No Jews allowed in Judea says NY Jews, Muslims and Christians only

Excerpt from... Arutz 7 Op-Ed: NY Federation has Its Own Boycott of Judea and Samaria Ron Jager, July 23, 2013 ...The New York Federation does not cross the 'green line' (known as the pre-1967 borders) unless of course it's to assist Palestinian Arabs, meaning that Jews who could benefit from the many programs that are funded and provided by the New York Federation for the citizens of Israel are effectively barred if they reside in Judea and Samaria. Jews living beyond the green line have been voluntarily boycotted by the New York Federation despite the fact that there is no legal prohibition to support organizations or communities located in these areas, not only according to Israeli law, but also in accordance with American tax law. Any American dollar donated is fully tax deductible to the extent provided by law. This has not stopped the New York Federation from voluntarily boycotting 700,000 Jews along with the Europeans and the many enemies of Israel who have been behind the boycott movements throughout the world. (MORE)

#Apartheid Roads

I've asked that question, too:- 

The entire world denounces the "apartheid roads" in Judea and Samaria, although in broad daylight Jews and Arabs share every road open to Jews. On the other hand, large signs in bright red ban Jews from traveling on roads in areas specified by the Oslo Agreements for Palestinians. Route 443 has been opened to Arabs as well following a High Court order, but a nearby road – which would have cut the time it takes to travel from Gush Dolev-Talmonin to Jerusalem by at least 30 minutes – remains closed to Jews to this very day. Both apartheid and racism: Israel's Arab citizens are free to enter Jenin, while a Jew will be prosecuted.
When was the last time a state official took journalists on a tour on the ground, to get them to realize that the apartheid on the roads of Judea and Samaria is exclusively against Jews. And which of our media outlets ever exposed the shamefulness of their apartheid: That God forbid should a Jewish-Israeli set foot in Nablus or in 90% of Hebron or in any Arab village? Because that's the rule: The state of the Jews should be brought to trial. Why? Because it put itself there in the first place.

Elyakim HaEtzni
^

via myrightword.blogspot.com

Report: #Hagel Said #Israel Headed Toward #Apartheid, #Netanyahu a ‘Radical’

(Report: Hagel Said Israel Headed Toward Apartheid, Netanyahu a ‘Radical’ | Washington Free Beacon)

BY: Alana Goodman
February 19, 2013 12:51 pm
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q amp;A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q amp;A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beacon reported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong—I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately … there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

via freebeacon.com

Time for some more research into what really happened here

Apartheid Jordan Accepts Syrian Refugees, Turns Back Syrian Palestinians at Border

(

(Can you say Apartheid State?) As the civil war intensifies in Syria, more refugees are trying to escape the conflict. Some have crossed into Turkey. Others have gone to Lebanon. But the biggest refugee camp for Syrian refugees is in the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan. But not all refugees are allowed in.

FRIED KOOLAID:
80% of PalArab "refugees" have citizenship!) 

Speaking in an immaculately clean tent over coffee and endless cigarettes, a 23-year-old construction worker who would only give his name as Mohamed said he left the Yarmouk refugee camp in Damascus, where many Palestinians live, about two months ago. The place was getting violent and food was hard to find, he said.The young man said his mother is Syrian, but his father is Palestinian. Mohamed said the Jordanians are turning people back at the border if they have ID cards that say they’re Palestinian. Lucky for him, he has a Syrian ID.
Mohamed’s uncle, he said, is a Palestinian from Damascus who has been turned away at the Jordan border five times.
With his four-year-old son in his lap, Daloul said he’s happy to be in Jordan, away from the fighting in Syria. But he says it’s also frustrating. Daloul is registered as a Palestinian refugee, even though he was born in Syria. So are his kids. But his wife is registered as Syrian. Now, she’s staying with relatives elsewhere in Jordan, while Daloul and the children live in this single room. They are not allowed to leave the camp for any length of time, he said. And his wife cannot move in with them permanently. “It’s a difficult situation,” he said.
Daloul is 55 years old. He was born in Syria. His kids were born in Syria. If he goes back, his grandchildren will be born in Syria. But he’s not considered Syrian by the Syrian government, even though his wife is, and since his children have their father’s status, they’re also considered Palestinian.

