Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur; DE88; Drew68
In this photo, the Obamas are dining with Edward Said and his wife. In his younger days, Said used to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers — and still recalls fondly those memories.


There are tapes of bo campaigning with Cousin Odinga in Kenya back in 2006, where bo agrees with Odinga’s anti-American sentiments and says the American national anthem is a racist, violent war song and must be replaced with something passive, peaceful and wholly secular. This or a bc issue is what I think Bill and Hillary may have on bo.

MO believes that the Clinton Global Initiative is responsible for tribal violence and deaths in Africa. She detests Hillary yet he quickly appointed Hill to SOS? Bill Clinton made that cute little remark that if bo was ELLIGIBLE under our CONSTITUTION then he had no problem with his candidacy. Makes me pause and think.

What about bo's presence at a 2003 dinner where Palestinian Rhashid Khalidi was honored, amongst frequent calls for the immediate destruction of the state of Israel. bo and mo attended this hatefest, smiling throughout, with of Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers. The LA times has these tapes, admitted they have them, refuses to release them. Why?

It's articles like this one below that make me not trust this man. They always say you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their friends;

Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U. Letter From Morningside By SOL STERN and FRED SIEGEL, Special to the Sun | February 4, 2005

You might think that Columbia University would be on its best academic behavior on the issue of the Middle East conflict these days. After all, several professors in the Department of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures, known as MEALAC, are credibly accused of anti-Semitism and intimidating pro-Israel students. The university's president, Lee Bollinger, has appointed a committee to look into the charges. But even with the media spotlight on, Columbia apparently can't help itself.

Last Monday night we attended a university panel on the Middle East conflict titled "One State or Two? Alternative Proposals for Middle East Peace." Even the panel's title was a giveaway that we were in for more anti-Israel bias on campus. The "one state" solution is a euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state - a trope of the most extreme rejectionist elements within the Palestinian movement and their allies in Syria and Iran. Terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah want to create an Islamic Republic in place of Israel.

A few splinter Marxist groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, founded by George Habash, offer the Jews a solution that's far more "progressive." They murder innocents merely to replace Israel with a "secular democratic" Palestine. The scene at Columbia, with Spartacists handing out literature outside the packed auditorium and proponents of Palestinian military victory in the vast majority, was wildly at odds with the hopeful development on the ground, where Messrs. Sharon and Abbas are now scheduled to meet. One of the panelists was Mark Cohen, a Princeton historian of medieval Islam.

He gave a measured scholarly presentation on the subject of Arab Muslim antisemitism, insisting that attacks on Jews in the Koran had little to do with hostility to Jews. It's a debatable proposition. But professor Cohen never even engaged the issue at hand. He largely served as a prop for the ranting to follow. Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia professor whose recent book argues that Yasser Arafat was right to reject the best peace deal he had ever been offered, opening the way to four years of bloodshed, presented a tendentious argument for a one-state solution that strained to stay within the bounds of reasoned discourse. Then Joseph Massad took the floor, and the floodgates of hatred opened wide.

Mr. Massad is one of the MEALAC professors accused of demanding of one Israeli student, "How many Palestinians did you kill today?" At the forum, he used the phrase "racist Israeli state" more than two dozen times. He used seemingly universalist language of anti-racism to drive a fascist argument. Mr. Massad is so extreme that he argued that Arafat was in effect an Israeli collaborator for even talking about compromise. Whatever can be said of this rant, its "academic" content was hard to discern. But to judge by the applause he received, Mr. Massad was the star of the evening.

Obviously, Mr. Massad, an acolyte of the dear departed George Habash, isn't worried about President Bollinger's panel, which includes three professors who have signed petitions demanding that all universities divest from Israel. The final act of hatred came from the Israeli quisling "historian" Ilan Pappe, who has stated openly that his so-called scholarly work is an attempt to create a counter narrative to official Zionist historiography and to undermine the international legitimacy of the state of Israel.

He bizarrely insisted that the destruction of Israel would pave the way for enhanced rights for women, and the feminist students in the audience cheered. Instead of providing an alternative to hatred and extremism from both sides, this panel was a hate-fest masquerading as academic discourse. And this was no aberration attributable only to one misguided student group.

In addition to Qanun, a Columbia Law School student group, the panel was cosponsored by the university chaplain, the Student Senate, and two of Columbia's most prestigious academic affiliates: the Middle East Institute, headed by professor Khalidi, and the School of International and Public Affairs. SIPA's dean, Lisa Anderson, was appointed by Mr. Bollinger to the committee looking into the charges against professor Massad - whose dissertation adviser she was.

Coming away from Monday night's hate panel and then looking at this tangled web of conflicts of interest within the university, we realized that the issue of misconduct in the classroom by one or two professors, important though it is, is dwarfed by a more fundamental question: How did a great institution of higher learning allow itself to be transformed into a platform for vicious political propaganda and hate speech directed against one country, Israel?

Surely one crucial moment in this transformation was Columbia's decision to raise $4 million - including a contribution from the United Arab Emirates - to create the Edward Said endowed chair in Arab studies, and then to give the prize to professor Khalidi. We don't doubt that Mr. Khalidi has academic credentials. Compared to professors Massad and Pappe, he is a model of decorum and moderation. But when Columbia academic officials made this choice they knew they were getting a Palestinian political activist.

From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Later he served on the PLO "guidance committee" at the Madrid peace conference. In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi's wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia's SIPA, working under Dean Anderson.

In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.

The message sent by Columbia University officials by this choice was that they were determined to honor the memory of Edward Said by continuing to have radical Palestinian activism on campus. That's what they now have in spades. The question is whether it's now possible within the university's public space to even make an argument for the only democratic country in the Middle East.

bo called Midwesterners bitter gun-and-religion-clingers apathetic to all those who are not like them. Yet he thinks nothing of sitting through a dinner where radicals spout hate because these are the same Hyde Park Chicago pseudo-intellectual radicals who think there’s nothing wrong with Bernadine Dorhn and William Ayers running daycare centers or teaching in universities.

137 posted on 01/11/2009 2:40:09 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: mojitojoe
It's articles like this one below that make me not trust this man. They always say you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their friends;

You (and others) seem to have mistook my cynicism of this BC conspiracy (and the shady characters involved with it) as a full-on endorsement of Obama. That is not the case.

162 posted on 01/11/2009 3:35:42 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson