Cinnamon Stillwell

Fort Hood and the Academic Apologists

2009-11-15T18:15:00.000-08:00

My latest Campus Watch article, which is posted at The American Thinker, examines the reaction of Middle East studies academia to the shooting rampage at Fort Hood and finds it predictably apologetic:

In the wake of the horrific attack at the Fort Hood military base in Texas earlier this month, and the mounting evidence that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was motivated by Islamist beliefs, the media has turned to Middle East studies "experts" for enlightenment. Instead, what the media, and, by extension, the American public, has received is the moral relativism and obfuscation that too often meets any effort to address Islamism or jihadism in an intellectually honest manner.

Continue reading "Fort Hood and the Academic Apologists"

Fort Hood Shooter: Another Lone Gunman?

2009-11-06T10:56:00.001-08:00

In August, 2006, I wrote an SFGate column that could have been written about Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. It's reprinted below in its entirety:

The Myth Of The Lone Gunman
Cinnamon Stillwell
Wednesday, August 9, 2006

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the claim has often been made that no further acts of terrorism have occurred on U.S. soil. But anyone following the news closely knows better.
While there has not yet been another large-scale attack, a number of terrorist plots have been broken up and a variety of suspicious crimes and incidents have occurred across the nation. But each time, authorities seem to have made every effort to downplay the terrorism angle.
News of the shooting rampage at Seattle's Jewish Federation building last month involved the usual avoidance of the term "terrorism." Instead, the attack was labeled a hate crime and the perpetrator, Naveed Afzal Haq, just another in a long line of lone gunmen with a history of mental instability. As Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels put it, "This was a purposeful, hateful act, as far as we know by an individual acting on his own."
While this may be true, trying to separate Haq's actions from the larger context of the war on terrorism is tunnel vision at its worst. It is not just hate that motivates such acts, but ideology. One needn't be a bona fide member of an Islamic terrorist group to share their outlook.
Haq made his motivations quite clear when he told a 911 operator during the attack that he was a "Muslim American" who was "angry with Israel" and the United States for the war in Iraq. "I want these Jews to get out … I'm tired of getting pushed around, and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East," he added.
Indeed, it was Haq's "anger" that led him to stake out the building of a prominent Jewish organization, hide behind a vestibule, kidnap a 14-year-old girl at gunpoint as she entered the building and then proceed to shoot six women, including one who was 17 weeks pregnant, almost all in the stomach. One of the victims died on the scene and several remain in the hospital.
There are also questions about Haq's background that should at least raise a flag or two. His father, Mian Haq, founded the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities, which is affiliated with Saudi-financed Wahhabist organizations. An engineer, Mian Haq and other members of the local Pakistani American community work for the nearby Hanford Site (a nuclear reservation). The junior Haq was not known to be an observant Muslim, and a Christian evangelical organization in the Tri-Cities area claims that he was baptized last year. But Haq was clearly identifying himself as a Muslim at the time of the shooting.
The prosecutor in the case, Norm Maleng, did concede that the attack involved "the seeds from which the war on terror springs." In fact, just 48 hours before Haq's killing spree, Al-Jazeera ran a video of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri exhorting "Muslims everywhere … to fight and become martyrs in the war against the Zionists and the crusaders." And it appears that that's exactly what Haq did.
Officialdom in Denial
This was the hardly the first time that a Muslim seemingly unconnected to organized terrorist groups nevertheless acted out their agenda. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes even came up with a term to describe this phenomenon: Sudden Jihad Syndrome.
Pipes and other scholars, such as Robert Spencer, have been tracking these cases for years. It is not certain that Islamist ideology was the motivation in each instance. But strangely enough, authorities almost always dismissed the possibility from the onset. Either that or they jumped on the "no possible known motive" bandwagon. The following examples bear this pattern out:
March 2006: Mohammad Taheri-azar plowed into a group of students at the University of North Carolina with his SUV. Afterward, he surrendered to authorities with a 911 call, telling them that he was trying to "punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world." Meanwhile, in a letter to the police, Taheri-azar spoke of exercising "the right of violent retaliation that Allah" had given him. Nonetheless, local officials and university officials immediately ruled out terrorism, leading several student groups to hold an "anti-terrorism" rally in protest.
September 2005: University of Oklahoma engineering student Joel Henry Hinrichs III blew himself up outside a packed stadium in what was dubbed a suicide. But it was more likely a botched suicide bombing. Beyond incriminating evidence found in his apartment, Hinrichs had connections to a local mosque and appears to have been a convert to Islam. Nonetheless, university officials and authorities studiously avoided the term "terrorism" and instead focused on Hinrichs' alleged history of personal problems.
January 2005: The Coptic Christian Armanious family, originally from Egypt, was found dead in their home in Jersey City, all with their throats slit. Hossam, the father, had been debating religion with Muslims on a Middle Eastern chat room and had received at least one death threat. The entire family had been involved in converting Muslims to Christianity, and the daughter, Sylvia, was particularly outspoken. When her body was found, it was discovered that she had been stabbed in the chest and the wrist, precisely where she wore a tattoo of a Coptic cross. Authorities chalked up the case not to religious hatred or terrorism but to a robbery gone bad. But questions remain about the true impetus for the murders.
August 2003: Saudi Mohammed Ali Alayed slit the throat of former friend and fellow Houston Community College student Ariel Sellouk, almost decapitating him in the process. The fact that Sellouk was Jewish and that Alayed had broken with him right after becoming a more devout Muslim played no part in the trial. Not only was the term "terrorism" avoided, even "hate" and "anti-Semitism" were left out of the equation. To this day, Alayed's motive remains a mystery as far as the official version is concerned.
October 2002: The "Beltway Snipers" John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo went on a killing spree across Maryland and Virginia, terrorizing the nation. Despite the fact that Muhammed was a convert to Islam and member of the Nation of Islam, authorities and media coverage focused solely on his troubled background and his ties to the military. Malvo was portrayed simply as a young victim of Muhammed's sinister tutelage. Rarely was jihad or terrorism mentioned. Later, Malvo's defense attorneys, attempting to illustrate their client's mental instability, presented the judge in his trial with Malvo's jailhouse drawings. Along with anti-American sentiments and drawings of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the burning towers of the World Trade Center, Malvo repeatedly emphasized jihad against America.
July 2002: Egyptian immigrant Hesham Mohamed Hadayet walked into Los Angeles International Airport on the Fourth of July (also his birthday) and opened fire at an El Al (the Israeli government-owned airline) counter, killing an employee and a customer. Hadayet also stabbed an El Al security guard before he himself was shot. Hadayet had been known to express hatred for Jews, Israel and the United States, and according to his political asylum application, which was denied, he had been involved with an Egyptian Islamist group. The initial conclusion was that there was "nothing to indicate terrorism" and that it was simply an "isolated incident," although officials finally dubbed the case an act of terrorism almost a year later.

