal to accept the premise of peace: the acceptance of the Jewish state of Israel. It’s amazing that 16 years after Oslo, this is still not settled.

Crosssposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | 5 Comments

Monday SNB

Hamas getting confident; shelling Israel again: More shells into Israel. But when mortars are fired from Gaza into Israel, the mainstream media doesn’t pick it up until Israel fires back.

Hamas’ pre-emptive strike at the UN See if you can follow this: Hamas is protesting to the UN that it can’t teach about the Holocaust in UN-sponsored classes in Gaza. The UN is saying, “Huh? We’re not teaching it.” Hamas then says, “Well, you’re about to, so don’t.” The UN says, “No comment.” Um—what? Of course, the UN will cave. Watch for it.

Madonna—Bibi. Bibi—Madonna. Madonna’s going to meet with Bibi Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni while she’s touring Israel. Concerts, Kabbala, and Knesset. She’s a busy girl, is Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Hamas, Holocaust, Israel, News Briefs, Pop Culture | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The son also op-eds

Well following in his father’s illustrious path, Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi has taken the pen to produce an op-ed for the New York Times, so he could, of course, argue that Megrahi is innocent.

Mr. Megrahi was released for the right reasons. The Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, freed Mr. Megrahi, who is dying of cancer, on compassionate grounds. Mr. MacAskill’s courageous decision demonstrates to the world that both justice and compassion can be achieved by people of good will. Despite the uproar over the release, others agree. A recent survey of Scottish lawyers showed that a majority of those surveyed agreed with the secretary’s decision.

It’s worth pointing out that we Libyans are far from the only ones who believe that Mr. Megrahi is innocent of this terrible crime. In June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission determined that a “miscarriage of justice” may have occurred and referred the case to the High Court. A retired Scottish police officer who worked on the case has signed a statement saying that evidence was fabricated. The credibility of a key witness, a shopkeeper in Malta, has subsequently been disputed by the Scottish judge who presided in the review. Even the spokesman of a family group of Lockerbie victims has said that the group was not satisfied that the verdict in the Megrahi case was correct.

However, Stratfor lays out the case against Megrahi here (h/t Seraphic Secret):

Investigators were also able to trace the clothing inside the suitcase containing the IED to a specific shop, Mary’s House, in Sliema, Malta. While examining one of the pieces of Maltese clothing in May 1989, investigators found a fragment of a circuit board that did not match anything found in the Toshiba radio. It is important to remember that in a bombing, the pieces of the IED do not entirely disappear. They may be shattered and scattered, but they are not usually completely vaporized. Although some pieces may be damaged beyond recognition, others are not, and this often allows investigators to reconstruct the device

In mid-1990, after an exhaustive effort to identify the circuit-board fragment, the FBI laboratory in Washington was able to determine that the circuit board was very similar to one that came from a timer that a special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service had recovered from an arms cache while investigating a Libyan-sponsored coup attempt in Lome, Togo, in 1986. Further investigation determined that the company that produced the timers, the Swiss company MEBO, had sold as many as 20 of the devices to the Libyan government, and that the Libyan government was the company’s primary customer. Interestingly, in 1988, MEBO rented one of its offices in Zurich to a firm called ABH, which was run by two Libyan intelligence officers: Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Badri Hassan.

The MEBO timer, model MST-13, is very different from the ice-cube timer in the PFLP-GC device found in Frankfurt in October 1988. Additionally, the ice-cube timer in the PFLP-GC device was used in conjunction with a barometric pressure switch, and the IED used a different main charge, TNT, instead of the Semtex used in the Pan Am 103 device.

Nor was flight 103 the only flight about which that Libya admitted guilt. The younger Qaddafi doesn’t address that in his op-ed. Furthermore it appears that rumors of Megrahi’s impending death may have been exaggerated. (via Israel Matzav via Seraphic Secret)

Both parties now want the doctor identified in order to determine whether the government allowed itself to get hoodwinked by the Libyans. The alternative theory would be that the government wanted to construct a good cover story for Megrahi’s release for other reasons — for instance, oil deals, as Moammar Gaddafi hinted and his son flat-out claimed.

The government thus far has refused to identify the doctor and says speculation on the length of Megrahi’s life is “tasteless.” But that was the basis of Scotland’s decision to release a mass murderer after serving only 11.57 days for every life he took. The Scottish government made the calculation of Megrahi’s life expectancy into public policy, and it’s completely dishonest to now claim modesty and etiquette when challenged on it.

