"NAZIS NEEDED" - ANTI-SEMITISM UNDER AUTHORITIES INDIFFERENCE

The Age‘s elevated shot doesn’t reveal such fascinating detail. AAP merely describes people “carrying placards calling for an end to what was described as a ‘massacre’”. Meanwhile, in Paris:

Vandals hurled Molotov cocktails at a synagogue in a Paris suburb yesterday in the latest outbreak of anti-Semitic violence in France since the start of Israel’s Gaza offensive ...

Home to Europe’s biggest Muslim and Jewish populations, France has recorded more than 55 anti-Semitic incidents since Israel launched its Gaza offensive last month, drawing appeals for calm from politicians and religious leaders. Three other synagogues have been firebombed in the past two weeks and vandals have sprayed anti-Israeli graffiti on at least two other Jewish places of worship.

Jews haven’t been so vilified since Islamists attacked the US on 9/11.

UNIVERSAL TORAH: YISRO

UNIVERSAL TORAH: YISRO

By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum


Torah Reading: YISRO Exodus 18:1-20:23Isaiah 6:1-7:6, 9:5-6 (Sephardi ritual: 6:1-13).


WE ARE ALL CONVERTS

It is fitting that the parshah which tells of the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai is named after Yisro (Jethro), Moses' father-in-law -- a convert. Indeed, all those who witnessed the Giving of the Torah were "converts". Thus (as noted in the commentary on Parshas SHEMOS) the Covenant at Sinai was accompanied by the three components of conversion: circumcision (Rashi on Ex.12:6), ritual immersion in the waters of the Mikveh (Ex. 19:10) and burned offerings (Ex. 24:5). For before G-d, we are all converts -- GERIM, "dwellers" in a land and on an earth that is not ours but G-d's. We are all here only by the grace of G-d, utterly dependent upon His kindness and compassion.

Thus no one can claim that the Torah belongs to him by right through ancestral or other merit. There is no room for pride, arrogance or the exploitation of the Torah for worldly advantage. The Torah is not the property of an exclusive caste. It "belongs" only to one who keeps it. The Torah was given in the Wilderness, no man's land, on the lowest of all mountains -- Sinai, the eternal symbol of humility. For only through humility can we "receive" and accept the Torah, which belongs to G-d alone. Receiving the Torah means having the humility to accept it as it is, the way it has come down to us, without trying to "modify" it according to our own ideas and wishes.

And when we are willing to accept and follow the Torah as it actually is -- fulfilling NA'ASEH VE-NISHMAH, "we will (first) DO it and (then) HEAR (and understand) it" (Ex. 24:7) -- then we can come to understand how the Torah lifts us out of our slavery to this-worldliness, with its many false gods. Then we can hear the voice of redemption that calls to us every day: "I am HASHEM your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves" (Ex. 20:2).

Slavery to the idols of the mundane world is ignominious. Yet the Torah accords the greatest honor to those who have the courage to leave this servitude behind and "go out into the wilderness" in search of G-d -- like Jethro. According to tradition, Jethro had investigated every conceivable way of interpreting and living in this world, every world-view and "lifestyle". Only when Jethro came to HaShem and His Torah did he know he had found the truth. "Now I KNOW that HaShem is great above all the gods" (Ex. 18:11). The Zohar comments: "When Jethro came and said, 'Now I know that HaShem is great.' then the Supreme Name was glorified and exalted" (Zohar, Yisro 69). In other words, the revelation of G-d's light and power is greatest precisely when it comes out of darkness and concealment. Only when we have seen evil and know its power can we understand the greatness of G-d's saving hand. Only one who was a slave truly understands what it means to have been freed. This is "the superiority of the light that comes out of darkness" (Ecclesiastes 2:13).

Thus Jethro the Convert was accorded the honor of having the parshah narrating the Giving of the Torah named after him, and of contributing the hierarchical system of "captains of thousands, captains of hundreds, captains of fifties and captains of tens" through which the Children of Israel are governed. Jethro's name also contains and alludes to the name of another humble convert who was accorded the greatest honor: Ruth the Moabitess, who was the great grandmother of King David, MELECH HAMASHIACH.