It's possible that in these cases authorities were simply hesitant to release sensitive information that might have threatened the investigation at hand. But in a time when average citizens can access all sorts of information for themselves on the Internet, this policy of official denial is becoming untenable.
Besides, Americans deserve to know the truth about the threats to their lives and their country. It may be uncomfortable for some to swallow, but it helps no one, least of all those within the Muslim community working for reform, to shield the public from reality. For one cannot properly fight a battle if its true nature remains obscured.

Similarly, at a certain point, authorities will need to take the blinders off and start acknowledging that lone gunmen and Islamic terrorism are not mutually exclusive. As President Bush has repeatedly emphasized, "this is a different kind of war" and therefore a different kind of thinking is needed in order to win it. Unfortunately, it is our own officials who most seem to need an update.

Mogahed's Excuses Don't Add Up

2009-10-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

Last week, I wrote about a controversial interview with Dalia Mogahed. Responding to a firestorm of criticism. Mogahed has since tried to backtrack. In an article posted today at Frontpage Magazine, I conclude that her excuses don't add up:

As reported last week by Campus Watch, Dalia Mogahed, appointee to President Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, executive director and senior analyst of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, and co-author, along with Georgetown University's John Esposito, of Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, appeared (by phone) earlier this month on the UK-based Islam Channel television program "Muslimah Dilemma" (view here and read the complete transcript here.)

Mogahed has been roundly criticized for appearing on the show and, in a transparent attempt at damage control, she told U.S. News & World Report last week she has experienced second thoughts about her decision. Stretching credulity, she claimed she "had no idea that the show's host or the other guest was affiliated with Hizb ut Tahrir," that she only "found out the affiliation on air, when the other guest was being introduced in the beginning," and that her staff "checked the show with a PR firm in Britain who told us there were no problems with it."

Continue reading "Mogahed's Excuses Don't Add Up"

Does Sharia Law Promote Women’s Rights? Obama Appointee Dalia Mogahed Thinks So

2009-10-20T08:59:00.000-07:00

My latest Campus Watch article, which is posted today at Frontpage Magazine, takes a look at Obama appointee Dalia Mogahed's curious views on women's rights and sharia law:

In thinking about women's rights, sharia law, or Islamic law, doesn't typically come to mind.

Yet, according to a survey conducted by Dalia Mogahed, executive director and senior analyst of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and appointee to President Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the two are closely intertwined. Her survey alleges that a majority of Muslim women believe sharia law should either be the primary source or one source of legislation in their countries, while viewing Western personal freedoms as harmful to women.

The survey's findings appear in the book, Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, co-authored by Mogahed and John Esposito, Georgetown University professor and founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, named for its Saudi royal benefactor. While Esposito is well-known as one of the foremost academic apologists for radical Islam, Mogahed is making her name as a shill for sharia law. Mogahed employs the Gallup poll, which has been criticized by knowledgeable authorities as misleading and unscientific, to portray sharia law as what Muslims women want.

Continue reading "Does Sharia Law Promote Women’s Rights?"

Campus Watch Quoted in World Magazine

2009-10-10T13:59:00.000-07:00

When Jill Nelson, a reporter for World Magazine, contacted Campus Watch for input on an article she was working on, we were only too happy to help. Her article, titled "Pro-Palestinian Junta," is based on a startling column that came out in March of this year. It was written by the indispensable and very brave Khaled Abu Toameh and it described the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel atmosphere on U.S. college campuses.

The following are the relevant portions of the World Magazine article:

Khaled Abu Toameh has endured years of criticism for his reporting on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. An Arab Muslim with Israeli citizenship, he abandoned the government-controlled Palestinian media years ago for the free press in Israel and the West and has been writing about Palestinian affairs for almost three decades. He isn't afraid to criticize Palestinian leadership when criticism is due, and that candor has earned him a few enemies.

But not all of his enemies are from the streets of Gaza or the West Bank. During a tour of close to 30 campuses in the United States throughout the past year, Toameh encountered what he calls a "pro-Palestinian junta"-a group that goes beyond the usual suspects to include Westerners who have never set foot in Palestine or Israel, professors with an innate anti-Israel bias, and Jews who believe Israel has done more harm than good during its 61 turbulent years of existence.

{snip}

Toameh, who has been writing about Palestinian affairs for The Jerusalem Post since 2002 and has worked for NBC News since 1989, wasn't always well received during his U.S. campus tour. At DePaul University in Chicago in March, he was greeted with fliers for the event covered with swastikas. At another Illinois campus (Toameh says he can't remember which one) he saw fliers with devil-like features added to his photograph. "These people hate Israel so much that they will cheer any group or anyone that is against Israel. It's simply that. It's not that Hamas is so brilliant in their PR campaign. I think it's more out of hatred for Israel," Toameh told me.

Cinnamon Stillwell, the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, agrees with Toameh's assessment: "Hatred of Israel, and in a larger sense, the existence of a Jewish state, is at its heart. Years of propaganda painting Israel as an aggressive, colonialist, apartheid state and the Palestinians as freedom fighters justified in any course of action has taken its toll, to the point where this false narrative has been accepted as the truth, despite all evidence to the contrary. Those who refute the narrative are demonized and intimidated, while those who uphold it are glorified and rewarded. In this way, hatred of Israel has become the prevailing mindset on campus."

Winfield Myers, the director of the Middle East Forum's Campus Watch, says although Hamas supporters are far from a majority on U.S. campuses, their numbers are growing. Many professors-particularly those within the Middle Eastern Studies departments-peddle jihadist views to impressionable students, justifying terrorism for the sake of the oppressed.

Myers named University of California at Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian, who called for an intifada-or Palestinian uprising-against the United States during a rally in San Francisco in 2004, as a chief example.

In May at the University of California in Irvine, the Muslim Student Union hosted a series of speakers who claimed that Zionists are the "new Nazis" and the "party of Satan." A video on the university's website promoting the speaker series included a song in Arabic that said, "With all force we will drive them away. We will restore purity to Jerusalem." Campus administration did nothing in response.

The prospect of receiving Saudi oil money for Middle Eastern Studies programs may be another piece to the pro-Palestinian puzzle. As universities compete for funding, signs of censorship have emerged. Myers points to the recent decision by Yale University Press to remove the controversial Danish cartoons of Muhammad from a book about the controversy, Jytte Klausen's The Cartoons that Shook the World, as a prominent example. The Yale decision came while it courted for funding the director of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's foundation.

To read the entire article, click here or here.

Remembering 9/11, Eight Years Later

2009-09-11T09:30:00.000-07:00

My contribution to Family Security Matters' "FSM Contributing Editors Remember 9/11, Eight Years Later" is the fourth entry from the bottom. And it's reprinted below in its entirety. I must admit, it's pretty dark, but judging by the other contributions, I'm not alone. Read on:

Eight years after the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11, it appears that America has largely drifted back into complacency. Certainly, many Americans still understand that the threat of repeated attacks remains real, but the sense of urgency has faded with time.

Meanwhile, the country's current leadership and its supporters are inhabiting the willful blindness of a pre-9/11 mindset, if not acting as apologists for and, in some cases, active supporters of America's enemies.

Misconceptions that began with the Bush administration continue unabated. There is an inability to grasp that, to quote Robert Spencer, the "stealth jihad," being visited by Islamists upon our educational, cultural, and governmental institutions is the greatest threat to Western civilization. The self-censorship of political correctness, the moral vacuity of multiculturalism, the surrender of creeping dhimmitude, and the corruption of Arab dollars and influence continue to ensure that we are not actively engaged in the ideological battlefield.