Of course, we’ll know by January if Megrahi really is that sick. If he’s still breathing when the 21st anniversary of the bombing rolls around on December 21, we’ll have a pretty good sense that the deal to get him released was political with “compassion” the cover for an action that was anything but.

Is the younger Qaddafi sincere? Erratic seems like a good description of the younger Qaddafi’s pronouncements.

Esquire last year listed him as one of the most influential people of the 21st century.

The second-oldest son of “Brother Leader” Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi would appear to be out of his mind. Reared by the military dictator who admitted responsibility for the Pan Am flight 103 bombing, Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi believes democracy can take root in Libya. He once told Al Jazeera, “You have to bring democracy to your countries,” referring to the Arab world, adding, “The Arabs should either change or change will be imposed upon them from the outside.” With him in power, the Western world, and the U. S. in particular, could get what it theoretically wants in Iraq–the conversion of a large, oil-rich extremist Middle Eastern regime to a peaceful democracy–without the in-between step of a war.

But does Saif mean it? When his time comes, will he submit to a vote? Or will he simply inherit the reins of power. I think Esquire’s being too kind here.

The Lede picked this up:

As The Lede noted last week, in 2008 the younger Mr. Qaddafi said in this extraordinary interview with the BBC that Libya had “accepted responsibility” for the actions of Mr. Megrahi and paid compensation for the Lockerbie bombing simply to bring about an end to international sanctions, but “that doesn’t mean we did it.” In the same interview, Mr. Qaddafi called the families of the Lockerbie victims “very greedy” and said, “Instead of wasting their time blackmailing us,” they should now work with the Libyan government “in order to find the real criminal who was behind that attack.”

“[F]ind the real criminal?” Has he been taking lessons from OJ?

Saif Qaddafi seems to want the benefits of dealing with the West, but he still says lots of things that indicate that he’s wedded to the old way of doing business. I think he’s less of voice of change than a voice for preserving his own privileges.

The Lede’s – a blog at the NYT – damaging post about Saif Qaddafi certainly made it seem like the release of Megrahi was part of a deal between Britain and Libya. Now the Times has given Qaddafi the opportunity to respond. Will he ever give his own citizens a similar opportunity?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged | Comments Off on The son also op-eds

Sunday Snark News Briefs

I’m shocked, shocked, that Gilad Shalit’s release is not imminent: Yeah, toldja so. I will believe that a deal is within reach when I see photos of Shalit being released to Egypt. Not before.

If only American prosecutors were this fair-minded: Olmert’s been indicted. I’d sure like to see some crooked American politicians get the same treatment (yeah, I’m talking about you, Richardson). Meantime, geez, Israel, can you get your politicians to stop stealing and bribing and doing all those illegal things? I mean, geez. At least we don’t have all that many presidents getting caught.

World’s tiniest violin orchestra, please: Security prisoners in Israel are getting canned food for Ramadan, instead of home-cooked meals. All together now: Awwww. Here’s a thought: Perhaps if you hadn’t taken part in terrorist attacks, you wouldn’t be suffering in jail during the holiday.

Gee, ya think? A commentary on CNN has a keen grasp of the obvious: Obama is losing the centrists. Hm. Take a far-left agenda, try to slam it through in spite of polls stating that Americans do not want nationalized health care, government takeover of the auto industry, or even a massive bank bailout, and what do you think is going to happen? Obama pretended to be a centrist during the election, thus hoodwinking millions of people who refused to look at his voting record. Now the mask is off, the emperor has no clothes, yadda yadda, etc., etc., and the result is Obama’s poll numbers dropping almost as fast as the stock market.

What if Chappaquiddick happened today? Duh. Kennedy’s political career would have died with Mary Jo Kopechne.

Posted in Hamas, Israel, News Briefs, Politics, The One | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Caturday

I really like this shot of Tig.

Tig looking for something

I assure you, this isn’t what he was looking at.

Gracie looking silly

He was actually searching for his mousie, which he had dropped.

Tig and mousie

Tig loves his mousie. Gracie loves being left alone by Tig. It’s all good.

Posted in Cats | 4 Comments

Mary Robinson: Building settlements will lead to one-state solution

Mary Robinson, who has just been honored by the U.S. President (whom only four percent of Israelis think is pro-Israel) with America’s highest honor, is in Israel doing a little fear-mongering. She’s warning Israel that if settlement building isn’t frozen, the two-state solution is at risk.

