Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, chief executive of S. Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company Control on US (& other) media
Who owns CNN?
The answers might surprise you (or maybe not). Ever wonder why CNN and Time are so blatantly pro-islamic. Ever wonder why these weasels want are tooo eager to toe liberal / islamic propaganda??
A good chunk of AOL Time Warner is owned by Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal the Saudi billionaire. It is well known that Prince AlWaleed is a front for the Saudi royal family. All of the oil money that is swindled from Aramco the Saudi oil company is “invested” by Prince Al Waleed and his company. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465942/posts, http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/2008/09/beasley-hurt-ea.html?cid=132826195#comment-132826195
From the ‘Saudi Online’ page: RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he has spent $1 billion on stocks over the last six months, including another $500 million on Citigroup.
“Already the world’s largest shareholder in Citigroup, the prince’s shareholding in the world’s most profitable bank is now around $10 billion,” said a press release from his Kingdom Holding group.
“At about $43, Citi’s share price was at too attractive a price,” the prince said in the statement.
And he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner. “The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.
“I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore, when the price reached lucrative levels, we decided to increase our stake. The weakness in AOL’s stock price is temporary as it reflects the temporary weakness in several areas in which it is involved,” Alwaleed said.
He also increased his stake in priceline.com to $100 million, or 5.4 percent of the company. saudia-online.com/NewsMar02/news06.shtml
AOL BIAS – This is a growing guide to AOL political and religious bias seen by AOL subscribers as
demanded by its Arab owners.
AOL shows political and religious bias in its news coverage. The bias is also seen in the use of AOL message board
censorship policies. Poster’s messages are deleted by AOL monitors violating AOL’s own Terms of Service, TOS.
Time Warner has taken no action to stop the bias but has looked into it. They did nothing. AOL is owned by Arab money.
Alwaleed spent $1 billion on stocks recently
RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner.
“The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said. http://www.dicksguides.com/ZDGKN/POLS/AOLissues/AOLownedbyArabs.htm
Georgetown’s Capitulation to Radical Islam
By Joe Kaufman and Jeffrey Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, January 06, 2006
Georgetown University was built with a Catholic and Jesuit identity. This bit of information is proudly displayed on the school’s website. But like Bethlehem in Israel, that identity is quickly being lost to a radical strain of Islam, as a counter-terror symposium has been abandoned and a pro-terror conference has been confirmed. Indeed, one of America’s most prestigious universities appears to be under siege.
Fearing violent reprisal from militant Muslim members of their student body, the school’s conference center rejected an educational symposium being hosted by America’s Truth Forum (formerly the People’s Truth Forum), a non-partisan, fact-based organization whose sole mission is to educate the American people on topics of national security. In this case, the subject matter to be discussed involved the “Underlying Roots of Terrorism: The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security.”…
While the counter-terror symposium was shunned, an organization associated with violence has been awarded a forum. From February 17 – 19, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), an activist group that has expressed its willingness to work with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, will be holding its “Fifth Annual Divestment Conference” on Georgetown University’s campus. At past events, shouts of “Kill the Jews” and “Death to Israel” could be heard amongst the crowd. And according to a news report, during PSM’s last conference, when a resolution to condemn terrorism was voted down, “the delegates erupted in cheers.”
When PSM announced its event, it’s interesting to see who they sent a press release to. A site that devotes a page to the release, Palestine Monitor, is said by one source to be a “PRO-TERRORIST SITE.” This is easy to understand, as the website contains numerous pages glorifying the Intifada (uprising) against Israel. Another location that prominently displays the press release is Ramallah Online, a hate site that equates the Jewish Star (Star of David) with the Nazi Swastika.
