The Gnomes of Zurich

"Psst. Pass it up. Anybody heard from Bill?"

Let's Play, "Name That Idol!"

The above is a picture of:

a The final episode of "American Idol"

b A pagan ritual from long ago in a far-a-way place

c Just another university protest

d Americans sacrificing money to their omnipotent Government


If you guessed "d", you are a cynic-but you are a winner!

A Disturbing Article Out of Oakland

I am cross-posting the below article by Jonathan Bernstein of the Anti-Defamation League (San Francisco). It concerns a recent demonstration he witnessed in Oakland that took on anti-Semitic tones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware of Anti-Semitism Germinating in Oakland By Jonathan Bernstein ADL San Francisco Regional Director

This article originally appeared in Jewish Newsweekly of Northern California on February 13, 2009

"After 20 years at the Anti-Defamation League, I shouldn't be surprised anymore, right? Wrong. Case in point is the latest anti-Israel and anti-Semitic slur percolating through parts of the Bay Area: that there are direct parallels between the conflict in Gaza and oppression in Oakland.

In early January we first noticed this phenomenon at protests over the New Year's Day shooting death of Oscar Grant, an unarmed black man, by a BART police officer. We saw signs there making the strange parallels about how "our taxes kill" in both Gaza and Oakland. Though the notion was absurd, my colleagues and I had a queasy feeling that it could catch on. And, unfortunately, we were right. First, we noticed posters and speeches at anti-Israel rallies making the same link throughout January.

Then late last month, I heard about a public event for Oakland youth sponsored by the Gaza Action Committee and the Eastside Arts Alliance, which describes itself a group of "artists, cultural workers and community organizers of color ... that improves the quality of life for our communities and advocates for progressive, systemic social change." The promotional flyer declared that participants would "learn and discuss the connections between state-sponsored violence in Palestine and Oakland." I decided to attend and observe.

Once there, it didn't take long for me to understand how seriously the Jewish community needed to take this latest development. The first thing I noticed were multiple posters of the wounded in Gaza taped on the exterior windows of the Eastside Arts Alliance building. Every one of these pictures was emblazoned with a large Jewish star with the U.S. presidential seal inside the middle of the star. The unequivocal message to me: Jews control the U.S. government, and both are responsible for the deaths in Gaza. I listened with dismay to the presentations. After a brief, distorted history lesson about Israel in which Jews were portrayed as colonizing European interlopers with no prior connection to the land, speakers took turns convincing the audience that the experiences of a person of color in Oakland mirrored those of a Palestinian in Gaza. To do this, they repeated one false claim after another: Palestinians have curfews just like youth in Oakland; Oakland police are trained by Israeli law enforcement to oppress minorities; during Hurricane Katrina, the Israeli Mossad shot black Americans trying to survive the devastation; the gentrification of Oakland is the same as "the Occupation"; the same company which built the security barrier in Israel is building the barrier between the U.S. and Mexico; and so on. In sum, the young people attending this event learned that Jews and the Jewish state are responsible for Palestinian oppression, and that this is the same sort of oppression they feel in their own Oakland communities. Furthermore, they learned that to combat this oppression, the two communities needed to band together against their common foes.

To say the event was depressing for me is an understatement. Yet I also knew that the Jewish community could not afford to simply dismiss this event as just a fringe phenomenon. We can all remember when only extreme activists made Nazi analogies at anti-Israel demonstrations - now the swastikas are routine. The Oakland event drew about 200 young and passionate activists. These youths clearly had leadership skills. They were articulate and motivating, but the realization that they were capable of becoming community leaders startled me: What words and beliefs would they share with their peers now and in the future? How would Jewish youth find common ground with them? The difficult question for our community is what can we do about this? I propose the following:

* Don't ignore dangerous parallels. Yesterday's fringe agitation might be today's routine occurrence.

* Build alliances with other communities, and reinforce appropriate parallels with them. Help others to understand our communities' perspective and experience. Talk to your neighbors. Plan a meeting with members of the church or other house of worship in your town. In other words, humanize us to them.

* Listen to the experiences of those around you. It makes sense that others will be more sensitive to us when we make a genuine attempt to be sensitive to them.

* When you see biased activism in your town, newspaper or community center, take action: Call the ADL, write a letter to the editor, plan a more balanced program to provide perspective, etc. Changing attitudes is hard but rewarding work, and all of us should be a part of this effort in the workplace, home and community. At the ADL and other Jewish organizations, we strive to do this every day. I hope you will join us in this endeavor."