As someone who was galvanized into a political awakening and eventual transformation by 9/11, it has been disheartening to see the country slide back into somnolence. Indeed, I have wondered at times whether we have entered a post-post-9/11 age. I believe the memory still lingers in our collective consciousness, but it has retreated to the farther reaches.

When one looks at history, this depressing pattern emerges time and time again. One has to wonder if human beings generally don't learn from history, but rather, are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. Jolted out of slumber every so often by horrific events, we then sink back into oblivion once the threat no longer seems urgent. A few will always stand on the sidelines trying to bring attention to the looming threat of the day, but by and large, we only listen when forced.

Nonetheless, the fight must go on, for the alternative is far too frightening. That's something for all of us to remember on 9/11/09.

Read all entries in "FSM Contributing Editors Remember 9/11, Eight Years Later."

Guest on "The Gathering Storm" this Friday

2009-09-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

I'll be a guest this Friday, September 4th, at approximately 12:30pm (PST) on the Blog Talk Radio show, The Gathering Storm. I'll be discussing the latest news at Campus Watch, including the Yale University Press/Danish cartoon controversy.

Listen live or catch the archived version here.

Why Won't Yale Identify the 'Experts' Who Advocated Pulling the Illustrations of Muhammad?

2009-08-14T16:50:00.000-07:00

The latest at the Campus Watch blog from my colleague, Winfield Myers:

Why is Yale hiding behind the decision of anonymous "experts" to defend its decision to pull all illustrations of Muhammad from Jytte Klausen's forthcoming book, The Cartoons that Shook the World? What does it have to hide? Who was behind the decision?
Yesterday's New York Times reported Yale University Press's (YUP) decision to pull both the Danish cartoons of Muhammad along with all other illustrations of him slated to appear in Klausen's book, which examines—remarkably—the very controversy the 12 cartoons sparked in 2006, five months after their publication in the Danish newspaper Jylland- Posten in September, 2005.

The Times said that YUP and Yale University "consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous" that no illustrations should appear. It quotes John Donatich, YUP's director, as saying the experts recommendation to withdraw all images of Muhammad was "overwhelming and unanimous."

Continue reading "Why Won't Yale Identify the 'Experts' Who Advocated Pulling the Illustrations of Muhammad?"

Terrorist in the Ivory Tower?

2009-08-13T08:14:00.001-07:00

My latest Campus Watch article, which is posted today at Frontpage Magazine, explores the intersection of Middle East studies and Islamic terrorism. It begins like so:

Do the ranks of Middle East studies professors include terrorists? If the allegations against University of Ottawa professor Hassan Diab are proved true, the answer will be yes.

Diab, a Lebanese-born dual Canadian citizen and author of Beirut: Reviving Lebanon's Past, is a lecturer in sociology at the University of Ottawa and until recently taught a part-time summer introductory sociology course at Carleton University in Ottawa. His job ended last month following allegations by French authorities that Diab was the leader of a commando team that perpetrated the 1980 bombing of the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris. The bombing, which was attributed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - Special Operations (PFLP-SO), a splinter group of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), killed three Frenchmen and an Israeli woman and wounded 20.

Continue reading "Terrorist in the Ivory Tower?"

Dabashi vs. AbuKhalil

2009-07-24T10:33:00.000-07:00

Campus Watch Director Winfield Myers has penned a blog post that ties into my recent article, "Ahmadinejad's Academics," by examining another rupture in the Middle East studies establishment in the wake of the protests in Iran. It seems Columbia University Iranian studies professor Hamid Dabashi has broken ranks with the left and in particular, fellow academic traveler, Cal State Stanislaus professor Asad AbuKhalil, on Iran. As Myers reports:

Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian specialist at Columbia University, is usually a reliable source of rabid anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli hysteria....Yet the Iranian-born Dabashi, writing in the Egyptian English-language newspaper Al-Ahram Weekly, has turned his purple prose on a fellow Middle East studies professor whose record of rants against the West equals his own: Lebanese-born Asad AbuKhalil of Cal State Stanislaus. Writing on his blog The Angry Arab, AbuKhalil asserted that an American conspiracy is behind the anti-government demonstrations in Iran...

Continue reading "Give Me that Old-time Schadenfreude: Dabashi vs. AbuKhalil"

Ahmadinejad's Academics

2009-07-10T09:13:00.000-07:00

My latest article for Campus Watch, which is posted today at Frontpage Magazine, takes a look at the changing (and not-so-changing) relationship between Middle East studies academia and contested Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It begins like so:

What a difference a popular uprising makes.

It seems like just yesterday that the Middle East studies establishment was busy defending Iran's theocratic regime and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from the alleged predations of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy. Yet in the wake of the unrest in response to the stolen election, suddenly American academics have succumbed to intellectual honesty and moral clarity. Despite the best efforts of the Iranian regime to drum up conspiracy theories blaming the West for the uprising, the Iranians themselves have taken center stage.