* * *


TWO MILLION PROPHETS

Rambam (Maimonides) in "Foundations of the Torah", the opening section of his comprehensive Code of Law, explains the significance of the revelation at Sinai, which was witnessed by at least two million people:

"The people of Israel did not believe in Moses our Teacher because of the signs he wrought. For one who believes on account of signs always has some residual doubt in his heart that maybe the sign was brought about through magic and witchcraft. All the signs that Moses performed in the wilderness were performed to meet specific needs, not to bring proof of his prophecy.

"Then how did they come to believe in him? The answer is: At Mount Sinai, where we ourselves (not a stranger) saw with our own eyes and where we ourselves (not someone else) heard with our own ears the thunderous sounds and flashing lights and how Moses approached and entered the thick cloud. We heard The Voice speak with him as we listened: 'Moses, Moses, go and say to them.' From where do we learn that the Assembly at Mount Sinai and that alone is the final proof of the truth of Moses' prophecy -- proof that leaves no room for further doubt? As it says, 'Behold I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and also they will believe in you forever' (Ex. 19:9).

"It follows that the very ones to whom he was sent were the witnesses to the truth of his prophecy, and he had no need to perform any further sign, since he and they were both witnesses to the matter. It is like two witnesses who both saw the same thing. Each one is witness that his friend is telling the truth. Neither witness needs further proof of what his friend is saying. Similarly, all Israel were witnesses to the truth of Moses' prophecy and he had no need to perform any sign. For one who believes on account of signs still entertains doubts in his heart.
"Accordingly if a prophet arises and works great miracles and wonders and seeks to deny the prophecy of Moses our Teacher, we do not listen to him and we know clearly that those signs were brought about through magic and witchcraft. For the prophecy of Moses does not depend upon signs, such that we should compare the signs of one prophet to the signs of another. We ourselves saw it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears. The prophets who deny the truth of Moses' prophesy are like witnesses who tell a person who saw something with his own eyes that it was not as he saw it. The person simply does not listen to them, for he knows for certain that they are false witnesses." (Rambam, Yesodey HaTorah 8:1-3).

* * *

"AND ISRAEL ENCAMPED"

"And Israel encamped there, facing the mount" (Ex. 19:2) -- the Hebrew verb VAYICHAN ("encamped") is in the singular. They encamped "as one man with one heart" (Rashi ad loc.) -- united. Observing today's rainbow variety of jostling Israelites -- ever-critical, argumentative, obstinate and apparently incapable of agreeing about anything -- it is hard to imagine how all the Children of Israel actually did unite at Sinai to receive the Torah.

This is particularly difficult to imagine for those who have delved into the intricacies of Talmudic law and reasoning, and who know how the Torah repeatedly seems to fly completely in the face of reason and good common sense. How could those two million Israelites collectively agree to accept this elaborate, complex, reason-defying code in all its minute details? What brought them to do so? And the fact is that today's observant descendents of those Israelites, despite the fact of having come from communities spread out all over the world, still all fundamentally agree to accept this code without changing a letter!

The very faith of Jews in the Torah for thousands of years in the face of almost constant adversity and persecution is itself proof of the uniqueness of the Assembly at Sinai, when we all collectively witnessed the same one truth of G-d and agreed to accept the Torah. Only a completely unique divine revelation could have been powerful enough to instill in two million people a faith that has lasted for thousands of years, a faith for which, over the generations, many millions laid down their very lives.

It is ironic that many people today question the historicity of the revelation at Sinai. We live in an age that prides itself on instantly recording its own daily history in the form of incessant news in the press, on TV, radio and Internet. And we are witnesses to the way in which the media have become manufacturers of endless streams of idolatrous images that totally distort the meaning of the world they supposedly reflect.

If we are to begin to internalize the magnitude of the Giving of the Torah, which took place without media coverage, we must try to think ourselves out of our own noisy, sophisticated world. We must try to project ourselves back into the stark, awesome, silent grandeur of the "wilderness", the MIDBAR, where man's existential reality as a GER, a wanderer and a stranger in this world, is writ large. Out of the silence of the MIDBAR spoke a voice: MEDABER. And the voice was forever inscribed in the hearts of those who heard it and taught it to their children from generation to generation.