Jonathan Bernstein is regional director of the Anti-Defamation League's Central Pacific Region, based in San Francisco. The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fousesquawk comment: Has Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums commented on this event? Has he spoken out? That is not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know. Thanks to Mr Bernstein for documenting this disturbing event.

Our New Treasury Secretary Going After Those Tax Cheats

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner meeting with his IRS staff


"IRS: "Mr Secretary, we have good news and bad news."

Geithner: "What's the good news?"

IRS: "The Union Bank of Switzerland has released all 52,000 bank accounts of those American tax-cheats to us."

Geithner: "Great! What's the bad news?"

IRS: "They gave us your bank account."

Eric Holder's Statement on Race

Attorney General Eric Holder


No sooner did Eric Holder slip through with his confirmation as Attorney General in spite of his links to questionable pardons under President Clinton, now he comes out with a divisive statement on race. Holder, for some reason, has now told us that America is a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race in America. I would like to add a comment or two.

With all due respect to Americans of Latin, Asian, Middle East and Native American origin, I assume Holder is talking about black-white relations. Assuming that is so, what discussion does Holder want us to have? If he is talking about our history of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and discrimination, I respectfully suggest that is a discussion we have been having for 40 years. America has not only passed civil rights legislation, but admitted its wrongs in that area. We educate our children as to the past and the need to treat each other as equals.

I often hear calls from prominent black figures for an "open and frank" discussion or dialogue on race. I agree. Yet, it seems that what they are calling for is more discussion of slavery, discrimination and racism (white). To that I say, "been there-done that". What is needed is a truly frank discussion in which whites can express their own concerns about racial questions including black crime rates, fear of entering into black neighborhoods, black illigitimate birth rates, never-ending cries of racism and affirmative action. Let's be honest. It is on our minds, but no one wants to talk about it because it only leads to more accusations of racism. If this is part of what Holder was talking about, then he is onto something.

To me, it seems that America is a country with serious racial issues and divisions, but not a racist country-as it clearly was early in my lifetime. The problems that plague black America are daunting, but in my opinion, whites are not the enemy. White people are not holding black people down. Let me repeat that; white people are not holding black people down. Sure, there are black voices-like Maxine Waters, for example, who really believe that whites are poisoning the black neighborhoods with drugs-as opposed to the black drug dealers themselves. Likewise, whites cannot be blamed for the alarming break-up of the black family, which in my view, is the most serious problem facing black America. In the worst days of Jim Crow, black illigitimacy was about 25%. Today, it is about 70%. How can that be-unless we blame "The Great Society", begun under Lyndon Johnson, a system of well-intentioned welfare that discouraged 2-parent families? What about black gangs that terrorize inner-city neighborhoods? Did whites organize those gangs and send them out on the streets to kill and maim?

In my humble opinion, the problems that plague black America cannot be solved by white people or even government. They must be solved by black people themselves at the grass-roots community level (families, churches etc). I realize that the historical legacy of slavery still plays a role, but frankly, "white racism" has become a tired old phrase that masks issues that must be addressed directly by black America. Unfortunately, when people like Bill Cosby bring up unpleasant truths, they are excoriated as "sell-outs".

While not discounting the fact that there are still racist fringes out there, most everyone knows that black success is a success for all of us. Nothing will be better for America than seeing blacks all rise into the socio-economic middle or upper classes. It is just that many of us, including myself, are wondering what more we can do.

So Mr Holder, if you want to discuss race some more, then I suggest that it be truly open, frank and respectful -on both sides. If not, than I suggest that black America needs to hold an open and frank discussion- with itself.

The Chimp Cartoon-It's Terrible

New York Post- Stick to A-Rod, please.



When I first saw the news reports of the cartoon in the New York Post and actually saw the cartoon, itself, my first reaction was, "it's terrible".

The cartoon shows a dead chimpanzee shot through the chest and lying on the sidewalk. One of the cops who shot the chimp says, "Now they'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill".

Of course, the first impulse of many is to associate the chimp with President Obama (who didn't even personally write the bill). Why? It all goes back to the old racist stereotypes of blacks as being akin to monkeys. In addition, it plants the seed in some minds of assassination-a nightmare no decent person could contemplate.