The Arabs don't like Palestinians

Ha'aretz Creates Non-Existent Apartheid State

October 23, 2012 17:02 by Simon Plosker

Gideon Levy

Ha’aretz is a major source of critical and anti-Israel stories for the international media. In the latest example, Ha’aretz’s radical left-wing commentator Gideon Levy has deliberately fed the international media a skewed and biased reading of a poll that claims “Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel“.
Gideon Levy regularly demonizes the Jewish state to foreign audiences and in his own newspaper columns. He regularly goes beyond legitimate criticism of Israel, crossing red lines and allying himself with those who refer to Israel as a racist “apartheid state”, promote boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and wish to see the very destruction of Israel.
On the basis that Levy promotes the canard of Israeli “apartheid”, he is the last journalist who could give an objective analysis of this polls results.
His article opens with the following premise:

Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

But let’s take a look at the findings:

Gideon Levy’s entire premise is based on a hypothetical situation where Israel annexes the West Bank. However, perhaps the real story here is that a plurality of the Israeli public does not favor annexing West Bank settlements let alone the West Bank in its entirety.
This makes the question of voting rights for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank entirely moot. That such a large majority of the Israeli public would deny such a right to Palestinians is unsurprising given that this would effectively lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state if it allowed Palestinians to vote as equal citizens or the end of Israel as a democratic state if it denied Palestinians those rights.
Which is exactly why the Israeli public does not support such a policy, precisely because the majority of Israelis do not want to be associated with apartheid.
Other statistics are casually tossed in by Levy to support his view of Israel as an apartheid state:

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

What Levy fails to clarify is that this form of separation is not done on a racial basis but solely on citizenship. Israeli Arabs have as much right as Israeli Jews to travel on any roads they so wish. Any separation on the West Bank road system (and there are plenty of shared roads) is solely due to security and has nothing whatsoever to do with claims of apartheid.
Levy chooses to highlight significant minority opinions where it suits him. For example:
This article is continued on Page 2

via honestreporting.com

Goldstone - yes, Goldstone - defends Israel from "apartheid" slander [UPDATED]

(Israel Matzav: The education of R*I*C*H*A*R*D* G*O*L*D*S*T*O*N*E)

This passage made me wonder whether he gets it yet.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

So let me get this straight: Israel's rule in the West Bank Judea and Samaria is not “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group” only because we have "agreed in concept to the existence of a 'Palestinian state' in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank?" And every country that does not agree to cut off part of its land is promoting apartheid? And every ethnic group that decides it's entitled to a 'state' is a victim of
apartheid if it doesn't get that state? And were we one day to decide that we have had enough of the 'Palestinians' being unwilling to negotiate with us (and we all know why they are unwilling to negotiate with us), and we withdraw whatever offers of 'statehood' have been made, would we then be practicing apartheid?
Goldstone still has a lot to learn.

From the New York Times, an op-ed by Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous Goldstone Report that slandered Israel:

THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.
One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.
While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.
I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.
The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.
Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.
Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.
Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.
The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.

As night follows day, we can expect the rabid anti-Israel Left who embraced Goldstone as their messiah two years ago will issue vicious condemnations of this piece, and charge Goldstone with being a tool of the Zionist lobby, tomorrow.
But as bad as the Goldstone Report was - and its flaws were so numerous as to border on the malicious - it was not in the same league as the anti-Zionist Left who routinely accuse Israel of "apartheid." These people are not interested in facts or in arguments. They are inherently dishonest and their interest in the truth is nil. They have one purpose and one purpose only - to destroy Israel. It is mindless hate.
And it is a shame that their lies have gained such currency that someone like Goldstone even feels compelled to answer them.
If I had to do some armchair psychology, my guess is that he saw people used his report in ways he never intended, mostly people who didn't even bother to read it themselves. Very possibly, he did not want to be associated with such haters who pretended he was one of them, sort of like Benny Morris after his early works on Israel's history.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

#Norway is among the organizers of this festival of hatred at #Durban

The Netherlands Join Canada, Israel, U.S. the Czech Republic and now Italy in Boycotting UN's Durban III (#Norway is among the organizers of this festival of hatred). When they come to New York the people will not tolerate Durban III. Expect to see something like Oslo. People are scared! People are angry. You can not control everyone's feelings. If I were Bloomberg I would stop this. There are a lot of angry Americans with guns... and they will use them and I don't blame them. This is ripe for tragedy. You saw it predicted here. Don't shoot the messenger!

#Utoya camp supported Fatah Terrorists. #Norway #Oslo #Fatah

....the list of those who boycott this travesty grows.

(Eye on the UN) Italy and The Netherlands announced over the weekend that they will not take part in the notorious United Nations Durban III meeting scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York City.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini pointed out that “The [Durban] Process has been transformed … into a tribunal for accusations against Israel.”

As the main reason for boycotting Durban III the Italian foreign minister pointed to the anti-Israel elements of the Durban Declaration and its progeny. In the past few days, UN negotiators - who are currently drafting a final political declaration for Durban III - signalled rejection of Czech, Italian and Dutch proposals to denounce the anti-Israel portions of the original Durban Declaration. The Italians had asked that Durban III “explicitly recognize that past references, in the context of the Durban Process, to the specific situation of the Middle East are not part of the international commitment against racial discrimination.”

