Israel’s “Intellectual Warriors”- Via Israel Institute For Strategic Studies – Must URGENTLY Go Forth To “Battle”…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Before the rebirth (in 1948) of the modern state of Israel a battle raged all over the world, as various flavors of anti-Zionists/anti-semites railed against the notion, the very existence, of a Jewish State. It is ongoing, even as this is being written. Leave aside said temerity to dictate to the Jewish people that they have no “right” to their thousands yr old homeland. The question still remains: how perverse is it for so called “intellectual elitists” to expect that the Jewish people bow to their demands? Who died, anointing them masters of the universe? 

In tandem, anti-Jewish Jews are generally featured – front and center – as the purveyors of said poison pill, and their flaunting is not for nothing. On one hand, they are used as the useful idiots that they are. On the other side of the spectrum, many offer themselves up as a sampling of “good Jews“, you know, those who do the bidding of their (leftist) Gentile and Islamic overlords.

But their deviant behavior becomes somewhat explicable, only when certain derivatives come to the fore. Specifically, leftism is lethal to Jews, yet they are (mentally) immutable to its consequences –

Consequentially, what else but disaster can one expect when mega-rich, or other highly connected individuals get bitten by the “peace” bug? – Its results are always detrimental to the Jewish nation/people. But never mind…they soldier on.

Whereas the above links cover Jewish dementia, the remaining- who oppose Israel (Judea and Samaria) as the cradle of Judaism – comprise a hodgepodge of leftists hewing to their “religious” dogma, irrespective of their actual religion or locale –

In this regard, The New York Times, via their toadying Jew-boys, and like-minded Israel-haters have ratcheted up their vitriol. This is no small matter. Israel’s foremost (strategic) “intellectual warrior”, Dr. Martin Sherman, addresses said venomous onslaught and he is more than up to the challenge – . The following is one sampling, out of countless others.

‘Into the Fray: ‘The New York Times’ versus the Jews’


Over the last fortnight, the so-called “paper of record” has ratcheted up its bias and bile a notch or two.

There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state.
– Joseph Levine, “On Questioning the Jewish State,”The New York Times, March 9, 2013

There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.
— George Orwell

Last week I cautioned that a crucial intellectual battle has been launched to strip the Jews of their political independence and national sovereignty. As promised, in this week’s column I will elaborate on the inanity and iniquity of this Judeophobic initiative.

Pernicious, perverse, paradoxical

The Times – together with several other major mainstream media entities – has chosen to throw its weight decisively behind this patently pernicious, perverse and paradoxical endeavor.

But over the last fortnight, the so-called “paper of record” has ratcheted up its bias and bile a notch or two. This prompted the following comment from Commentary’s Seth Mandel in his “A New Low for the Times” (March 18): “The bias against Israel in the press, and especially the New York Times, has become so steady and predictable that it can be difficult to muster outrage.

Since the paper flaunts, rather than attempts to disguise, its hostility to Israel, it can be easy to miss when the Times crosses yet another line. And the paper and its editors have done so again this weekend.”

I have not designated this drive to denigrate, delegitimize and demonize the conduct of the Jewish state — and of late, the very idea of a Jewish state – “pernicious,” “perverse” and “paradoxical” without reason.

Should this unholy crusade achieve its declared objectives, it will precipitate a reality that reflects a total negation of the very values invoked for its promotion, and the antithesis of those allegedly cherished by its propagators.

Escalating enmity

Until relatively recently, the bulk of the Times’s censure of Israel’s actions focused on its policy regarding the status of the territories beyond the pre-1967 Green Line, and the fate of the Palestinian Arabs resident there.

But with the emerging realization — indeed, perhaps resignation — that the previously preferred outcome of establishing a Palestinian state in these territories, is becoming increasingly unworkable, emphasis has shifted and enmity escalated. It now seems that the paper has begun to channel condemnation less against what the Jewish state does, and more against what it is — i.e. Jewish.

This is a line that it is apparently pursuing with increasing virulence, frequency and prominence on its pages, last week touting it on both the front page of its Sunday edition and the cover of its weekly magazine.

Barely a week previously, a lengthy opinion piece by University of Massachusetts professor of philosophy Joseph Levine appeared, advancing contrived and contorted claims disputing the conceptual validity of the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination and political sovereignty, now even within the Green Line.

To recap

Readers will recall that in my column last week, I pointed out the conceptual fallacies and faults in Levine’s approach to statehood, which seems to postulate that no state can be considered “democratic” if the conduct of its public life reflects the sociocultural dominance of the major ethnic group — even if it comprises a “vast majority.”