“The balance is tipping and if it tips, there will not be a two-state solution and how would that make Israel safer?” asked Robinson, in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post.

Oooh. Scary. And what, pray tell, would her logic be on this? Can we have a supporting statement? Some facts that might make us think that settlement building is going to force Israel to yield to a single, binational state?

“A one-state solution has huge implications. So for the sake of being able to have a two-state solution, we need a freeze on settlements,” she said.

Um. Well, perhaps the JPost interview just didn’t include her reasons behind those scary statements. Or perhaps that “balance” she was talking about was the world’s support for Israel. (Actually, that wouldn’t surprise me, but good luck to the world in getting Israel to legislate itself out of existence.)

I searched the article in vain for an actual reason why settlement building will lead to the dreaded one-state solution (which is, let’s be honest, the death of Israel). I am left with believing that the Medal of Freedom honoree is talking out of her ass. It’s a pretty safe assumption when you read quotes like this:

“We are a group that contains a number of those who would be, if you like, perceived to be quite balanced on the Israeli side,” said Robinson.

Hm. Robinson, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu… yep, quite balanced on the Israeli side, if by “the Israeli side” you mean “people who warn about a one-state solution as the logical result of settlement building.”

I’m sorry, these people are supposed to be our “wise elders”? I stand by my label of “Senile old anti-Israel farts.”

Posted in Israel, Juvenile Scorn | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Hevron remembered

Jerold Auerbach writes today about the Chevron massacre:

The Jewish community of Hebron—some 700 people—recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of their return. This month they commemorate the 80th anniversary of Tarpat. All the other ancient peoples mentioned in the Bible have vanished. But Jews, a community of memory, still live in Hebron.

Hebron Jews are relentlessly vilified as fanatics who illegally occupy someone else’s land. As religious Zionists, they are the militant Jewish settlers whom legions of Jewish and non-Jewish critics love to hate. It is seldom noticed that their most serious transgression—settlement in the biblical land of Israel—is the definition of Zionism: the return of Jews to their historic homeland.

The inadmissibility of acquiring land by force apparently doesn’t apply to Arabs.

Let’s not forget that when a terrorist killed a 10 month old girl in Chevron eight years ago, the PA refused to take responsibility for the crime.

Which is one reason why it elicited not even a note of remorse from the Palestinian Arab leadership. Reuters did manage to find a member of Yasser Arafat’s cabinet in Amman, Jordan, at a meeting of Arab dictators exploring ways to keep financing the attacks on Israel. It quoted the minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, as saying there is no evidence that the baby was killed by Palestinian fire. “We believe that the atrocities of the occupation are responsible for all crimes that have claimed the lives of Palestinians and Israelis,” he said.

Thus the Jewish presence in Hevron, which was removed by force eighty years ago, is considered illegal, not just by the Palestinians but by much of the world.

More from Sanny Benoit.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | Comments Off on Hevron remembered

Friday SNB

Reap what you sow dept.: A Saudi prince was injured by a terrorist who blew himself up on his way to meet with him. Don’t you just love how the AP talks about the prince spearheading the “aggressive” Saudi anti-terrorism campaign? Because it’s not like Saudi money is funding terrorism anywhere in the world or anything.

Am Yisrael Chai: The Jewish people live. That’s what the Benjamin Netanyahu said in Wannsee yesterday. That’s the place where the Nazis planned the destruction of the world’s Jews.

Ew! Jew cooties! Hamas is denying having participated in European workshops with Israelis. Because, you know, Jew cooties.

Note to self: No more putting purse on the back of chairs in restaurants. Ben Bernanke’s wife’s purse was stolen from the back of her chair at a Starbuck’s, begging the question: Didn’t she feel the thief take it? The media’s making this out to be a major ID theft case, but the details being given out make it seem like, uh, the thief stole her checkbook and tried to cash a check. Unless there’s more to the story, it’s typical media overhype.

Um, what’s the point of an Israeli suing a Swedish paper in a New York court? An Israeli lawyer (not one of the brighter ones if you ask me) is suing the Aftonbladet for libel in a New York court. Why not in Sweden? Am I the only one that thinks this is moronic?

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Jew Cooties, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Really. Not funny anymore

I’m sure that when the name “Insinkerator” was first brought out, people thought it was just the coolest name ever for a garbage disposal.

Not so funny after seeing it in your sink day after day after day after day.

Just sayin’.

Posted in Meanderings | 1 Comment

The libel tourist is dead

Khalid bin Mahfouz is dead.