According to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands, Italy and the Czech Republic all wanted to include in Durban III a statement that "all participating states emphatically distance themselves from the linking of subjects that have nothing to do with the fight against racism." Their request was ignored by conference organizers, who are largely being driven by Arab and Islamist states, as well as South Africa and UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay, herself a native of Durban. via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Geneva-based UN Watch says it fears "banner of human rights and anti-racism will be hijacked to incite anti-Semitic hatred."

(The Weekly Standard) On Friday, the Czech Republic became the latest country to pull out of the upcoming U.N. “anti-racism” extravaganza known as Durban III. Canada, Israel, and the United States have already given thumbs down to the event, which the U.N. is bringing to U.S. shores on September 22, 2011. While Americans will be mourning the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the United Nations in New York will be “commemorating” the 10th anniversary of the first Durban conference – an outpouring of intolerance and xenophobia.
The Czech Republic’s move comes three days after U.N. negotiators quietly circulated a draft of the final declaration that will be adopted at the conclusion of Durban III. Although the writing had been on the wall for a very long time, the alarm bells could no longer be ignored. The “political declaration” focuses particularly on what it calls “victims of racism.” And the Durban Declaration emanating from South Africa names only one state victimizer – Israel. The Palestinian people are listed as victims of racism.
The Zionism-is-racism mantra, the Durban formula being its most recent incarnation, has been circulating around the U.N. for decades. It is the cornerstone of the effort to delegitimize the Jewish state and invoke lethal politics when other weaponry falls short. These days, the campaign is headquartered in a working group of the U.N. General Assembly that is tasked with squaring the circle: reaffirming the contemptible message of the Durban Declaration under a veil of human rights gibberish.
The Czech Republic’s diplomats, however, can read. The current draft of the final declaration for Durban III says that the U.N. must “incorporate the implementation of the Durban Declaration into the human rights mainstreaming in the UN system” and demands an intensification of “efforts at the local, national, regional and international levels aimed at the full and effective implementation” of instruments like the Durban Declaration and beyond.
And there’s more. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation managed to insert a demand for “cultural diversity, solidarity and harmony.” That’s the typical U.N. prescription for stifling free speech—avoiding any action to stop Syrian butchers, for example—and generally keeping criticism of Islamic anti-human rights predilections off the table.
The countries from the so-called non-aligned movement, which comprises 115 developing countries, have also incorporated into the political declaration a claim that “poverty,” “underdevelopment,” and “economic disparities” are “closely associated with racism and racial discrimination.” That’s a familiar form of extortion that starts by labeling donor countries racists.
The Czech Republic rightly decided they’d had enough. The next round of "negotiations," at which Western states are dressed-down and manipulated by the racism charge coming from the Islamic world and others, will be held at U.N. headquarters on July 28.
Earlier this month, Dutch diplomats told the same Durban III negotiators that the Netherlands would only agree to a Durban III political declaration that categorically rejected the part of the original Durban Declaration that singled out Israel. In the words of the Dutch diplomats, this part of the Durban Declaration was not relevant in the fight against racism. Italian diplomats concurred and said they needed to be urgently reassured that this demand would be met. On the contrary, they have been assured of the opposite. One would expect, therefore, that the Dutch and the Italians would have the courage of their convictions to pull out of this charade, but they haven’t made a move yet.
More...
via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Selling land to Jews punishable by death in Palestinian territories

Here’s something to consider as the Palestinian Authority takes its case for statehood to the UN.  As CSN reported: “Israel supporters are sounding the alarm on a controversial law in the Palestinian Authority that forbids Arabs from selling land to Jews.”“[Recently, in the Palestinian Territories] Mohammed, [the brother of a Palestinian named Abraham] was accused of selling a house to Jewish settlers. Just days after the new residents moved in, Mohammed’s dead body was found on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem.” “Abraham suspects someone killed his brother because of the belief that he sold a house to Jews.” H/T Israel Matzav and Comment is Free Watch

Anne Bayefsky: Behind the story--U.S. Pulls Out Of Durban III

The Liberal Lynch Mob Comes for the Jews Again...

The United Nations and the Goldstone Report:
Where Does It Go From Here?

With President Obama’s anti-Israel hostility becoming an increasing liability for Democrats, the administration finally decided Wednesday to pull out of the U.N.’s upcoming Israel-bashing extravaganza known as “Durban III.” Believe it or not, the notorious U.N. world summit on racism is coming to New York City in September with the purpose of “commemorating” the ten-year anniversary of the racist “anti-racism” conference held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.
Mr. Obama's latest lead-from-behind foreign policy move comes seven months after Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government first declared “we will not be part of this event, which commemorates an agenda that promotes racism rather than combats it.”

