< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://bokertov.typepad.com/ btb/" >

Saturday, July 05, 2003

Letter to the Editor in Today's Daily Camera

ISRAEL-PALESTINE: Peretz offered up heaps of baloney

The scholarly prose of Martin Peretz's piece, "The New Fellow Travelers" (Insight, June 29), promised enlightenment, but delivered instead a super-sized helping of baloney. For those of us interested in understanding the valid concerns on both sides of the Israeli-Palestianian issue, based on facts and evidence, Peretz' propaganda was useless.

Among others, his statement that "we've had nearly a decade of Palestinian rule in the West Bank and Gaza" is completely false. Since the Six Day War of 1967, Israel has sustained an illegal military occupation of Palestinian land, including the West Bank (of the Jordan River), Gaza and East Jerusalem; hence the term "occupied territories." How would we Americans react if, say, Canada — imagine for a moment that they have a far-superior military — were to invade our country, throw us off our land, bulldoze our homes, murder our families, and deny us water resources needed for our livelihood?

Why should we care about the Israeli-Palestinian issue? First, Israel is by far the largest recipient of U.S. aid, receiving billions each year — which makes us an active participant in this conflict. Our tax dollars and defense industry provide Israel's military hardware, which is used to execute Israeli terror. Our tax dollars are building Israel's behemoth "separation wall" (aka "apartheid wall") near Qalqilya, which dwarfs the Berlin Wall and will eventually separate about 300,000 Palestinians from their land.

We should care because extreme Zionist interests do indeed affect U.S.-Mideast foreign policy, including the decision to invade Iraq. Finally, we should care because it is within our power to strongly advocate a truly fair and nonviolent resolution to this conflict.


The guest opinion to which Gibbs refers is available here.

Friday, July 04, 2003

Oxford makes new statement on Wilkie

News Releases
4 July 2003

A University spokesperson said:

"The University of Oxford is appalled that any member of its staff should have responded to an inquiry from a potential graduate student in the terms in which Professor Wilkie emailed Amit Duvshani on 23 June. A thorough investigation began as soon as the University became aware of this correspondence. Based on the information that was collected during this process, and in the light of all the circumstances, particularly the importance attached by the University to fair processes of selection, the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Colin Lucas, has taken the view that this matter should be referred for consideration by the University's disciplinary panel for academic staff, known as the Visitatorial Board. While the matter is under consideration by the Board, Professor Wilkie will not be taking part in the selection of any members of staff or students. The Visitatorial Board has power to recommend warnings or dismissal or removal from office.

"Visitatorial Boards are convened to consider charges against a member of the University's academic staff when the Vice-Chancellor considers that the alleged conduct or performance of that person may constitute good cause for dismissal or otherwise give grounds for some lesser disciplinary sanction. Each Board has five members - an external chair and four members who are selected randomly from an existing panel.

"Once a member of staff has been advised that their case is being referred to a Visitatorial Board, they have 28 days to reply in writing to the charges that have been laid against them. They are entitled to present their case to the Board in person and to be represented by an adviser. Following the hearing, the Board recommends appropriate action to the Vice-Chancellor."

"People who make peace in their home are rewarded as if they have made peace for all Israel."

-- Avot d'Rabbi Natan 28:3

Go to Google
Go to www.google.com Type into the search box: "weapons of mass destruction" (be sure to use the quote marks).

Then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky."

"Providing funds to Dahlan is no different than supplying dynamite and nails to Hamas"

(Tel Aviv) Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center has written to the leaders of
British, French, German & Spanish Parliaments urging them NOT to provide the
Palestinian Authority's (PA) Preventive Security Service with any additional
funding. The letter comes in response to the recent "urgent request" from the
PA's Security Chief Mohammed Dahlan, that the European Union provide his forces
with an additional $400 million. Dahlan claims that he needs the funds in order
to rebuild and re-equip the Preventive Security Service's depleted ranks and

Despite his recent rise to prominence as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas' security boss
and his support from the Central Intelligence Agency, Dahlan and his former
deputy, Rashid Abu Shabak, are the chief suspects in the November 20, 2000,
bombing of an Israeli school bus outside of Kfar Darom (Gaza).

In the Kfar Darom attack, 2 Israeli teachers were killed and many school
children were seriously injured. U.S. citizen Rachel Asarof was wounded in the
attack and the husband of another American citizen, Gavriel Biton, was killed.
The bombing of the school bus, which crippled three young children from the same
family, shocked Israelis and brought international condemnation of the PA.

Dahlan and Abu Shabak are defendants in civil actions filed by the bus bombing
victims and their families in Israel and the United States.

In the letter to the Parliament heads, Shurat HaDin Director Nitsana
Darshan-Leitner wrote that her organization is fearful that Dahlan will use the
European funds to enlist and arm thousands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members
in his new Gaza militia. While previously serving as head of the Preventive
Security Service, Dahlan's group had been at the forefront of terrorist attacks
initiating from Gaza. The Preventive Security Service, which also operates
under the nom de plume 'Martyrs of al-Aqsa', continues to carry out terrorist
attacks and provides safe haven to fugitive Hamas terrorists- including master
bomb maker Mohammed Deif.

In her letter to the European leaders, Darshan-Leitner noted that: "Dahlan is
still the leading suspect in the November 2000 bombing of an Israeli school bus
in Kfar Darom. This attack killed specifically targeted young children and
school teachers. To provide additional funds to Dahlan is no different than
European nations supplying dynamite and nails to Hamas."

Moreover, the letter alleges that Dahlan's Preventive Security Service officers
are guilty of numerous other terror attacks against Israeli civilians that
should be categorized as "crimes against humanity," which all European nations
have signed international conventions obligating them to prosecute.

Email: nitsana@israellawcenter.org

(Israel) 972-8-973-3336, (US) 212-591-0073

courtesty of Naomi Ragen

Thursday, July 03, 2003


From "The law of the peace process" by Caroline Glick, at JPost:

"On Thursday morning, Dahlan's 'security' chief in Gaza, Rashid Abu Shabak, announced that his forces are willing to take security responsibility in Gaza. But Shabak himself is wanted for murder by Israel."

From HonestReporting.com

HonestReporting has on numerous occasions critiqued the media's widespread use of the term "militant" to describe Palestinian terrorists. A Wednesday Washington Post editorial provides an ideal illustration of the precise problem with the term.

The Post editorial repeatedly calls Palestinian terrorist organizations "militant groups," and then — sandwiched among those references — refers to "militant Jewish settlers." The editorial claims these two groups constitute "the extremists on both sides."

As noted by James Taranto's weblog, the term "militant" has two separate dictionary definitions:

1) engaged in warfare or combat
2) aggressively active (as in a cause)

A Hamas leader may be (generously) granted the first definition, and some Jewish settlers fit the second definition. But by calling both groups "militants" in the same editorial breath, the Post entirely eliminates this distinction, and implies equivalence between mass civilian murderers and dwellers on a disputed land.

Would a Washington Post editorial ever equate a militant environmentalist with Osama bin Laden?

Comments to: letters@washpost.com


The Atlantic Monthly profiled a Rand Corporation study of "top ten international-security developments that aren't getting the attention they deserve." Heading the list: the security wall that Israel is presently constructing to protect against West Bank terrorist incursions.