Accordingly, we are asked to believe that majority rule is an intolerable moral anathema for democratic governance. Indeed, unless the majority surrenders — or, at least, substantially dilutes – the expression of its identity, while the minority is allowed full expression of its identity — no matter how incompatible or adversarial it might be with that of the majority — the resulting sociopolitical reality is allegedly so disastrously impaired that its continued existence cannot be countenanced.

Thus, in Levine’s eyes, a “people” only merit the right to self-determination if they comprise a segment of humanity whose members are bound together by nothing more substantive than their equality before the law of the land and the accident of their physical location within the borders of that land. This is, as I showed, a position severely at odds with those of leading philosophers of liberal political theory over the past two centuries. It is one which fails to capture the most elemental essence that drives aspirations for national self-determination and that comprises the primal conditions for stable democratic governance: A sentiment of political allegiance born of a spiritual compatibility — which may arise because of ethnic homogeneity, or despite ethnic heterogeneity.

Silly or sinister?

In the absence of such communal cohesiveness, as John Stuart Mill tells us, “Free institutions are next to impossible.” Indeed, “in a country made up of a people without fellow-feeling the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.”

Recent history bears eloquent, if tragic, testimony to the enduring validity of this perceptive insight. Wherever attempts have been made to weld inimical ethnicities together in a single political entity, if it is not bound by the iron grip of tyranny, the results have almost invariably been reminiscent of a Hobbesian nightmare of anarchy, chaos and bloodshed — as the examples of Lebanon and the Balkans starkly underscore.

Clearly, then, proposing policy prescriptions that not only disregard, but directly contravene, both the theoretical rationale and the empirical evidence regarding the attainment of the purported goal of sustainable democracy is either silly or sinister.

But whether dumb or deceptive, it is an approach that harbors huge hazards for Jews and Arabs – and for the hopes of liberal democracy — in the Holy Land.

“Israel was a mistake”

Yet despite its clearly calamitous consequences, it appears that this is the approach the Times has opted to adopt and advance both by publications of explicit endorsement (such as Levine’s opinion piece) and by implicit insinuations (such as last week’s 8,000-word magazine cover story by one Ben Ehrenreich, warmly embracing the Palestinian “resistance”).

Thus for example, flying in the face of facts, the latter misinforms Times readers by implying that the recent Operation Pillar of Defense was an unprovoked Israeli initiative that began when “in mid-November, Israeli rockets began falling on Gaza,” conspicuously omitting any mention of the fact that it was hundreds of Palestinian rockets falling on Israel that precipitated the fighting.

But, perhaps more significant — and revealing — than the blatantly biased and manifestly misleading content of the Times cover story, was the choice of its author. For as veteran pundit Jonathan Tobin tersely remarks: “Ehrenreich’s bias is so deeply embedded in the piece that it is pointless to criticize anything but the decision to employ him to write it.”

And that is precisely the point. For it is more than implausible to assume the Times was unaware of Ehrenreich’s strong anti- Zionist predilections. Indeed, these were unambiguously laid out in a Los Angeles Times op-ed titled, “Zionism is the problem” (March 15, 2009). In it Ehrenreich unfavorably compares the Jewish state to apartheid South Africa, stating: “If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable.”

He goes on to advocate what in effect is the abolition of the nation-state of the Jews, pontificating: “The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians from living in peace. Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice.”

This appears then to be the kind of journalist/ journalism that the New York Times is promoting.

As to the public sentiment it is liable to arouse, this might be gauged by the tenor of one of the talkbacks to Ehrenreich’s cover story — rerun in abbreviated form as an interview with him posted on the New York Times site today (March 21) — from Molly in Costa Rica: “Israel was a mistake, and they must leave.

Israel is a transplanted organ that the Middle East is rejecting. It will never fly.”

Perilous, preposterous prescription

The New York Times-propagated prescription, that in effect promotes the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state and replacing it with an un-Jewish secular state-of-all-its- citizens, is preposterous and perilous — in both principle and practice. Supporting it puts you firmly on the wrong side of history — and for self-respecting New York Times readers, what could be worse? For the concept of “multiculturalism,” once so fashionable, that underpins the rationale of the state-of-all-its-citizens idea, is rapidly being discredited. It has been tried — and has failed.