The decision appears to be a clear reaction to the negative political fallout surrounding Mr. Obama's recent veiled attempt to shove indefensible borders down Israel’s throat.
During Obama’s speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC on May 22, he specifically referred to his decision not to attend the “Durban II” or “Durban review conference,” which was held in Geneva in 2009. But he made no mention of of U.S. participation in the 2011 Durban III event, though it would have been an ideal audience for such an announcement had he already reached a decision on it.
In 2009 President Obama decided -- just 36 hours before the meeting began -- that there was something wrong with a conference on xenophobia and intolerance headlined by Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
It was a costly delay, which saved the U.N. from even more embarrassment, as many other states would have acted in tandem with the United States and boycotted Durban II with sufficient planning.
Evidently, on May 22 the president still thought he could pull the same dawdling stunt again.
But with Democrats scrambling to recover from the president’s profound alienation of large numbers of voters deeply sympathetic to Israel, the June 1 announcement was made and dressed up as a response to a letter “from Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.” The old letter from last December was actually signed by 9 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and 1 independent, and post-dated a boycott call of the racism summit made by Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in November.
The better-late-than-never decision is not as simple, however, as it seems.
First, the U.N. General Assembly is currently negotiating a resolution on the “modalities” of Durban III. In plain English, there has been a difficult and protracted debate behind-the-scenes about the organization of the summit. The European Union, in particular, is looking for procedural dodges that will help it avoid the split that occurred during Durban II, when some EU states boycotted and others did not.Unfortunately for EU pencil-pushers, there is no escaping that the substance of the meeting is irrevocably poisoned.
By virtue of a 2010 General Assembly resolution, the purpose of Durban III is to celebrate a world conference that reveled in anti-semitism and to adopt a final declaration that reaffirms the original Durban Declaration. That’s the Declaration supposedly to combat racism, xenophobia and related intolerance but that somehow manages to charge just one of the 192 UN members with racism, namely, Israel.
The Obama administration has given no indication that it will encourage EU allies to break ranks and boycott Durban III, by insisting on a vote on this resolution and voting against.
Second, the U.N. Human Rights Council is poised to hold an event in Geneva on June 15 also “in the context of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration.” With the Obama administration on the Council it appears set to attend events over there hoping nobody will notice over here.
But the Council and U.N. High Commissioner Navi Pillay – a native of Durban and chief champion of the Durban Declaration – have planned a three-hour panel discussion featuring seven carefully-selected speakers. They include, for instance, extremist Mireille Fanon-Mendes. As recently as April 25 of this year, Fanon-Mendes told the “Electronic Intifada” that Israel was an apartheid state and she supported the first and second Palestinian intifadas as well as blockade-running flotillas and the international prosecution of Israelis as war criminals.
The Durban illness runs deep. The U.N. human rights system, led by the High Commissioner and Human Rights Council, has perverted the fight against racism into a fight against the Jewish state, a democratic freedom-loving home to more than a million Arabs and a bulwark against the ravages of anti-semitism for all Jews.
Remember that the streets of Durban pulsated with signs reading “for the liberation of Quds, machine guns based on FAITH and ISLAM must be used” and “the martyr’s blood irrigates the tree of revolution in Palestine,” while the gross intolerance inside the Durban meeting halls ended on September 8, 2001. Given the inextricable connection between hate and violence, shunning Durban III on September 22 in New York City just days after the tenth anniversary of 9/11 was a no-brainer.
Now comes the hard part. U.N. demonization of Israel serves to justify Palestinian rejection of negotiations and coexistence, which in turn fuels U.N. support of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.
The cycle will only be broken if Palestinians and their U.N. enablers are made to face real consequences for attempting to reap the rewards of hate-mongering.

For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.
U.S. pulls out of Durban III: Behind the story: This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on Fox News. via daledamos.blogspot.com

The role of “civil” society in Durban I is best remembered for producing out-of-control NGO mobs. These gangs broke into the one NGO session on combating anti-Semitism, forcing it to end. After threats of violence, they necessitated the closure of the Durban Jewish Community Center, which had been the meeting place for Jewish NGOs attending the conference. They disrupted a press conference of Jewish NGOs who were seeking to raise alarm bells. They required Jewish representatives from all over the world to flee the final session with a police escort because their safety couldn’t be guaranteed if they remained. In the end, the alleged “anti-racism” NGO community deleted from their declaration multiple references to combating anti-Semitism and added that the self-determination of the Jewish people, or Zionism, was a form of racism.

via weeklystandard.com

The United Nations is planning to hold “Durban III” in New York City in September 2011, marking the tenth anniversary of the 2001 Durban conference, and the non-governmental forum which preceded it, held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.