Though recognizing that "[t]he logic behind the wall is unassailable," the article claims that the wall could "deepen Palestinian rage and enmity, of course, prompting escalated mortar and ground-to-ground missile attacks against targets inside Israel. The wall could also prompt further attacks on Israelis overseas, like the suicide bombing last November of a Mombasa hotel filled with Israeli tourists and the accompanying attempt to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane."

The Atlantic, it seems, believes it credible to claim that Israel — by attempting to stave off terror against its civilians — bears responsibility for future attacks.

Furthermore, as editorialized in the Jerusalem Post, "Israel is not building the fence, [in effect] the Palestinians are. It took thousands of attacks and dozens of dead before Israel began to contemplate building it, and even now it is being built reluctantly."

Comments to: letters@theatlantic.com

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.




"As Master of Pembroke College Cambridge I have no connexion with
Pembroke College Oxford or with Andrew Wilkie.
I am now in receipt of a stream of e-mails which, like your original e-mail, accuse me of being anti-Semitic apparently on the grounds that all British Ambassadors to Syria are, as one of the e-mails expresses it, "Jew- hating faggots".

I have taken legal advice which confirms my belief that I would be within my rights to sue for libel. My reputation and by extension that of Pembroke College Cambridge has been defamed. We have many Jewish and some Israeli students, just as I have some Israeli and many Jewish friends and it could do both the College and myself material damage if this unfounded calumny were to be spread as a result of your communications. I should add that as an individual and a former diplomat who worked for a substantial part of my career for the advancement of peace in the Middle East I personally resent deeply your Insinuation against me and against my diplomatic colleagues as a class.

I should be grateful for an unreserved apology available to be seen by all those who read your e-mail with its false identification of me as being Master at Pembroke College Oxford. The apology should state that I have no connexion with Andrew Wilkie, that there are no grounds on which to accuse me of anti-Semitism, that you withdraw insinuations that a British Ambassador in Damascus is likely to be anti- Jewish.

In the absence of such an unreserved apology I will take further legal advice. This libel that you have set in train must stop immediately.

Sir Roger Tomkys KCMG, DL Master Pembroke College Cambridge, CB2 1RF"

Wednesday, July 02, 2003

Letter in today's Daily Camera

No love lost on murderous thugs

Martin Peretz's article in the June 29 Sunday Camera makes me wonder who exactly are the Palestinians. While working in Jordan for Alia airlines, I talked with a Jordanian who told me Arafat was born in a small village in Jordan called Salt and never was and never has been a so-called Palestinian.

I served with the British forces in Palestine in 1947 and 1948. During that time, I had no love for the Jewish terrorist gangs Irgun and Stern, who murdered British soldiers, but I had admiration for David Ben Gurion and his Haganah, who were trying to form a Jewish homeland by peaceful means. After we left in the spring of 1948, the Arabs immediately attacked despite the fact that a legal state of Israel had been approved by some 30 nations. After the Arabs were defeated, Jordan occupied the West Bank, not the so-called Palestinians, who since that time have murdered Jews and non-Jews in airplanes, at the Olympics, in cruise ships and in most cities in the world.

BILL EVANS, Louisville

The Children’s Bulletproof Vest Campaign

The Children’s Bulletproof Vest Campaign, a joint venture of One Israel Fund and The Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation is an inspiring success story. One in which children, our hope for the future, reached out to help secure the future of their peers in Israel by raising money to help provide specially sized bulletproof vests to protect them as they travel the oft life threatening roads of YESHA. Over $170,000 has been raised to date.

YESHA (Judea, Samaria (the "West Bank") and Gaza) is comprised of 144 Jewish Communities that are concentrated in thirteen local authorities and six regional councils. Most of the areas are villages or urban communities with a number of kibbutzim (cooperative settlements) and moshavim (semi-cooperative settlements), plus two cities: Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel. Click on the link to learn more about YESHA communities.

If you or your children’s school is interested in more information on this and other new projects like it please contact OneIsraelFund's development office at 516 239-9202 x13 or through their online contact form.

Worldwide Solidarity with Israel Rally: July 20th

(IsraelNN.com) A global effort is underway towards a July 20th worldwide solidarity rally on behalf of Israel against the ongoing Road Map process which is intended to lead to the establishment of the State of Palestine.

This effort is not being sponsored or endorsed by any organization except a newly formed grassroots organization called Citizens Against Giving-Up Eretz Yisrael, or CAGEY, for short.

The international event will take place on the 20th, at noon (Eastern Time), with the participation of Jews and non-Jews, all turning out to show their support for Israel as the USA continues pressuring Israel into making concessions to the PA.

Organizers report that thus far, people are working on plans for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, New York, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Portland (Oregon), Columbus (Ohio), Dallas, and Baltimore/Washington area in the United States.

The Curious Tale of the Oxford Professor Who Hated Israel

R. Shmuley Boteach served as rabbi to the students of Oxford
Boteach's comments in full, from the FreemanList:

The news this week that Andrew Wilkie, Oxford University's Nuffield
Professor of Pathology, told an Israeli doctoral applicant that he was not
prepared to take on Israelis as students because of the "gross human rights
abuses" that Israelis inflict on Palestinians, and his further assertion
that "I am not the only UK scientist with these views," sadly did not come
as a shock to me. When I first received emailed notification from outraged
Jews the world over, who wrote to me as someone who had served as rabbi to
the students of Oxford, I simply thought to myself, "Well, some things never

In my capacity as head of the Oxford L'Chaim Society, which over eleven
years rose to become the second largest student organization in Oxford's
history, I had brought Israel's leaders to lecture to the students and
counter the flood of pro-Arab propaganda heard in stereo from both Arab and
British speakers. The demonization of Israel was loud and frequent. But
whereas Arab heads of State and Ministers were welcomed as official
University guests, Israel's leaders were treated in a somewhat different

I remember the nearly impossible task of persuading any Oxford college to
join us as an official host for Binyamin Netanyahu, the first sitting
Israeli Prime Minister ever to visit the University. When Yitzchak Shamir
visited with us, nearly all of the leading academics I invited to dinner
with him turned us down. Ariel Sharon, who in 1992 did us the great favor of
opening our new Jewish Student Center in central Oxford, filling in for
Ronald Regan when the former President had to cancel his lecture just days
before he was to arrive, gave one of the Oxford Union's most memorable
orations. Still, he too was snubbed by the nearly all the Oxford academics
whom we always made it a point to invite. That is not to say that the
University snubbed famous Jewish personalities. Lest you believe that it was
only the right-wing Prime Ministers who were snubbed, the same happened with
Shimon Peres. Not only did a paucity of academics agree to dinner with him.
Worse, when we took Mr. Peres to speak at our the Cambridge branch of the L'
Chaim Society, a coalition of Arab and British students tried to have the
police arrest him - I kid you not - on charges of war crimes. And a huge
protest rally was organized against Mr. Peres with bullhorns blaring. Even
the by Yitzhak Rabin, whose lecture at Oxford had to be cancelled on the day
that he was to deliver it as he rushed from England to Israel in response to
a deadly bus bombing in October 1994, was opposed by leading Oxford
academics. And this was well after the Oslo accords were signed and he had
won the Nobel Peace Prize!

