Monday, March 30

Majority of USAC candidates sign joint ethics statement

The original version of this article contained information that was unclear and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.

The majority of candidates running for undergraduate student government officer positions this week have promised to not go on free or sponsored trips with certain pro-Israel lobbying organizations and non-student centered external groups if they are elected.

All candidates running with the FIRED UP! and LET’S ACT! slates and none running with Bruins United have signed the Joint Statement on Undergraduate Students Association Council Ethics, which asks for councilmembers to refrain from taking free or sponsored trips with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League or Hasbara Fellowships.

The statement permits councilmembers to collaborate with certain student-run organizations, namely the University of California Students Association and U.S. Students Association.

Members of Jewish Voice for Peace, the Armenian Students’ Association and Students for Justice in Palestine drafted the statement last week, said Gabriel Levine, a fifth-year math and economics student and a board member for Jewish Voice for Peace.

Members of the Muslim Students Association, the Afrikan Student Union and Samahang Pilipino also expressed support for the statement, Levine said.

Multiple Bruins United councilmembers have gone on trips with the Anti-Defamation League or attended AIPAC conferences this year, sparking concern from some student group leaders who viewed councilmembers’ affiliations as conflicts of interest.

Councilmembers’ involvement with pro-Israel Jewish groups were largely brought to the spotlight and questioned because USAC voted on a controversial resolution in February that called for UCLA and the University of California to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli military’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

Members of the Armenian Students’ Association and Students for Justice in Palestine were strong supporters of the resolution, which failed to pass after an almost 12-hour-long meeting.

Jewish Voice for Peace formed after the divestment resolution meeting and also supports divestment.

Four Bruins United councilmembers who were vocally against the resolution had gone on free or sponsored trips to Israel or attended AIPAC conferences.

The USAC bylaws say that a conflict of interest occurs when a USAC member receives “improper benefits because of their elected position. These benefits could include money or other gifts and advantages, according to USAC administrative representatives.

Elected members of USAC are prohibited from having an “unauthorized financial interest or obligation which might cause divided loyalty,” and the bylaws advise that USAC members avoid the perception of conflicts of interest.

Some councilmembers and USAC candidates said they do not think the USAC bylaws prohibit affiliations with outside groups.

Avinoam Baral, the Bruins United candidate for internal vice president and the current chief of staff for the Internal Vice President’s office, said he did not sign on to the statement because he thinks that councilmembers should have the freedom to associate with different organizations and to educate themselves about different topics through trips as long as they are not violating the USAC bylaws or constitution.

Baral said he went on a trip to Israel covered by Hasbara Fellowships during winter quarter as an educational experience.

Sunny Singh, the Bruins United candidate for president and a current general representative, said he did not sign the statement because he thinks that councilmembers should be held to the USAC bylaws and the USAC constitution and allowed to take advantage of educational resources.

Singh, who went on a free trip to Israel with the Anti-Defamation League over the summer, and current Financial Supports Commissioner Lauren Rogers are currently part of a Judicial Board case meant to review their votes on the divestment resolution. Members of Students for Justice in Palestine filed the Judicial Board complaint against Singh and Rogers, who went on a free trip to Israel during winter break with Project Interchange, which is part of the American Jewish Committee.

Singh and Rogers have said their actions did not constitute a conflict of interest because they did not receive financial benefits for their votes on the divestment resolution and are not obligated to act in any way because of the trips.

Still, Singh said he would not go on another trip with a pro-Israel organization if elected because he does not want to alienate any students. He added that he did not know that his trip with the Anti-Defamation League would spark backlash and concern from students this year.

“I want to make sure that I can be accessible and approachable to all students,” Singh said.

In addition to Bruins United members, independent candidates did not sign onto the statement.

Greg Kalfayan, the independent candidate for Campus Events commissioner, said he does not anticipate going on a trip with any organization mentioned in the statement, but he did not want to sign onto a blanket statement that would stop him from affiliating with external groups.

Other independent candidates could not be reached for comment.

Terrell Morris, a first-year English student, said he thinks councilmembers have a right to go on trips with external organizations to learn about different issues they want to pursue.

Julie Escobar, a fourth-year human biology and society student, said she thinks an all-expense-paid trip only presents one side of the issue.

“Unless they devote the same time and energy looking at the other side, then it’s not the same,” she added.

The deadline to sign the statement was 5 p.m. Monday, Levine said.

Contributing reports by Kendal Mitchell, Bruin contributor.

Clarification: The previous version of the article included unclear information on the groups included under the Joint Statement on USAC Ethics as well as an unclear description of what USAC administrative representatives said constituted a conflict of interest.

Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.

  • Mifty Popularis

    So in Schallert’s own words (not even a quote), the Anti-Defamation League and Pro-Israel “marginalize campus communities if they are elected.” Is this reporting or an editorial for Anti-Semitic venom by the Daily Bruin’s reporters?

    • ThisIsPalestine

      It’s also pretty ironic considering SJP’s long, LONG history of marginalizing certain minority groups on campus (i.e. Jews). It’s amazing that SJP thinks taking students to Israel is “marginalizing,” but a howling mob of Arabs chanting “death to the Jews” outside of a Hillel house is legitimate social discourse.