* * *


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND A STATUE

In the above-quoted passage from Rambam about the uniqueness of Moses' prophecy, he states that "the prophets who deny the truth of Moses' prophecy are like witnesses who tell a person who saw something with his own eyes that it was not as he saw it."

The prophets to whom he is referring include those who founded the two major world religions which are rooted in and yet deviate from the Torah: Christianity and Islam. Both drew the bulk of their teachings from the Torah. Yet both implicitly and explicitly deny the finality of Moses' prophecy, seeking to "undo" the laws of the Torah (such as circumcision, the dietary laws, complete Sabbath observance and many others).

The relaxation of the stringencies of Torah law by these man-made religions made them more acceptable to the non-Israelite nations. As Rambam states at the very end of his Code of Law (Hilchos Melachim 11:4 uncensored version): "Man does not have the power to grasp the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe. For our ways are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His. All that happened in the wake of Yeshu of Nazereth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him came only to straighten the way for Melech HaMashiach and to rectify the entire world to serve HaShem together. Thus it is written: 'And then I will turn to all the nations a pure language so that all of them will call upon the name of HaShem and serve Him with one accord' (Zephaniah 3:9). The whole world has thus become filled with the knowledge of the Torah and the commandments. This knowledge has spread to the farthest islands. And when the true MELECH HAMASHIACH arises and succeeds, they will all immediately know that 'their fathers inherited falsehood' and that their prophets and their fathers deceived them."

Despite the attraction of the two new religions for non-Israelites, neither one of them ever made serious inroads among the Jews. Indeed it was precisely because the founders could not attract the Jews that they turned to the non-Jews for recruits.

In Rambam's IGERET TEIMAN (letter to the Jews of Yemen written in 1172 C.E. encouraging them to reject the forced conversion to Islam to which they were being subjected), he explains why the two new religions held no attractions for those who understood the intricate depths of the Torah:

"Their only wish was to compare their lies to the Law of HaShem. But the work of G-d bears no comparison to the work of man except in the eyes of a little child who has no understanding of either. The difference between our religion and the other religions that seek to compare themselves to it is like the difference between a living, conscious man and a statue. The statue is carved out of a piece of wood overlaid with gold or silver or chiseled out of a piece of marble and made to look like a man. An ignorant fool does not know the difference between G-dly wisdom and this artifact made in the form of a man. The statue looks like a man in its structure and outward appearance. But it only seems like a man because the ignorant onlooker doesn't know what is inside either a man or a statue. However, the wise man knows the difference between what is inside the two. The wise man knows that inside the statue is nothing, while the inside of the living man, ADAM, is filled with truly amazing wonders and works that testify to the wisdom of the Creator -- the nerves, the flesh, the bones, the bodily limbs and their all their interconnections."

Shabbat Shalom!


Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum


--


AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org

PLAYING TO WIN

Playing to Win

Imagine a game with two players. One player is playing to win, the other is playing to a draw, without actually going in for the kill. Even if the first player is weaker than the second player, if the game goes on long enough the odds are on his side... because he is playing to win.

Einstein famously said, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Like many pacifists, Einstein assumed that war would become more destructive. Instead the Western powers have long ago stopped fighting to win, and rather than unleashing their full strength, chose to begin fighting to a draw, or to maintain a slightly improved balance of power vis a vis the enemy.

While some believed that this style of limited warfare is the product of the Cold War's Mutually Assured Destruction, in which war had to be scaled down for fear of unleashing a nuclear armageddon... this inability to finish the fight has become most pronounced when Western powers fight conflicts with third world guerrillas or terrorists.

There are several factors that explain why we stopped playing to win, and accordingly have begun slowly losing.

1. Instant Communications - Like sausage, wars used to be 'made' mostly out of sight. Individuals might have personal experience of a battlefield, but few outside the military would have much visceral interaction with the war itself. With the American Civil War and the Crimean War that began to change. Photography and popularized first person accounts began the process of bringing war into the "living room", horrifying and repulsing millions.

By the time the technology had developed to the point where video broadcasts could be conducted from the field, or any civilian could capture some of the action on a cell phone, the barriers had been breached.

Naturally it would be the more civilized countries which placed a higher value on life and did not censor their media, that would receive the worst of this exchange. While the guerrillas and terrorists can always intimidate and silence, and in any case tend to operate in cultures with higher mortality rates that place less value on human life, Western nations cannot and do not function so.