This signals quite a shift. When Ahmadinejad, the supposedly elected leader at the heart of the current crisis in Iran, spoke at Columbia University in September 2007, his appearance was applauded by many academic apologists as a means of "reaching out."

Continue reading "Ahmadinejad's Academics"

The Professor's Obsession

2009-06-11T14:56:00.000-07:00

My latest for Campus Watch; posted at Frontpage Magazine:

Stanford Middle East history professor Joel Beinin's appearances on the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center (PPJC) Palo Alto cable television program "Other Voices" reliably produce anti-American, anti-Israel invective. In September 2008, Beinin declared, "The American empire is going down," and during a taping for the February 2009 show, "Gaza and the Future," he pronounced, "The United States aids and abets Israeli war crimes."

What Beinin labeled Israeli "war crimes" (i.e. defending its citizenry) and U.S. collusion therewith were central to his discussion, as the show aired soon after Israel's military incursion into Gaza in December 2008.

One might have thought Obama's election would make Beinin optimistic about the prospects for weakening U.S. support for Israel, but his mood was decidedly downbeat. Obama, Beinin predicted, would "act like all America presidents" by "pushing U.S. interests with foreign policy." (What country doesn't pursue its own interests with foreign policy?) But, Beinin allowed, if Obama were to simply issue a "statement" telling Israel "it's committing war crimes," "going against U.N resolutions," and that "the U.S. will no longer sell Israel weapons," "the Israel Lobby and AIPAC would crumble." The crowd of mostly aging hippies murmured in agreement.

Continue reading "The Professor's Obsession"

Who Speaks For Islam? Not John Esposito

2009-05-29T12:17:00.000-07:00

Stanford undergraduate and Stanford Review features editor Jonathan Gelbart has written an article for Campus Watch on radical Islam apologist John Esposito's recent appearance at Stanford. The article is posted at Frontpage Magazine and it begins like so:

Georgetown University Professor John Esposito is the media's favorite go-to man for questions about Islam. As the founding director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, he is also notorious for downplaying radical Islam. Stanford University hosted his latest round of apologetics on May 13.

Esposito, who spoke at Stanford last year, was on campus to promote the film version of his recent book (co-authored with Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies), Who Speaks For Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. He was joined by the film's executive producer, Muslim convert Michael Wolfe. The 55-minute film claims to present the results of the "largest, most comprehensive study" of Muslim opinion ever done.

Continue reading "Who Speaks For Islam? Not John Esposito"

Whitman's Shampa Biswas: Instigator or Educator?

2009-04-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

My latest at the Campus Watch blog:

Writing at his new blog, The Rubin Report, Gloria Center Director Barry Rubin points to Shampa Biswas, Whitman College Director of Global Studies and associate professor of politics, as an example of the "terrible, anti-democratic, and anti-American ideas" pervading higher education. As demonstrated in a glowing profile at the Whitman College web site and a 2007 convocation address, Biswas is yet another Edward Said acolyte helping to turn the field of Middle East studies (in which she specializes) into a forum for political activism and moral relativism.

Continue reading "Whitman's Shampa Biswas: Instigator or Educator?"

Recommended New Blog: The Rubin Report

2009-04-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

Anyone who keeps up on Middle East politics should know about Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research for International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Professor at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal (MERIA). Rubin's books, articles, and mailing list have lent expertise, common sense, and wisdom to the complicated morass that is the Middle East. He has been a contributor to the Middle East Quarterly and many of his useful insights into the field of Middle East studies have been reprinted and referenced at Campus Watch.

Now Rubin has started his own blog: The Rubin Report. Here is the GLORIA Center announcement:

Dear readers:

We hope you enjoy getting articles from us and find it useful. We will continue to send out 1-3 articles a week. Many more pieces, which will not be sent out, appear on our http://www.gloria-center.org as does MERIA Journal.

However, since we don't have space for all our writings and also to keep up with the times, I have started a new blog called Rubin Reports at http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/ which contains many additional articles and shorter pieces. You are welcome to visit the blog, subscribe to it, and send out links if you so wish.

Do let me know if you have any questions

Best regards, Barry Rubin, Director,

GLORIA Center

Profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

Rubin's previous work has proven indispensable, and the Rubin Report will doubtless do the same. I recommend it highly.

Cross-posted from the Campus Watch blog.

On Hiatus

2009-03-23T12:21:00.000-07:00

As readers may have noticed, I've been on a blogging hiatus for some time now. Without going further into the details, I'll have to plead to a simple lack of inspiration. I'll post more information soon, but I just wanted to leave some sort of explanation for now. In the meantime, there's plenty in my archives for those who are so inclined.