Does this mean that British academia in general, and Oxford in particular,
is anti-Semitic? My honest answer would have to be, no (or more precisely,
not necessarily). Firstly, I have always argued that the Jewish community
must proceed with great caution before making accusations of Jew hatred.
Anti-Semitism is deadly and it is repugnant. And we debase the seriousness
of the allegation through misuse. Even when the University inexplicably
singled out L'Chaim from over 300 Oxford societies to try and remove "Oxford
University" from our official title - something for which we had obtained
official permission and which even The Oxford University Tiddlywinks Society
was granted without much hassle - I consistently and publicly disagreed
with the many who said that the University's actions were motivated by
anti-Semitism. Besides, the University has honored many Jewish personalities
and indeed, the Chancellor, Lord Jenkins, accepted my invitation to dinner
with Elie Wiesel, and a high number of very distinguished Oxford Professors
accepted my invitation to dine with Simon Wiesenthal.

What is indisputable, as the Israel-bashing Prof. Wilkie, justifiably points
out, is that most British academics have either little sympathy for, or
outright hostility, toward, the State of Israel. I know that many believe
that anti-Zionism is simply a mask for anti-Semitism, as Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. so eloquently argued. But let's be charitable for a moment and
ascribe the British intellectual's hostility toward Israel as resulting from
the honored British tradition of championing the underdog. Of course, you
have the right to ask what kind of intellectual would be so easily deceived
as to accept that five million democratically-minded Jews, with no natural
resources, pose a threat to six hundred million oil rich and military-minded
Arabs? But hey, intelligent people have been fooled by even greater
deceptions. George Bernard Shaw called Hitler a great man, and Nelson
Mandela has been saying for months that George Bush is a greater threat to
world peace than Saddam Hussein! So let's continue to be charitable and
simply assume that British anti-Zionist academics choose their position
simply because the Palestinians are, of course, human beings who deserve
rights, and they blame Israel for denying them their rights.

For the sake of argument, let us further assume that these saintly
academics, working in their laboratories with halos over their heads, are
absolutely correct. That rather than being a liberal democracy forced into
militancy in order to thwart the designs of murderous terrorists, Israel is
instead a colonial, occupying power who gets off oppressing Palestinians.
Even then, we would have the right to ask whether Prof. Wilkie and his
colleagues have similarly denied places in their laboratories to Saudi
students whose religious police force young female High School students back
into burning buildings rather than allow them to run out into the street
without the hijab? Has the University turned away the many Saudi princes,
some of whom I befriended at Oxford, because their brutal government
punishes any criticism of the House of Saud with imprisonment and death? Has
Prof. Wilkie rejected Chinese student applicants over the Brutal oppression
of Tibet, the slaughter at Tiananmen Square, or the outright suppression of
all organized religion? Has Prof. Wilkie denied Kuwaiti students entry into
his lab over their 1991 expulsion of over 350,000 Palestinians who they
regarded as enemies of the State (something Israel has never even
contemplated)? Have Jordanian students been kicked out of Oxford over King
Hussein's war against the PLO in the early 1970's that left tens of
thousands of Palestinians dead? I don't think so. When I was at Oxford I met
the extremely friendly Jordanian princesses studying there, even though
their government allows no democracy.

No, it seems that Prof. Wilkie and his ilk have a problem solely with Israel
and noone else. And in my continued effort to be charitable to the esteemed
scientist, allow me to assert that the good Professor's prejudices are
animated not by Jew-hatred, but by ignorance. Prof. Wilkie is no
anti-Semite. He's just an uninformed ignoramus. A buffoon. A silly man who
speaks before he thinks (he is now apologizing to all who will listen that
he didn't mean what he said). A man who doesn't deserve to be a professor,
not because he's prejudiced, but because he contravenes the very first law
of science: refrain from drawing conclusions before you have the evidence.
Prof. Wilkie is one of those unintellectual mediocrities, an ideological
extremist, who substitutes passion for reason. The thought that a
shoot-from-the-hip, out-of-control, uneducated fool is the head of an Oxford
science department is alarming indeed.

Is Prof. Wilkie, who asserts that Palestinians only "wish to live in their
own country," aware that for nearly a century they have repeatedly rejected
a state of their own if it meant Israel's continued existence? Is the great
man of science familiar with the Balfour declaration of 1917 which promised
a Jewish and an Arab state carved out of the Middle East (accepted by the
and Jews rejected by the Arabs), is he aware that Jordan constitutes 78% of
the original British proposed Jewish homeland, has he heard of the British
Peel Partition Proposal of 1937 (accepted by the Jews rejected by the
Arabs), the UN Partition Plan of 1947 (accepted by the Jews and rejected by
the Arabs), Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton's Camp David Proposal of 2000 for a
Palestinian State (accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs)? Is he
aware that even in the aftermath of its greatest victory in the Six Day War
of 1967, Israel immediately made peace overtures to the Arab States who
replied from Khartoum with their now infamous three noes (no negotiation, no
peace, no recognition)?

In the final analysis, intellectual like Prof. Wilkie are not anti-Semites.
They just don't know any better.

Often, those who harbor prejudices against others are told they need to be
reeducated, the hope being that the darkness of their acquired biases will
be purged through exposure to the light. But since you can't reeducate those
who have not been educated in the first place, this remedy is useless with
regards to Prof. Wilkie. Rather, I would simply counsel him that next time
around, before deciding to become a spokesman for any particular issue, it's
a good idea to know something about it first.


Finally, the Associated Press has picked up the Oxford story. See Newsday.

Write for your life

Dear Sir or Madame:

I write to you, motivated by grave concern about the incident involving Prof. Andrew Wilkie and his response to an Israeli applicant.

In his email, now “heard round the world,” Prof. Wilkie stated that he has a “huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they (the Palestinians) wish to live in their own country.”

Wilkie equates Israelis with Jews, for there were no Israelis in the Holocaust. He’s talking about Jews. He has a “huge problem” with Jews. This would mean that his act of blatant discrimination toward Amit Duvshani is not based solely on Duvshani’s nationality, but on the underlying ethnicity of the state of Israel. It seems indeed, antisemitic.

Prof. Wilkie is a highly educated man, upon whom you and your organization have bestowed influence, authority and responsibility. I must question the atmosphere in which this has occurred. Not only does the professor significantly understate the “appalling” treatment of Jews during the Holocaust, he is apparently oblivious to the current and historic appalling treatment of Jews/Israelis by Palestinian Arab terrorists. Furthermore, his description of that for which the Palestinian Arabs fight as simply wishing to live in their own country, is simplistic and misguided, unworthy of someone of such academic prominence.

I would bring to your attention that a recent Pew Global Attitudes opinion poll showed that 80% of Palestinians agreed with the statement "The rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the State of Israel exists." (90% of Moroccans, 85% of Jordanians and 72% of Kuwaitis also agreed with this statement, as did solid majorities in Lebanon, Pakistan and Indonesia.) The issue, then, is not so simple as wanting a country; it must be free of Jews as well.

I find it deeply disturbing that Prof. Wilkie sympathizes to such a great extent with this position. From my point of view, he is sympathetic with a position that calls for the ethnic cleansing of my people, and the eradication of our nation. He is "free" to be so.

However, I trust that he is NOT FREE to act as he has toward Amit Duvshani -- not as a representative of the University of Oxford, of Pembroke College, the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, the Wellcome Trust, the Nuffield Foundation and Council on Bioethics, the Medical Research Council and the Wolfson Foundation. Hopefully, he is not free to act as he has, as representative of these –your- institutions.

The confidence of Wilkie’s attitude must either stem from, or is legitimized through, your institution. It is important for you to realize that in this instance, the elite British scientific community appears what we in the States would call, smarmy, creepy-crawly, that is, to be an arrogant and fascistly bigoted and closed community that quietly, usually quietly, hates Jews.

Wilkie’s comfortably smug assertion that he is not “the only UK scientist with these views” has been affirmed by an email now being circulated which was written by Wilkie’s colleague, a Stephan Feller, who finds the hardship Wilkie inflicted upon Amit Duvshani to be “unpleasant but almost bearable” in comparison with the hardships suffered by his (Feller’s) “very energetic and charming young” Palestinian graduate student.

Further affirming this perception, I have not heard of any of Wilkie’s colleagues or superiors expressing outrage, or objecting to the fact that his action might be seen to represent the larger community. Your silence is very disheartening.

You who have placed and maintained Andrew Wilkie in the very position of influence which he now abuses, are also to be held responsible. Without some level of collusion on your part, Prof. Wilkie would not have had the confidence to think as he does, to have spoken as he did, and to have behaved in such a despicable manner.

So, nu?

Anne Lieberman
Boulder, Colorado

Oxford campus

Oxford Story picked up by the New York Times and International Herald Tribune

Hot Spit!
A piece by Diana Jean Schemo appears today in both the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. According to the article, Wilkie "declined to speak to a reporter and university officials said they would not comment until the investigation is concluded later this week."

In a telephone interview from his home in Tel Aviv, Duvshani said he responded to Wilkie that he was "no longer interested in working with him."

"I really don't know if someone with such racist views can change, but I do hope you will reconsider and not judge all 6 million of us Israelis the same way," Duvshani wrote to him.

Kudos to the Times and Tribune. Now where's AP and Reuters on this one?

Wilkie: He's really only anti-violence, not anti-Israel or anti-Jewish

I don't buy it
Imshin, at Not a Fish has posted this response from Prof. Wilkie, received by a reader.

"Can I please make it clear that Amit Duvshani was not an applicant for a funded post but contacted me as a preliminary enquiry. My stance was based on his service in the Israeli army and the violence that potentially entails. I would feel uncomfortable working closely with someone who had been through that, which you may not respect but I hope you can understand. The same would apply (to a greater extent, actually) for a palestinian terrorist (although I haven't heard of one applying for a PhD). But my email was hastily written (clearly entirely my fault), and has been widely misinterpreted as a lot of worse things. I am deeply sorry about this and retract what I said, which was caused by too personal and emotional a response to the terrible situation in Israel.

In addition to the official statement (above) issued by Oxford University, I understand that Amit's application will be taken forward if he so wishes. I have been in contact with him to apologise, not just for my original email but also for causing his name to become so publicly prominent.

I hope you can forgive me. My stance (which I do not retract) is anti-violence, whether by jewish, palestinian or any other people.

Please pass this message on if appropriate.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Wilkie"

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Oxford Bigot Big News in the Blogosphere

The American media hasn't been quick to pick up the story of Amit Duvshani, the Israeli rejected for a doctoral positon by Oxford bigot, Prof. Andrew Wilkie. It's shown up in the Drudge Report, the Chicago Sun Times, and on Brit Hume's FOX NEWS. A Google News search nets only 6-7 hits, and most of those are in the UK and Israel.

In the mind-boggling blogosphere, however, it's BIG NEWS. littlegreenfootballs is, of course, a major source, but here (in no particular order) are a few of the hundreds of other blogs which have covered the story. Kol hakavod!

Roger L. Simon
". . . we must be unrelenting in our opposition to this expanding anti-Semitism. Toward that end, I call on the readers here to continue to question the authorities at Oxford, as I imagine the far greater readership at Little Green Footballs will. I urge you all to do it with the utmost in tenacity, but (attractive as it is) without the use of invective, which is the province of the racists we despise."



The Blawgregator


Shark Blog


Turning Wheels


Secular Blasphemy
-->>A comment left at Secular Blasphemy, which I liked:
"In the 1980s, when Menachem Begin was in power and calling all critics of Israeli policy "anti-Semitic" and "Nazis," I rejected such name-calling as a transparent attempt to avoid responsibility for Israel's actions toward Palestinians under their occupation. Today, however, criticism of Israel from the Western left has become so shrill, so one-sided, and so blind toward the actions to which Israel is responding, that I have no choice but to conclude that there really is an element of anti-Israel or even anti-Jewish bigotry that the supposedly anti-racist left refuses to recognize or confront. This example - from the scientific community no less - of an individual being punished for his country's actions, only reinforces my conclusion. Oxford University should be ashamed of itself at all levels." Dave • 7/1/03; 6:10:32 AM

Croooow Blog

Amish Tech Support

Betsy's Page


an unsealed room

Kesher Talk

Con's web soapbox


As If Nothing Happened

Dust in the Light
under the heading, "Ethnic cleansing at Oxford"


Number 2 Pencil

Whew, it's amazing out there . . .

Monday, June 30, 2003

from the MEMRI News Ticker

The Making of a Terrorist State

"If the alternative to the cease-fire is dismantling Hamas, why is the cease-fire a good thing?"

Read today's editorial at JPost.

Checking for Incitement

According to IMRA, a check of the website of the Palestinian National Authority State Information Service - International Press Centre on 30 June 2003 after IDF forces withdrew from areas of the Gaza Strip as part of an arrangement under which the Palestinians were to end incitement finds that the Palestinian Authority has acted against incitement . . . anti-American incitement.

All the anti-Israel material remains on the website.

This is particularly significant since it indicates that the presence of the material on the website is not the result of neglect but rather a decision by the Palestinian Authority to keep the inciting anti-Israeli material on the website while dropping the anti-American material.

New Poll: Majority of Palestinians oppose ending the armed intifada

A public opinion poll carried out by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that more than 57% of the Palestinians are opposed to ending the armed intifada against Israel.

The poll, which covered 723 adults and has a margin of error of 3.6 %, also showed that 64% of the Palestinians support Arafat as opposed to 41.4% who support Abbas.


Myths & Facts:The [British] Mandatory Period

in honour of Amit Duvshani Day

MYTH: "The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine."
Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘ absorptive capacity’ of the country.” The influx of Jewish settlers was said to be forcing the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was at a time when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million.

The British actually limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine by partitioning the country.

In 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine — some 35,000 square miles — to create a brand new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein's son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan's emir.

The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.

Ultimately, the British admitted the argument about the absorptive capacity of the country was specious. The Peel Commission said: “The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”

MYTH: "The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled."
The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity.

During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000. Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.

In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.

The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6

The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.

Jewish Immigrants to Palestine
1919 --1,806
1920 --8,223
1921 --8,294
1922 --8,685
1923 --8,175
1924 -13,892
1925 -34,386
1926 -13,855
1927 --3,034
1928 --2,178
1929 --5,249
1930 --4,944
1931 --4,075
1932 -12,533
1933 -37,337
1934 -45,267
1935 -66,472
1936 -29,595
1937 -10,629
1938 -14,675
1939 -31,195
1940 -10,643
1941 -- 4,592

By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.

The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”

MYTH: "The British changed their policy after World War II to allow the survivors of the Holocaust to settle in Palestine."
The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s "Final Solution." After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”

Some Jews were able to reach Palestine, many by way of dilapidated ships that members of the Jewish resistance organizations used to smuggle them in. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, 65 “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps in Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, 28,000 of whom were still imprisoned when Israel declared independence.

-from Myths & Facts by Mitchell Bard at Jewish Virtual Library

Statement by the International Academic Friends of Israel

Condemning Oxford Professor Andrew Wilkie's denial of position to Israeli Scientist
June 27, 2003, New York, New York -- Dr. Andy Marks, the Founder and Director of The International Academic Friends of Israel, a group whose mission is to promote academic freedom, spoke out today against the actions of Oxford University Professor Andrew Wilkie:

“We are saddened and outraged that efforts to isolate Israeli academics continue to gain momentum. Professor Wilkie’s blatant discrimination against a scientist based on his nationality is a dangerous threat to academic and scientific freedom. We cannot use political litmus tests to decide who can and cannot conduct scientific research."

Like the man says, he's not the only UK scientist with these views

From: Stephan Feller stephan.feller@cancer.org.uk
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 4:37 PM
To: Shanghai Mike
Subject: Re: Wilkie

Dear All,

It¹s no fun to come into the lab at the beginning of a busy day where I am supposed to head a cancer research lab and to have to sift through a pile of unwanted spam.

To return the favor (i.e. nonrequested information), I will tell you the story of my Palestinian graduate student, a very energetic and charming young lady (she is Christian, not Moslem by the way, but that should not make a difference to you!?):

Here father, born and raised in Jerusalem (where his family has lived for many many generations), has been forced from what he considers his home country and has had to life since then in exile in Amman, Jordan. Although he is a distinguished and very successful businessman, to this day he is not allowed to return to Jerusalem after several decades. My graduate student has further lost two female cousins (7 and 11 years old) to stray rockets fired from an Israeli helicopter in whatever revenge mission they were on. I would guess it is likely those two girls were innocent bystanders.

Compared to this, the hardship faced by the applicant mentioned in your mails appears to be unpleasant but almost bearable. Would you agree with that?

Would you also be willing to spend some of your precious time to try and stop the killing of children in this idiotic fighting which has been going on for centuries now?


Feller's professional email address is included as it is a matter of public record. Besides, if you "Google" "Stephan Feller," there it is, third hit from the top.

Today is AMIT DUVSHANI DAY -- at least on this blog

What happened?
Israeli Amit Duvshani applied to Oxford for a doctoral position. This is the reply that he received:

Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Wilkie"
To: "Amit Duvshani"
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: PhD application

Dear Amit Duvshani,

Thank you for contacting me, but I don't think this
would work. I have a huge problem with the way that
the Israelis take the moral high ground from their
appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict
gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because
the (the Palestinians) wish to live in their own

I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal
level, but no way would I take on somebody who had
served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware,
I am not the only UK scientist with these views but
I'm sure you will find another suitable lab if you
look around.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Wilkie

Nuffield Professor of Pathology,
Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine,
The John Radcliffe,
Oxford OX3 9DS,

Tel (44)-1865-222619
Fax (44)-1865-222500

Who is this Wilkie fellow, anyway?
Prof. Andrew Wilkie is a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science and Professor of Genetics at Oxford University.

Here is a profile of Prof. Wilkie, published in The Oxford Blueprint, October 31, 2002:

New Professor of Pathology

Andrew Wilkie, currently a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science based at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, has been selected Nuffield Professor of Pathology with effect from May 2003 when he will become a Fellow of Pembroke College.
Professor Wilkie, who is also an Honorary Consultant in Clinical Genetics at the Department of Medical Genetics, Churchill Hospital, has been a Professor of Genetics at Oxford since 2000. Over the past nine years Professor Wilkie's research has focused on the developmental genetics of skull and limb malformations, caused by alterations (mutations) in genes involved in the normal processes of embryonic development. In 1995 Professor Wilkie's group discovered the cause of Apert Syndrome, which is characterised by both craniosynostosis (fusion of the skull bones) and syndactyly (fusion between the digits). Professor Wilkie works closely with the Department of Plastic Surgery at the Radcliffe Infirmary where many affected children are treated.

June 27 response (press release) from Oxford University:
A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said:

"Our staff may hold strongly-felt personal opinions. Freedom of expression is a fundamental tenet of University life, but under no circumstances are we prepared to accept or condone conduct that appears to, or does, discriminate against anyone on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, whether directly or indirectly. This candidate is entitled to submit an application and to have it dealt with fairly according to our normal criteria.
"Professor Wilkie has issued a personal apology regarding remarks he made by e mail to an applicant for a research degree at Oxford. An immediate and thorough investigation of this matter is now being carried out in accordance with the University's procedures and a report will be presented to the Vice-Chancellor next week."

Full, unabridged, text of Professor Wilkie's apology, included in the Oxford press release:
"I recognise and apologise for any distress caused by my e mail of 23 June and the wholly inappropriate expression of my personal opinions in that document. I was not speaking on behalf of Oxford University or any of its constituent parts. I entirely accept the University of Oxford's Equal Opportunities and Race Equality policies."

June 28 Statement from Pembroke College:
"Applications for the admission of graduates are a matter for the University and so the College was not involved in this process. Pembroke College fully endorses the statement issued by the University on this matter and the College will await the outcome of the University's investigation."

All Jews are Responsible for one Another
BlogNote: I feel very strongly that those who are responsible for placing and maintaining Prof. Wilkie in a position of influence should hear from those of us who are offended by Wilkie’s action and attitude. After all, it is they who accorded him the opportunity and authority he has abused. Prof. Wilkie's bigotry reflects poorly upon all those around him, because, like he said, "I am not the only UK scientist with these views."

For this reason, I have researched, and am posting, the following contact information. Yael

Wilkie works for the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine. WIMM is funded by the University of Oxford, the MRC, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust.

University of Oxford
Office of Public Relations public.relations@admin.ox.ac.uk

Office of Public Relations, Director, Helen Carasso helen.carasso@admin.ox.ac.uk

Office of Public Relations, Asst. Director, Christine Saward christine.saward@admin.ox.ac.uk

Oxford Information Office information.officer@admin.ox.ac.uk

The newsletter of the University of Oxford: “The Oxford Blueprint” (circulation: 15,000) press.office@admin.ox.ac.uk

The official journal of the University of Oxford: “The University Gazette” Editor: M. M. Harrington gazette@admin.ox.ac.uk

The alumni magazine of the University of Oxford: “Oxford Today” oxford.today@admin.ox.ac.uk

Results of investigation of this incident will ultimately go to Oxford's Vice Chancellor: Sir Colin Lucas colin.lucas@admin.ox.ac.uk

Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine is funded by the University of Oxford, the MRC, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust.

***Central to many of these organizations is Sir Prof. David J. Weatherall***

“Professor Weatherall has, in the last nine or ten years and with the MRC, ICRF, Wellcome Trust, the E.P. Abraham Research Fund, the Nuffield Medical Trustees of the University of Oxford and other charitable bodies, been responsible for the development of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford.”

“Professor David Weatherall is the outstanding British clinician scientist of his generation. He is an accomplished pioneering researcher in molecular genetics, haematology, pathology and clinical medicine.” His present posts include Emeritus Regius Professor of Medicine, and Hon. Director, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford. Honorary Consultant Physician, Oxfordshire District Health Authority. Emeritus Hon. Director, MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, University of Oxford

I would think that Sir Professor Weatherall would be an important and influential person to whom to direct your comments:


The director of WIMM is Andrew McMichael andrew.mcmichael@ndm.ox.ac.uk

Cancer Research UK
Your comments, directed to the Trustees, can be posted at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/contactus/contactusform/

Wilkie is a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science. The Wellcome Trust funds the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine.

Media Office at Wellcome Trust media.office@wellcome.ac.uk

Human Resources at Wellcome Trust hr@wellcome.ac.uk

Policy Unit at Wellcome Trust policy.unit@wellcome.ac.uk

Wilkie is a Nuffield Professor of Pathology, and serves on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Nuffield Foundation funds both the Wellcome Trust, above, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics bioethics@nuffieldfoundation.org

Public Liasion Officer, Nicola Perrin nperrin@nuffieldfoundation.org

Prof. Bob Hepple, QC, Master of Clare College and Emeritus Prof. of Law, Cambridge bgh1000@cam.ac.uk

The Medical Research Council (MRC) funds both the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine.

MRC Chief Press Officer, Carolan Davidge, press.office@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk

MRC Senior Press Officer, Dawn Duncan, same email as above

Imperial Cancer Research Fund – see Cancer Research UK above (same)

Finally, I read in a comment at LittleGreenFootballs that the Wolfson Foundation which funds WIMM, can be reached through the office of their solicitors, Berwin Leighton Paisner. I have not personally confirmed this. The email given was charities@blplaw.com

This reply is addressed to anyone e-mailing me on the mistaken
assumption that I have any managerial or other responsibility for
Professor Andrew Wilkie at the University of Oxford.

I have no such responsibility.

The confusion seems to have arisen because, like Professor Wilkie, I
recently advertised a position in my laboratory. This is quite
separate from - and unconnected with - Professor Wilkie's recent

Thank you,
Lars Fugger

Sunday, June 29, 2003

"Hamas issue confounds Mideast Peace Planners"

Subtitle on this one is "One wing of the militant group attacks Israelis, but others provide tens of thousands of Palestinians with health care and other social services"

Choice bits:

"The Palestinian Authority and some European governments contend that, given the right incentives, Hamas can be transformed from a guerrilla organization to a political one in the same way the Palestine Liberation Organization was when it renounced terrorism and recognized the state of Israel more than a decade ago. [excuse me? the PLO never renounced terrorism nor recognized Israel. these are Big Lies.]

'The Europeans have traditionally distinguished between the terrorist wing of Hamas and the political and social wings. We don´t lump them into one group like the Americans,' said a senior European diplomat.

Hamas differs from other militant groups, such as Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which also have tentatively agreed to suspend attacks on Israel. All have carried out suicide bombings and other attacks against Israel that have killed almost 800 Israelis during the 33-month uprising. But Hamas also puts heavy emphasis on its social welfare and educational programs.

In a controversial form of aid, Hamas provides funds to the families of so-called martyrs who have carried out suicide bombings. But with help from funds raised abroad, its welfare branches also dole out vast sums for the unemployed — in a society with about 70% unemployment.

'Cutting off Hamas social services and charitable donations would almost immediately lead to a major breakdown in basic services and welfare in the Palestinian Authority. The impact would be devastating,' said the European diplomat. "


from DEBKA, and please G-d, let them be wrong this time:

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report: Rice Plays Musical Chairs with Sharon Government

Security fence obscures real mission

What did the US President’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice really come to the Middle East for? To get the Abu Mazen-Dahlan team started on the war against Palestinian terror? Not a chance. They presented her with a list of demands a mile long when she met the duo in Jericho on Saturday, June 28. They also informed her that a partial, temporary, conditional truce was their limit. If that would not do, the Palestinians would turn to the international community for guarantees and a large buffer force to take over Washington’s role as go-between. What about the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and Bethlehem? That package was neatly tied up well in advance of the presidential adviser’s visit - as DEBKAfile reported on June 16.

DEBKAfile’s political sources have discovered that Rice had quite different fish to fry during her day in Israel - Sunday, June 29, namely the remaking of Ariel Sharon’s government.

Foreign minister Silvan Shalom was handed the first pink slip.

In a private conversation at the Aqaba summit on June 4, we are told of a remark Bush made to Sharon suggesting that, in keeping with Israel’s new relationship with the Palestinians and the onset of a new Middle East, it might be a good idea to rid his government of its right wing coalition partners and replace them with the more amenable opposition Labor party. The ministers he was referring to come from the pro-settlement National Religious Party and National Union: Effie Eytam, Yitzhak Levy, Zvi Handel, Benny Eylon and Avigdor Lieberman.

This sensitive chat had its corollary in Washington, taken forward a step at a time during subsequent trips the Israeli prime minister’s chef de bureau Dov Weisglass paid to the White House for settling the details of Israel’s troop pullback.

Weisglass was given to understand that the Bush administration while not necessarily a fan of Israel’s Labor party was keen to have Shimon Peres, Labor’s interim chairman and popular figure with the Palestinians as a peace negotiator, back at the helm of the foreign ministry. The reckoning in Washington is that a Sharon government made up of biddable Likud ministers, Labor and Change would quickly freeze the right-wingers out, including the few Lkud ministers who would be uncomfortable with the new setup and its policies.

Without them, the Israeli government would be more amenable to the next stage of the Bush blueprint for an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will come up some time during the presidential election year of 2004. Then, an Israeli government will be needed in Jerusalem with a guaranteed ability to execute evacuations - not only of fringe outposts, but of thriving Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip and West Bank to make way for a Palestinian state. The White House does not want to risk this plan going awry.

Before leaving Jerusalem therefore, Rice met Shalom privately to broach a delicate request: Would he mind vacating his ministerial seat in favor of Peres? (Only a few months ago Shalom was moved sideways out of the finance ministry to make room for Binyamin Netanyahu). If he acceded, she said, he would be deemed in Washington to have made an invaluable contribution to a historic process and the future would hold rewards.

For obvious reasons, no hint of this maneuver was published. The only content officially leaked from the Rice luncheon meeting with Israel’s inner cabinet was the ministers’ solid resistance to her criticism of the security fence under construction along the Israel-West Bank border. She repeated the Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas’s complaint that the fence provided a pretext for grabbing West Bank land. Sharon rose to declare it was an essential device for protecting Israeli locations against terrorist incursions and there would be no compromise on the safety of Israeli citizens.

Change minister Avraham Poraz added: “If the Palestinians fail to prevent terrorist attacks, the fence will be there to hold them back.”

For the first time in military history, a defense line was thus called up to serve both as a red herring and a substitute for military action to eliminate terrorists. The Sharon government has clearly bowed to the Bush government’s demand to give up fighting terror. Under assault now is a poor substitute, the partially built static defense line that is no proof against continuing terrorist incursions.

I just found "Not a Fish"

"The meaningless chatter of your regular split personality Israeli mother trying to make sense of current insanity"
". . . in his already infamous rejection letter, which arrived in my e-mail box via Naomi Ragen’s mailing list (and that has already been discussed 5widely on the Blogosphere here, here, here, here, and here, and probably on many other blogs), Professor Wilkie of Oxford makes the equation between Israelis and Jews himself. Says Prof Wilkie "I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust".