      • Mifty Popularis

        The Daily Bruin has been ignoring blatant examples of Antisemitism and harassment by the Muslim Student Association and SJP. The only way that will change is if people document what’s happening and speak up. The Daily Bruin is funded by ASUCLA to serve all students, not the radical and hateful views of a small portion of campus resigned to play the victim while actually creating a hostile environment for others

        • Mifty Popularis

          Not to mention that the Muslim Student Association has ties to several groups whose leaders have been convicted for directly funding terrorism and connections to the Muslim Brotherhood

      • a thought

        did this happen at ucla??

        • Whatever


    • Mifty Popularis


      • Jonathan Keyes

        It doesn’t look very photoshopped. It looks too in line with the conversation text. Lowkey looks like it was a low quality screen shot.

        • real talk

          They probably made up the whole conversation, or he could have said anything in reply to “i hate powell” and they just changed it to “i hate muslims.”

    • Kathryn Kate

      I dont know why you’re posting this all over the place. but did he really say that? are the rumors true?

      • Benjamin Gelbart

        Unless the person who decided to share this can come up with an original Facebook conversation that shares their name, the lack credibility entirely. This is a classic example of dirty politics, hatefulness, and resentment against a candidate just because of his Jewish background. Not only is it dirty politics, but it is libel! They have a strong future working for TMZ photoshopping tabloid photos for them to put on their site.

    • Marcus

      Does that say Tammy’s? like Tammy Rubin? the really super pro-israel girl who said she had “so called white privilege?” omg, this is scandalous. i knew they hung out a lot but this is a whole other level

    • Beau Grace

      Ugh. He’s running against a muslim girl too. This is so low, even for him.

    • Jack Slater

      Why isn’t this on facebook instead?? I’d rather see this than those faces.

  • Learn how the real world works

    Would these elected officials choose to take money to go to conferences like Leg Con, UCSA and USSA that are run by one sided individuals that perverse the way they vote as well? Yea I think so. You can argue that even taking religion m50 can affect the way one votes. So it seems affiliation with Israel is the key component that the candidates running with Fired Up and Lets Act are against. So in turn, this article again gives credibility to one side in a multi faceted argument that has spanned thousands of years. Good job to those individuals running w/ Lets Act and Fired up. Real “global” of you. Did you mention World Peace in your miss universe speech as well?

    • Whatever

      Armenians are at again with their rabid Anti-Semitism. Instead of
      trying to lash out on Israel all the time, why don’t Armenians do
      something to help their own poor impoverished homeland. They should be
      protesting Armenia’s prosecution of Jehova’s Witnesses and Seventh Day
      Adventists. A Holocaust statue was also vandalized in Armenia.

      By the way, the world does not revolve around Glendale, CA.

      • John Barker

        Don’t point your fingers the wrong way out of frustration. Both Israel and the Anti-Defamation League continue to deny the Armenian genocide, and quite actively in the case of the ADL. I find this DISGUSTING since Jews have seen genocide themselves.
        Prosecution? If you are talking about persecution, yes there are issues in Armenia relating to Jehova’s Witnesses because people convert to avoid their compulsory military duties. However I’m glad to say there have been large improvements in the past few years in this. Anyway this few cases don’t compare to the apartheid that exists in Israel.

  • Mifty Popularis

    Whoever this was supposed to be sent to hasn’t revealed their identity. Most likely this was photoshopped. The anti-Israel folks will stop at nothing, so wouldn’t be surprised.

  • Wow!
  • Jack Meoff

    Did you know that the Secret Service has “code names” for me and my wife (“Michelle”)? It’s true! My wife’s Secret Service “code name” is “Lard-Butt”. My Secret Service “code name” is “Mocha Latte”!

  • Isaac Rubinson

    These are all Jewish organizations that are being
    blacklisted. If candidates are going to make a pledge not to take
    partisan trips to the Middle East, then they need to add to the list
    pro-Palestinian groups, too. There are numerous such trips sponsored by Palestinian NGOs, and other NGOs too. Otherwise, this is a fundamentally racist
    statement singling out Jewish organizations for isolation.

    • Jodutt

      Do people go on trips with both israel-biased organizations and palestine-biased organizations? From the numbers you see on the news, powerful people only end up going to pro-israel trips due to power dynamics. Not to mention the more powerful Israel lobby in the united states.

      • Isaac Rubinson

        There are numerous groups (Arab, Muslim, Christian) bringing students and young people to view only the Palestinian side. The fact that only Jewish groups are singled out as being somehow an “ethics violation” is racist. But, unfortunately, racism against Jews is somehow politically acceptably in some circles.

        • Jodutt

          Then whoever goes on a pro-Israel trip is obligated to go on one of the numerous pro-Palestinian one. We should all be global citizens.

          • Isaac Rubinson

            And vice versa. Yes?

          • Jodutt

            Keep the power dynamics in mind.

          • Jon Carry

            “We should all be global citizens.”
            You don’t believe that at all.

          • Jodutt

            I don’t know you, and you don’t know me.

          • Jon Carry

            I know exactly who you are. You are a Progressive. You passionately believe in things that are not true. Your entire view of the world is balanced between the equal forces of ignorance and arrogance. “Global citizen” and “power dynamic” are the key phrases of a person who, like Present Øbama, repeat Liberal talking points like a parrot.