The New York Times tells us:

Khalid bin Mahfouz, a billionaire Saudi banker who paid $225 million to settle charges of bank fraud in 1993 and later won a string of lawsuits in Britain against writers who had accused him of supporting terrorism, died Sunday at his home in Jidda. He was 60.

Bin Mahfouz’s business dealings came under scrutiny by a number of scholars, and he fought back by suing them in English courts where libel laws are more favorable to plaintiffs. The Times notes:

But Sheik Mahfouz’s criticisms were sometimes irrefutable. He was widely referred to as the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden, which he was not. Many newspapers published corrections.

What’s the point of this observation. There’s no indication that Rachel Ehrenfeld (one of his legal targets, who was mentioned by the Times) made this false charge. Are we to infer that all of his defenses were equally valid? It would appear that the Times is going out of its way to defend Bin Mahfouz.

Though Ehrenfeld and Millard Burr – two of his legal targets – won’t miss him, they list a number of people who will.

Many will miss him. In Riyadh, he will be missed by the ruling members of the royal family who once used his National Commercial Bank as their own piggy bank, and often used him and his family members as fronts for their business and to fund their favorite organizations and terrorist groups. Likewise, those shady characters who run the Saudi-funded Muslim World League, the International Islamic Relief Agency, and the Rabita Trust of Pakistan will miss him.

Georgetown alum (1968) Prince Turki bin Faisal, former Saudi ambassador to the U.K. and the U.S. and director of Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Department from 1977 until ten days before 9/11, and overseer of Saudi financial aid to the jihad in Afghanistan, will have lost an old friend.

Bin Mahfouz will certainly be missed by a circle of notorious Saudi plutocrats who make an appearance in the annual Forbes list of the world’s wealthiest citizens, many as defendants in the lawsuits filed by the victims of the 9/11 attacks. There are the Rajis, the Bin Ladens, Al Amoudi, and such other disreputable individuals as designated terrorist Yassin al Qadi, who ran some of Mahfouz’s businesses and charities – the Muwafaq foundation, that funded al-Qaeda, Hamas and Abu-Sayyaf, to name but a few.

Al Qaeda, Hamas and Taliban leaders must be grief stricken and worried; will his sons be as generous as he was?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Saudi Arabia | Tagged | 1 Comment

Thursday SNB

He will fart in your general direction: Nicholas Sarkozy is threatening “severe” new sanctions on Iran if it doesn’t stop enriching uranium and trying to get the bomb. Yeah, like we haven’t heard that before.

No! Not the dreaded letter to the IAEA! Iran has gotten the non-aligned nations to sign onto a letter to the IAEA pushing for a ban on attacks on nuclear plants. Hm. This is a tough one. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, but it is a member of the IAEA. But then again, the UN General Assembly, under which the IAEA was formed, is a powerless bunch of stuffed shirts with a proven anti-Israel agenda. Israel: Fear the letter! (And by the way, wussy little Iran, after threatening Israel in so many different ways, is running to the UN for protection. Baby.)

The obligatory “Shalit deal is imminent” mention: Yeah, yeah, yeah. We keep hearing that, and yet, Gilad Shalit is still not released. And while some of the things I’m reading do seem to be leading to an actual release, well, I’ll wait until I see some results first.

Hezbullah ascendant: Funny, I thought Hezbullah lost the election, and yet, Sa’ad Hariri, whose father was killed by Syria—which sponsors Hezbullah—says they’re going to be part of the government whether Israel likes it or not. (And a big nyah-nyah to you!) Hokay. Just remember, Israel has let Lebanon know that if Hezbullah attacks again, since they’re now part of the government, it will be considered an act of war by Lebanon. Which is why Lebanese villagers are turning on Hezbullah and throwing them out of their villages.

She was leader of the pack, and now she’s gone: Ellie Greenwich, the songwriter who gave us some of the most memorable pop tunes of the 60s, died yesterday. What would this world be without Da Doo Ron Ron and Do Wah Diddy Diddy? Not to mention Be My Baby and The Look of Love. Let’s all of us take a moment to let our hearts stand still (Da Doo Ron Ron Ron Da Doo Ron Ron).

Posted in Iran, Lebanon, News Briefs, Pop Culture | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Must-read blog post of the week

Rachel Lucas’ visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I think this is something people really do forget about the extermination camps. The main image we all have of the camps is of the starving inmates at liberation in 1945, the piles of starved bodies. Always adults. We forget that at least hundreds of thousands of children were brought to camps like Auschwitz and were not ever photographed again, such as at liberation, because they were taken (usually with their mothers) straight from the train to the gas chamber.