Then on second thought, I began to consider the arguments that the Post and its cartoonist would surely make. First, Obama didn't write the bill. it was written by congressional and White House aides, probably mostly white people. The real message was that a bunch of idiots wrote the bill and that the cartoonist and the Post would
never intentionally try to put forth the above messages. (Indeed the Post has apologized.)

All of which is probably true. Yet, I have to go back to my original reaction. The cartoon is terrible. Intentional or not, both the cartoonist and the Post should have used some common sense and known the associations that many would make.

Not just non-blacks who hold negative stereotypes about blacks, but folks like Al Sharpton. Already, he has pounced on this, leading a group of protesters calling for Post publisher Rupert Murdoch to be jailed.

Jailed?

Not only that, it comes right on the heels of Attorney General Eric Holder's outrageous statement that America is a "land of cowards" when it comes to the issue of race.

The bottom line and my final conclusion is what I originally thought. This cartoon is just plain terrible.

The Swiss Bank Affair

I have been following the Union Bank of Switzerland affair with great interest. From news reports, it appears that the US Government (IRS) has been able to obtain the cooperation of the Union Bank of Switzerland in obtaining the accounts of a couple of hundred Americans who may have hidden their assets in that county without reporting them. Efforts are under way to obtain the accounts of another 52,000 or so Americans who have Swiss bank accounts.

Aside from the issue of who these Americans are and are any of them names we know, it is an interesting legal issue from the Swiss point of view. As is well known, Swiss bank secrecy is a national institution, one that has contributed greatly to the wealth of that nation. The Swiss laws regarding bank secrecy are strict. Bank officials who violate those laws are subject to harsh criminal penalties in Switzerland. Indeed, as we speak, Swiss courts are in the process of determining the legality of UBS releasing the 52,000 accounts in question.

One issue that seems to be in question is whether Americans who hold Swiss Bank accounts are engaged in tax fraud or merely tax evasion by hiding their wealth. If it is a case of mere tax evasion, the Swiss will not cooperate with foreign governments.

During the decade of the 1980s, when I was stationed with DEA in Milan, Italy, I had occasion to work often with the Swiss police and made several trips to that country. It was during that era when the US Department of Justice, Dept. of State, FBI and DEA were making great inroads into obtaining Swiss government/police cooperation into the investigation of monies placed into Swiss bank accounts that were derived from drug proceeds. As a general rule, the Swiss began to cooperate with other governments when bank funds could be shown to be derived from drug trafficking-or other criminal activity -but not mere tax evasion. In those cases where proof could be provided to Swiss authorities, they would block the account and seize the funds. The money would not be repatriated to the originating country, but kept by the Swiss government. (I must admit that I am not up-to-date on the current policy having been retired for 14 years. I assume it is pretty much the same.)

How this plays out will be interesting especially if the Swiss Government winds up dumping 52,000 accounts on the IRS. I wonder what big fish will fall out of the net?

Kalifornia Has a Budget- The People Get Screwed

Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria)
"Oh Abel, Where is thy brother Cain?"


Well the Democrats got their last needed vote to pass the tax hike budget bill. Republican Abel Maldonado caved in, got his 30 pieces of silver and the bill is passed. Now the California taxpayer-already paying the highest state taxes in the nation have been stuck with the largest state tax increase in US history.

Maldonado, who is looking for higher posts in California state government, had denounced tax increases at the Republican National Convention last summer. Now, just like former tax-denouncer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maldonado has gone over to the other side passing the decisive vote.

In return, Maldonadpo did get a couple of Democratic concessions, like dropping a 12 cent-per-gallon gas tax increase and authorization of a ballot measure that would force lawmaker salaries to be frozen when the state is running a deficit.

Most importantly to Maldonado, part of his deal was a measure for the 2010 ballot that would create fully open primary elections, which would figure to help "middle of the road" candidates like Maldonado (I'll say) who have trouble in primaries which are dominated by more hard-core liberals and conservatives. (Maldonado will be termed-out in 2012.)

So now, it is we suckers who will now pay even more in taxes to this overstuffed beast called government in Sacramento so they can take care of the unions and illegal aliens. Now they can close the 42 billion dollar deficit they have created and will create again within a few years, at which time, they will be back raising our taxes yet again.

Oh, did I tell you our car taxes will now be doubled? Something else that Schwarzenegger ran on as a candidate. (He said he "despised" the idea of raising car taxes.)

And this doesn't even take into consideration what is coming at us from Washington with all these bailout bills and massive spending programs.