Rashid Khalidi Gets Caught in a Lie

2009-02-05T12:07:00.000-08:00

My latest at the Campus Watch blog:

Rashid Khalidi, Columbia University Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, has been caught in a lie. Khalidi concluded a January 8, 2009, op-ed that appeared in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune with the following quote ascribed to former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon:

"The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."

The problem is Ya'alon never made this statement and both publications have since had to excise it from the op-ed and issue corrections

Continue reading "Rashid Khalidi Gets Caught in a Lie"

Benny Morris Defends Israel on NPR

2009-01-27T10:52:00.000-08:00

I've suspected as much for a while, but it's now confirmed: Israeli post-Zionist historian Benny Morris has clearly had a change of heart. His interview today on NPR's "Forum with Michael Krasny" is really worth catching. Much to the consternation of NPR's liberal listenership (who have been indoctrinated by "pro-Palestinian" propaganda), Morris stood up for Israel admirably.

Catch the interview here once it's archived.

Qaddafi Goes to Georgetown

2009-01-23T10:38:00.000-08:00

My latest at the Campus Watch blog:

In yesterday's "Best of the Web" (OpinionJournal.com), James Taranto took the New York Times to task for providing Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi an op-ed platform upon which to wax poetic about his supposed solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Qaddafi is a proponent of the "one-state solution," whereby Israelis and Palestinians are to live together in a single, secular, democratic state he terms "Isratine." He's even written something called the "White Book" outlining his proposal.

{snip}

...Not coincidentally, the one state solution is popular among the Middle East studies establishment, which, by and large, is obsessed with putting an end to the Jewish state. This may explain why Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS) hosted a videoconference earlier this week on the very same subject given by none other than Muammar Qaddafi.

Continue reading "Qaddafi Goes to Georgetown"

Hamas's Academic Cheerleaders

2009-01-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

Those searching for wisdom on Israel's military campaign in Gaza from the leading voices in Middle East studies might want to look elsewhere. The reflexively anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, or in this case, pro-Hamas, viewpoints expressed by many of these "experts" betray the bias afflicting the field.

In my latest Campus Watch article, which was published today at Frontpage Magazine, I provide excerpts from op-eds and interviews with these academics that speak for themselves. Here's a sampling:
"…Hamas is the poor and impoverished representative of a poor and impoverished people. The obscenity of first demonizing Hamas and then blaming it for the vicious war crimes that Israel is perpetrating against Palestinians has now passed any measure of common decency. Hamas is the legitimate and democratically elected representative of Palestinian people - a grassroots organization deeply embedded in and integral to the Palestinian national liberation movement."

Hamid Dabashi, Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia University

"The claim that Hamas will never accept the existence of Israel has proved equally misinformed, as Hamas leaders explicitly announce their intention to do just that in the pages of the Los Angeles Times or to any international leader or journalist who will meet with them."

Mark LeVine, professor of Middle East history, University of California, Irvine

"Hamas is not a monolith…yes, Hamas engages in terrorism, Hamas carries out certain terrorist actions, but Hamas is not just a huge monolith. There are multiple points of view and narratives within Hamas."

Fawaz Gerges, Christian A. Johnson Chairholder in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies, Sarah Lawrence College

"Hamas has been branded a terrorist organization by U.S. and Israel and much of the international community. I think that's very unfortunate…Hamas is first and foremost a deeply rooted political organization with social and cultural and other dimensions to it. It was elected. It has come forward many, many times to negotiate a truce with Israel, including recently…"

Beshara Doumani, associate professor of history, University of California, Berkeley

"Hamas is a group that has grassroots backing from the Palestinian people. Hamas has been leading a resistance against a colonial occupation. …I think any resistance against a colonial occupier is justified. …I would defend Hamas as actually, you know, doing practical things to fight Israeli colonialism."

Pranav Jani, assistant professor of English, Ohio State University
To read the entire article, click here.

Arab-Israeli Conflict Plays Out in the West

2008-12-31T11:15:00.000-08:00

Israel's long overdue military response to the daily barrage of Gaza rockets aimed at its citizens has led to the usual round of protest/counter-protest confrontations in the West. Whether it's here in the San Francisco Bay Area or across the United States and Europe, Arab protesters and those on the left who have bought into their false victimhood narrative are enraged. They have directed their hatred and vitriol towards the few pro-Israel counter-protesters who have shown up to counter their monolithic message, and in some cases rioting and violence has ensued.

For the most part, the mainstream media continues to tell only one side of the story and unsurprisingly, it's not the pro-Israel one. (Click here to watch a CBS5 clip on the protest in San Francisco). For those who wish to know the real story, Atlas Shrugs has photos and reports from citizen journalists, the last bastion of truth.

The insanity of blaming a nation for defending its citizens after years of turning the other cheek in the face of a ruthless campaign of violence and in the larger picture, a fanatical and genocidal enemy, is self-evident. And yet it goes on.