          • Jodutt

            Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive. Ever heard of the progressive age in US History? It is the age that prevented monopolies, unclean meat, and environmental catastrophes from reaching American lives. There is more to the list than the 3 elements aforementioned.

          • Jake and Elmo

            You are doing a wonderful job helping promote the pro-Israel position with your posts. Thank you, and please continue.

          • Jodutt

            I’m not promoting occupation.

          • Elon

            It should be that and vice versa, but you conspicuously left out that if someone goes on a pro-Palestinian trip, they should be forced to also go on a Pro-Israel one. And then, because you are restricting rights by mandating extra trips, you’d have to do the same thing with every conflict zone. With Turkey and Armenia, with Russia and Ukraine, with…

            But even if you were to create an equitable rule, you should ask WHY make the rule in the first place. Is it really a conflict of interest for a representative of UCLA to see propaganda about a country thousands of miles away? What bearing does it have on the campus environment.

          • garybkatz

            Jodutt, that’s dumb. Whoever wants to go on a trip should go on a trip. They don’t need thought police dictating what’s acceptable! Isaac correctly pointed out that the disproportionate focus on trips to Israel is racist. I don’t see any campus organizations trying to bully pro-Palestinian students into traveling to Judea and Samaria.

          • John Smith

            If you go on a trip sponsored by an outside group, you are already being thought policed by them.

  • Roger
  • JS4136

    UCLA students — you have embarrassed yourselves and your globally recognized university.

  • oldschooltwentysix

    A wonderful example of the illiberalism in the name of liberalism that has overtaken the campus.

    If only it was not bigotry, too.

  • michelelabella

    I went on a sponsored trip to Israel and I’m not “powerful!” Israel is half way around he world, as a college student, how could I afford to go there? Without visiting Israel, Gaza, etc… how do you really know what’s going on there? This statement is ONLY out go bash Israel… as you can see, no other country is earmarked for the same regulations.

  • michelelabella

    These are smart kids. they will stop at nothing to ensure that Israel does not exist.

  • UCLAtruth

    UCLA magazine Al-Talib’s praise of Osama bin Laden marginalizes EVERY student on this campus

  • Jon Carry

    Looks like the Progressive kids are all in favor of censorship, exclusion and hostility.

  • grich11

    This is our best idea of a free-thinking campus? Accountability is reflected in votes ultimately. Raise the issues, dialogue, and let the vote take care of any possible conflicts of interest. But determining who should associate is walking a fine line of propaganda and prejudice.

  • A-Train

    nothing says ‘free thinking individuals’ and ‘there’s no radical influence on campuses’ like this proposal! … end sarcasm.

  • garybkatz

    Let me see if I can get this straight. Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East/North Africa listed by Freedom House (an independent watchdog organization) as “free.” Polls consistently show that Palestinian Muslims support suicide bombings more than any other Muslim population in the world (62% “often” or “sometimes;” closest runner up are Lebanese Shias, at 39%). Yet your “ethics council” singles out Israel? What happened here? Did each member of the “ethics council” get a free kaffiyeh from Mahmoud Abbas? If this keeps up, we may have to start calling this group the “ethics cancel.” Time to reset you moral compass and realize you should be supporting Israel, as the human rights beacon of the Middle East!

  • garybkatz

    Let me see if I can get this straight. Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East/North Africa listed by Freedom House (an independent watchdog organization) as “free.” Polls consistently show that Palestinian Muslims support suicide bombings more than any other Muslim population in the world (62% “often” or “sometimes;” closest runner up are Lebanese Shias, at 39%). Yet your “ethics council” singles out Israel? What happened here? Did each member of the “ethics council” get a free kaffiyeh from Mahmoud Abbas? If this keeps up, we may have to start calling this group the “ethics cancel.” Time to reset you moral compass and realize you should be supporting Israel, as the human rights beacon of the Middle East!

  • Asher B. Garber

    So when the SJP decide to attack the ADL, they are doing so as a criticism of Israel and I’m just batshit crazy (crazy, I tell ya) to suggest that, really, their true intentions are rather anti-Semitic. Is this seriously what they are teaching at Westwood?

    Students for Justice in Palestine has made waves around the country for their tactic of leaving Expelled notices on Jewish students dorm rooms. Of course, that’s merely criticism, and me calling these hate mongers anti-Semites is really just jumping the gun. Got it!

  • Shimona from the Palace

    How delightful to see that the student body saw through the anti-semitic sub-text and voted in Avinoam Baral.

  • simantob

    is no corresponding demand that Muslim students forgo the Haj, not join
    CAIR, listen in or participate in any bullshit BDS organization. They
    just don’t want people to have heard the Israeli side of things.

  • Liz

    This is a “marginalizing” and bigoted “ethics” action masquerading as a political ploy by a group that is itself marginalizing and intimidating around campus. Prohibiting individuals from going to a foreign county should not play any sort of role in on-campus activities. Did USAC become the UN? Why should their opinions on a divisive, misunderstood, and complex political issue impact their student governance? I hope that the proper steps will be made to educate all involved about the overreaching inappropriateness of these actions. This is embarrassing, demeaning, and reflects awfully on the university. I am appalled to be a member of this campus community.

  • Jake and Elmo

    This is the beginning. We are seeing antisemitism rearing its ugly head again throughout the Western World. Why not ask these young candidates to boycott all things made and developed in Israel – but I doubt they’d get too far without their computers, cell phones and software. I hope the students at UCLA stand up and fight this discrimination.

  • DocReality

    Antisemitism is ALIVE and WELL at UCLA in the form of anti-Zionism.
    And just for the record, so the young student population understands completely: anti-Zionism IS antisemitism.
    Islam: It Gets Worse.

  • OhSoRight

    Rest assure that any time I can vote on money for public schools, I will be not be voting in favor of wasting taxpayer funds on this sort of nonsense.

  • Golum

    …It all gets down to being anti-Israel/anti-Jewish….because you can’t really separate the two! These “Jewish Student FOOLS” think they are on a peace hunt for the poor put upon araabs…when in fact they have fallen for the “Arafat Line”…the poor, poor, murderous palestinian araab anti-Semitic line.
    ANYONE that doubts that just look at the newly released poll on the most “RACIST/ Anti-Jewish Countries in the world….. the PLO and Friends are the most virulent Anti-Semites (Note that I don’t say anti-Israeli) in the entire world….they would like to EXTERMINATE all the Jews…including these poor Jewish UCLA fellow travelers!!!!!!!…if they belonged to me I would disown them…

  • Misterioso

    For the record:
    (A) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

    “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other
    Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

    (B) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

    (C) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statue of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a War Crime, indictable by the International
    Criminal Court.

    (D) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.”

    (E) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary
    rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

    Times of Israel, February 21, 2013:
    “Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. ‘Joint Israel-West Bank’ reality is an apartheid state”
    EXCERPT: “Similarities between the ‘original apartheid’ as it was practiced in South Africa and the situation in Israel and the West Bank today ‘scream to the heavens,’ added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted.”

    The U.S. State Department’s report on International Religious Freedom: “Arabs in Israel…are subject to various forms of discrimination [and the government] does not provide Israeli Arabs…with the same quality of education, housing, employment opportunities as Jews.”

    The Independent, Dec. 27/2011:
    “…EU broadside over plight of Israel’s Arabs”
    EXCERPT: “The confidential 27-page draft prepared by European diplomats… [shows] that Israeli Arabs suffer ‘economic disparities… unequal access to land and housing… discriminatory draft legislation and a political climate in which discriminatory rhetoric and practice go unsanctioned.'”

    Times of Israel, October 4, 2013:
    “Supreme Court rejects ‘Israeli’ nationality status'”
    EXCERPT: “Allowing citizens to relinquish ethnic or religious identity in the population registry would undermine Israel’s Jewishness, ruling says.

    “Israel’s population registry lists a slew of ‘nationalities’ and ethnicities, among them Jew, Arab, Druse and more. But one word is conspicuously absent from the list: Israeli.

    “Residents cannot identify themselves as Israelis in the national registry because the move could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s Jewish character, the Israeli Supreme Court wrote in documents obtained Thursday”

    To study the more than 50 restrictions applicable to Israel’s Arab citizens, go to:'s

    Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem is aptly described by esteemed Jewish Israeli journalist, Bradley Burston:

    “Occupation is Slavery”

    “In the name of occupation, generation after generation of Palestinians have been treated as property. They can be moved at will, shackled at will, tortured at will, have their families separated at will. They can be
    denied the right to vote, to own property, to meet or speak to family and friends. They can be hounded or even shot dead by their masters, who claim their position by biblical right, and also use them to build and work on the plantations the toilers cannot themselves ever hope to own. The masters dehumanize them, call them by the names of beasts.” (Ha’aretz, 26 February 2013)

    • Everett Benson

      Mysterioso (or may I call you Norman?) this is a highly selective and context-ignoring series of quotes and therefore as is usual with such things a misleading and unscholarly approach to Israel questions.

      There are so many falsely presented issues that it is not possible to deal with each properly here. But readers might start with Mitchell Bard, Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict (2002, available on-line or it can be purchased as an inexpensive paperback), which takes up and rebuts one after another of the false allegations on which Palestinians build their case, or Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel (2003), which refutes just about all your claims above and shows their legal omissions, and, for an excellent heavily documented and thorough historical background to all this, Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial (1984). People like yourself hate these books, of course, since they so completely expose the falsehoods on which the Palestinian propaganda rests. (E.g., the official PA government position is that there are no Jewish holy sites in the whole of the Holy Land, including that there was never a Temple on the Temple Mount itself. Any group that makes such a grossly lying claim shows what sort of reliance we can place on any of their statements.)

      As is well-known, and as is explicitly stated in them, the Geneva Conventions only apply between states. Only states, for example, can be “occupied.” But what state is Israel “occupying” in the West Bank? There is none. There never has been an Arab state of “Palestine” at any time in history. If there is to be such a state, it must arise out of peace negotiations with Israel which currently holds that land, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (which does not state that all the territories held must be relinquished by Israel) — so that final peace treaty alone can determine the actual borders and circumstances of that state. To assert that the whole territory is “occupied” therefore predetermines the borders of a non-yet-existing state and spurns the necessity for Palestinians to enter serious peace negotiations — something they still have not actually done. They are good at saying only one word: “No.”