But not before the Nazis took their little clothes off them and shipped those clothes back to German civilians to keep Frau Housewife happy while Herr Hubby was gone to war.

Via.

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Must-read blog post of the week

No Jews, No beer

Please see an important note at the end.

A few days ago the Washington Post concluded in Self-Muzzled at Yale:

In effect, Yale University Press is allowing violent extremists to set the terms of free speech. As an academic press that embraces the university’s motto of “Lux et Veritas,” it should be ashamed.

Would it be that the truth were so benign.

Last week in response to Roger Kimball’s column about Yale’s decision not to publish the cartoons, InstaPundit quipped:

I suspect that they were mostly afraid of scaring away Saudi money.

Martin Kramer fleshes out the further:

Imagine, then–and we’re just imagining–that someone in the Yale administration, perhaps in President Levin’s office, gets wind of the fact that Yale University Press is about to publish a book on the Danish cartoons–The Cartoons That Shook the World. The book is going to include the Danish cartoons, plus earlier depictions of the Prophet Muhammad tormented in Dante’s Inferno, and who-knows-what-else. Whooah! Good luck explaining to people like Prince Alwaleed that Yale University and Yale University Press are two different shops. The university can’t interfere in editorial matters, so what’s to be done? Summon some “experts,” who’ll be smart enough to know just what to say. Yale will be accused of surrendering to an imagined threat by extremists. So be it: self-censorship to spare bloodshed in Nigeria or Indonesia still sounds a lot nobler than self-censorship to keep a Saudi prince on the line for $20 million.

Now Prince Alwaleed’s gift was not the first Saudi gift to Yale, back in 2002, the Yale Herald wrote about a gift from (then) Crown Prince Abdullah.

… Abdullah’s comes with several stipulations. Five million dollars will fund a named professorship in the international relations department dedicated to United States-Middle East relations; $2 million will be earmarked for the burgeoning Near Eastern languages and civilizations department, with an emphasis on courses in Arabic language instruction. Smaller, as-yet-unspecifed amounts will be funneled to the Yale University Art Gallery, the Religious Studies department, and a future DeVane Lecture. A large portion of the remaining sum, roughly $350 million, will enable the construction of a 13th residential college–a project previously postponed by the Yale Corporation, which thought it was years away from execution for fiscal reasons.

Now think about it, given these “stipulations,” what would be the orientation of that professor of international relations? Is he likely to harbor any sympathy for Israel? I think we know the answer to that one. And yet the Yale PR machine compares King Abdullah’s stipulations, to those of Paul Mellon.

Perhaps you remember that Yale once returned a $20 million endowment for the teaching of Western civilization. The stated reason was that the donor, Lee Bass, had stipulated that he wished to have veto power over professorial appointments. Perhaps Saudi royalty makes no such explicit demands, but the episode with the book about the Danish cartoons shows that it had no need to. The Yale administration knows its limits.

Perhaps, then, Yale President Levin’s recollection about meeting (then) Crown Prince Abdullah should raise some concern.

THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL BUT IMPOSsible were it not for a whispered conversation held in a United Nations (U.N.) elevator at the end of the summer of 1998. Along with a delegation of Saudi Arabian diplomats, the Crown Prince was attending a conference on the global integration of educational networks and the nation-derived economic determination of such processes, with a focus on the Middle Eastern states. One of the panel’s speakers was none other than Levin himself. After the conference, Levin found himself next to Abdullah in a crowded elevator in the U.N.’s Secretariat office building. “We had talked only formally during the conference,” Levin said, “though I felt we had an unspoken affinity with each other. He showed a pointed interest in the American university system… I don’t know exactly why–perhaps out of habit–but I invited him to campus.” Abdullah accepted, and a week later he became the first member of the royal family to visit an institution of higher education in the United States.

(emphasis mine)
Got that? The (present) King has a strong interest in the American university system. And as Martin Kramer showed, that interest is not altruistic but strategic.

Two years ago, in what read like a press release from the Saudi government the New York Times reported that Saudi King Tries to Grow Modern Ideas in Desert.

On a marshy peninsula 50 miles from this Red Sea port, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is staking $12.5 billion on a gargantuan bid to catch up with the West in science and technology.