Not wanting to anger its on-campus insurgency, the university has remained hush about the event. The consideration of a small matter of money may also be on Georgetown’s mind. The PSM conference is coming on the heels of a $20 million donation to the school, given by a fairly effluent Saudi sheikh, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. This is the same sheikh who had previously donated $27 million to a telethon that raised money for the families of suicide bombers. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3398EF71-9067-4C86-88D2-9A8AD51427A5
Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal hoster of telethons for suicide bomber families buys large share of Fox News
Saudi prince advocates strategy of business not boycotts to ‘influence American public opinion”
September 25, 2005 http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1109
New Islamic satellite channel launched
March 8, 2006
Filed under: Newspapers — Hans Henrik Lichtenberg
Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, the chief executive of Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company, has officially launched an Islamic satellite channel seeking to project Islam as a religion of moderation, the Arab News online daily reports. Al-Resalah (The Message) has been broadcasting informally since last Wednesday. At a press conference on Monday, Prince Alwaleed said the 24-hour channel would target an Arab audience, especially young people, by projecting ‘our Arab heritage through a modern medium.’. Al-Resalah will be the forerunner of a future English-language Islamic channel for Western audiences. The prince said the new Islamic network would provide a platform for a dialogue on religious, social and economic issues affecting everyday life, but its priority would be to counteract the misconceptions of Islam in other societies. Tarek Alsuwaidan, the channel?s general manager, said that 40 per cent of the programmes would be youth oriented, 30 per cent would target women and families, and 10 per cent would focus on children, Arab News reports. (AKI,March 08, 2006) http://blog.newspaperindex.com/category/newspapers/page/7/
The Failure of Western Universities [incls. Middle East studies, MESA, Saudi funding at Georgetown and Harvard, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, John Esposito, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes]
Kari Vogt, historian of religion at the University of Oslo, has stated that Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I am Not a Muslim” is just as irrelevant to the study of Islam as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are to the study of Judaism. She is widely considered as one of the leading expert on Islam in Norway, and is frequently quoted in national media on matters related to Islam and Muslim immigration. People who get most of their information from the mainstream media, which goes for the majority of the population, will thus be systematically fed biased information and half-truths about Islam from our universities, which have largely failed to uphold the ideal of free inquiry. Unfortunately, this situation is pretty similar at universities and colleges throughout the West.
London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), scene to a growing number of anti-Semitic incidents from an increasingly pro-Islamic campus, issued a threat to one of its Jewish students to cease his protests against anti-Semitism at the University. Gavin Gross, an American, had been leading a campaign against the deterioration of conditions for Jewish students at SOAS, which is part of the University of London. SOAS had witnessed an escalation of anti-Jewish activity, in both severity and frequency. At the beginning of the year, the Islamic Society screened a video which compared Judaism with Satanism.
Meanwhile, in a move to “promote understanding between Islam and the West,” Saudi Arabia donated about SR13 million to a leading British museum. The officials said the money from Prince Sultan would pay for a new Saudi and Islamic gallery, which would help to portray Islamic culture and civilization in right perspectives. It would also help fund scholarships for Saudi students at Oxford University.
The Saudis and other oil-rich Arabs are busy buying influence over what Westerners hear about Islam. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, is an international investor currently ranked among the ten richest persons in the world. He is known in the USA for a $10 million check he offered to New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in October 2001 for the Twin Towers Fund. Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that the prince had called for the United States to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”
Prince Talal is also creating a TV channel, Al-Resalah, to target American Muslims. He already broadcasts in Saudi Arabia. In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted to Middle East Online about his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: “Muslim riots.” Bin Talal was not happy. “I picked up the phone and called Murdoch […] [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” he said. “Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.” http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4257
‘Obsession’ From Sarah SternPlease note an incorrect statement in an article by Adam Shatz (LRB, 9 October). In the article, Mr Shatz states: ‘The Endowment for Middle East Truth, a neoconservative think tank in Washington DC which recently hosted a series of seminars named after Sheldon Adelson and his wife, arranged distribution of “Obsession”, at a cost in the tens of millions.’The Endowment for Middle East Truth did not arrange the distribution of ‘Obsession’, and did not receive or spend ‘tens of millions’. Please see my press release at http://www.emetonline.org/events.html#obsession. Sarah Stern Endowment for Middle East Truth, Washington DC
How to silent those that speak out against radical Islamic hatred of non-Muslims
Adam Shatz wrote [ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n19/shtz01_.html ] that AishHatora is connected to the “settlers movement”, that is of course completely false. This strategy of branding anyone that speaks out against Jihad as a “fanatical Christian” or as a “militant zionist” is a low tactic originating from the Islamic powerful lobby CAIR that its roots (and current connections) in Islamic terror are well documented and it only aids the enemy of the west.
Adam goes on even further in making a salad of a few things to create the impression as IF it’s a “Jewish conspiracy”, he avoids the fact of ex Palestinian terrorist (“freedom fighter” inc.) Muslim convert to Christianity that has impacted much of the DVD program with his admission of his up-bringing in the Palestinian culture of hatred, of lies, libels and fabricated Pallywood “stories” on the Zionists and on all Jews as a whole, of Islamofascistic dehumaization of non-Muslims, especially Christians & Jews, regarding them as apes & pigs.
The same applies to Adam’s avoiding the impact of Lebanese Arab Brigitte Gabriel that broke the ranks of Islamic hatred into the western Christian world and dares speaks the truth about radical Islam.
What do you do when the United Nations “official report” sounds like a Pallywood cheap low life blogger?
