United Nations Anti-Semitism

Another devastating video, via Anne Bayefsky, at Big Peace, "The UN’s Anti-Semitism Agenda on Display in ‘Durban III’":

PREVIOUSLY: "United Nations Bias Against Israel."

'Climate Justice'

Climate justice?

That's a scam right? There's no such thing as "climate justice," right?

Think again, at Pirate's Cove, "Apparently, 4.5 Billion Years Of Changing Climate Threatens “Human Rights”." Follow the links to the discussion of "restorative justice" for "those countries worst affected by the issue..." And "those countries" would be the LCDs, in the latest round of the global left's developmental shakedown regime.

RELATED: From Zombie, "Justice Justice."

To the Shores of Tripoli

From Robert Kagan, at Weekly Standard:

... the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally. It is a shame that some administration officials are trying to downplay the role of the United States in this whole affair, absurdly trying to turn the “leading from behind” gaffe into a kind of Obama doctrine. In fact, the United States was not “leading from behind.” By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Ben ghazi massacred.



That American choice was the turning point. All praise to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron for being ahead of the president in seeing the need for armed action—just as Margaret Thatcher was ahead of George H.W. Bush in seeing the need for action against Saddam Hussein in 1990. But here is the plain and critical truth of the matter: None of this could have been done without the United States leading the way.



Only the United States has the military capacity, the weaponry, the surveillance technology, and the skill to open a safe path for the air and ground war against Qaddafi’s forces. France and Britain alone would not and probably could not have done the job without unacceptable risk to their forces, which were very thin to begin with. In the early days, especially, American A-10 and AC-130 ground attack aircraft were critical in pummeling Qaddafi’s armored vehicles and forcing them to halt offensives against rebel positions. In the last days of the conflict, American high-tech surveillance allowed the rebels to pinpoint the positions of Qaddafi forces in and around Tripoli. Throughout months of fighting, prowling American Predator drones forced Qaddafi and his men to keep their heads down.



The president and his secretary of state also carried out an adept diplomacy that eventually garnered not only European but, remarkably, Arab support as well. This in turn forced both Russia and China—fearful of Arab wrath—to acquiesce. There were costs, of course: a U.N. resolution inadequate to the task at hand and the usual problem of trying to keep many players on board during a mission. On balance, however, it was worth it. The administration was surely right that the intervention would be more effective if it did not appear to be exclusively an American operation and that the combination of European and Arab support for removing Qaddafi was enough of a prize to warrant some compromises.



But the larger point is that, again, only the United States could have pulled all these disparate political and regional forces together. No other nation, not France, not Great Britain, not even a united EU (which German opposition prevented) could have managed this global diplomatic task. In this allegedly “post-American” world, the United States remains both indispensable and irreplaceable.

That's a dramatically different take than Max Boot's, "Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?" Boot doesn't love America's reserve role in these interventions, especially since success requires American military power to begin with. Why shrug off our leadership role and argue "we've got your back"? Kagan just calls it an American victory no matter how you slice it. But all along I've found Victor Davis Hanson's arguments to be the most compelling, which hold, for example, that the Obama administration hadn't the slightest clue about toppling Gaddafi, as evidenced by the administration's pathetic flip-flopping on the goal of regime change or not.



In any case, Kagan and Boot agree on one thing: The war's not over yet.

Libya War Not Yet Over

Well, I need to start watching MSNBC more often. I just love Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis at STRATFOR:

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi releases new audio message," and "Gaddafi vows to 'let Libya burn' as he defies calls for surrender."



Plus, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Israel Largely Vindicated by U.N. Marmara Report: Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador, Threatens Legal Reprisals

At New York Times, "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid." The report was issued last month but its release delayed while Ankara and Jerusalem sought to patch up differences. Good luck with that, it turns out. See Israel Matzav, "Turkey expels Israeli envoy," and Jerusalem Post, "Turkey vows legal action against Israelis involved in raid":

Turkey said on Friday it will seek to prosecute all Israelis responsible for crimes committed during an Israeli raid on a ship bound for the Gaza Strip that killed nine Turks in May 2010.



