The Joys of being Pally, the New Nigger of the world.

UC Irvine Student Government Approves Anti-Israel Boycott

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On November 16, 2012 @ 12:26 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 23 Comments

Even as missiles launched from Gaza are killing innocent Israelis, there is no rest for the anti-Semitic, Israel-bashers at the University of California, Irvine. On Tuesday night, the student senate passed a non-binding resolution requesting that the school divest from eight companies currently doing business with the Jewish State. In a unanimous 16-0 vote, the Associated Students-UC Irvine (ASUCI) targeted Caterpillar, Cement Roadstones Holding, Cemex, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Raytheon, Sodastream, and L-3 Communications, as companies that “profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.” The resolution awaits the approval of UC Irvine student government’s executive board, a body that would forward it to the school’s administration. If both entities approve, UC-Irvine would be the first California campus to do so.

Given UC-Irvine’s track record of anti-Semitism, such a “ground-breaking” move would doubtlessly thrill campus leftists, most notably UC-Irvine’s Muslim Student Union (MSU). In an article for Commentary Magazine in 2010, Kenneth Marcus outlines that track record. ”During the first years of the 21st century…on the campus of the University of California at Irvine, Jewish students were physically and verbally harassed, threatened, shoved, stalked, and targeted by rock-throwing groups and individuals,” he writes. “Jewish property was defaced with swastikas, and a Holocaust memorial was vandalized. Signs were posted on campus showing a Star of David dripping with blood. Jews were chastised for arrogance by public speakers whose appearance at the institution was subsidized by the university. They were called ‘dirty Jew’ and ‘f**king Jew,’ told to ‘go back to Russia’ and ‘burn in hell,’ and heard other students and visitors to the campus urge one another to ‘slaughter the Jews.’”

The MSU on campus has staged many anti-Israel events, including a large gathering every spring where some of the more virulent anti-Semites, including leaders of the Sabiqun movement, which advocates for the creation of a global Islamic state, bash Israel with impunity.

In May 2010, Imam Abdul Malik Ali, leader of a mosque in Oakland, compared Jews to Nazis, expressed support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and called for the destruction of the “apartheid state of Israel.” Ali’s speech was part of the MSU-hosted program called “Israeli Apartheid Week: A Call to Boycott, Divest and Sanction,” which included other anti-Israel speakers such as author Norman Finkelstein, who has made a career out of distorting the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Alison Weir, who frames Israel as a violent aggressor, with the United States acting as its accomplice; and Hatem Bazian, president of the anti-Israel American Muslims for Palestine. This event was part of an effort to jumpstart the divestment process mentioned above.

In 2009, the MSU hosted a lectures series titled “Israel: The Politics of Genocide.” Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who supports anti-Semitic groups such as the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party, and former British MP George Galloway, who told GQ magazine in 2006 that it would be “morally justified” for a suicide bomber to kill former British Prime Minister Tony Blair because of Britain’s support for the Iraq war, were in attendance. Ali was also there, giving presentations during which he stated that “Zionists” are “the new Nazis” and “the party of Satan,” and that “Zionism must be destroyed.”

In 2008, the MSU hosted three separate bash-fests titled “Never Again? Palestinian Holocaust,” ”Gears of War: Blood, Oil and University,” and ”From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide.” Various speakers accused Israel of being a “hateful and expansionist militant nation state,” bringing their “misery” and “hostility” from Europe to the Middle East, and engaging in ”ethnic cleansing to get more of Palestine.”

A video compilation of events occurring in 2008, gives one a good sense of the overt hostility generated by both speakers and students a UC-Irvine. It opens with Imam Muhammad Al-Asi, former prayer leader at the Islamic Center of Washington, accusing Israel of “crimes against humanity,” and students chanting the slogan of Israel’s destruction: ”from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” It shows several testimonials by students, speaking about the regular harassment they receive for either being Jewish or daring to speak out against the prevailing “climate of fear perpetuated on campus,” as one student put it.

In 2007, the MSU hosted ”Israel: Apartheid Resurrected” and ”Holocaust Memorial Week.” During the former event, it was alleged that the U.S. knew about 9/11 in advance, and those who supported Israel were referred to as “Zio-Nazis.” At the utterly misnamed latter event, Jews were accused of running and financing the slave trade.

Similar events go back as far as 2001. All of them present the common themes of Israel as the oppressor, and the United States as its eager collaborator, along with a “Zionist-controlled Western media” that distorts the truth.

One of the low points of anti-Jewish activity at UC-Irvine occurred in February 2010, when 11 students were arrested for repeatedly disrupting a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. In a classic use of the “heckler’s veto,” Oren was repeatedly assailed with modern-day blood libels, accusing him of being an accessory to genocide and ethnic cleansing, as he attempted to give a talk on the Middle East peace process. A video of the event reveals the coordinated effort of students to prevent Oren from speaking.

Leaked emails subsequently revealed that the MSU orchestrated the disruption. The 11 students were convicted of two misdemeanors, conspiracy and speech disruption. In June, the MSU was banned the for one year and placed on disciplinary probation for an additional year, beginning on September 1.

Yet on September 3, 2010, UC-Irvine officials relented, upholding the suspension for only four months, through Dec. 31. The MSU was also expected to complete 100 hours of community service and remain on probation through December 2012.

Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez sent an email to students filled with typical leftist bromides. “This has been a difficult decision,” it read. “But in the end, this process demonstrates the University of California Irvine’s commitment to values, principles and tolerance. Although this has been a challenging experience for all involved, I am confident that we will continue to move forward as a stronger, more respectful university community.”

Such a statement rings utterly hollow in light of a report by Front Page Magazine, revealing that UC-Irvine students, participating in a program known as the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI), met with Aziz Duwaik, a prominent leader of the terrorist organization Hamas, during a trip to the Middle East in 2009. Tellingly, the students were reportedly told to keep the trip a secret. In 2011, a Freedom of Information Act filing unearthed a letter addressed to UC-Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake demanding an investigation, yet the letter itself was dated October 8, 2009. If an investigation occurred, it wasn’t publicized.

As this latest episode at UC Irvine has demonstrated, on leftist-dominated college campuses across the nation, virulent anti-Semitism has been legitimized and is accepted to an astounding degree. Just imagine if a college student group invited a series of speakers to discussing topics even remotely offensive to ethnic minorities or gay students. There is no doubt that the campus left and administration officials would vocally oppose such programming. Yet Jewish students are routinely exposed to an atmosphere where their religious symbols, the Jewish homeland and much more are heinously mocked and degraded by their fellow students.

UC-Irvine student Sabreen Shalabi, a co-author of the boycott legislation, was proud of her handiwork. “Our work today stands tall in the noble tradition of students advocating for justice, joining the ranks of those brave and visionary students who demanded that our Universities divest from the terrible crimes of South African apartheid,” she said. No, it doesn’t. It is nothing more than an expression of anti-Semitism being purported as something noble. Despicable is more like it.

[And add to that.]

Thomas Sowell is a veteran India-watcher. He classifies India as one of our “fictitious countries.” What does he mean by that? Well, “people in the West who discuss India, discuss an India that bears no resemblance to the country actually located in Asia.” We think of Indians as spiritual, peaceful, and gentle, unlike us crass and violent Americans. This is nonsense. “To think that India had the chutzpah to join the worldwide protest against apartheid in South Africa. If an untouchable in India had the choice to be a black under apartheid, he would take it in a New York minute.” --- Quote from Thomas Sowell from an interview by Jay Nordlinger 2/21/2011.

Who has the mandate of Heaven in the Middle Kingdom.

Not Quite Inscrutable China  American Spectator

By George H. Wittman on 11.16.12 @ 6:07AM from the American Spectator

The 18th Party Congress sends clear new signals.

After a final count it appears that 2,268 party members attended the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of China in Beijing this past week. They clapped appropriately during and after each speech and gave every appearance of complete agreement and uniformity. But the only thing uniform about these "chosen ones" is their dark black and blue suits. Each has his own agenda -- and political patron. Secrecy, however, is the guiding principle that links all these representatives -- and yet there are signs that expose much of the conflict within.

If there was a theme to this congress that could not be hidden, it had to be corruption. The specter of the dismissed politburo member, the popular and powerful Bo Xilai, and his deals with the British businessman who was killed by Bo's wife, hung over the entire session. Premier Wen Jiabao's family had been charged in a New York Times article as having accumulated $2.7 billion during his political career. The Times' Chinese language website was blocked as punishment, but the damage had been done and most observers could not find strong reasons to disagree with the general figures.

Without pointing to a specific example, Hu Jintao, the outgoing president, acknowledged the corruption problem in general by forcefully calling for indictment of all corrupt officials no matter their rank. Hu went so far as to warn the congress that corruption could cause the fall of the state. This was a message that everyone understood and it is expected that quite a few foreign bank accounts will be undergoing review.

All this was done to great applause, of course, except for the most senior Party member, the retired former leader, 86-year-old Jiang Zemin, who rarely has been seen in the last ten years. Jiang, whose presence at the congress surprised the entire foreign press, conspicuously kept his clapping in approval to a very limited degree. His careful lack of enthusiasm made Jiang's appearance even more impressive. The fact that the expected new Party leader and China's presumptive next president, Xi Jinping, has long been characterized as a protégé of Jiang signified not only the latter's continued influence, but a division in Politburo direction.

Supposedly that direction is to include a return to a greater emphasis on what is referred to as "market --oriented economic policies," as opposed to Hu Jintao's tendency to encourage more centralized, large government-owned industrial and commercial institutions. The warning that such a shift might be in the making came when Zhang Ming, a well-known political science professor at Renmin University, Beijing, publicly stated that "China's economic situation is not very good…To fix this the best method for China would be to open its state-owned enterprises (SOEs) by breaking them down into private enterprises." He then suggested obscurely that this action would bring in "enough capital for actual political reform." This reform, he said without clarification, is necessary as inaction would produce severe consequences.

Provocative statements such as Professor Zhang's are viewed as purposely exaggerated in order to draw public attention to the broader political concept of the economic issue he sought to address. Political science academics in China do not strike out on their own to attack the principles of state enterprise without strong backing. It has been suggested that Jiang Zemin was more than willing to come out of his "retirement" to stimulate a return to market-oriented policies for which he had become so famous in his presidency. Prof. Zhang effectively set the scene.

The body that directs the operations of the Politburo is its Standing Committee. Here, too, Mr. Jiang seems to have waved a political wand and produced a majority of the candidates for the projected seven spots. 

Most important is the reported alignment with Jiang Zemin of the next Communist Party chief and presumptive President of the PRC, the youthful (59-year-old) Xi Jinping. It will not be easy sailing for Xi even with the support of the reinvigorated Mr. Jiang. The Chinese press has noted there will be twenty ex-Standing Committee members, all of whom will want to exert their influence in some manner.

Theories abound in Beijing over what exactly will be the new direction in China's administration. How long will the aged Jiang continue to exert his renewed interest and political strength? Will Xi Jinping, having been well launched, simply proceed along on his own? Strengthening market orientation may not be as assured as might be expected. Jiang's support for five of the seven men in the Standing Committee does not necessarily guarantee that even this player roster will maintain a deep commitment to major change from centralized state enterprise to greater private ownership driven by market principles. Hu Jintao's acolytes may yet fully respond.

More clarification is likely between now and next March, when Xi Jinping is to be formally installed as president. There'll be a strong effort to avoid goring too many important oxen while, however, making sure that the proper advantages are distributed and important positions divided along the most effective lines.