When it hands out, gives the anti Jewish Arab “Palestinian” Jihad, pushing for annihilation, finally to hear that exact same garbage with which they try us all to brainwash with: Namely: “WE ARE ALL VICTIMS SO WE CAN COMMIT ALL CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”.
“Thanks” not to the U.N. for giving an official certification to the “Palestinian entity” to continue it’s declared genocide against Israel.
Here are some of the basic information, missing intentionally from the careless U.N. reporters:
1) The Islamo Arab bigoted war against the Jews in the holy-land began in the 1920’s, a few decades ago before that “occupation excuse” was even born.
2) The “Palestinians” do not refer just to a security checkpoints as “occupation” but to all of the lands of Israel, AKA, the ARAB RACISM is not giving the non Arabs a “right” to exist at all in that area.
3) How can one make any argument that an anti terror safety measure such as acheckpoint or road block “causes” terrorism, when it was established only BECAUSE of that?
Will the U.N. from now on call the checkpoints we all have in an airport, or on a football field as “apartheid”? AND why not? Is it not an orchestrated anti Israel Islamic led apartheid?
Shall the U.N. now disable all its security facilities on all its premises as “apartheid coplonialism ocupation”?
In other words, Israelis don’t have any right to survive against Arab racist terrorists, and all it’s efforts to guard it’s babies from genocide bombers and other terror acts are just “ocupation stuff”.
Follow the Money: Obama contributor Talat M. Othman 23 Feb 2008 by to be announced Khalidi, a “virulent critic of Israel”, has “denounced Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state.” Pipes wrote that Othman is “president of the founding committee of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC). …
L.A.’s defenders of Israel , The L.A. battle for Israel’s survival
There is great racism against Jewish students on college campuses within the Muslim student organizations.
L.A.’s defenders of Israel
The L.A. battle for Israel’s survival
By Brad A. Greenberg, Senior Writer
A protester from the international pro-Israel group StandWithUs yells outside the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles during the conflict with Hezbollah in July 2006. Photo by Ringo Chiu/Zuma Press
The notice shocked Karen Klein, head of Students for Israel at Cal State Northridge: Norman Finkelstein, the much-maligned scholar who wrote “The Holocaust Industry” and has spoken glowingly of Hezbollah, had been invited by the provost to lecture for three days this week at her school.
Klein had grown up down the street from campus, followed her father and sister in attending CSUN, and she was concerned about the implications of inviting Finkelstein, whose lectures she assumed would include rants against the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
“The campus is very apathetic, and in the years I’ve been at CSUN, this is the first anti-Israel event that has happened,” said Klein, a senior who plans to move to Israel after she graduates. “I wanted to make sure I handled it in the right way, because I want this to be the first and last instance of anti-Semitic activity at our university.”
First she contacted Hillel, with which Students for Israel is affiliated, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Then she called a group that since it began seven years ago in a Los Angeles living room has become an international leader in pro-Israel advocacy at colleges and universities.
StandWithUs national director Roz Rothstein jumped into action. She phoned Harry Hellenbrand, the provost and vice president who had invited Finkelstein, and explained the complaints her organization had. Hellenbrand wasn’t surprised, and he asked StandWithUs to recommend speakers with a contrary perspective for a future lecture, a gesture he also made in a meeting with Klein. A list of 15 names was drawn up, and the drama was defused.
“That is exactly what we would want to have happen,” said Hellenbrand, who said Finkelstein had been requested by faculty members who wanted to hear how his controversial scholarship had cost him tenure at DePaul University. “In a sense, our lives are made easier if we never have any controversial speakers at all. But that is not going to really happen. The ideal we have, but what rarely does happen, is that people come in and protest and write letters and ask us to support other speakers.”
StandWithUs was born from death, given life by the grisly discovery of two Israeli teens, Kobi Mandel and Yosef Ishran, in a cave outside of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa on May 9, 2001.
“A rock the size of a computer rested on Kobi’s smashed skull,” Time magazine reported. “Both bodies were covered with stones. Blood smeared the walls, and the dirt floor was muddy with it. When the searchers rolled the rocks away, they didn’t see faces but unrecognizable pulp.”
Two of the more than 1,000 Israeli deaths from the Second Intifada, then still in its infancy, the murders spurred a small group of Jews half a world away. A week and a half later, Roz and Jerry Rothstein convened at their home the first meeting of the Israel Emergency Alliance. The group of about 50 rabbis and Jewish leaders, across partisan and denominational lines, would soon take the name StandWithUs, centered around the Web site http://www.standwithus.com, and within a year would establish itself as a trailblazing grass-roots organization, one of a few redefining what it means to be pro-Israel.