Thus it has always been and unfortunately, will likely be. Israel and her defenders must remain firm against a world (with the notable exception of the U.S., Australia and a few others) gone mad.

Update: Israel Matzav reports that "a Palestinian opened fire on a group of Israelis in a supermarket just outside of Copenhagen." There's more at Israel National News.

Update II: Check out Phyllis Chesler's "Gaza Comes to America. Hate Demonstrations Against Israel on the East and West Coasts" at Pajamas Media.

Update III: Past and future congressional candidate and retired Army Ltc. Allen West (who I interviewed in 2007) can be seen among the pro-Israel crowd in Atlas Shrugs' post on "Floridastan," and also here.

Update IV: Richard Landes reports on the latest Pallywood productions over at Augean Stables. He also notes that Hamas is victimizing its own people by not availing itself of Egyptian ambulances, probably for propaganda purposes, just like the fake blackouts and manufactured humanitarian crises.

On a similar note, Palestinian Media Watch has been circulating a video of a Palestinian girl who lost family members in Israeli air strikes blaming the true cause of the violence: Hamas.

And let's not forget the ongoing murder of alleged Gaza "collaborators."

The Christmas Kerfuffle Redux

2008-12-24T10:50:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again. Time to revisit my 2005 SFGate column on the annual Christmas kerfuffle, that is. With this column (reprinted below), I tried to provide a Jewish, albeit secular, perspective on the ongoing and, in my opinion, needless controversy over Christmas. And last year, I expanded on the subject with a post titled, "Are Jews Oppressed by Christmas?" My answer was a resounding, "No!" Read on...

***

The Christmas Kerfuffle
Cinnamon Stillwell
December 20, 2005

Upon leaving a San Francisco shop last week, I wished the clerk a cheery "Merry Christmas," only to be met with a surly "Happy Holidays" in return. With that simple exchange, our positions at opposite ends of the political spectrum were revealed.

The celebration of Christmas has indeed been overshadowed by politics in recent years, to the point where every greeting is pregnant with meaning. And even non Christians are swept up in the Christmas kerfuffle.

As a member of the Jewish faith, I've never once felt intimidated, bothered or offended by Christmas. In fact, I grew up celebrating Christmas and still do to this day. Not the religious aspects, but rather the festive trappings of the holiday. I also light the menorah candles each year to mark Hanukkah. While this might earn me the disapproval of traditionalists on both sides of the fence, I confess it simply to illustrate that one holiday need not endanger another.

Yet the political battle over Christmas rages on. Conservatives are upset over what has been dubbed the "war on Christmas," while liberals accuse them of overreacting to what is essentially a non-event. But who's right?

Skeptics of the "war on Christmas" narrative often point out that the trappings of Christmas are everywhere. The commercialization of Christmas has led to an onslaught of retail madness in recent years; the evidence is all around us. But the religious underpinnings of Christmas (the birth of Jesus Christ), not to mention the actual name of the holiday itself, are at risk of disappearing from the public sphere.

All across the country, city halls, chain stores, and public squares are erecting "holiday trees" in lieu of Christmas trees. Nativity scenes are being banned in town squares, public buildings and even some malls. The singing of Christmas carols such as "Silent Night" in public schools and caroling in public parks and public housing are becoming rarities. Court cases brought by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have taken the clause that never appeared in the constitution to ridiculous levels -- and chipping away at Christmas is just one of the results.

The Wages of Diversity

The retail world has been the focus of much anti-Christmas activity. While profiting from the holiday, many stores seem to feel that specifying Christmas threatens the "inclusiveness" to which they seem to be pledged. A trip to Macy's, Nordstrom, Sears or just about any other department store these days will almost always result in the ubiquitous "Happy Holidays" greeting from employees as you pass through the door.

Target in particular has taken a lot of heat for allegedly eliminating the word "Christmas" from its stores. Although they deny this policy, a brief look around any Target store will prove otherwise. Whether it's the advertising, the store decorations or the favored greetings of employees, "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" has obviously overtaken Christmas. An online petition, signed by over 500,000 shoppers, produced a promise from Target to add more Christmas to the mix as the 25th approaches, but the result remains to be seen.

PC Greetings From the White House

Even President Bush, the supposed leader of a new Christian theocracy (to hear some on the left tell it), seems to have succumbed to the forces of political correctness. The White House recently sent out its Christmas card. But as has been the custom since the Clinton presidency, it was instead a "holiday card." There was nary a mention of the word "Christmas."

The bland holiday card angered many of Bush's supporters, while doing nothing to lessen the president's reputation among liberals as some sort of new pope. So one has to wonder why the White House promulgated a form of self-censorship with little or no reward involved. That Bush is the first president to honor Hanukkah and Ramadan at the White House certainly need not preclude mention of Christmas in the White House holiday card.