The result is that civilized countries begin practicing excessive restraint on the battlefield, this not only gives the enemy more freedom of movement, it creates an entirely new strategic doctrine that involves using civilians as human shields, hospitals and civilian areas as bases, and even deliberately generate atrocities in order to foster propaganda victories.

In this environment, propaganda victories become real victories if they harm the morale of a Western power. The more the civilized side restrains its forces, the more power and territory, the enemy gains.

2. Liberalism - While the welfare of civilians on the enemy side was a legitimate concern, it was never supposed to be a greater concern than the lives of our own soldiers. Yet Liberalism has managed to accomplish exactly that as on the battlefield, with civilized nations putting the lives of soldiers at risk to protect enemy civilians.

This development has turned the human shield from a punchline, into a potent defensive measure, and a propaganda offensive tool. As liberalism routinely assumes that their home society is usually at fault, and that the stronger party is also the guilty party, a liberal culture cripples the very military that seeks to defend it.

A liberal culture propounds that the only legitimate cause for waristhe defense of a weaker party against a stronger party. This paradox necessitates wars that are no longer defensive wars, but nation building wars to tear down a sovereign nation, on behalf of an oppressed populace or minority within its borders.

Such wars may be legitimate or not, on an individual basis, but they bury the primary justification for war, that of self-defense or the suppression of a vital and active threat. By doing so they also shift the priority from the military to the diplomatic, and from military accomplishment to nation building through winning the hearts and minds of the enemy civilian population-- an approach destined to undermine any purely military approach. Wars are no longer fought in pursuit of victory, but in order to build a better world... and we stop playing to win.

3. The Supremacy of Diplomacy - War becomes a means of enforcing a diplomatic objective. When diplomacy fails, we go to war. When the enemy meets our demands, we end the war. Then we rinse and repeat the whole cycle all over again.

Since modern diplomacy was envisioned as a peacemaking tool, these demands must be peacemaking demands as well. This makes war inherently contradictory and disreputable, and creates situations in which we endlessly pursue peacemaking diplomacy to avoid war, only to be tricked, and then restart the peacemaking cycle again. When we finally try to break the cycle of hollow diplomatic charades with war, universal condemnation follows.

War then becomes a halfhearted effort to hurt the enemy just enough to convince them to give in to our peacemaking demands. Unfortunately when the enemy has no interest in giving in, the military campaign quickly becomes a painful bloody drawn out mess with no real objective except buzzwords such as "Stabilization" and "Reining in the Extremist Elements Who Stand in the Way of Peace."

The latest example of such a misguided military campaign could be seen in Gaza, but it can just as well be seen in Iraq, and for that matter Vietnam. If you're not playing to win, but assuming that the enemy will give up and come to the negotiating table, then you're playing to lose... particularly against an enemy who knows how the game is played, and knows that all he needs to do is stay alive long enough for you to give up and go away.

4. Forgetting How to Fight - When the USSR was dismantled, the Yeltsin government attempted to give away land to farmers, only to discover that after generations of collectivization, too few knew how to farm anymore.

So national skills can disappear under the boot of socialism. There was a time in American history when the instinctive response to an attacker was force. Today the instinctive response is to run away and wait for the police to take care of it.

After a generation we have very nearly forgotten what war is, and what it's for. Afghanistan and Iraq proved that our soldiers still know how to fight, but our politicians and military command have often forgotten. As war becomes subservient to diplomacy, as the culture of liberalism and instant communications bring war into the living room and treat all military actions as atrocities-- we lose the ability to play to win and to fight to win, instead snatching diplomatic defeat from the jaws of a military victory.