The group’s ambitions started small: arranging a meeting with editors at the Los Angeles Times to discuss what they felt was the paper’s pro-Palestinian bias in covering the conflict. They then turned to education, focusing on how to inform college students and journalists about other views of Israel than what was being shown in American media and identifying anti-Israel rhetoric on college campuses.
“My mother, who was a survivor, always told me that the Holocaust, as she watched it grow, began in the schools and the colleges. The hatred took hold in the youth,” Roz Rothstein said in an interview last week. “We have a motto at this organization that education is the road to peace.”
StandWithUs has grown from a small group of volunteers meeting at the Rothsteins’ home to an international organization with offices in Los Angeles, New York and three other U.S. locales as well as Europe and Israel. With a staff of about 40, a budget of $3 million and a number of printed materials — including a 43-page glossy guide, “Israel 101,” and flyers comparing Walt and Mearsheimer’s book “The Israel Lobby” with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” — StandWithUs acts, as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said, as an “intellectual Delta Force.”
“StandWithUs may have started as a campus organization — and they are our go-to group — but their educational efforts have gone out to pre-university schools, to the community itself,” said Gilad Millo, spokesman for the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles sponsor of the organization’s annual conference, which this year included the Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs reporter, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Palestinian Media Watch’s Itamar Marcus. “Their PR sense is brilliant.”
StandWithUs, of course, has its critics, too, from those who think it is fighting the wrong battle — hustling a pro-Israel information campaign instead of focusing on Jewish education — to those who disagree with the organization’s definition of “pro-Israel.”
“It becomes a zero-sum game: If Israel did good, the other side must have done bad,” said David N. Myers, a UCLA professor of Jewish history and director of its Center for Jewish Studies. “I would like to rethink the way we imagine pro-Israel to say it should also mean pro-Palestinian. The interests of Israelis and Palestinians meet at the point of freedom from occupation and self-determination for the Palestinians…. I find troubling the practice of defending every Israeli action. The fact of the matter is there is no country in the world whose every action is defensible. Robust practicing democracies undertake actions that merit scrutiny, Israel too. And that is not part of the mission of StandWithUs. What concerns me is the very polarized way they see the world, which is represented in the very name StandWithUs, which implies that anyone else is against us.”
Most of the organization’s resources are dedicated to providing materials and strategic support to college students, particularly at embattled campuses such as UC Irvine. But StandWithUs has received broad attention for two other efforts — joining Dershowitz and others in opposing Finkelstein’s bid for tenure at DePaul University and waging an ad war against a pro-Palestinian organization that placed posters in Washington’s subways showing Israeli tanks.
The subway ads were indicative of StandWithUs’ hard-line brand of truth telling. One of the posters showed an Arab toddler in the right arm of his father, who was wearing fatigues and a bandana and was resting an automatic rifle on his left shoulder. “This Child Could Grow Up to Be A” the poster stated, offering three options: doctor, teacher or terrorist. The terrorist box contained a checkmark.
Such pro-Israel advocacy didn’t exist in Los Angeles before StandWithUs came along, and the organized Jewish community has rallied around it. The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles has given a number of small grants along the order of the $10,000 gift for November’s “Israel in Focus” conference, and the Jewish Community Foundation has given $305,000, including a Cutting Edge grant of $210,000 in 2006 to provide “teaching tools and classroom materials for public high school teachers to use to effectively teach about Israel.”
“Through this breakthrough work, StandWithUs strengthens the fabric of our local Jewish communities by instilling knowledge and understanding of Zionism and Israel,” Marvin I. Schotland, president and CEO of The Foundation, said. “It’s tantamount to a two-for-one payoff for a supporting organization such as ours.”
But this support has also raised questions. While StandWithUs professes to be a non-partisan advocate on behalf of Israel — one whose board bears many shades of the political spectrum and refrains from commenting on the policies of the Israeli government — progressive Jewish leaders consider the organization to be their ideological inverse.
“A number of very good progressive Jewish organizations have applied, in some cases repeatedly, for funding from The Foundation, and they have been denied,” said Daniel Sokatch, executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA). “This would seem to suggest that there is particular support in the Jewish Community Foundation for the brand of Israel advocacy that is put forth by StandWithUs, which is a particularly hard-line, conservative version.”
The seminal moment in the transformation of pro-Israel advocacy occurred in the summer of 1993, when the Oslo accords were finalized, and then signed, on the White House lawn.
“The Jewish community essentially had trained itself in one direction and was being asked to turn around immediately,” said Michael Berenbaum, an adjunct professor of theology at American Jewish University. “It had advocated that the enemy was the PLO, and the question was, if all of the sudden [the PLO] are friends, they felt betrayed.”