The excuse given by the White House for honoring this precedent is that one must be sensitive to the other holidays occurring at the same time of year -- Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and for the few pagans out there, Winter Solstice. But they really have nothing to do with the discussion. The federal holiday that the country is celebrating on the 25th of December is Christmas, period. With the exception of Hanukkah this year, which coincidentally begins on the 25th, that particular date does not belong to any other holiday. So what's wrong with acting accordingly?

Why is it that Christmas is the only holiday that must be downplayed so that other religions feel more "included"? We don't insist on calling the Muslim holiday of Ramadan by any other name, nor do we impose such restrictions on the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. In all fairness, we would have to label all religious and cultural occasions "holidays," not just Christmas. I wonder how long it would take for members of other religions to express their outrage? Yet when Christians fight back, as they are now with a concerted campaign to stem the anti-Christmas tide, they are ridiculed or vilified by their opponents.

This double standard when it comes to Christians can be seen in many spheres. A friend was shopping recently in one of those cute little neighborhood stores San Francisco prides itself on when she noticed that the man ringing her up was wearing a T-shirt that read, "So Many Rightwing Christians, So Few Lions." No doubt this was intended to be humorous, but the message has serious implications. Simply substitute the words "Jews," "blacks" or "gays" and the outrage would be immediate. But when it comes to Christians, such offensive rhetoric is somehow acceptable. There's even a term for it -- Christianophobia.

Often, the reason given by those who espouse this bigotry is that Christians themselves spew hatred toward other groups. But mostly what's being referred to is disapproval, not hatred. Criticism of another's lifestyle is not equivalent to hating someone or acting violently on hatred. While there will always be the few extremists, the majority of Christians espouse a peaceful approach to their fellow human beings. It would be nice if that fact were acknowledged now and then.

The Holiday With No Name

So what's at the heart of this campaign to erase Christmas? I argue that it's the creeping multiculturalism that has taken hold of our nation. Instead of a melting pot, we have a system whereby Christianity, the majority religion, is being subordinated to all the others in the interest of "equality." Accordingly, Christmas has to be diminished so that no feels left out.

But this sort of excessive pandering to "diversity" is becoming ludicrous. Have we become a nation of insecure adherents to psychobabble? Does the mere presence of Christmas really threaten non-Christians?

During such times, I'm reminded of my mother's childhood in Australia and her experiences being the sole Jewish child in what was essentially a Christian school. Far from feeling left out, she simply accepted the situation at face value. Jewish traditions were kept alive both at home and in a thriving Jewish community, so they didn't need to be shared by the entire school for her to feel secure. She was never insulted or put upon for being Jewish -- that's just how it was. The point is, simply being a member of a minority group is not tantamount to being oppressed.

Perhaps we should remember that lesson when thinking about the Christmas kerfuffle. And the next time someone wishes you a "Happy Holidays," wish them a hearty "Merry Christmas" in return.

Annual Campus Watch Corrections Update

2008-12-22T15:17:00.000-08:00

Campus Watch has been keeping very busy the past year issuing corrections to the numerous smears and false allegations made against us. From incorrect attributions to paranoid conspiracy theories regarding the "Israel lobby," Neocon cabals, and the like, the fun never ends!

Excerpts and links to our 2008 "Setting The Record Straight" entries are posted at the Campus Watch blog. Click here to access all corrections to date.

Joel Brinkley: Right on Falk, Wrong on Academia

2008-12-18T15:49:00.000-08:00

My latest at the Campus Watch blog:

Stanford University journalism professor and former New York Times foreign policy correspondent Joel Brinkley has written a commendable article in the San Francisco Chronicle questioning Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk's role as special representative of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Falk is charged with investigating alleged Israeli human rights abuses against the Palestinians or, in other words, drumming up false charges against Israel on behalf of a "human rights council" that includes the Organization of the Islamic Conference, among other unsavory participants.

Continue reading "Joel Brinkley: Right on Falk, Wrong on Academia"

The Mumbai Atrocities: Where is the Outrage?

2008-12-17T09:26:00.000-08:00

In my latest SFGate column, I bemoan the indifference with which the horrific attack on Mumbai was met, as well as the complacency towards Islamism that seems to be on the rise. Here are the opening paragraphs:

It was often said after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that everything had changed. And for a few years afterwards, indeed it had. After decades of denial, America and its allies went on the offensive against Islamic terrorism, both militarily and morally. Most importantly, there was no hesitancy to name the enemy or to condemn his inhumanity.

But if the lack of outrage over the Islamic terrorist assault on Mumbai, India last month was any indication, everything has changed back.

Continue reading "The Mumbai Atrocities: Where is the Outrage?"

Update: Two earlier columns that strongly reflect my thoughts on this subject are Steven Emerson's "They're Winning" and Daniel Pipes' (with whom I work) "Still Asleep After Mumbai."