Durban I produced the infamous Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), which charges Israel with racism but names no other state in the world. Durban II, held in Geneva in April 2009, was headlined by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who saw the occasion as ideal for issuing another denial of the Holocaust and an endorsement of genocide against the Jewish state. Timing Durban III for the annual opening of the General Assembly is meant to guarantee the extensive involvement of presidents and prime ministers, most of whom eluded organizers of Durban I and II.
The U.N. will now be marking the 10th anniversary of Durban I at the same time and place as the 10^th anniversary of September 11, 2001. Durban I, the platform for violent, pro-terrorist, and anti-Semitic rhetoric that included such speakers as Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro, ended just three days before 9/11.
The intergovernmental working group charged with preparing next year’s commemoration session just wrapped up its first planning meeting in Geneva. It adopted a series of “conclusions and recommendations” and indicated that Durban III is intended to “reaffirm that the DDPA provides the most comprehensive UN framework for combating racism.” The U.N. General Assembly is now occupied with the delicate matter of finalizing “the modalities” of Durban III, and New York-based diplomats are hard at work negotiating the details.

via weeklystandard.com

If the world supports the Arab Spring, shouldn't Jordan become Palestine?

Apparently, a new movement led by Jordanians is aiming to do exactly that. From IsraelSeen, in an interview with Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian dissident:

Were the Hashemites not ruling the eastern part of Palestine then the Palestinians already would have had a country for sixty years and nobody would have pressured Israel to give away its land. Yet this is not the case and the Hashemites are ruling the place and constantly telling the Palestinians they are merely refugees.

Indigenous Jordanians

However, the world will only change its views on the location of the future Palestinian state if it wakes up to the problem of Jordanian apartheid. via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'

Chomsky concluded the question and answer session by arguing that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated,
"murdered," so that the U.S. could avoid putting Bin Laden on trial,
because "they have no evidence against him.
"That final jab at the U.S. went over extremely well with the crowd of anti-Americans
 and Arafat-styled student-cum-terrorists.

...this clip captures more of Chomsky's comments on U.S. policy than his remarks on Israeli expansionism. Here he argues that from Washington's perspective democracy and freedom in the Middle East are antithetical to American interests. The U.S. and Israel allegedly fear the Arab Spring because the revolutions threaten American hegemony in the region. Chomsky spouts a lot of disinformation, which is his trademark. He says at 40 seconds that "about 90 percent of Egyptians view the United States as the main enemy" and that "about 80 percent in the region wanted to be sure Iran had nuclear weapons":

Chomsky changes his mind on WMDS in Iraq?

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there's obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there's no support for Chomky's claim of "80 percent" across the region supporting Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, "a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat" (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

Pushing 'Islamophobia' at UCLA?

UCLA Palestine Awareness Week.

...Muslim Student Association Pledge of Allegiance:
Jihad is my spirit, I will die to establish Islam

But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what's even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky's America-bashing is observing the rock star status he's afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I'll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on "American imperialism" and "corporate dominance" were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm.

Without citing a single piece of evidence—
At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned of the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel's crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I hope Chomsky starts listening before he dies

Read the Rest via americanpowerblog.blogspot.com

Helen Thomas leader of the BDS

A series of protests against Israeli policy and its support by AIPAC are planned in May to coincide with the AIPAC conference in the U.S. capital and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech there. The protests, under the heading "Move over AIPAC," will include demonstrations opposite the building where Netanyahu will speak and Congress, and a series of lectures and meetings with critics of Israel, including veteran journalist Helen Thomas who lost her place in the White House press room after saying Jews should leave Palestine and go back to Poland, Germany and the United States. Thomas will give the keynote address at the Move Over AIPAC conference, and will receive an award from the women's pacifist organization Code Pink, one of the hundred left-wing American organizations behind the conference.

On Friday night, a favorite cafe among progressives, Busboys and Poets, gathered letters to Gazans; the next aid flotilla in May will deliver the messages to the Gaza residents. A separate room in the cafe hosted a meeting of around 250 activists with Omar Barghouti, founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. Barghouti, who recently released a book on BDS, was winding up a book tour that included Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis and other universities.

via haaretz.com

Helen Thomas: I thought Obama was Liberal Because He Is Black....Israelis are Ruthless, Running an Open Prison & Brutal Oppression

international law on blockades...

Once again, I have obtained the audio from another anti-Israel event in the Chicago area thanks to my source there. This time the speaker was Helen Thomas. The event was sponsored by MESA (Middle Eastern Students Association) and was part of the Palestine Awareness Week, also known as Israel Apartheid Week. 


Here are some selections from her talk.


Here is transcript of the audio above.

As for the Middle East, Obama has passed the only veto recent time at the UN, 14 to 1, when there was a resolution backed by 100 countries against the Israelis building more and more settlements on Palestinian land.

I went to Susan Rice, who is our representative at the UN. And I said, “how could you, how could you raise your hand in a veto?” She said, “I would have lost my job.” You are not allowed to annex occupied land under the UN and under international law. The blockade of Gaza is an open prison. The Israelis are ruthless and not only have they been, they have been allowed to be the cause of support of America. American Presidents are afraid to say no to Israelis. It is political suicide. Especially if you are running again, which of course Obama is.