      Furthermore, Israel holds that land presently entirely legally, since it was won in the course of a war of existential self-defense by Israel in response to aggressive war actions by its neighbours, and Israel is obliged by Resolution 242 to hold that territory in a custodial fashion until final peace settles which parts of it belong to Israel and which parts to the other contesting parties; furthermore, the only international covenants granting ownership rights (San Remo Conference of 1920, the League of Nations Mandate provisions of 1922, the UN partition resolution of 1947, etc.), all establish Israel’s title and no other state has title.

      Finally, if the situation of Israeli Arabs is so terrible, how is it that they refuse to agree with proposals to redraw the boundary of Israel to include their villages in the proposed “State of Palestine”? They prefer to be in Israel. As Khaled Abu Toameh pointed out in an article on January 14th of this year, “A public opinion poll conducted by the Arab Center for Applied Social Research in November 2007 found that more than 70% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to any proposal to annex towns and villages in the triangle area to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for the annexation of the settlements to Israel” (Abu Toameh, “Israeli Arabs: We Do Not Want to Live in Palestinian State,” Gatestone Institute: In fact, an Israel Democracy Index (Google it) poll in 2013 found that about 52% of Israeli Arabs considered Israel properly democratic or even too democratic, and overwhelming majorities had trust in Israeli institutions: 57% trusted political parties, 77% trusted the media/press, 88% trusted the Israeli Supreme Court (on which an Arab sits), 78% trusted the police, 72.2% trusted the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, 61.8% the Army/IDF, and 64% the government itself.

      Even more remarkably, a Pechter Poll of 2011 found that nearly half of the Palestinians in east Jerusalem and in the smaller villages adjacent to it frankly state that they would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than of a new “State of Palestine,” and only one-quarter (23%) of the city’s nearly 300,000 Palestinians would “definitely” prefer Palestinian citizenship. In fact, 42% said that they would move to a Israeli section of Jerusalem if the city was divided, in order to remain under Israeli authority. A large percentage of east Jerusalem Palestinians refused to state their views on this contentious issue, in light of possible reprisals from militants, but this too indicates that the actual views favoring remaining inside Israel would be much higher if a divided Jerusalem became a reality.

      This just by itself refutes all your claims that Israel is anything like an apartheid state or cruel to its Israeli Arab citizens. The opposite is the case: they have equal rights, and in fact have better lives and opportunities in Israel than in any of the surrounding states. For real apartheid, for example, just consider the situation of “Palestinian refugees” refused freedom of residency outside refugee camps, rights of employment, etc., even in the Palestinian Authority itself.

      • Misterioso

        Everett Benson (or may I call you Allan?)

        To answer your “arguments” in full would require a very lengthy essay. Hence, I will be as brief as possible.

        Sigh, classic hasbara, attack the messenger. To state the obvious, your argument is not
        with me. It is with the various sources and individuals I have quoted. I suggest you contact and initiate a debate with the UN Security Council regarding its several resolutions (cited and quoted in my previous posting) declaring Israel’s occupation of all Palestinian and other Arab lands it seized in June 1967 to be illegal, as well as the International Court of
        Justice, which ruled Israel’s occupations to be in violation of the UN Charter.

        While you’re at it, you should also correspond and raise your objections with Alon
        Liel, Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994, as well as the European Union, the US State Department, Israel’s Supreme Court, and Israeli journalist, Bradley Burston. Some advice, however: Contrary to what you believe, there is no special provision in
        hard won international law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

        You state “As is well-known, and as is explicitly stated in them, the Geneva Conventions only apply between states…” Utter nonsense, as the UNSC makes abundantly clear in its resolutions I have quoted in my previous posting, Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (And as the IJC ruled in 2004, Israel’s occupation is in violation of the UN Charter.) . If Israel actually believes it is not in violation of international law, it should take the issue to the International Court of Justice. Israel has not and will not do so because it knows it would be laughed out of court.

        BTW, as a firm indication as to how Israel would fare if it took the matter to the IJC, in an opinion presented to the U.S. Congress on 21 April 1978, regarding the legal status of Israeli settlements, the Legal Adviser of the State Department declared that “the
        civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with limits on Israel’s authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide orderly government of the territories and, though some may serve incidental security purposes, they do not appear to be required to meet military needs during the occupation.”

        The contention by Israel and its supporters that “the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories” is without foundation.

        As the Legal Adviser of the Department of State advised the Congress, in its opinion
        “…those principles [of belligerent occupation] appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting
        the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if any, until settlement of the conflict.”

        In conclusion, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State declared: “While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the
        establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law [i.e., the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.]”

        Further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statue of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into
        the territory it occupies” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

        For your further edification, in the summer of 1967, “[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked ‘Top Secret,’ Meron wrote unequivocally: ‘My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.’” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

        BTW, I forgot to note in my previous posting that Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UNSC in Resolutions 476 and 478 and its 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights was unanimously declared “null and void” by the UNSC in Resolution 497.

        I can’t believe you are actually using the “Myths & Facts” as a source.

        To wit:

        Washington Jewish Week, Dec. 6/07:
        “Myths & Facts originated as an American Israel Public Affairs Committee publication decades ago and was updated by Mitchell Bard, executive director of the Chevy Chase-based American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, in recent years.