This is China, after all, where sophistication and stark reality mix in an arcane political stew. It is certainly not an environment for the faint of heart nor the marginal talents of the current Washington foreign policy leadership.

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

[One thing about losing a war to a totalitarian enemy is historians have no access to the conversations that went on on the other side of the hill. No Generals to debrief, no trove of diplomatic cables to translate, no way to compare our experience to theirs. We just have to wait and see what our historians can garner from the writings that do come out. This article is an example of such historical detective work.

JimG33]

Exploding the Myths

About Vietnam.

By

Lien-Hang Nguyen

Associate professor of history at

the University of Kentucky.

NYT Sunday Review, 8/12/12, pg. 4

         

          

As the war in Afghanistan drags on with no definitive victory for the United States and American troops begin to withdraw, comparisons to the Vietnam War are once again in the air, 50 years after both Washington and Hanoi decided to beef up their forces in South Vietnam. “Just take a run through the essential Vietnam War checklist,” wrote Tom Engelhardt in Mother Jones magazine, noting “there’s ‘quagmire’” and the idea of ‘winning hearts and minds’” as well as “bomb-able, or in our era drone-able ‘sanctuaries’ across the border” and even a “one man version of My-Lai.” Although these analogies are particularly attractive to critics---who see America’s battle in Afghanistan as even more futile than Vietnam and advocate a quick exit---they are deeply flawed.

          

Among the many problems of drawing lessons from Vietnam and applying them to Afghanistan is that the history of the Vietnam War is almost completely misunderstood. The war’s history is constantly evolving as new evidence emerges, particularly from the other side. Since too little attention was paid to understanding the enemy’s motivations, internal dynamics, and foreign relations, we always had an incomplete and incorrect picture of the war.

          

If we are to learn from the past, then, it’s worth parting the bamboo curtain that has long concealed decision making in North Vietnam to dispel some myths of that oft-invoked war.

          

It is commonly believed that North Vietnam decided to go to war in 1959-60 to save the southern insurgency from eradication and that the Communist Party enjoyed the unflagging support of the of the Vietnamese people until the wars end in 1975. But recent evidence reveals that the party’s resolution to go to war in South Vietnam was intimately connected to problems at home. Revolutionary war was an effective way to deflect attention from domestic problems, including a devastating land reform campaign, a dissident intellectual movement, and an unsuccessful campaign for a socialist transformation of the economy.

          

One of the greatest misconceptions of the Vietnam War is that Ho Chi Minh was the uncontested leader of North Vietnam. In reality, Ho was a figurehead while Le Duan, a man who resides in the marginalia of history, was the architect, main strategist and commander in chief of North Vietnam’s war effort. The quiet, stern Mr. Duan shunned the spotlight but possessed the iron will, focus and administrative skill necessary to dominate the Communist Party.

          

Along with his right hand man, the indomitable Le Duc Tho, who would later spar with Henry A. Kissinger during the Paris peace negotiations, Mr. Duan constructed a sturdy militarist empire that still looms over Hanoi today. Their hawkish policies led North Vietnam to war against Saigon and then Washington, and would ensure that a negotiated peace would never take the place of total victory.

          

Mr. Duan ruled the party with an iron fist and saw Ho and Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, renowned for defeating the French at Dien Bien Phu, as the greatest threats to his authority. He sidelined Ho, General Giap and their supporters when making nearly all key decisions.

          

In 1963-64, Mr. Duan blackmailed Ho into silence when the aging leader opposed the controversial decision to escalate the war and seek all-out victory before American forces could intervene. And in 1967-68, there was a large scale purge in Hanoi when Ho, General Giap and their allies opposed Mr. Duan’s plans for the Tet Offensive.  Although the southern war initially rallied the North Vietnamese to support the party, it soon became a quagmire. Mr. Duan and Mr. Tho reacted by creating a garrison state that labeled any resistance to their war policies as treason. By increasing the powers of internal security and ideological police and subjugating the southern insurgency to Hanoi, they were able to wage total war at their discretion until 1975.