But the thing is no Israelis were in the Holocaust. Not even one.
Because there were no Israelis and no Israel when it took place. Many survivors became Israelis afterwards, but they weren't Israelis when it happened to them. In Professor Wilkie's pathological mind (I'm not being rude, he's a professor of Pathology), it seems, Israelis=Jews=Holocaust survivors.

Am I latching on to a detail here? Am I missing the point? Somehow I find myself terribly offended by the Holocaust sentence, rolled off so glibly and thoughtlessly. You get the feeling the good professor and his friends use this line freely in their stuffy cocktail party chitchat, without really thinking about it's meaning. (I am especially struck by the words "appalling treatment". Appalling Treatment?! What a wonderfully British understatement). "

Highly Recommended: Not a Fish blog.


One soldier slightly hurt.


FATAH joins "truce" after all, and Israel withdraws from Gaza

ABC: "The truce was put together by West Bank Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, who is in an Israeli prison during a trial on murder charges stemming from Palestinian attacks that killed 26 Israelis."

"As part of the 'road map' plan, the Palestinians are to dismantle the militant groups, but Abbas has said he will not confront them militarily."

MSNBC: "Witnesses said Israeli armour rumbled out of the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun towards the Israeli border as part of a withdrawal from areas reoccupied in the Gaza Strip during a 33-month Palestinian uprising for statehood."

From the Islamic Republic News Agency

"Zionist regime waging war with the BBC"
London, June 28, IRNA -- The Zionist regime was reported Saturday to be waging its own war with the BBC for publicizing an insight into the extent of Israel's undeclared nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in violation of international conventions.

According to the Times newspaper, Israel has broken all contact with Britain's public service in protest at its repeated "demonization" of the country and the planned showing of a critical documentary on BBC World on Saturday. The sanctions imposed on the BBC were said to include refusing to put up official Israeli spokesmen for interviews and visa restrictions on the corporation's journalists . . .

. . . The Zionist lobby in Britain has a ruthless reputation of intimidating the media, and the final element in Israel's complaints against the BBC was reportedly when it originally screened the documentary of "Israel's Secret Weapons" in the UK back in March . . .

Heil Brittania!

Charlotte West opinion on the case of pathologist Andrew Wilkie --

"Letters poured in to Oxford, not just by members of the general public, but by Wilkie’s own international colleagues, such as Morris Givner, Ph.D., FCACB, FCIC, Professor of Pathology (Ret.) and Associate Professor of Medicine (Ret.), Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and Bernard Loev PhD of Medford New Jersey, author of 100 scientific publications and book chapters in the field of medicinal chemistry, holder of 198 patents and discoverer of anti-hypertensive drug Nifedipine (Procardia). Prof. Loev has been Vice President of Medicinal Chemistry and Chemical R&D for several of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, done research with several Nobel prize winners, and lectured in universities all over the world."

-- with lots about British legislator Oona King, who proclaimed that conditions in Gaza were "the same in nature but not extent" as Poland's Warsaw Ghetto.

The Original Hudna

Aaron at Internet Haganah wrote about a certain "as-sabeel website," but before doing so, archived that site, gaining access to a history of the original hudna, known as the Al-Hudaibiyah Treaty. The website is not currently online, so this "save" is a fortunate one. The entire story is posted, but this will give you some of the flavor:

Terms of the hudna treaty entered into by Mohammed with his enemies, the Quraishites:

1. The Muslims shall return this time and come back next year, but they shall not stay in Makkah for more than three days.

2. They shall not come back armed but can bring with them swords only sheathed in scabbards and these shall be kept in bags.

3. War activities shall be suspended for ten years, during which both parties will live in full security and neither will raise sword against the other.

4. If anyone from Quraish goes over to Muhammad without his guardian’s permission, he should be sent back to Quraish, but should any of Muhammad’s followers return to Quraish, he shall not be sent back.

5. Whosoever wishes to join Muhammad , or enter into treaty with him, should have the liberty to do so; and likewise whosoever wishes to join Quraish, or enter into treaty with them, should be allowed to do so.

"When there was armistice, war was abolished, and men met and consulted together, none talked about Islam intelligently without entering it; within the two years following the conclusion of the treaty, double as many entered Islam as ever before. This is supported by the fact that the Prophet went out to Al-Hudaibiyah with only 1,400 men, but when he set out to liberate Makkah [Mecca] two years later, he had 10,000 men with him."


" . . . the Talmud quotes a very instructive legal action – which has a direct bearing on this matter. Two people walking along the road find a piece of cloth. One of them says: "I found it. It is mine." But the other says: " No, that is not true. I found the cloth, and it is mine." The judge to whom they appeal cuts the cloth in two, and each of these obstinate folk gets half.

But there is another version of this action. It is only one of the two claimants who is obstinate; the other, on the contrary, has determined to make the world wonder at this magnanimity. So he says: " We both found the cloth, and therefore I ask only a half of it, because the second belongs to B. But B. insists that he found it, and that he alone is entitled to it. In this case, the Talmud recommends a wise Judgment, that is, how very disappointing to our magnanimous gentleman.

The judge says: "There is agreement about one half of the cloth. A. admits that it belongs to B., so it is only the second half that is in dispute. We shall, therefore divide this into two halves. And the obstinate claimant gets three-quarters of the cloth, while the ”gentleman" has only one quarter, and serve him right.

It is a very fine thing to be a gentleman, but it is no reason for being an idiot. Our ancestors knew that. But we have forgotten it."

from "The Ethics of the Iron Wall" --1923

Condoleezza Rice:
Give Peace (limited, conditional, partial Hudna) a Chance

Arutz Sheva: U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice will end her visit to Israel this evening. She met with Israeli Cabinet ministers today, telling them that even though the hudna is not the ideal solution, it must be given a chance.

She also said that the U.S. does not view favorably Israel's construction of the partition fence between Arab-populated areas in Yesha and the rest of Israel.

Rice and Abu Mazen hold talks in Jericho, not Ramallah


IMRA has obtained a translation of the complete official Arabic text:

Out of our desire for the unity of the Palestinian ranks at this dangerous phase which our people and our cause are going through, and in order to protect our national unity achieved through the intifada and the resistance and documented by the blood of the martyrs, and as our contribution to consolidating Palestinian national dialogue on the basis of adherence to the rights of our people, and in order to protect our internal front from the danger of schism and confrontation, and in order to prevent the enemy from having any excuse to wreck it, and in an assertion of the legitimate right to resist the occupation as a strategic option until the end of the Zionist occupation of our homeland and until we achieve all our national rights, and in response to efforts by many in the Palestinian and Arab arena who care about the unity of the Palestinian national ranks, we declare the following initiative:

A Suspension of the military operations against the Zionist enemy for three months, effective today, in return for the following conditions:

1. An immediate cessation of all forms of Zionist aggression against our Palestinian people including incursions, demolitions, closures and sieges on cities, villages and refugee camps. This includes the siege imposed on President Yasser Arafat, house demolitions, levelling of agricultural land and assaults against land, property and Christian and Islamic holy sites, especially the holy Al-Aqsa Mosque. In addition, the immediate cessation of all individual asassination operations, massacres, all arrests and deportations against our people, leaders, cadres and fighters.

