From Ian:
Mike Lumish: Will the University of California Support anti-Semitic anti-Zionism?
Mike Lumish: Will the University of California Support anti-Semitic anti-Zionism?
As someone familiar with California university anti-Semitism, I would very much like to see the UC Regents suggest that the movement to rob Jewish people of self-determination and self-defense stands in direct opposition to its own proposed standards of social justice and universal human rights.UN Watch: UN nominates anti-Israeli professor to 6-year post investigating “Israel’s violations”
Needless to say, anti-Semitic anti-Zionist students and professors claim that their hatred of Jewish people, via their hatred of the Jewish State, is a matter of free speech. They should be allowed to defame Israel, and thereby defame the great majority of Jewish people, as a matter of liberal democracy, despite the fact that such defamation tends to result in violence against the Jewish people and young Jewish students on campus.
They honestly seem to believe that kicking Jewish students in the teeth on a regular basis is a privilege of liberalism and perhaps they are right. If liberalism means anything it means that you have the right to offend anyone. If that defamation results in violence toward the Jewish people, as we are currently seeing with the Children's Intifada in Israel, so be it.
I tend to think, of course, that kicking around Jewish students on California university campuses is not such a good thing and that university officials should look into means of reducing it, if they honestly care... which I also tend to doubt.
Amid intense pressure and a flurry of letters sent from Arab and Islamic states, the South Korean president of the UN Human Rights Council today cancelled his decision to postpone the appointment of a new monitor charged with investigating “Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law.”
Instead, the president today nominated Canadian academic Michael Lynk — despite global objections over Lynk’s leadership role in Palestinian campaign groups and his record of inflammatory statements on Israel — and declared that the labor lawyer from London, Ontario, was both impartial and objective. The 47-nation plenary is slated to vote on the president’s proposal tomorrow. A UN Watch report two weeks ago documented the bias of the Arab states’ favored candidates, prompting outrage from the Palestinian ambassador.
“The UN’s selection of a manifestly partisan candidate — someone who three days after 9/11 blamed the West for provoking the attacks on the World Trade Center — constitutes a travesty of justice and a breach of the world body’s own rules,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a watchdog organization in Geneva whose work has been praised by top UN officials including former Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
“Someone who accuses Israel of ‘Apartheid’ and openly seeks to dismantle the Jewish state is neither impartial nor objective. We call on Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and all other Council members to uphold the Council’s own basic principles and oppose Lynk’s nomination in tomorrow’s vote,” said Neuer.
