As I pointed out in an earlier column, “Nakba nonsense,” May 17, 2012, harsh and explicit declarations have come from the leaders of nearly all major European countries – including France, UK and Germany – acknowledging its disappointing failure. For example, Angela Merkel lamented: “The tendency had been to say, ‘Let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side.’ But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.” Moreover in democracies as far-flung as Australia and Canada, the media have begun to publish expressions of exasperation and frustration at the deleterious effects of trying to absorb cultures incompatible with the host culture.

Even against a far less adversarial national- political background, incompatible social-cultural and religious disparities are causing increasingly unacceptable societal consequences for the host societies.

It is thus entirely unclear why anyone — unless motivated by malice — could possibly propose the application of such a failed formula in the far more daunting circumstances prevailing in Israel.

Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

Despite the protestations of anti-Zionists, such as Levine and Ehrenreich, that opposing Zionism “does not manifest anti-Semitism,” it does.

No amount of academic acrobatics or intellectual sophistry can blur the truth in the words, widely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism. And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly and freely accord all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.”

It is anti-Semitic (i.e. Judeophobic) to denigrate every coercive action undertaken by Israel — whether military or administrative, proactive or reactive, preemptive or punitive — intended to protect Jews from attacks merely because they are Jewish, as racially motivated, disproportionate crimes against humanity.

It is anti-Semitic to peddle dangerous delusions, designed to deprive the Jews of their national independence and political sovereignty, and the purveyors of such poisonous merchandise must be forced to bear the burden of shame that plying their ignominious trade so richly deserves.

Fatal flaw in post-Zionist logic

I realize I have not fulfilled all my promises made last week, and several issues I undertook to deal with have been left unaddressed, particularly the significance for the non-Jewish minorities living in a Zionist Jewish nation-state. Regrettably, I have let my indignation at the New York Times distract me and that – together with new editorial constraints – preclude further discussion.

However, as my credibility is everything, I P-R-O-M-I-S-E to take up these topics soon in a forthcoming article – which I can already inform you will be titled, “The fatal flaw in post-Zionist logic”.

Until then, “Happy Passover.” gem too ! ‘Senseless & spineless: Speaking truth to power’ –

Is it any wonder why this blog issues its own rallying cry, in effect, summoning others to support “Israel’s Intellectual Warriors”? –

Time is of the essence. It is NOT on Israel’s side!

Richard Falk’s UN “Case” Against Israel…Professor Louis Rene Beres Sets The Legal Record Straight…Through Pre-Existing/Valid Counter-Arguments…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The bludgeoning against Israel continues apace, and one of its chief culprits, hot on the trail to its “dismemberment”, is Richard Falk. Via wiki, “In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967…”. 

The fact that he is a self loathing Jew (by birth) is no surprise. But what may come as a surprise – or not – is he is married to Hilal Elver, a Muslim…but this American-Israeli digresses.

The readership are familiar with Jews whose fealty is, first and foremost, to leftist ideology. It inculcates a visceral animus towards Israel, despite their nauseous refrains/protestations to the contrary – “they too care about Israel”. Leftism, lethal to Jews and their overall health is one side of the dangerous terrain –

But the other side involves those whose out-sized power and wealth contributes to many Jewish deaths. Moreover, some operate behind the “business of peace”, while others head straight towards Israel’s dissolution. Its jugular. Either way, Jews perish –

Back to Richard Falk. The following are just some of his recent barrages against Israel, but they are by no means exhaustive – Dutch politicians expressed their own outrage –

What’s the relevance? Simply put, Richard Falk’s main mission is to bring about Israel’s (the “Zionist entity”, as he prefers to call it) downfall. This is beyond dispute. As such, the bully pulpit he enjoys, from his perch at the UN, dare not be underestimated nor ignored.

Professor Louis Rene Beres is no stranger to this blog, but for first time readers, see the connection herein – Therefore, there is no better qualified international legal expert to call upon, as a rejoinder to the Special Rapporteur’s noxious charges, though the following was written well BEFORE his latest diatribes at the UN. The arguments, contained below, are as valid now, as they were when originally written.


 By Professor Louis Rene Beres

April 6, 2002

The following article was written by Professor Beres in June 1992.


Media references to territories administered by Israel since the June 1967 war now routinely describe them as “occupied.”  Yet, thisdescription conveniently overlooks the pertinent history of these lands, especially the authentic Israeli claims supported by international law, the unwitting manner in which West Bank and Gaza fell into Israel’s hands after sustained Arab aggression and the overwhelming security considerations involved.  Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948; a State of Palestine was not promised by authoritative UN Security Council Resolution 242; indeed, a State of Palestine has never existed.