"Turkey will take legal actions against the Israeli soldiers and all other officials responsible for the crimes committed and pursue the matter resolutely," Turkey's embassy in Washington said in a statement.



The threat follows a UN report that confirmed the legality of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza but said Israel had used unreasonable force in the raid. Both Turkey and Israel disputed some of the conclusions of the so-called Palmer Report.



The names of the Israeli marines involved in the raid have not been released, so only ranking commanders overseeing the operation could be identified if Turkey follows through with the legal action.



The full text of the UN report, which was leaked on Thursday, was delivered to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's office on Friday and will soon be officially published, UN spokesman Eduardo del Buey told reporters.

Of course, Turkey would have acted precisely as Israel did if faced with the same situation. And click on that New York Times piece. Turkey's mad that Israel has the right under international law to impose a blockade.



ADDED: At Astute Bloggers, "IS ISLAMIST TURKEY ATTEMPTING TO INSTIGATE A NATO WAR AGAINST ISRAEL?‏"

Germany Pulls Out of Durban III Anti-Racism Conference

At Jerusalem Post:

BERLIN - Germany's Foreign Ministry announced on Friday that it will not take part in the UN-sponsored Durban III anti-racism conference on September 22, because of the possibility that the event can be turned into a forum for anti-Semitic statements.



In a statement to The Jerusalem Post on Friday, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said “Germany will not participate in the commemoration event for the 10th year anniversary of the Durban conference.”



He added that Germany “cannot rule out that the Durban commemoration event in New York will be misused for anti-Semitic statements, as was the case in previous conferences.”



Westerwelle continued that “therefore Germany will not participate. This is also an expression of our special responsibility toward Israel.”

You can say that again.

United Nations Bias Against Israel

Via Theo Spark, "Video: Understanding UN Bias Against Israel -- Invite to Durban 3 Protest, NYC, Sept 21":

Rebels Bust Gaddafi's Bunker

A huge report at London's Daily Mail, "Missed him by minutes: How rebels and special forces came close to snaring Gaddafi." Also at Telegraph UK, "Libya: rebels surround apartment block 'hiding' Col Gaddafi."



Plus, at LAT, "Eww! Moammar Kadafi (hearts) Condoleezza Rice." And Memeorandum.

Muammar Gaddafi On Verge of Defeat

Well, I hope this is accurate. Let's finish up with this regime change business in Libya and move on. The silver lining for the Democrats is that Obama will be able to claim some kind of victory, which will help leftist talking points, since I can't think of a least well-conceived U.S. military intervention.



Anyway, at Miami Herald, "Heavy fighting surrounds Gadhafi stronghold of Tripoli." And at Telegraph UK, "Libya: Gaddafi faces final battle as fighting erupts in Tripoli." Also, at New York Times, "Heavy Fighting Reported in Tripoli; Rebels Encircle City."

Protection Racket: 'Responsibility to Protect' Becomes a Doctrine

From Joshua Muravchik, at World Affairs:

The world has mostly enjoyed peace since 1945, but that owes nothing to the UN and everything to American power, exercised mostly in the form of guarantees to Japan, NATO, and other allies, rather than in shooting wars. In this era when violence within states is far more common than between them, cases of extreme abuse will sometimes cry out for outside intervention. But the traditional doctrine of humanitarian intervention, invoked by the United States and other democracies at their own discretion, is likely to offer a more usable basis for such action than the shiny new version called R2P, which places all authority in the paralytic hands of the United Nations Security Council.

It's a good piece. RTWT.



And recall David Rieff, at National Interest, "Saints Go Marching In."

Somalis Starve as Shabab Islamists Bar Escape From Famine

This really bothers me, at NYT, "Somalis Waste Away as Insurgents Block Escape From Famine." The picture here was on the cover of today's hard copy edition.

Readers know I've expressed reservations against humanitarian intervention, especially since Libya really wasn't. But I'm not reflexively opposed to the use of military power to guarantee food shipments. Almost twenty years ago President George H.W. Bush sent U.S. forces to Somalia to protect delivery of humanitarian aid. We all know how that turned out, but we didn't go in right in the first place, didn't have enough men and heavy armor on the ground, and President Bill Clinton got cold feet after we sustained casualties. If we were ever to do something like that again, we'd be best to go in without the U.N. or our NATO allies. Leave it to American forces, who've been engaged in two decades of counterinsurgency warfare since the early 1990s. The experience is cumulative. We could do a better and more effective job of relief today, and frankly, it could do some good. The Horn of Africa is right next to Pakistan and Yemen as the top location of festering Islamist war against the West.

Every morning, emaciated parents with emaciated children stagger into Banadir Hospital, a shell of a building with floors that stink of diesel fuel because that is all the nurses have to fight off the flies. Babies are dying because of the lack of equipment and medicine. Some get hooked up to adult-size intravenous drips — pediatric versions are hard to find — and their compromised bodies cannot handle the volume of fluid.

Most parents do not have money for medicine, so entire families sit on old-fashioned cholera beds, with basketball-size holes cut out of the middle, taking turns going to the bathroom as diarrhea streams out of them.

“This is worse than 1992,” said Dr. Lul Mohamed, Banadir’s head of pediatrics, referring to Somalia’s last famine. “Back then, at least we had some help.”

In any case, more at New York Times, "Off Media Radar, Famine Garners Few Donations," and "How to Help Victims of the East Africa Famine."

'Saints Go Marching In': David Rieff at The National Interest

From the July/August issue:

AS WITH so many absolutist projects that make up in vehemence what they lack in nuance and realism, it should probably come as no surprise that R2P is a doctrine borne of a combination of institutional crises and guilt, conceived in the offices of then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the thirty-eighth floor of the UN in New York and largely fashioned in Ottawa at the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). For Annan, the global failure to respond effectively either to the war in Bosnia or to the Rwandan genocide was both a moral stain and a potentially grave threat to the legitimacy of the UN-based international system. Not unreasonably, he believed that one of the principal reasons for these devastating and tragic failures was the absence of any international consensus over how to reconcile respect for a nation’s sovereignty (on which the international system has been based, at least in theory, since the Peace of Westphalia) with the need for outside “humanitarian intervention.” That somewhat misleading term had been attached to various outside efforts at least since the UN went into Somalia in 1992. At times the armed missions were imbued with the goal of preventing states from systematically committing crimes against their own people—as had been the case with Belgrade’s rule in Kosovo; at others, with stepping in when governments were too weak to prevent such crimes from being committed—as had been the case in Sierra Leone when the Revolutionary United Front guerrillas came close to destroying that country. R2P, which began to take shape in 2000, was an attempt to remedy what had become an ad hoc interventionism.

Already in 1999, Annan had published “Two Concepts of Sovereignty,” an essay in which he argued that whether states liked it or not, globalization was transforming the substance of national sovereignty. The world simply was no longer prepared to stand by “when death and suffering are being inflicted on large numbers of people.” The needed interventions had to be based on what Annan called “legitimate and universal principles.” But these were still sorely lacking. In Kosovo, Annan wrote, a group of states had “intervened without seeking authority from the United Nations Security Council.” In Timor the council had authorized intervention but “only after obtaining an invitation from Indonesia.” And then there was Rwanda, where “the international community stands accused of doing too little, too late.”