It was at this moment that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) broke a decades-old code and criticized the Israeli government. While most Jewish American organizations got behind the landmark peace agreement, ZOA President Morton A. Klein predicted the accords would not only fail, but that they would empower Yasser Arafat and endanger Israelis.
“They were completely wrong and we were completely right,” Klein said last week. “Peace is impossible.”
Seven years and 300 murdered Jews after Oslo, the Second Intifada broke out, rupturing the ground beneath American Jewry. Within one more year, 19 Muslim terrorists would hijack four American planes and inflict the worst domestic attack in U.S. history; Jews and the West found a common enemy in the Muslim world, and the crack in the Jewish community severed into two pieces — hawks and doves, hardliners and peaceniks, right and left.
In Los Angeles, the American Jewish Congress had dissolved its local office in 1998 and reformed the following year as the PJA, a liberal organization concerned mostly with domestic issues related to social justice. But the AJCongress reopened here in 2000, bearing little resemblance to its former self.
“People who believed that we could have peace with the Palestinians were shaken out of their misguided view and realized they had no desire for peace,” said Gary P. Ratner, the group’s western region executive director. “Their goal was what they stated openly: The destruction of Israel, whether through the violence of groups like Hamas or through negotiations, that will weaken Israel. I think some of us woke up to the fact that Oslo was a disaster and the peace process would only lead to the destruction of Israel.”
The Jewish state was under attack with no partner for peace; the old model of resolving conflict through compromise had failed. With climbing anti-Israel rhetoric on American campuses and the perception that international media had joined liberal Christians in taking up the Palestinian cause, the hardliners quickly captured the upper hand among Jewish groups in the debate on what it meant to be pro-Israel.
“It’s a painful moment in Jewish life, because there isn’t a place for honest and open discourse,” Gerald Bubis, founding director of the Irwin Daniels School of Jewish Communal Service at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, told this paper in a 2002 article titled “The Silencing of the Left?” “People can have very strong differences of opinion about where to go and how to resolve things, but that discourse does not have a place right now. Rather, there is a vituperative argumentation and excoriation.”
Amid this climate, major Jewish organizations slid into the shadows, abdicating their leadership.
“Whatever they said would upset somebody,” Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, said. “As a result, Jews who were frustrated, who wanted to defend Israel and didn’t really know how or didn’t have the ability, they gravitated toward The David Project and its sort of counterpart in StandWithUs.”
The David Project first made headlines in 2004 with a documentary, “Columbia Unbecoming,” which alleged faculty intimidation of pro-Israel students at the Ivy League school.
“We have lost a generation. The Jewish leadership failed to understand the situation we were in. We thought that people who were our enemies would be thugs yelling ‘kike,’ instead of soft-spoken college professors saying Israel is an apartheid state,” Charles Jacobs, president of the Boston-based David Project, said. “In the West today, most people don’t hate the Jews because we are Christ-killers and we are racial vermin, but they hate Jews because they see us supporting what has been unfairly described as the cruelest of nations.”
Just how serious the crisis on college campuses is, how deeply Israel is being vilified, how under attack Jewish students feel, is a source of great debate. Many schools, including USC, UCLA and CSUN, seem mostly immune from the anti-Israel rhetoric 51 weeks of the year. But then Palestinian Awareness Week draws tension between Muslims and Jews at UCLA, or a controversial speaker is invited to any one of those universities and concern crests. More troubling are campuses plagued by frequent protests against Israel, like one at Concordia University in Montreal six years ago that resembled a pogrom.
“There isn’t as much happening on campuses as people think,” said Amanda Susskind, the ADL’s regional director. “But where it is happening, it is happening worse than people can imagine.”
Among the schools most afflicted by Israel-bashing has been UC Irvine, where students frequently march against Israel holding signs that say “Smash the Jewish State” and “Israel, the 4th Reich.” Several times a year since the outbreak of the Second Intifada, radicals like Muhammad Al-Asi and Amir Abdel Malik Ali have been invited by the Muslim Student Union to praise suicide bombers as “freedom fighters” and accuse “the Zionist-controlled media” of distorting the human-rights record of “the apartheid State of Israel,” a country that is “a monkey on the American back” and “a cancerous presence.”
“There is great racism against Jewish students on college campuses within the Muslim student organizations. The speakers, the programs, the handouts are all indicative of a deep hatred of Israel and, in my opinion, of a very deep racist ideology,” Rabbi Yonah Bookstein, associate rabbi of UC Irvine’s interfaith center, said. “I have been — just this last week actually — the victim of that racism by Muslim students at UC Irvine. I was heckled when I was trying to speak to a group of high school students about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was on Thursday; it was on campus. There is just a wave of hatred and racism directed at Jewish students by Muslim students. It literally permeates everything they do.”