Only President Carter had been brave enough, courageous enough, to take them on; against their brutal oppression of the Palestinians. The bottom line is you can’t take what doesn’t belong to you.

For all the military might and all the nuclear arsenal, the Israelis live in fear, there is no question about that, and even more so now because of the Arab uprising all over. They hate that, I’m sure, because they have always false thought that they would be the only Democracy in the Middle East. What kind of democracy makes most of the citizens oppressed and not citizens, lower class, taking their land, taking their homes, killing their children? Now, I think I should lighten up, don’t you?

I’ve always assumed that President Obama would be liberal because he’s black. What a false assumption that was.

Question: Why do you think Obama hasn’t said anything to help the Palestinians get any of their land back? Why do you think Obama has done nothing to help the Palestinians get their land back?

Thomas: Politics - once you get elected, he has to have billions, not millions of dollars, and you can’t antagonize your big bankers. I don’t think he has ever been a real liberal, not like I am a liberal, the good old days. I don’t think he really cares that much, I am sorry to say that.

Question: Can you please explain your comments from last year that caused you to retire from the White House press?

INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE
LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM

Thomas: I said the Israelis should go home, wherever it is. If it was Palestine, ok. But for everywhere else, to push people out of their homes, it is a horrible thing. Where is their conscience? I want to know. What right do they have to do that? To kill and to take someone else’s home and that is what they have done of the years. Even today they are bulldozing homes, killing children, killing the women, who are these people? How dare they? When is America going to stand up for the real international law? I mean absolutely, when we won WWII, we left, we didn’t occupy the other lands, we didn’t, but when the Israelis due with their military might, the US supports them, when they take what doesn’t belong them. And that is absolutely wrong. We provide them with the military money, we provide them with the money, they couldn’t exist one day without us. We are equally guilty.

Question: Do you think Jerusalem has become another settlement?

Thomas: I hope not. Jerusalem should be an international city. That was what was ordered for many years ago at the UN, except we abstained, I think. Of course Jerusalem is an international city. It should be owned by all religions and all the people.

Question: What solution do you offer for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Do you take a two-state solution or one-state?

Thomas: Well, I think we have to bow to the inevitable that they are there. But, I think we have to stop them from taking more and more land. And we also have to get them out of their illegitimate places: the West  Bank, Gaza, and so forth. They have blockaded Gaza, they treat them like… There will be more and more flotillas and they deserve it.

Question: What steps do you think need to be taken to get the Palestinians out of occupation?

Thomas: Passive resistance, I think because there is no way to fight the Israeli military might. But I do think a real stand down on the part of the whole Arab world will put them in their place. I believe that we can do it. It worked with Gandhi, it worked with Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King during the height of the civil rights movement went to a restaurant that he knew was making a sit down strike and he made everyone of his supporters put their guns in the bag. Passive resistance works and it saves life.

Question: Why do you think there is such a huge disconnect with US media and with what’s going on over there (Middle East)?

Thomas: I think the Israeli propaganda is so effective and you won’t have a job in this country if you go against them. You can’t say one thing about Israel. I can call the President anything in the book; I’ve said that many times. Nobody says anything.  I can call him anything. But, I cannot say one thing about Israel or you don’t have a job or you’re anti-Semitic even if you are Semite.

Question: Can you explain what the word anti-Semitism is and how it’s been missued in the media?

Are these Jews in Jerusalem in 1948 the occupier?

Thomas: That’s not what it is, but I sure know how it’s been missued. I think it dates back to Hitler and that’s the way they try to defame you, by saying you are anti-Semitic. I don’t hate anyone. But, I sure have had trouble not to in a lot cases. We are supposed to love each other, but how can you love people who hate?

Ben-Gurion, who was the first President Prime Minister of Israel said “show them no mercy.” Everything they did, village after village. The Israeli army was created by terrorist groups: Irgun,???, Haganah, who formed the Israeli army. They initiated terrorism, Begin bragged about it in his first book.

Question: How do you respond to a person’s claim that Palestine is their land since King David?

Thomas: Well Rabin said, “where’s the deed, where’s the deed?” G-d apparently doesn’t give deeds.

Question: What do you think of the rumors of the 3^rd intifada? Do you think it will be successful?

Thomas: I’d like to see a stand down, throughout the whole Arab world. Passive resistance, resisting, blockading, stopping the whole ???. I think that’s the only solution. It’s the one that saves lives.

Question: Do you think it will happen?

Thomas: We need another Gandhi, or Tutu, or whatever.

Question: How do you feel about the popular demonization of pro-Palestinian events and supporters?

Thomas: That’s wonderful.

Question: The demonization of pro-Palestinian supporters.

Thomas: Dehumanization? How do I feel? Well, you’ve got a victim here.

via challahhuakbar.blogspot.com

African stamps honor Jews who fought apartheid

Jews made up just 2 percent of the white population of apartheid-era South Africa, but they constituted at least half of the country’s white anti-apartheid activists, Gochin said.

Signing up for the fight against apartheid was an easy way to make life in South Africa very difficult. “We always knew that our house was under surveillance,” Lubner said. “We always knew that our phone was tapped.”
Lubner was 8 years old in 1956 when her father was accused of treason, along with 155 other eminent anti-apartheid activists. “South Africa was such a police state at that point that people were afraid of being associated with us,” Lubner said. “Very few of our relatives would have anything to do with us.”
Hymie Barsel was held for three years before the apartheid-era government dropped the treason charges. While in jail, he was brutally tortured. “They were very clever,” Lubner said of her father’s captors. “They would inflict damage on the spleen, which apparently is very difficult to detect.”
Esther Barsel, who was not tried in 1956, went to prison for her part in the anti-apartheid struggle in 1964. She spent four years in jail, followed by five years of house arrest. She had to get police permission to attend her daughter’s wedding in 1968. Lubner got married in a Johannesburg synagogue 10 minutes from her childhood home. “She [Esther Barsel] had to be home by 10 o’clock that night,” Lubner recalled.
Hymie Barsel died in 1987 without seeing the fruits of his activism. Esther Barsel, however, lived to see the end of the apartheid system, which began to be dismantled in 1990. South Africa has since honored her memory in various ways — the cell where she was incarcerated has been turned into a memorial installation, and when she died in 2008, Nelson Mandela publicly mourned her passing.

Legendary Heroes of Africa stamp sheet from Liberia featuring, from left, Helen Suzman, Eli Weinberg, Hymie Barsel, Esther Barsel (with Nelson Mandela).

In the age of e-mail, just what does putting someone’s face on a stamp really mean?

via jewishjournal.com

it means that these Activists died for nothing because the Black Leadership were also genocidal killers who hate Zionism. Looking back on a situation like this... there could of been greater freedom if they had kept people in separate nations. This can still happen. I'm proud of these Jews for standing up for what appeared to be right... when certainly there was so much violence coming from White South Africa at the time, it was impossible to see that their Black equivalents would be worse. Freedom is not a theory. Freedom is when people are secure of their enemies... who can live separately if they can not get along.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Black students diss 'Students for Justice in Palestine'

This incident may yet be regarded as a watershed in the campaign by 'Palestinians' and their supporters to characterize Israel as an 'apartheid state.' The incident took place at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts this past week. Kadima MK and former Shin Bet director Avi Dichter was the speaker. The morons from 'Students for Justice in Palestine' were there.There are more details on the incident here.
In response, a group of African American student leaders from traditionally 'black colleges' have taken out advertisements in student newspapers all over the US in which they have published an open letter to the 'Students for Justice in Palestine.' Their message: You guys are clueless (Hat Tip: Herb G).

"The use of the word 'apartheid' by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in its characterization of Israel is patently false and deeply offensive to all who feel a connection to the state of Israel," the letter, which ran or is slated to run in papers at Brown University, University of California-Los Angeles, the University of Maryland and Columbia University over the next few days, reads. "Your organization's campaign against Israel is spreading misinformation about its policies, fostering bias in the media, and jeopardizing prospects for a timely resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such irresponsibility is a blemish on your efforts."
The letter continues to state that "playing the 'apartheid card' is a calculated attempt to conjure up images associated with the racist South African regimes of the 20th century," and calls the strategy "as transparent as it is base."
"Beyond that, it is highly objectionable to those who know the truth about the Israel's record on human rights and how it so clearly contrasts with South Africa's," the letter reads, noting that under apartheid, black South Africans had no rights in a country in which they were the majority of the population.
Saying that the analogy manipulates rather than informs, the letter requests SJP to "immediately stop referring to Israel as an apartheid society and to acknowledge that the Arab minority in Israel enjoys full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government."
"Decency, justice, and the hope of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East compel us to demand an immediate cessation to the deliberate misappropriation of words and of the flagrant mischaracterizations of Israel," the letter concludes. "Your compliance with this request will be viewed as a responsible and appropriate first step toward raising the level of discourse."

It's great to see that the next generation includes kids who can think independently and who aren't sucked in by the false rhetoric of the mainstream media. Apartheid is probably the most overused word in current discourse.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Only once before have I been prevented from lecturing at universities in a country. The other country was Apartheid South Africa.

talk—directed at Jews, not Israel—is apparently acceptable among many in Norway's elite. Consider former Prime Minister Kare Willock's reaction to President Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as his first chief of staff: "It does not look too promising, he has chosen a chief of staff who is Jewish." Mr. Willock didn't know anything about Mr. Emanuel's views—he based his criticism on the sole fact that Mr. Emanuel is a Jew. Perhaps unsurprisingly, fewer than 1,000 Jews live in Norway today.