The secretary-general could not act directly; too many member states, particularly among the G-77 countries of the developing world, would have been outraged. Instead, he wisely chose to approach the Canadian government to see if it would sponsor a study that could begin to develop an acceptable new norm. In early 2000, he asked David M. Malone, formerly Canada’s number two at the UN and at the time head of the International Peace Academy in New York, to convene a Canadian-funded private meeting of leading specialists in international legal affairs to see whether criteria for intervention (if only of a preventive nature) could be developed that would command a wide consensus among UN member states. But the group failed to reach agreement. It was after that failure that Malone, Lloyd Axworthy, then Canada’s foreign minister, and Robert Fowler and Paul Heinbecker, the outgoing and incoming Canadian permanent representatives to the UN, decided that Canada would take a more ambitious (and more public) approach, launching the ICISS, chaired by Gareth Evans and the distinguished Algerian diplomat Mohamed Sahnoun. The report they issued a year later was called The Responsibility to Protect. Its central theme was that “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe . . . but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.”

Go click on that top link and read it all. Rieff was once one of the foremost proponents of humanitarian intervention. Now he's apparently a coldly calculating realist determined to unmask the sick hypocrisies animating the international human rights community. He concludes with an excellent discussion of the Libyan intervention. Regime change really is the goal. And it's so funny that would a Republican president have backed it we'd be having Hitler parades across the world from Washington to London and beyond. But with a Democrat administration in power, the U.N.-based humanitarian intelligentsia can mask its neo-imperialism with smokescreens of good intentions. It's pretty mucked up.

Pro-Terror Backlash Against Horowitz's 'Wall of Lies' at University of Michigan-Dearborn

I had a nice background roundup previously, "'Wall of Lies' From David Horowitz Freedom Center." And now here comes the controversy out of University of Michigan at Dearborn. The Horowitz Freedom Center took out an ad in the school's student newspaper, and conflict erupted. And in classic progressive style, not a single point of the "Wall of Lies" is rebutted. Instead, we get wailing allegations of "hatred" and "racism." This is what the "pro-Palestine movement in academe" is all about, I guess. Embarrassing anti-intellectualism. See, "Anti-Palestine ad in Michigan-Dearborn paper draws harsh criticism" (via NewsReal Blog).

F-15E Fighter Jet Crashes in Libya

Developing news, from New York Times, "American Warplane Crashes in Libya as Ground Fighting Continues." Also at Memeorandum.

Regime Change Libya?

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD gets the neocon-crazy photo-credit, at "Libyavention."

But see Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Wavers on 'Regime Change'"

WASHINGTON — After weeks of internal debate on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait.

Instead of pushing for immediate regime change—as it did to varying degrees in Egypt and now Libya—the U.S. is urging protesters from Bahrain to Morocco to work with existing rulers toward what some officials and diplomats are now calling "regime alteration."

The approach has emerged amid furious lobbying of the administration by Arab governments, who were alarmed that President Barack Obama had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and worried that, if the U.S. did the same to the beleaguered king of Bahrain, a chain of revolts could sweep them from power, too, and further upend the region's stability.

The strategy also comes in the face of domestic U.S. criticism that the administration sent mixed messages at first in Egypt, tentatively backing Mr. Mubarak before deciding to throw its full support behind the protesters demanding his ouster. Likewise in Bahrain, the U.S. decision to throw a lifeline to the ruling family came after sharp criticism of its handling of protests there. On Friday, the kingdom's opposition mounted one of its largest rallies, underlining the challenge the administration faces selling a strategy of more gradual change to the population.

Administration officials say they have been consistent throughout, urging rulers to avoid violence and make democratic reforms that address the demands of their populations. Still, a senior administration official acknowledged the past month has been a learning process for policy makers. "What we have said throughout this is that there is a need for political, economic and social reform, but the particular approach will be country by country," the official said.

Right.

A learning process. Frankly, White House foreign policy is FUBAR, as Niall Ferguson noted a couple of weeks ago at Newsweek. A U.S. carrier group off the Egyptian coast might have sent a signal for Mubarak to step down a lot sooner than he did, and a Marine landing at Suez might have bolstered the opposition, and perhaps crushed forces loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, anything along those lines could have led to a long-term U.S. occupation and an intense outcry around the Arab world. What's interesting is that despite all of these dangers, folks keep raising the prospects of U.S. military action in the region. See Micah Zenko, at Foreign Policy, "No-Go: A No-Fly Zone Over Libya Will Not Be Easy or Painless." And the roundup at New York Times, "Should the U.S. Move Against Qaddafi?"

No Support for Terrorism Whatsoever? Uncovering Students for Islamist Jihad at UCLA

My investigative report is up at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog: "UCLA’s Palestine Awareness Week: Students for the Extermination of Israel."

ICYMI: See my initial report, "Israeli Apartheid Week, Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA, February 23, 2011."

'Wall of Lies' From David Horowitz Freedom Center

At FrontPage Magazine, "UCLA Daily Bruin Prints Center’s “Wall of Lies”."



NewsReal Blog Editor David Swindle debuted the Wall of Lies at CPAC, and the response was a bit unexpected. See, "The Anti-Semites Who Swarmed Us at CPAC and the Future of the Right."



I'm looking forward to attending a campus event featuring the Wall of Lies, especially given my recent visit to UCLA, "Israeli Apartheid Week, Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA, February 23, 2011."



RELATED: At Jawa Report, "'Islamo-Fascism Awareness Campaign' vs 'Israel Apartheid Week'."

End Hamas' Violence

An impressive essay, from Molly Cornfield of UCLA's Bruins for Israel, at The Daily Bruin:

In 2005, Israel evacuated all Israeli citizens from Gaza. This peaceful gesture went unrecognized, and Hamas responded with an increase in rocket attacks. Hamas also retaliated by perpetrating 52 suicide bombings, killing 288 Israelis and wounding hundreds more.



Hamas refuses to pursue a peaceful coexistence between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, despite the compromises Israel has made. Hamas’ charter and spokesmen continue to call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. What the international community had hoped would be a thriving Palestinian democracy has become a launching pad for terrorism. Efforts have been made by the international community to revive the peace process.

More at the link.



PHOTO CREDIT: Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, founder of Hamas, "Israeli Apartheid Week, Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA, February 23, 2011."

No Questions Allowed: Islamic Terrorism and the Suppression of Speech on America's Campuses

Following up on last night's post, "Israeli Apartheid Week, Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA, February 23, 2011."



This really hits home with me, considering my experience dealing with UCLA's Muslim student thugs. See John Guandolo, at Big Peace, "University of Central Florida Stifles Discussion of Terrorism and Muslim Brotherhood." And the clip features ACT! for America's Randy McDaniels, who is forcibly removed from the panel discussion for asking a pointed question. At the video's summary, McDaniel's indicates that Muslims in attendance coordinated to suppress any tough questions of Islam and forced critical participants to leave:

The MSA toes closely to the model. At UCLA yesterday, the moment I posed some tough questions, Hamzah Baig became extremely uncomfortable, then hostile. The police were called eventually, and I stood away until they were gone.



More from Ben Howe at Red State, "University of Central Florida Hosts Terrorists & Forcibly Removes Their Detractors."



RELATED: Speaking of free speech, UC Irvine's MSA is getting a lot of sympathy from the New York Times, "Charges Against Muslim Students Prompt Debate Over Free Speech":

For years, Jewish and Israeli advocacy groups have said that the Muslim Student Union has fostered a hostile environment on campus. In 2007, the Office of Civil Rights of the federal Department of Education examined complaints from the Zionist Organization of America that the university was not doing enough to respond to the problem. The investigation cleared the campus administration of any wrongdoing. In 2009, the same organization complained that an event sponsored by the Muslim Student Union was used to raise money for an organization that helps Hamas, the Islamic militant group, in Gaza. The university asked the F.B.I. to investigate, but no charges were ever filed.



Much of the controversy on campus centers on Palestinian Awareness Week, which the Muslim Student Union has sponsored each spring. In the past, the week has included bloody Israeli flags and speeches delivered under signs that read “Holocaust in the Holy Land” and “Israel — the Fourth Reich.”



Many students came to dread the events, which some began to refer to as “hate week.” A few students have said they felt uncomfortable walking across campus wearing a Star of David or any other overtly Jewish symbol during the week. Some have had loud shouting matches, while others have chosen to stay home and avoid campus altogether.



By last winter, it seemed that the talk had been toned down and that much of the discomfort for Jewish students had subsided. But students said they caught wind of plans to interrupt Mr. Oren’s speech. The students who were arrested said that the protest had not been a Muslim Student Union activity, but an investigation by university officials concluded that that the group had coordinated the protest in an effort to shut down the event.



Similar outbursts have occurred during speeches by Israeli officials on other college campuses. But it appears that none prompted disciplinary actions from either the college or law enforcement officials.

But read the whole thing. After Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed criminal charges against the MSA's "Irvine 11," an outcry arose around the university alleging the MSA's free speech rights had been violated:

Reem Salahi, a lawyer who represented the students in their administrative hearings, said that the decision to suspend the Muslim group was “very harsh” and that prosecutors were acting in a “very selective manner.”



“It’s not only the punishment, but the vilifying of these students that’s concerning,” Ms. Salahi said. “Whether it was rude or disrespectful is not the issue, the issue is that they were trying to air their grievances in a peaceful way.”

Always the victims. Here's a radical Islamist faction that shut down the Israeli Ambassador, and when faced with the consequences we get pathetic pleading to the airing "grievances in a peaceful way." I guess that's more of the new tone of progressive politics. As long as you aren't wearing a suicide vest, no amount of thuggery will excuse you from claims of being victimized.

Israeli Apartheid Week, Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA, February 23, 2011

The recent crackdown against the Muslim Students Association at UC Irvine has obviously influenced the planning for this week's events at UCLA. The "Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA" is simply another name for the university's Muslim Students Association (MSA). Last year, MSA shouted down Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at UCI, and the university administration subsequently suspended the organization until August 31st, 2011. Plus, at UC San Diego, David Horowitz smacked down local MSA activist Jumanah Imad Albahri, who endorsed a new Holocaust for Jews in Israel. So, in an apparent effort to avoid scrutiny, the latest events at UCLA are called "Palestine Awareness Week," and the MSA is calling itself "Students for Justice in Palestine." But the Apartheid Wall hasn't had a makeover, as far as I can tell. Despite a number posters claiming "non-violent resistance," this Islamist militant with the Kalashnikov and keffiyeh belies the Muslim students' allegedly peaceful motives:

And of course, the "arch" over the wall's center opening announces the real purpose of the events, BDS: "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: A Strategy for Israel’s Destruction."

UCLA's Daily Bruin has the background, "UCLA students hope to educate campus about human rights issues with Palestine Awareness Week." And on Facebook, Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA (SJP at UCLA).



When I first arrived I looked around and noticed two opposing groups in the immediate area. The most conspicuous were the Muslim students, although I first went over and said hello to the young folks from Bruins for Israel:

They were just hanging out, enjoying themselves. And they didn't mind being photographed at all:

It was the exact opposite with the Students for Justice in Palestine. I said hello to a couple of the young ladies, and I asked if I could speak with their lead organizer. I was pointed in the direction of a burly young man named Hamzah Baig. I introduced myself and asked if he'd take questions. He asked "Who's this for"? And I told him I was a blogger with David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog. That didn't seem to phase him at first, so the interview started out pretty casually. I asked him what the goals were for Palestinian Awareness Week. He said that the group wanted to stop Israeli settlements of Palestinian lands and to "end the occupation." Then I asked, "what occupation"? And he said "the West Bank." Okay, I thought, hmm, how about a couple of more challenging questions? So I said "Does your group support terrorism against Israelis?" And Baig practically choked on his Arafat scarf. He told me he wanted to be quoted precisely, and then enunciated very slowly, "our group provides no support for terrorism whatsoever." And I said, oh yeah? What about Hamas? Do you support them? He said, "yeah, sure." And I said, but Hamas is a known terrorist organization. I then mentioned David Horowitz's confrontation with Jumanah Imad Albahri at UC San Diego. And I noted that she wouldn't denounce Hamas and called for the extermination of the Jews. But by this time Baig was getting uptight. He said that "our group has nothing to do with the MSA at UC San Diego. They're totally separate for us." And I said, but aren't you guys MSA here at UCLA? And he said, "yeah, sure, were MSA, but we're separate." I said fine, "will you renounce Hamas right now, will your reject Hamas"? He said "we support Hamas programs of education, food and medicine." "What about terrorism"?, I said. And he again hestitated to respond. I thanked him and asked him if I could take his picture, but he refused. By now he was getting hostile at the questioning and wanted to be away from me. I said, "Why"? "This is a public event, at a public university --- why don't you want to be photographed"? And he just waved me away with his arms and said "no pictures."