Anti-Israel attacks have appeared across the country, most often where unaffiliated speakers have been invited by pro-Palestinian campus groups. (A 44-minute StandWithUs documentary, “Tolerating Intolerance,” focuses on a handful of these speakers, including Al-Asi, Malik Ali and Finkelstein.) The crisis, however, is not endemic. And even at large universities where the problem seems to be acute — places like San Francisco State a few years ago — many Jewish students report no problems.
“Even at San Francisco State and even in the heat of this,” said Seth Brysk, who was the Hillel director there and is now executive director of the American Jewish Committee’s L.A. chapter, “I had Jewish students say to me, ‘Why are you making such a big deal about this? I’ve never had a problem with anti-Semitism.'”
Roz Rothstein doesn’t believe an unstoppable crisis is racing across academia. But she thinks a pro-Palestinian agenda in favor of the end of the Jewish state is simmering below the surface. And she wasn’t willing to wait until it was too late.
“We are not the victims, and we do not want to be the victims. We are strong enough to say ‘never again,'” Rothstein said. “I didn’t create bus bombings. I was minding my own business before 2000. I was raising a family; I wasn’t working for the Museum of Tolerance or the ADL. This isn’t about anti-Semitism. This is about radical Islam creating a society of little fundamentalists that have radical intentions.”
Rothstein, 55, sat in her undecorated L.A. office on the second-floor of an industrial building, a location the group doesn’t disclose for fear of violence. A handful of boxes were stacked on top of, and in front of, three large bookcases and a smaller one filled with multiple copies of “The Israelis” by Donna Rosenthal, “Exodus” by Leon Uris, “Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict” by Mitchell Bard and “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Jewish History & Culture.” These aren’t part of Rothstein’s personal collection — that shelf includes Steven Emerson’s “American Jihad” and Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” — but are used to seed libraries with books that positively represent Israel — more than 3,500 locations so far.
Her focus is divided between disseminating pro-Israel information in the Western world and opposing what she called “the hate training of the Palestinian children.” Strongly influenced by the fact that both parents and her stepfather were survivors, Rothstein draws parallels between indoctrination of Arab children and the Hitler Youth.
“How did they do it? They did it with the same cartoons and hate training that we see today in Arab countries,” she said, using her computer to log onto standwithus.com. She pulled up a flyer comparing anti-Semitic cartoons in Nazi Germany with those found in Arab papers — a giant spider bearing the Magen David, a child being slaughtered in ritualistic baking, a grotesque Jew being kicked off a cliff.
“How do you get people to hate? Use things that were successful. The Nazis got Europe to hate the Jews,” she said. “So they use their model and they do it all over.”
Rothstein is not only the public face of StandWithUs, but its core energy. She started the organization with her husband and Esther Renzer, a like-minded woman who serves as the board president, and is widely credited with its meteoric rise, something admired by both critics and supporters.
“Their success, in no small part, is a testament to the dynamic leadership of Roz Rothstein, who is a creative and entrepreneurial executive, not to mention zealous in her love and advocacy of Israel,” said Schotland, of the Jewish Community Foundation.
She is motivated by a deep conviction that avoiding conflict is the worst strategy for the Jewish people. In summer 2006, Rothstein joined the campaign to strip an L.A. County Commission on Human Relations award from Maher Hathout, a founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who had called Israel an “apartheid state” run by “butchers.” Though Hathout got to keep the award after a month of contentious public hearings and news articles probing the Egyptian immigrant’s past, Rothstein said she was proud of their efforts.
“If you Google him, then you will not see that he received an award he shouldn’t have, but that he was a controversial guy who attended Hezbollah rallies and told Muslims they should not communicate with Israel,” Rothstein said.
“Two years ago,” she said, “the Presbyterian Church nearly voted to pull $7 billion in investments out of Israel — $7 billion. Do you know why that happened? Neglect. Our neglect of the defamation of Jews or Israel will never amount to anything good.”
UN rights chief hit on Arab charter support Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY – Jan 29, 2008 The charter, according to a letter sent to High Commissioner Louise Arbour, includes “blatantly anti-Semitic statements” and equates Zionism with racism, … http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106682.html
Canada Calls UN Led Anti-Racism Conference a ‘Gong Show’ of Hatred …28 Jan 2008 by Terry Trippany The United Nations held its first World Conference Against Racism in Durban way back in 2001. That conference was marred by anti-Semitic bigotry that eventually led the United States Israel to walk out of the conference.