But Playing to Win is the only real game in town. As Western powers and civilized nations stop playing to win, the terrorists who do play to win, begin winning. Our advantages in resources, organization and numbers can only hold out for so long unless we too begin playing to win.

taken from : Sultan Knish (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/02/playing-to-win.html)

Israel Matzav: Not so stunning#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Not so stunning#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Obama pressing Peres to choose Livni? UPDATE: Yes, he did#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Obama pressing Peres to choose Livni? UPDATE: Yes, he did#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Lebanese television host and terror victim May Chidiac calls it quits in a tearful farewell, live on television#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Lebanese television host and terror victim May Chidiac calls it quits in a tearful farewell, live on television#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Who should be Israel's next foreign minister?#links#links

Israel Matzav: Who should be Israel's next foreign minister?#links#links

Israel Matzav: Is A.Q. Khan on the Mossad's hit list?#links#links

Israel Matzav: Is A.Q. Khan on the Mossad's hit list?#links#links

Israel Matzav: Glick: Israel must follow India's example#links#links

Israel Matzav: Glick: Israel must follow India's example#links#links

Israel Matzav: A game plan for Netanyahu#links#links

Israel Matzav: A game plan for Netanyahu#links#links

Israel Matzav: A curveball from Washington?#links#links

Israel Matzav: A curveball from Washington?#links#links

Roadside Rambles: Note to Self

Roadside Rambles: Note to Self

TERRROR AND ANTI-SEMITISM NOW THE "NORM"

Terror and anti-Semitisim now the "Norm"

Who will say “NO” to evil?

Why are terror and anti-Semitism now accepted by politicians, pundits and academicians?

February 10, 2009

Does it outrage you, as it does us at FLAME, that an openly Islamist-terrorist group like Hamas can be actively supported with hundreds of millions of dollars from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA)---an organization funded in part by $89 million dollars a year of U.S. taxpayer dollars? Are you shocked, as we are, to see thousands of demonstrators in the United States carry banners that say "Zionism = Nazism" or even "Jews are Terrorists"?

Okay, perhaps you are no longer surprised by the anti-Israel machinations of the UN or the anti-Semitic slogans of ultra-leftists. But what of former President Jimmy Carter, who accuses Israel of apartheid and tacitly supports Hamas's rocket attacks on Israeli civilians . . . at least until the "occupation" ends? How did you like the dozens of media reports during the recent Gaza war that chastised both Israel and Hamas equally by referring to a morally neutral "cycle of violence" or those that condemned Israel for "disproportionate" use of force?

This week's Hotline article, by Judah Pearl, father of the slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, decries the increasing acceptance---even celebration---of evil, here in the United States and abroad. Read his choice words for politicians like Jimmy Carter, media pundits like Bill Moyers, and academics on our college campuses. As for the latter, Mr. Pearl is a professor of computer science at UCLA and knows whereof he speaks. (He is also president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, established in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.)

Pearl's words are refreshing to those of us who are still disgusted by bad people and evil deeds. They are also a call to action to continue our insistence on telling the truth in the press, in our churches and synagogues, and in our classrooms.

Best regards,


Jim SinkinsonDirector, FLAME


P.S.

Since Jimmy Carter is on a new book tour and again touting his bizarre analysis of the Middle East, I refer you to the FLAME position paper published in response to his last tome. I think you'll agree that the FLAME piece, which appeared in scores of publications nationwide and reached millions of Americans, makes short work of the Carter argument . . . simply by laying out the facts and logic, tools that Carter has little use for. Please see this position paper---"Jimmy Carter, Israel and the Jews: Is our former President ignorant, malevolent---or both?"---and pass it along to friends and colleagues. I also commend you to a recent article FLAME posted in the Outstanding Articles section of its website: "Using the Holocaust to Attack the Jews" by Walter Reich, which appeared recently in the Washington Post. It's excellent. Of course, if you agree that FLAME's outspoken brand of public relations on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to step up and support us. Remember: FLAME's ability to influence public opinion---to stand up against Islamist terror and anti-Semitism---comes from Israel's supporters like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to http://www.factsandlogic.org/make_a_donation.html. Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---in the face unrelenting criticism at the U.N and under continued attacks from Hamas in Gaza.

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil

When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

By Judah Pearl, February 3, 2009, Wall Street Journal

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance." Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera's management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn't seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a "resistance" movement, together with honorary membership in PBS's imaginary "cycle of violence." In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that "each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression." He then stated -- without blushing -- that for readers of the Hebrew Bible "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." The "cycle of violence" platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror's victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas -- the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains -- to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, "Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza," to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph -- another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny's picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

taken from : B'NAI ELIM (http://bnaielim.blogspot.com/)