          

The rivalry between China and the Soviet Union also played a major role in determining the course of the war. China’s emerging radicalism and the Soviet Union’s lack of commitment to Third World revolutions allowed Mr. Duan to tilt toward China and advance full scale war in the south in the early 1960’s.As American involvement grew in 1965, Soviet aid poured into North Vietnam. By 1968, competition between Beijing and Moscow for influence in Hanoi had become intense.

          

Mr. Duan sought to assert Vietnamese autonomy by launching the 1968 Tet Offensive and the 1972 Easter Offensive---moves that Beijing and Moscow disapproved of. In 1972, Richard Nixon’s visits to China and the Soviet Union marked the pinnacle of the Sino-Soviet obstruction of North Vietnam’s war effort. Both allies exerted pressure on Hanoi to end the war on Nixon’s terms as they competed for Washington’s good graces. Rather than waiting for “a big power sellout,” Mr. Duan and his comrades ordered the Easter Offensive, with the aim of toppling the Saigon government and striking a critical blow to America’s detente with the Soviet Union and China.

         

Finally it is a myth that the United States defeated itself in the Vietnam War. In fact, the Vietnamese were anything but passive players in their war; they shaped American actions as well as the global cold war order. It was Mr. Duan’s bid for victory in 1964 that prompted America to intervene decisively. And America’s allies in Saigon delayed the United States withdrawal.

          

They doggedly pursued their own interests, even when these proved detrimental to the Washington-Saigon alliance. Slowing down American withdrawal in 1969 and sabotaging the Kissinger-Tho peace negotiations in 1972-3, South Vietnamese leaders greatly complicated America’s exit from Southeast Asia. Although Washington possessed its own internal and geostrategic reasons to intervene and remain in Vietnam, it was leaders in Hanoi and Saigon who dictated the nature and pace of American intervention.

          

Fighting the last war is always a danger. It becomes even more problematic when the historical analogies driving current policy are based on an incomplete and flawed understanding of America’s past failures. As new historical evidence revises our understanding of the Vietnam War and renders any direct analogies untenable, we can at least draw one lesson: to be rigorous in our analysis of the enemy’s war effort.

          

Taliban leaders have conflicting views over peace negotiations, the prospect of reconciliation with the Afghan government, and the movement’s direction. With Mullah Muhammad Omar acting as only the movement’s spiritual head, the opportunity has emerged for an enterprising faction with a driven commander --- as was the case with Mr. Duan --- to unify and dominate the divided Afghan insurgency. This new leadership will inevitably be militant, particularly if America strikes an unpopular bargain with Taliban officials in Pakistan.

          

And even if increased casualties eventually lead some militants to favor peace, the Pentagon’s policy of classifying all males who happen to be in the vicinity of drone strikes as militants could undermine that impulse, in much the same way that America’s heavy bombing of “free fire zones” and “specified strike zones” in Vietnam drove many embittered villagers to join the Communist ranks.

          

It is also crucial for the United States to understand the role that regional actors --- like Pakistan’s security services --- play in internal Taliban politics. While Chinese-Soviet rivalry allowed Hanoi to maintain its autonomy while extracting maximum aid from both countries, the Afghan insurgency enjoys no such advantage, especially since neighboring Iran’s influence is limited. America therefore enjoys more leverage in Afghanistan than it did in Vietnam.

         

Finally, the United States envisions a complete pullout by 2014, but as history shows, our allies may not always comply with our wishes. It may be up to Hamid Karzai’s government or its successor to set the pace of American withdrawal from Afghanistan. For as we saw in Vietnam, we cannot assume that we alone can dictate our actions.

[N. B. This was written before the election. With the re-election of President Obama, all thoughts about slowing or reversing the withdrawal are off. That train has left the station.

JimG33]