One of the accusations which the various Arab countries (including Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel) often make against Israel is that “Zionism is racism”. Defining Zionism, the national liberation movement of jews, the victims of racism, as racism is particularly cynical, yet it seems that the Arabs have succeeded to convince the leaders of some nations, themselves victims of racism, to support this vicious accusation.
The latest attempt to define Zionism as racism was at the 2001 UNESCO conference which was held in Durban, South Africa. The resolution which was initiated by Arab countries enjoyed the support of most participants. Especially painful was the support of such African leaders as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. Some Western countries, however, notably Australia and Canada, objected and accused the conference of hypocrisy. The Canadian delegation, for example, issued the following statement:
“Canada is still here today only because we wanted to have our voice decry the attempts at this Conference to de-legitimize the State of Israel and to dishonor the history and suffering of the Jewish people. We believe, and we have said in the clearest possible terms, that it was inappropriate – wrong – to address the Palestinian-Israel conflict in this forum. We have said, and will continue to say, that anything – any process, any declaration, any language – presented in any forum that does not serve to advance a negotiated peace that will bring security, dignity and respect to the people of the region is – and will be – unacceptable to Canada.”
It was for that reason that both Israel and the United States under the leadership of Secretary Colin Powell, himself no stranger to racism, pulled their delegations from the conference. The final text adopted by the conference drops all direct criticism of Israel, but does recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and expresses concern at their plight under foreigh occupation.
That was only the latest attempt to define Zionism as racism. In November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” In December 1991, the General Assembly rescinded this resolution through Resolution 4686.
All those years the Arab countries continued to promote this false notion. It is therefore of interest to check how different things are on the other side of the fence, namely in the Arab countries. Even though there are many blacks who live in those countries the question whether they are subject to racism was academic for a long time and one had to resort to circumstantial evidence in order to answer it. One well-known fact is that most Arabs refer to blacks as “Abed” which means “slave” in Arabic. This seems to say something about the situation of racism in the Arab world. Today, due to the recent events in Darfur and the active role that the Arab Janjaweed play in the slaughter of black Africans there, this question has become more urgent and relevant than ever before. It is time for the UN and the whole world to fight it NOW
Canada Abandons UN Racism Conference [which is hijacked by Arab racism & Islamic bigotry ‘lobby’]
OTTAWA (AP) — Canada has withdrawn its support for a U.N. anti-racism conference scheduled to take place in South Africa next year after deeming it to be anti-Israel, a government official said Wednesday.
The so-called Durban II conference “has gone completely off the rails” and Canada wants no part of it, said Jason Kenney, Canada’s secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.
“We’ll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance,” he said.
Kenney said that during the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, Arab and Muslim countries criticized Israel, prompting Israel and the United States to walk out in protest. But he added that Canada remained to speak up for Israel.
The U.N. declined to comment directly on Canada pulling out of the conference, but U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said “racism is too important an issue for member states not to work out their differences.”
Kenney said his government was left with no choice but to abandon the process, expressing displeasure with Libya elected to chair the gathering, Cuba appointed vice-chair, and Iran named to the organizing committee.
By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT
Tue. Jan 29 – 4:47 AM
HYPOCRISY, the popular 19th-century American journalist and satirist Ambrose Bierce once observed, could be defined as “prejudice with a halo.”
As false halos go, there are few bigger – or shinier, in that cheap, glittery way – than the one now swaying precariously over the United Nations’ so-called Human Rights Council. Since the council was formed as part of former secretary-general Kofi Annan’s “UN reform” a few years back, the world’s supposed watchdog for violations of human rights has been able to officially condemn just one country for abuses of those rights: Israel.
If that sounds familiar – you’re right, it is. The council’s disgraced predecessor, the equally misnamed UN human rights commission, also chose to devote itself, one might say religiously, to Israel’s alleged infractions of human rights in its interminable conflict with the Palestinians.
Now, these human rights bodies have every right to investigate Israel’s behaviour and, when appropriate, rebuke the Jewish state for actions going beyond being reasonable measures of self-defence. But to focus almost exclusively on Israel, while ignoring – or downplaying the seriousness of – all other incidents elsewhere in the world, including what’s often brutal suppression of people’s human rights, is utterly wrong.
Of course, the fact that the countries which sat as members of the old commission, as well as the nations making up the new council, have often been the very countries that have compiled the most disgraceful human rights records means we are discussing hypocrisy being practised at a very high level (to paraphrase Bierce, where the angels sing).
Which brings us to the news the UN’s Human Rights Council is now busy planning a second UN conference on racism in 2009, to be held, as the first one was in 2001, in Durban, South Africa. Who’s in charge of the planning? Two countries with among the most appalling human rights records on the planet: Libya and Iran.
For anyone who’s forgotten what happened in Durban six-and-a-half years ago, that so-called conference on ending racism in the world witnessed demonstrations of virulent anti-Semitism directed against both Israel specifically and Jews in general. One example of many: Copies of the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-documented forgery (most likely created by the Russian czar’s police) that purports to be the secret plans for a Jewish world takeover, were openly sold within the conference area.
Equally repulsive was the canard – put forward forcefully in Durban in 2001 – that Western nations had a responsibility to pay hefty reparations to Africa to atone for their role in the transatlantic slavery trade. That, however, ignores several facts.
Some Africans themselves were complicit in that trade. Slavery itself (though the transatlantic trade was ended by the British in the early 19th century) was not outlawed in a number of African states until the latter part of the 20th century (Mauritania, for example, banned slavery in 1981 but only criminalized it in 2007). Experts believe today that some 27 million people worldwide (many in African countries, such as Niger) are in some form of human bondage. Saudi Arabia, where black slaves were sold well into the 20th century, only outlawed slavery in 1962.
The U.S. and Israeli delegations, to their credit, walked out of the Durban conference in disgust midway through; Canada, though critical of what transpired, stayed.
With Libya and Iran at the helm for Durban II, we know what to expect – more anti-Semitism, this time more explicitly ingrained in the conference’s agenda. In December, 41 countries in the UN General Assembly, including Canada, voted against $6.8 million US in funding for the conference, to protest the anti-Semitic themes emerging in planning for the event. The measure, backed by Arab countries and supporters, however, easily passed. So last week, Canada exercised some true international moral leadership, becoming the first nation in the world to announce it would not attend the conference.
The government’s secretary of state for multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, told reporters Canada wanted no part of a Durban conference that would promote, not combat, racism.
Good for the Tories. We should refuse to take part in this sham. That so many in the world continue to promote hatred against Jews is despicable. To do so under the banner of the UN, founded to promote world peace, and the auspices of that body’s “human rights” council, is Orwellian.
Hopefully, Canada will soon be joined by other countries which honestly value human rights, leaving the cesspool that will be Durban II to those with tarnished halos and no sense of shame.
muslim racism … and Arab nations and their sympathizers, has accused Israel of racism, but the … of Islamic and Arab states and other anti-Israel forces, and whose conclusions … http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimracism.htm
F L A M E : Racism in the Islamic World: How can peace prevail in the … … for decades to terminate the increasingly violent Arab-Israeli conflict. … and Arab nations and their sympathizers, has accused Israel of racism, but the … http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_94.html
“Terrorism and Racism: The Aftermath of Durban,” by Anne F. Bayefsky … Arab Reactions to September 11 / Fomenting the Battle Against Israel / Searching … Minister of the United Arab Emirates, said “Israel can’t be a member of … http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp468.htm
There you go, a racist “anti racism” conference headed by: Libya – another Arab racist oppression and totalitarian state with OIL, Iran, another Islamic totalitarian fascist radical Islamic state that persecutes all, especially its minorities – with OIL.
History Upside Down The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli AggressionDAVID MEIR-LEVI
[Dec. 18, 2007]
In the United Nations, on university campuses, and among a growing number of our most prestigious Western newspapers, the historical record has been rewritten so thoroughly that Israel is seen as the worst of the oppressive Western occupiers of the Third World. So successful has this campaign been that Palestinian spinmeisters and their apologists have effectively declared that the Israelis, a people living in the shadow of the Holocaust, are themselves “Nazis.” How could this happen? How did unacceptable anti-Semitism morph into justifiable anti-Zionism, and odious Jew-hatred turn into a politically correct Israel-hatred?
In History Upside Down historian David Meir-Levi traces the ideological DNA behind Palestinian Nationalism and its ludicrous “alternative” histories, revealing how Nazi Fascism gave the Arab world’s amorphous hatred of the Jews an intellectual structure and how Soviet communism masked its genocidal intentions with the mantle of national liberation.
Meir-Levi then explodes the cornerstone myths that this movement created – myths that rationalize and celebrate decades of unremitting terror and genocidal ambitions, in effect turning the history of the Middle East upside down and inside out, making the victim the aggressor and the aggressor the victim.
History Upside-Down is the first wave in a counterattack against this Arab war on history. It rejects the idea that the basic situation in the Middle Easthas changed since the United Nations first established the Jewish state and the Palestinian state that would have stood alongside it. Sadly, argues Meir-Levi, the issue in the Middle East is today what it has been since the Muslim invasion in the seventh century: the Arabs’ hatred of the Jews.