2. The release of all prisoners and detainees, Palestinian and Arab, from occupation prisons without condition or restriction and the return to their homes first and foremost of those who have spent long periods and those with lengthy sentences, women, children, the sick and elderly.

In the event that the enemy does not heed these conditions and commitments, or breaches any of them, we see ourselves unencumbered by this initiative and we hold the enemy responsible for the consequences.

Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Islamic Jihad


Yeah, right.


Good, solid rant by Arlene Peck: "Ashamed to be the Press"
A long, long time ago, when I began writing for the newspapers, I felt I was a little "special" identifying myself as a member of the "Press." It granted me entry into some great parties and I was able to meet some very influential people.

Since then I'm afraid that I've become jaded and more than a little disappointed with the outright lies that come across the pages of my morning paper: The Los Angeles Times has been this particular source of my disgust. However, I suppose the same can also be said about the New York Times and a hundred more papers across the country. It just amazes me how, in this day and time, there are still reporters who strive to glorify the"life" of a terrorist. And, to minimize the suffering of its victims.

A New York Times journalist/reporter casually and without any feeling described the recent murder of grocery owner Avner Mordechai, and the vicious killing of seven-year-old Noam Liebowitz, as "low level violence."

If that weren't deplorable enough, shortly thereafter the LA Times featured a story with a heading about the "fatherless" daughter of the terrorist Abdullah Kawasme. However, instead of speaking about the scores of Jewish children who are now fatherless because of his being the mastermind in many homicide bombings, the article focused away from the real victims of this terrorist. This was accomplished by having a photo of Kawasme's little daughter holding a photo of her dead father. Below was the caption explaining how she is now fatherless because of an Israeli "targeted assassination."

How disgusting that the American press, or any branch of the media for that matter, portrays bloodthirsty Palestinian "homicide" bombers as ordinary family men who sadly leave behind loving families. Where are pictures of fatherless Israeli children? These terrorists, who are prepared to take their own lives in order to kill as many in their wake as possible, are animals! There is no "cycle of violence." Yet, the Los Angeles Times manage to use that phrase on a regular basis. Hell, they don't even name the victims. The Times just reports them as "low level violence." Hey, instead of the fatherless children, I have an idea. Why not show a few dozen pages filled with the pictures of the Jewish children who have been crippled, maimed and disfigured for life following vicious Arab terrorism?

I am not very good at being politically correct. I tend to tell it like I see it. When I comment that the Arabs in general, and the Arab "Palestinians" in particular, are a violent, unrelenting people, I'm called racist. Yet, out of the billion or so Muslims around the world, where are the words of self- condemnation? I'm not reading that in my NY Times or LA Times.

What I found ironic about the one-sided coverage regarding Israel and their alleged mistreatment of "poor downtrodden Arabs," was how on the same front
page there was a story about eight British soldiers who were ambushed and slain by the Iraqis. I wonder, will the LA Times, NY Times and the rest of the biased press refer to those who are in our hair trigger sites as "activists," "militants," or "organizational leaders"?

In fact, someone ought to tell the NY and LA Times that Hamas is actually listed as a real honest-to-G-d terror organization by our very own government. And while they're at it, they should inform the Bush administration of this fact! When Israel targeted Hamas co-founder Abdul Azazs Rantisi for his part in planning and ordering hundreds of murderous attacks upon Israeli citizens, George Bush "the son" called the action "troubling."

Oh, really? Would he answer in the same way if we were able to do the same o Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? Actually, we've bombed the hell out of many civilian areas for such purposes but always had the excuse that "civilian deaths are unavoidable because the Iraqi military was breaking the rules of the Geneva Convention by deploying in civilian areas." Unless, of course, it is Jews that are being killed in which case a different standard applies. The same goes for his philosophy of, "There is no negotiating with terrorists."

Frankly, I've never understood how the "Palestinians" and their fellow-Arabs, who want nothing less than to wipe Israel off the map, get a free pass from the world and, indeed, the press. When the Los Angeles Times writes about the fate of a Hamas leader, they make him sound like it was a corporate killing. He is usually referred to as a "senior Hamas militant leader," "official," or "spokesman." PU-lease. Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration National Security Advisor, has said that Hamas should be outlawed.

No darling, it is jaywalking that should be outlawed. As should bias in the media. And Hamas needs to be destroyed.

Oxford story getting picked up by the media

Today's Telegraph (UK) and Chicago Sun Times have coverage of Oxford Professor Andrew Wilkie rejecting the application of Israeli Amit Duvshani for a doctoral position, because Duvshani served in the IDF.

Who Is Coming To Israel This Week?

(IsraelNN.com) During the coming week 376 new immigrants are expected to arrive in Israel. Among them: 81 from Ukraine, 81 from Ethiopia, 71 from France, 48 from the USA, 47 from Russia, 18 from the Asian republics of the Former Soviet Union and the southern Caucasus, and the remainder from Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere.

102 new immigrants are expected to arrive today.

What's the world coming to?

I never in a million years would have ever thought that I would be quoting Ronald Reagan. But, hey, stuff happens . . .

"Peace isn't simply an absence of war -- it's the presence of justice."

Edward Said refers to Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes as "Neanderthal"

Edward Said, University Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, is known as a "leading Palestinian intellectual." Said has claimed that the Jews are not a people at all, because Moses was an Egyptian. In his latest musings under the title, "The Meaning of Rachel Corrie," he says:

"It is no wonder, then, with the extraordinary fear of seeming anti-Semitic by criticizing Israel for its daily crimes of war against innocent unarmed Palestinian civilians or criticizing the US government and being called "anti-American" for its illegal war and its dreadfully run military occupation, that the vicious media and government campaign against Arab society, culture, history and mentality that has been led by Neanderthal publicists and Orientalists like Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes, has cowed far too many of us into believing that Arabs really are an underdeveloped, incompetent and doomed people, and that with all the failures in democracy and development, Arabs are alone in this world for being retarded, behind the times, unmodernized, and deeply reactionary."

It's a very long sentence, isn't it?

He goes on to assert that Palestinian Arabs are fighting for a just and noble cause, have nothing to apologize for, or anything to be embarrassed about. "On the contrary, they should be proud of what their people have done . . . "

Shavua Tov? Arafat Plans grand Victory March

DEBKAfile asserts that plans are underway for an Arafatian Victory March, to take place after the onset of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Bethleham, reaching its climax in the Gaza Strip. The slogan? Our Intifada Has Won. This will demonstrate "that Arafat was clever enough to extort American and Israeli recognition for a Palestinian state by a sustained campaign of terror, that he is not done yet," and that Abu Mazen is a nobody.

The DEBKA report points up that, for the last six months, Arafat has been free to travel where he pleases in Palestinian areas or overseas. He has, however, kept himself confined to his quarters in Ramallah. According to DEBKA, this has been to shelter two hundred or so master terrorists from his own Fatah, Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Brigades, as well as some Popular Fronts, Hamas and a few Hezbollah agents. Since Sharon promised Pres. Bush that he would not harm Arafat in person, these terrorists, wanted by Israel, are perfectly protected by his presence.

"Yasser Arafat will enjoy a revival of prestige in the eyes of the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs having demonstrated by the Israeli withdrawal under pressure from Washington that the Americans, the Israelis, Abu Mazen. Dahlan are still dancing to his tune and that terrorism pays:

If 33 months of violence brings such rich dividends, then why not go on until Israel is brought to total collapse?"

G-d forbid.