Who is to blame? It is we. We are the ones who have voted for these clowns and put them in office.

UC-Irvine Campus Paper Article-Fact or Opinion?

This week, UC-Irvine's campus paper (New University) came out with an article (on the front page) reporting on a forum that took place the previous Tuesday on campus. The article speaks for itself and is posted below. (I did not attend.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How Constitutional is Proposition 8?
by Mengfei Chen
Volume 42, Issue 18 | Feb 17 2009

For students who did not understand the legality of passing Proposition 8 in the last election, student groups and professors held a forum that sought to demystify the complex legal issues of the law suit challenging Proposition 8’s ban on gay marriage.

Professor Katherine Darmer of the Chapman University School of Law addressed a packed room of about 200 attendees at last Tuesday’s “Is Proposition 8 Legal? A Forum on Marriage Equality” regarding the suit that is set to be heard in California’s Supreme Court in early March.

“The Saturday after the election, a number of us were devastated by the passage of Proposition 8 and there was sort of a groundswell of support to do something about it,” Darmer said.

The forum was hosted by the University of California and featured Irvine’s new law school in conjunction with UCI’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Resource Center, the Orange County Equality Coalition and Chapman University Outlaw, a LGBT student organization.

James Nowick, a professor of chemistry at UCI, organized the panel. He said, “Universities are places where ideas are exchanged, political views are aired, often their testing grounds on human rights issues. So universities have always been incubators of political activism and of social change.” He felt that “there is an obligation for the university to communicate more broadly ... to the broader communities” and that is why he and the other organizers felt this panel was so important.

The three panelists included Darmer, Tiffany Chang, a second-year at Chapman Law and Erwin Chermerinsky, dean of UCI’s Law School and long time advocate of marriage equality.

Professor Darmer, who filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of numerous Orange County groups and individuals seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, began her speech by questioning the audience.

“Remember that this is not the first time that groups in our country have to fight for their right to marry the person of their choice,” Darmer said.

She compared the current ban on gay marriage to the former bans on interracial marriage that were in place during the last century.

She noted that it was “the state of California that realized how wrong those rules were 19 years before the Supreme Court of the United States” invalidated the bans in 1967.

“[California] has often taken a leadership role in recognizing the important and fundamental tenants of equal protection,” Darmer said.

This makes the “14 words of Proposition 8” all the more devastating because it adds “a footnote the guarantee [of equal protection],” Darmer said.

She then reminded the audience of the personal lives that are affected by these legal issues.

“This is not just a dry academic issue. This issue about the fundamental right to marry affects real people, real lives,” Darmer said.

Chang, one of the other panelists, is one of those real people. She married her partner Lindsay Etheridge in 2008, during the May to November period when 18,000 official same-sex marriages were performed in the state of California.

“[I voted] ‘yes’ for the first African-American president and ‘no’ on a measure that sought to strip another minority of fundamental rights” Chang said, noting the devastation she felt when Proposition 8 passed.

“I am no Constitutional law scholar … [but from] where I’m standing I see the legal differences, I feel the legal differences and that means that I am not equal,” Chang said.

Dean Chermerinsky agreed with both speakers that Proposition 8 was an “enormous setback” for the marriage equality but added that he still “believes [that] in [his] lifetime same-sex marriage will be allowed throughout the United States.”

Like Darmer, Chermerinksy said that, “The issue of marriage equality is a relatively easy one, it is about equal protection. Gays and lesbians should have the same right to express love and commitment to a marriage as heterosexuals have always had.” He drew laughs from the crowd when he added that they should also have “the same opportunity to be disappointed by marriage that heterosexuals have always had.”

After pointing out the weaknesses in the most common arguments made against marriage equality, Chermerinksy then proceeded to explain the central legal question at issue in the court case: whether Proposition 8 is an amendment to or a revision of the state Constitution or not.

The difference is highly obscure in that there have only been a “handful” of cases that deal with the issue. Essentially, though, the main difference is that a revision “changes fundamental principles of the Consitution” and must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the state legislature as well as a majority of voters. An amendment, on the other hand, does not change any fundamental principle and can be added by a simple majority of voters. If the Court decides that Proposition 8 is an amendment, it is legal and stands. If it is a revision, it is invalid and must be repealed.

“The math [seems to] favor supporters of Proposition 8 not opponents of Proposition 8,” Chemerinsky said, discussing the 4-3 split of the Court when it struck down a previous ban on gay marriage.