        “M.J. Rosenberg, who edited Myths & Facts when he worked at AIPAC in the 1980s, was surprised to hear it was being used in a college class.

        ” ‘It’s not a textbook,’ said Rosenberg, now the policy director at the Israel Policy Forum. ‘It’s counter-propaganda’ that is ‘not designed to show both sides…’

        “Rosenberg said it was ‘hard to believe’ the book would be used in any college class other than one studying propaganda.’”

        Regarding your shocking reference to Joan Peters’ long since utterly debunked “From Time Immemorial…,” I quote the following experts:

        Dr. Yehoshua Porath, one of Israel’s leading demographic historians, called Peters’ book a “forgery… [that] was almost universally dismissed [in Israel] as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon.”(New York Times, Nov.28, 1985)

        Rabbi Arthur Herzberg, vice-president of the WJC, agreed: “I think that she’s cooked the statistics…. The scholarship is phony and tendentious. I do not believe that she has read the Arabic sources that she quotes.”(ibid)

        To again quote Professor Porath: “The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Ms. Peters gives…. [S]he has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase.” (“Mrs. Peters’ Palestine” New York Review of Books, 16 January 1986.)

        As for Alan Dershowitz, spare me. He’s become a laughing stock.

        Re your absurd and utterly meaningless assertion that “[t}here never has been an Arab state of ‘Palestine’ at any time in history.”

        When the Muslim Arabs arrived in Palestine (and liberated its Jewish population from Byzantine Christian oppression) they retained the administrative organization of the
        territory of Palestine as it had been under the Romans and the Byzantines and
        referred to it as Filastin (no p’s in Arabic.)

        By 1850, only 4% of Palestine’s population was Jewish and In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte found only 3,000 Jews. Indeed, prior to the 20th century and due primarily to their conversion to Christianity and Islam, there had been hardly any Jews in Palestine since about 1100 AD.

        “Palestine” has been used for several centuries to refer to the geographical area south of Sidon and north of the Sinai. There are medieval Muslim coins from a mint in that area with “Filastin” (Palestine) written on them.

        European tourist books of the nineteenth century refer to “Palestine,” as did Theodor Herzl in his correspondence, the Balfour Declaration and the British League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Needless to say, the vast majorty of Palestine’s inhabitants were Arabs.
        BTW, Palestine’s native Arab Jews who comprised 10% of the total Jewish population in 1948, were vehemently opposed to Zionism.

        For the record, there were no nation-states until the 19th century. There was no “Italy” before 1860. Venice was Austrian, Genoa French. There was no “Germany” before 1870.

        Of course, regardless of what the region between the River and Sea was referred to as throughout history, the most important fact is that its native Arab inhabitants and their
        ancestors have lived there for millennia.

        To quote the renowned historian/anthropologist and “Holy Land” specialist, Professor Ilene
        Beatty: “When we speak of ‘Palestinians’ or of the ‘Arab population [of Palestine]’, we must bear in mind their Canaanite origin. This is important because their legal right to the country stems…from the fact that the Canaanites were first, which gives them priority; their descendants have continued to live there, which gives them continuity; and (except for the
        800,000 dispossessed refugees [of 1948 along with the additional hundreds of thousands expelled afterwards before and after 1967] they are still living there, which gives them present possession. Thus we see that on purely statistical grounds they have a proven legal right to their own land.” (“Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan,” 1957)

        Conspicuous by its absence in your reference to UNSC Resolution 242, is any mention of its Preamble, which in accordance with the UN Charter (binding on all UN members) and governing all that follows in the resolution, “[emphasizes”] the inadmissibility of the acquistion of territory by war….” (BTW, for what it’s worth, Israel’s Declaration of Independence states that Israel will be “faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”)

        As to your assertion that Israel is not bound to withdraw from the lands it seized during the 1967 war, apart from noting the obvious fact that the UNSC cannot pass a resolution that violates the UN Charter, both the late Abba Eban and Moishe Dayan disagree with you.

        As then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban revealed at the time, he understood full well that Resolution 242 calls for Israel’s complete withdrawal: “The words ‘in the recent conflict’ convert the principle of eliminating occupation into a mathematically precise formula for restoring the June 4 Map.” During negotiations to determine Resolution 242’s wording, Abba Eban failed in an attempt to delete the phrase “in the recent conflict.” (Comment by Foreign Minister of Israel and Telegram 3164, UK Mission in New York to Foreign Office, 12 Nov 1967. FO961/24 )

        Moshe Dayan also realized that Resolution 242 calls for full withdrawal: “it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries….” (Daniel Dishon (ed.), Middle East Record, v. 4, 1968 , Jerusalem: 1973)

        Your assertion that the 1967 war was won by Israel “in the course of a war of existential self-defense by Israel in response to aggressive war actions by its neighbours” is also without foundation.

        To wit:
        Prime Minister Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel.”

        Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Minister without portfolio in Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, 21 August 1982)

        Meir Amit, chief of Israel’s Mossad: “Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war.”

        Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

        General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin`s predecessor as chief of staff: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

        General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel`s General Staff: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel`s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

        Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister at the time: “All this story about the danger of extermination [of Israel in June 1967] has been a complete invention and has
        been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of Arab territory.”

        Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence: “Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter [and] it was our best judgment that a UAR [Egyptian] attack was not imminent.”

        On May 26, while in Washington, Abba Eban was informed by President Johnson that “…even after instructing his ‘experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true’, it was still ‘their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack.”

        Regarding your senseless reference to the San Remo Conference, I remind you that the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, i.e., Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule.

        By incorporating the 1917 Balfour Declaration (illegal in 1917 as Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire) the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to “secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home” (i.e., the Balfour Declaration does not refer to a “homeland”), but it did not call for the creation of a sovereign Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition.

        This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

        Furthermore – as it would repeatedly reaffirm (as approved by the Council of the League of Nations) during its mandatory administration of Palestine – the British government declared: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922) (You now know why Britain abstained on the Nov. 29/47 UNGA vote regarding Res. 181, the Partition Plan.)

        For what should be obvious reasons, The 1947 Partition Plan (recommendatory only, in violation of the British Mandate, never adopted by the UNSC, grossly unfair to the native Palestinians) certainly DID NOT grant the proposed state for Jews title over those lands Israel invaded and occuped in June 1967.

        I am familiar with The 2011 poll conducted by Pechter Middle East Polls regarding Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem. However, a much more informative survey of what East Jerusalem Palestinians want in the event of a permanent settlement of the conflict was also conducted. It can be found at

        Some of its findings: 75% of the Arab residents of East Jerusalem want it to be an open city with equal access for Muslims, Christians and Jews.

        An overwhelmi­ng majority (79%) prefers Palestinia­n or internatio­nal sovereignt­y over East Jerusalem; 7% prefer it to be Islamic or Arab, and a small minority not exceeding 6% prefers Israeli sovereignt­y. A little less than two thirds prefer to have Palestinia­n citizenshi­p and a quarter prefers to have Israeli citizenshi­p. However, most importantly, the determinin­g factor regarding preferred citizenship is an overwhelmi­ng desire on the part of Palestinia­ns to live in their current East Jerusalem neighbourho­ods regardless of which country (Israel or Palestine) has sovereignt­y.

        In short, whether living east or west of the “green line” Palestinians prefer to live on their ancestral lands alongside their relatives. This should hardly be surprising.

        Re: “A public opinion poll conducted by the Arab Center for Applied Social Research in November 2007 found that more than 70% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to any proposal to annex towns and villages in the triangle area to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for the annexation of the settlements to Israel.” What this finding really states is that in accordance and in brother/sisterhood with their fellow Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem (including its illegally extended boundaries), Palestinians living east of the “green line” unsurprisingly do not want Israel to annex illegal settlements
        in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

        BTW, describing Israel as an “apartheid” state by those who truly know apartheid is hardly new.

        To wit:

        Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies, 1961: “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” (Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961)

        Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. (Gideon Shimoni (1980). Jews and Z!onism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.)

        Enough said. You’ve had your say and I’ve had mine.

        I consider this exchange finished. and will govern myself accordingly.
        Bye bye.

        • Everett Benson

          Norman, my name is not Allan in any life, even a virtual one. As to your specific assertions, they all fit your own quoted definition of propaganda, in that there is no attention to nor interest in any information that qualifies your claims, and indeed there is much reliance on sheer mythology, such as the supposed illegality of Israel’s self-defense in the 6-Day War, contrary to all authoritative accounts of that war as shown in Ency. Brit. articles, etc. So Myths and Facts exactly refutes your whole presentation, and it will be sufficient to quote from it to show how misleading and even false, and how indifferent to actual context, your claims are.

          By the way, and before getting to that, quoting critics of the books I cited above, Bard’s, Dershowitz’s, and Peters’, fails to impress since any and all books could be dealt with in the same way, but leading experts on the topics each deals with have praised their books as solid contributions, and only very partisan ideologues or those without knowledge in the subject (such as Rabbi Hertzberg), have repudiated them. One of the chief confirmations of the strong and valid case these books make however can be found in the attacks of their critics, ironically enough. For, unable to deal with the solid scholarship and truths in them, the critics are forced to invent falsehoods they claim are there, even making up quotes or citing material on pages that do not exist, and then they proceed to mock those invented assertions and to discredit the works on that basis. This resort to studied misrepresentations, distorted contexts, and intentional falsifications in itself proves that they themselves know that their claims are mendacious. They amount to self-refutations. To take one notable and much-discussed instance, Finkelstein’s published attacks on Peters are rife with such scholarly howlers, surgically taken apart in an article by Erich Isaac and Rael Jean Isaac, “Whose Palestine?” Commentary Magazine, July 1986. Porath, whom you mention, actually wrote a letter to the editor supporting Finkelstein, and it was published in the October 1986 issue with very trenchant rebuttals by the Isaacs and another scholar, Lawrence Eno. Finkelstein, no demographer himself, had managed to avoid mentioning, for example, that the population statistics he criticises in her book as ludricrously amateurish were produced not by her but by the leading American demographer of that time, who had been the Acting Director of the U.S. Census and the President of the American Statistical Association, Philip M. Hauser. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, of course, is not an internationally recognized legal scholar for nothing, and is still consulted by governments and international bodies, so your attack on him also falls flat.