Between an oil refinery and the sea, the monarch is building from scratch a graduate research institution that will have one of the 10 largest endowments in the world, worth more than $10 billion.

Its planners say men and women will study side by side in an enclave walled off from the rest of Saudi society, the country’s notorious religious police will be barred and all religious and ethnic groups will be welcome in a push for academic freedom and international collaboration sure to test the kingdom’s cultural and religious limits.

The report goes on to portray this as the enlightened monarch attempting to bring his country into the modern world. But at the end of the article we learn that there limits to that enlightenment.

But the kingdom’s laws will still apply: Israelis, barred by law from visiting Saudi Arabia, will not be able to collaborate with the university. And one staple of campus life worldwide will be missing: alcohol.

So even though some of the top scientists in many disciplines are from Israel, the Saudis won’t bend their rules to enhance science. And I love the juxtaposition: No Jews and no beer, as if these restrictions are of equal import.

This makes a mockery of the claim made by another academic about its partnership with the Saudis.

“We are working with a university that has guaranteed nondiscrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender,” said Peter Glynn, director of the Stanford institute. “We recognize that this university operates in Saudi Arabia. Having said that, this university recognizes that if it wants to be world-class, it has to be able to freely attract the best students and faculty from around the world.”

If the Yale scandal was simply a matter of bowing pre-emptively to fears of extremism, the damage to intellectual inquiry would be discrete. But if, as it appears, the calculation was to avoid offending a benefactor – whose generosity Yale (and other universities) seeks, then its an ongoing problem. It is a corruption of academia.

There seem to be many who feel it is necessary to question their assumptions about Israel, who are diffident about challenging bogus charges of undue Jewish influence in the world. But when it comes to oil money, they are noticeably incurious. That money would seem to buy both influence and silence.

Saudi money speaks louder than ideas.

UPDATE: One reason I like blogging is because it involves linking to my sources. Readers can check out my sources and determine if I read them correctly.

I quoted from a Yale Daily Herald article from 2002. It was a perfect example of the deference academic institutions showed towards the Saudis.

It was in fact, too perfect. It was an April Fool’s satire. I think that my basic contention that the Saudi investment in academia corrupts the institutions that take the money. However one of the bases of my contention was mistaken. I should have been more careful.

In fact the tone of the satire matched the tone of at least one of the New York Times articles I used. Still, I should have been more careful.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Saudi Arabia | Tagged | 2 Comments

Netanyahu on Jerusalem

This quote should be engraved in bronze:

“Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is the sovereign capital of the State of Israel. We have been building in Jerusalem for 3,000 years.”

British protesters were out in droves tonight, forcing Bibi to use the back entrance to 10 Downing Street. But I’d have to say that he got the last word.

The AP story didn’t seem to get the same quote as Ynet. In fact, the AP story doesn’t mention Jerusalem at all. I wonder how that happened? Because they’re both quoting the same press conference. The Reuters reporter and editor felt it was worth quoting.

“We accept no limitations on our sovereignty … Jerusalem is not a settlement,” Netanyahu said in response to a question.

Of course, they then called it “Arab east Jerusalem,” the lable which totally ignores the fact that the Jewish Quarter is in the eastern section of the city.

I’m shocked that this got into the AP report:

Netanyahu discussed at length his visit Tuesday to the London museum of the Palestine Exploration Fund, an organization that sent explorers on expeditions to the Holy Land in the 1800s to examine the physical traces of the Bible and Jewish history. He talked about the Arab invasion of the newly declared state of Israel in 1948 and the Arab “stranglehold” on Israel before the 1967 Mideast War, in which Israel captured territories that included the West Bank and Gaza. He touched on the construction of the first Jewish neighborhood outside the Old City of Jerusalem in the 19th century.

Of course, it was buried deep near the end. But Netanyahu is an excellent speaker. He’s getting his message across, in spite of the media barrage against him.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

I blame Yahoo! News

A heads-up to my regulars: The reason there are suddenly a few dozen new comments is because my last post on the Swedish blood libel got picked up by Yahoo! News.

I’m not quite sure how or why my posts get picked up and put on the “Most blogged about” links, but I am always grateful to the people at Yahoo! when that happens. The commenters that come in, not so much. But then again, I get to add to my Freakmail folder for future mockery.

I’m very glad that opposing viewpoints are supported by Yahoo! I’m switching Firefox to their search engine to show my support. (Not really sure about that Bing thing yet, but maybe it will get better.)

Posted in Site news | Comments Off on I blame Yahoo! News