“[Supporters of proposition 8] only need to get one other vote, while opponents have to keep all four,” Chemerinsky said.

It is likely that Proposition 8 will be upheld, but that it will not be made retroactive. Thus, all marriages performed between May and November of 2008, like Chang’s, will remain legal.

However, Chemerinsky offered some hope for those who still hope for a complete invalidation of the ban.

“Those who [make predictions] often eat broken glass,” Chemerinsky said.

According to Chemerinsky only one truth remains clear.

“The California Supreme Court will issue its decision within 90 days of March 5. California law provides that the justices don’t get paid if they don’t get a decision,” Chemerinsky said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, no matter what side you come down on regarding the issue of gay marriage and the Proposition 8 issue, ask yourself a couple of questions about the article.

1 Fact or opinion?

Well, the reporter/writer is merely reporting what took place and what was said, so in that regard, it is fact. Yet, is there any subtle attempt to mix opinion in with fact in this article (which, I repeat, appeared on the front page)?

I suppose that is debatable. If there were no dissenters participating, perhaps the paper could have solicited an opposing viewpoint or two.

2 Was there any dissenting opinion expressed at the forum?

Apparently not.

3 So what impression is the reader-and for that matter the attendees at the conference supposed to draw?

Easy. Gay marriage is a right and any attempt to oppose it is wrong.

4 From reading the article and the quoted comments, and seeing who the sponsors are, are you surprised that there was no alternate viewpoint present? Do you think that this was an event held by left-wing activists....maybe?

Having come fresh off the "Whither the Levant" event held at UCI, which was a one-sided attack on Israel-and its American ally- I again ask the question; where are the opposing voices? Isn't the university supposed to offer multi-viewpoints on the issues or "ideas exchanged" as Professor Nowick termed it?

Facts or opinions? Education or indoctrination?

Tarzan in Action, Los Angeles, January 10, 2009

"Heigh ho, heigh ho, it's off to jail I go."

This video is taken from the January 10 anti-Israel demonstration at the Federal Building in Los Angeles. For a full description of the event, see my posting entitled;, "Fousesquawk's Great Adventure". I was there, and I witnessed this mope hanging from the traffic light trying to hang a Palestinian flag. Note the heading on the tape. This video is from a pro-Palestinian source. They think it proves their point-whatever that is. I think it proves my point, that mobs are trying to take over our streets.

There were only about 20 pro-Israel counter-demonstrators including myself. The police instantly cordoned us off from the mob of about 1,500.

Unfortunately, only three arrests were made that day (all pro-Palestinan supporters, naturally).

More Fan Mail

"Death to Fousesquawk!!"


A couple of days ago, I received a comment on one of my blog postings from Abraham (lnu). Though it appeared on the "Three Little Pigs and the UN" posting, it was in response to an article of mine that appeared on Frontpage.com. The article described an anti-Israel event at UC-Irvine of January 31, in which one of the featured panelists was ex-professor Norman Finklestein, a man who hates Israel, hates America, and apparently hates everything and everyone.

Since the response from Abraham was laced with profanities, I will not post it here, but it may be found below the Three Little Pigs posting where I have chosen to keep it posted for educational purposes.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/three-little-pigs-and-un.html#c8292506170548022032

The message really only merits a couple of points above and beyond what I have already replied to Abraham. First of all, he states that Norman Finklestein's parents were "barbequed" at Auschwitz. Even though he is defending Finklestein, this is at the very least an insensitive description of Auschwitz. Perhaps if Abraham would actually visit Auschwitz, as I have, he might use more respectful terms.

Secondly, though Finklestein apparently does have relatives who perished in or survived the Holocaust, it seems to me humanly impossible that his parents died in the Holocaust. Finklestein was born in 1953, so perhaps, Abraham would like to re-do his math. (According to Wikipedia, Finklestein's parents are concentration camp survivors.)

Finally, Abraham, since you are apparently a UCI student, I have sent your little letter to the appropriate officials at UCI with a request that they determine if you are, in fact, a UCI student, and if so, is this the way students communicate with UCI teachers-in other words, has there been a violation of the UCI code of conduct.

However, you shouldn't worry too much. If my guess is accurate, they will do nothing and inform me that it is all free speech and it happened off-campus and all that. If so, I will cheerfully accept their verdict and move on. However, it will all be documented.

Keep those cards and letters coming, folks.