I walked around a bit and took a picture of one of the Palestinian women, but then a few minutes later she ran back up to me and said, "I'm uncomfortable that you took my picture. I'm uncomfortable with that." I asked her why, but she just repeated that line, and then Baig came over and gave her the crossed-throat sign not to talk to me, again warning me not take pictures. He walked away for a while and I took a picture from a distance anyway:

I won't post the young woman's picture although she's featured at the group's Facebook page, at 8 seconds at the Palestinian Awareness Week 2010-11 video. That said, I continued to take pictures of the information table, arguing that this was a public event. I suggested to Baig that he was trying to suppress honest reporting about his organization. He alleged: "You are harassing my people." I told him he was harassing me and trying to suppress the truth. He obviously wasn't pleased at the attention to his pro-terror racket:

Arafat scarves were on sale for $10.00:

In any case, here's some photos from the wall. I was pressed for time. I had to head back to the O.C., so I wasn't able to examine the display as closely as I'd have liked. What I did notice wasn't surprising at all. It's all anti-Israel propaganda, completely one-sided, with a few sops to human rights thrown in. The Israeli Apartheid Wall is designed to influence young minds with little knowlege of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Seeing these pictures, it's a 10-to-1 bet that the uninitiated would be horrified at the "brutality," but since there's absolutely no context, it's worthless:

Again, my photography wasn't as organized as I'd like. But I did dwell on this panel featuring American Rachel Corrie, who was killed in 2003:

Corrie's a martyr to the global anti-Israel jihad, but common sense tells you not to lie down in front of a bulldozer. See, "The Case Against Rachel Corrie," and "Rachel Corrie, Again."



And here's the big Hamas panel. So much for "peaceful resistance":

Democratically-elected social workers, but of course the Students for Justice in Palestine weren't handing out copies of the Hamas Charter:

And notice Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, founder of Hamas, assassinated by Israel, and obviously a martyr to global jihad. But according to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Yassin was the dominant authority of the Hamas leadership, which was directly involved in planning, orchestrating and launching terror attacks carried out by the organization. In this capacity, Yassin personally gave his approval for the launching of Qassam rockets against Israeli cities, as well as for the numerous Hamas terrorist bombings and suicide operations. In his public appearances and interviews, Yassin called repeatedly for a continuation of the 'armed struggle' against Israel, and for an intensification of the terrorist campaign against its citizens. The successful operation against Yassin constitutes a significant blow to a central pillar of the Hamas terrorist organization, and a major setback to its terrorist infrastructure.

That data wasn't included at the Students for Justice in Palestine information table.



And these panels must be especially repellent to Jews, "ZIONISM IS NOT JUDAISM":

A couple more photos before I head back home: And note that in all my 25 years as an undergrad, as a graduate student, and a professor, I can't ever recall this prominent of a scriptural banner on the grounds of any campus. This is along the main walk up from the Apartheid Wall. A passage from the Koran (and notice the sponsoring group in the bottom-left corner, "Muslim Union at UCLA"):

About to head out, here's the group of Muslim students. The women are wearing head coverings and red "Free Palestine/End the Occupation" shirts:

This sweet young lady said she was majoring in communications and was thinking about Jewish studies:

Looking back at the wall, on my way to the parking structure:

More later ...