As a nonstate legal entity, Palestine ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate.  When, during the1948 – 1949 war of independence, the West Bank and Gaza came under illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively, these aggressor nationsdid not put an end to an already-existing state.  From the Biblical Period (ca. 1350 BC to 586 BC) to the British Mandate (1918 – 1948), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines was controlled only by non- Palestinian elements.

Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I at the San Remo PeaceConference of April 1920.  There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over Palestine (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the “national home for the Jewish people.”  Palestine, according to the treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the state of Jordan and Israel, including West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza.  Present day Israel, including West Bank and Gaza, comprises only twenty-two percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference.

In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and illegally split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews — all of Palestine east of the Jordan River — and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca.  Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retaineduntil April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan.  From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a contravention of its Mandatory obligations.  On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian Arab assassinated King Abdullah for his hostility to Palestinian aspirations and concerns.

Several years prior to Abdullah’s killing, in 1947, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the JordanRiver as the Jewish national homeland, enacted a second partition. Ironically, because this second fission again gave unfair advantage to theArabs, Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgment while Arab states did not.  On May 15, 1948, exactly one day after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to a tiny new nation founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust:  “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre….”  This declaration, of course, has been at the very heart of all subsequent Arab policies toward Israel.

In 1967, almost twenty years after Israel’s entry into the community of nations, the Jewish State — as a result of its stunning military victory over Arab aggressor states — gained  unintended control over West Bank and Gaza.  Although the idea of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is enshrined in the UN Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the territories could be “returned.”  Israel could hardly be expected to transfer the territories back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and generally cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of “extermination” in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian self-determination was only just beginning to emerge after the Six Day War, and was not even codified in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967.For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding:  “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, nonegotiations with it….”

Resolution 242 has been generally misinterpreted.  The formula advanced by the Resolution is patently one of “peace for land,” not “land for peace.”  The Resolution grants to every state in the Middle East “the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.”  It points,therefore, to peace before territorial withdrawal to “recognized boundaries.”

Security Council Resolution 242 is a balanced whole.  The right of self-determination of the Palestinians does not appear in the Resolution; an international conference is never mentioned; the parties referred to include only states, not insurgent/terror organizations; and the phrase“territories occupied” is neither preceded by “the,” nor is it followed by “on all fronts.”

These have been the essential historic reasons why the territories are not “occupied.”   Israel’s right to reject this improper description alsostems from its incontrovertible legal right to security and self- defense.  Because transformation of West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza into an Arab state of Palestine would threaten the very existence of Israel, the Jewish State is under no current obligation to relinquish control.  Its rights, in this regard, are peremptory.

International law is not a suicide pact.  Anyone who takes the trouble to look at a map of the region will discover that Israel and the territories,comprising an area less than half the size of San Bernadino County in California, cannot afford to yield its already minimal “strategic depth.”  In this connection, Israel should take little comfort from the promise of Palestinian demilitarization.  Indeed, should the government of Palestine choose to invite foreign armies or territories on to its territory (possibly after the original national government had been displaced or overthrown by more militantly anti-Israel forces), it could do so not only without practical difficulties, but also without necessarily violating international law. 

The threat posed by an independent Palestinian state would also impact directly upon Jerusalem’s nuclear strategy.  For the moment, Israel — still buffered from a hot eastern border by the West Bank — can afford to keep its bomb “in the basement.”  If, however, this territory becamethe heart of “Palestine,” Israel would almost certainly have to move from “deliberate ambiguity” to disclosure, a shift that could substantiallyimprove the Jewish state’s nuclear deterrence posture but could also enlarge the chances of a nuclear war should this posture fail.

Israel does not hold any “occupied” territories. It is critical that the Government of Israel recognize this, and that it never accept such anincorrect characterization. To do otherwise would be to degrade its very capacity to endure.

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is author of many books and articles dealing with the Law of War. He has been a consultant on this matter in both Washington and Jerusalem. Professor Beres’s columns appear often in major American, Israeli and European newspapers.

To add even more legal and historical punch, the following policy paper (2005) by Professor Louis Rene Beres, in tandem with Professor Paul Eidelberg, is a must read – . Thus, setting the legal, moral and Higher Law straight. Its essence lies in the lessons learned (hopefully) from “Disengagement” – with Hamas/assorted Islamic terrorists launching attacks from the rubble of Gush Katif – demonstrating what will transpire, heaven forbid, if Judea and Samaria are “gifted” over.

The legal case against Israel’s “right” to Judea & Samaria, its thousands year old Jewish heartland – as presented by Richard Falk – is beyond flawed. It is a perversion of international law. (UN) injustice too.

Case closed.