Alan Dershowitz on Norway via marketwatch.com

image via chinaconfidential.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Arab discrimination against Palestinians: How to fix it

Arab Mothers' Day: To commemorate the occasion,hundreds of Egyptian mothers who are married to Palestinian Arab men are demonstrating in Tahrir Square to give Egyptian citizenship to their children.  An Egyptian law passed in 2004 allowed Egyptian mothers to pass their citizenship to their children with foreign spouses - except Palestinians. The reason given is the usual excuse. As Al Ahram wrote when discussing the law in 2006:

Also, children of Palestinian fathers are not eligible for Egyptian citizenship. While this seems unfair, asserted Diaaeddin, it is in accordance with Arab League Decree 1547 for 1959. The decree calls for the preservation of the Palestinian identity as an integral part of the Palestinian cause, and prevents it from assimilating into the identity of the host country.

The Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court in 2006 ruled that the law should apply to Palestinian Arab fathers as well, but that ruling has been completely ignored by Egyptian authorities.

...............................read the rest via elderofziyon.blogspot.com
image via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Elder of Ziyon: Latest "Apartheid?" poster

Judge George Kara:

Entire "apartheid" poster series here.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Palestinian female entrepreneur inspired by the Israelis

Arab residents of Israel have all the rights of Israeli citizens and many ARE Israeli citizens themselves. Does this look like an apartheid state to you? via barenakedislam.wordpress.com

Creating a chain of upscale coffee shops in the West Bank, this savvy Palestinian-American businesswoman plans to expand into other cities, further shattering the Palipropaganda myth of the “starving Palestinians.”

Rather than follow the Starbucks’ chain store trend, she incorporated the Israeli model of independent shops with an upscale look and quality products to create a unique business with a variety of expansion possibilities. Hamas is horrified.

via barenakedislam.wordpress.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

joke courtesy @NLitvin

J.P. Moczulski for National Post

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addresses an event of the Canadian Jewish Politcal Affairs Committee in Toronto, March 10, 2011

via nationalpost.com

There is a growing Canadian backlash against Israeli Apartheid Week, the on-campus campaign to delegitimize Israel.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued a strongly worded statement Friday, asking students to think twice before joining activities tied to the week, taking place across Canada and internationally this month.

The events, which seek to promote Palestinian human rights, are frequently “accompanied by anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and bullying,” Mr. Kenney said, and are at times planned and promoted with disregard for the safety of Jewish students, professors and others on campus.

“These activities can cultivate an atmosphere exactly the opposite of one that is open to the free exchange of ideas and the development of the mind with the aid of facts and logic,” he said. Repeatedly singling out and condemning Israel year after year creates a “hateful environment” that “offends not only our sense of fairness, but also our core Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

“Such scapegoating becomes yet another symptom of a worrying new acceptance of the vilification of Israel and of Jews around the world.”

At a Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Community fundraiser Thursday evening, Prime Minister Stephen Harper slammed anti-Semitism on Canadian campuses, saying the organized Israeli Apartheid Weeks had become increasingly sophisticated and “intellectually acceptable.”

“At one time, friends, we could’ve expected threatening behaviour toward Jewish students to be rejected in any form at institutions of higher learning,” he told a crowd gathered at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto. “Unfortunately, it is now often the behaviour of the anti-Israeli mob that is allowed to prevail.”

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who also spoke at the event, said it’s time activists stop comparing Israel to South Africa, where apartheid was in place for approximately 45 years and finally abolished in 1993. He, too, released an official statement Monday condemning the week as a “dangerous cocktail of ignorance and intolerance” that threatens “the mutual respect” of Canadian society.

The Ignatieff statement led to controversy at Queen’s University in Kingston after a student-elected education advocate published a politically charged response and signed it with his official title. Queen’s Principal Daniel Woolf distanced the university from Nick Day’s letter, which was posted on left-wing news site rabble.ca on Wednesday. At a meeting Thursday night, the student government voted to hold a referendum Mar. 22 and 23 in which students will decide whether they want him removed from the position.

Mr. Day told the Queen’s Journal he regretted signing the letter as Queen’s rector, but doesn’t regret writing it.

“I made a public statement based on principles and ideas that I think are extremely important, speaking as myself and not claiming to speak for every student,” he told the student paper. “It’s the principal’s right to clarify that the university doesn’t share my opinion.”

National Post, with files

from Tamsin McMahon

Israeli Apartheid Week events, which started about seven years ago on college and university campuses, wrapped up in Toronto Friday night. Events will continue to take place on campuses across Canada in the next two weeks as well.

Israeli Apartheid Week is taking place in over 90 cities around the world this year, organizers say.

National Post

With files from Tamsin McMahon