          In political matters, as well, views are stated by government figures on all sides of every issue, but that does not per se make them correct nor even representative, or if representative at the time still accepted in later administrations. This certainly applies for example to your reference to former Ambassador Liel, whose views are not at all representative of the Israel government on these matters. Numerous Israeli government authorities can be quoted that differ from him emphatically and explicitly, and similar comments apply to your cited American sources. The American assertions you quote have been very significantly modified by later administrations and by other legal authorities that you strangely enough studiously ignore and do not cite. E.g., in George W. Bush’s Roadmap of April 2003, and in supporting letters of confirmation sent by Bush to Ariel Sharon at the time, the U.S. explicitly affirmed that some settlements, e.g., around Jerusalem, would be part of Israel in any peace agreement, the U.S. would support that position in international forums, and so the Americans have refused to term them “illegally occupied.” Obama, in turn, has backed away from the Roadmap commitments as if they had not been made, but even his administration avoids the terminology of “illegality.” That would predetermine the results of not yet completed peace treaty negotiations, as Susan Rice and other administration spokespeople have consistently said, and of course she is right.

          I am right about the Geneva Conventions, Norman, read them and you will see that for yourself. If the U.N. wishes to apply them to the Israel-Palestine case, it is only for political reasons and reflects the fact that there is only one small Jewish state in the world that has been the consistent focus of attack by authoritarian nations and above all by the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation block. Probably you were not aware of that.

          However, let me turn to your assertions concerning the Six-Day War. Here I will let Mitchell Bard explain the truth and reveal your anti-Israel myths. This comes from pp. 45-46 of the 2012 edition of Myths and Facts : A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, available as a PDF download from

          The specific casus belli was the interdiction on Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran, including military boarding and confiscation of Israeli ships, an internationally acknowledged justification for self-defense response according to international law itself.

          But there were many other belligerent actions by Egypt, Syria and Jordan before the Israeli response, which also legitimated it. For three weeks before the war broke out the whole world knew of this, and that Israel would have to respond. The only thing that was surprising was how thorough and quick their victory was. Here is how Bard describes the situation:

          On May 15, Israel’s Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

          Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

          As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. 6

          An enthusiastic echo was heard on May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

          Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. . . . I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation. 7

          On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson declared the blockade illegal and tried, unsuccessfully, to organize an international flotilla to test it.

          Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: “The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.”8

          Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: “We will not accept any . . .  coexistence with Israel . . .  Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel. . . . The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” 10

          King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

          The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . .  to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations. 11

          President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”12 On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

          The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel. 13

          By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel’s best option was to strike first. On June 5, 1967, the order was given to attack Egypt.

          • Everett Benson

            By the way, I have checked the quotes given by Norman of statements by various Israeli leaders asserting that Israel was not threatened by genocide, that it invented the claims that its enemies were bent on annihilation, and that it went to war without real cause, so the war was illegal in international law — and, surprise surprise, it turns out that either the quotes are false per se, or they are taken out of context and do not say in the fuller context what Norman pretends they say. They are doctored quotes found in many Palestinian and antisemitic websites, and Norman has uncritically cut-and-pasted them here.

            For example, as regards the Arab threats of annihilation in the lead-up to the war, these quotes are offered as evidence that they were pure inventions and false claims just made up by Israel to justify its war (allegedly said by Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov — the cited source for this statement does not seem to exist, and in any case a Minister of Housing is not in a position to know the inside story about such things); they were said to be of no importance to the former Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev (who was retired by 1967 and not involved with this war); and were “never … considered” real by General Ezer Weizman. But we have already seen, in the factual material cited by Mitchell Bard, from his book Myths and Facts, that precisely such explicitly genocidal threats were indeed made as publicly as possible by the leaders of the Arab states surrounding Israel, many times in fact, and we know that those leaders had actually drawn up elaborate plans for a total annihilation, as they frankly termed it, so none of this was idle propaganda, and certainly it was not made up by Israel. See, on this, the very detailed and explicit documentation of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian plans for genocide, given by Michael Oren, author of a book on the Six-Day War, and former Ambassador to the United States, at “Q&A with Michael Oren,” Jerusalem Post, 06/05/2007 (

            As for the evidence of doctored quotes from Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and others cited by Norman in support of his thesis, these are taken out of their actual contexts in which the very opposite meaning was actually intended, from that claimed by Norman. This can be checked out at The full statements of the cited Israeli leaders is given there, and they really show up how untrustworthy Norman’s scholarship is. He has accepted antisemitic website allegations without investigating them any further. The entire Soapbox blog discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in 10 parts, refuting a particular antisemitic/pro-Palestinian propaganda website’s allegations, is worth reading as a very informative and more detailed supplement to Bard’s overview in his Myths and Facts, already cited.

  • Roger Cotton

    UCLA is tarnished by the Progressive fascists who allow and enable this nonsense.

    When I attended in the late 80s, MeCHa was the reigning tyranny. Now, it’s the Islamofascists.

    Start behaving like an institution of higher learning and get rid of the radicals.

  • zachary esterson

    I’m no great fan of AIPAC (especially their counter-productive tactics on Iran), more in the J Street league. But this is McCarthyism. Are members forbidden to go on tours funded by pro-Palestinian organizations, for instance?