A Response to My Article on Frontpage (UCI-Whither the Levant)

Norman Finklestein


As previously reported, I covered the anti-Israel/anti-US hate festival at UC-Irvine held January 31, 2009 and wrote an article which appeared on Campus Watch and Frontpage. One of the organizers of the event, Diane Shammas, wrote a response to Frontpage, which I am posting here along with my reply back to her (posted on Frontpage). Below is Ms Shammas' bio taken from the website of the Levantine Cultural Association.


"Diane Shammas is a Ph.D. candidate in educational policy at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Pitzer College, Claremont, California. Given the prejudicial attitudes that have been aimed towards Arab Americans and Muslims post 9/11, she has focused her dissertation on the relationships between campus social relations, racial campus climates, and student sense of school belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students. Among her recent publications is "Research on Race and Ethnic Relations Among Community College Students", in the Community College Review, Volume 32, Number 4, April 2007 written with doctoral advisor, Dr. William E. Maxwell.

Prior to returning to the University of Southern California for her doctoral degree, Diane was in the women's fashion industry, wholesale and retail for twenty-three years. She also owned women's retail apparel stores in Los Angeles and Newport Beach.

Diane is of Lebanese heritage, and was inspired to be both proud of and affirm her Middle Eastern, Arab, and Lebanese heritage through her father, who was the first president of the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the World Lebanese Cultural Union."




"Dear Gary Fouse/FrontPage Magazine,



As one of the main organizers of “Whither the Levant? The Crisis of the Nation-State: Lebanon, Israel, Palestine,” I feel I should speak up. My knee jerk reaction was to ignore your comments as it just adds more fuel to your nonsense.



First, I want to thank you for your in depth critique of our conference. Although I do not agree with any of your comments, I think the contrary that our conference generated much fodder for thought.



Second, as Levantine Cultural Center and UC Irvine’s Middle East Studies Student Initiative (MESSI) wished to make this a successful event, the director of Levantine and I personally took head counts to see the number of attendees—with the ebb and flow of new people coming in for the various events, the total numbered 400. At one point we had a full room (300 seats).



Third, as for pro-Israel representation, the director of Levantine contacted the Ardvarks for Israel and Hillel on numerous occasions to ask that they recommend names to counter the so called "pro Palestinian leftist argument,” and yet only one suggestion was given to us in a three-month period, and the person was unable to make the engagement.



Fourth, the intent as usual with FrontPage Magazine is to detract from the solidarity of all our speakers in protest of the horrific genocide of the Palestinian people, and further suggest that there is discontent among us. I am referring to your comment of Norman Finkelstein’s “obnoxious and arrogant demeanor” that annoyed Mark LeVine. During Norman’s contested tenure, Mark LeVine fully gave his support.



Fifth, as usual with you folks—to use one of your favorite verbial expression—you like to “bash” Norman Finkelstein but solely on a personal basis, never his beliefs or statements. Am I to assume you can not refute them. The usual string of mantras is “self hating Jew,” who imbibes his speeches with Der Sturmer messages (by the way Professor Dershowitz referred to Der Sturmer as Der Stutterer—I suppose we can rely on him to always mangle his words, as he confused Orwell’s turnspeak for “newspeak”). It never ceases to amaze me how you at FrontPage Magazine never deal one on one with the issues that the speakers present, always to heap mountains of character assassinations.



Sixth, I met Dr. Finkelstein for the first time and I find him to be a well reasoned and a flexible person with whom to work. Perhaps, some folks find him arrogant, but Norman is a very serious person who spends an inordinate amount of time preparing his speeches. For this reason, he is very critical when speakers do not make a dedicated effort to do the same.



Seventh, when I first became acquainted with Norman Finkelstein’s work, I scrutinized his statements very carefully. In my thorough research, I found that he provided an accurate account of the 242 resolution. I might be paraphrasing here, but when Norman states that Israel wants peace on their “own terms” he is absolutely correct. Before I explain some biographical information is warranted here. I am of Lebanese/Arab American heritage. My father’s first cousin was a well respected, professional diplomat that in the 1960s served in the capacity as a Third Secretary to the UN, in subsequent years as an ambassador from Lebanon to Iraq, Greece, and Germany, but headed the Arab delegations to the Madrid talks in 1992. Most certainly he would be characterized as a man of moderate political leanings. At the time the Arab delegations included discussions of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza as well as Southern Lebanon, my cousin most compellingly referred to Israel as wanting a “hegemonistic peace.”



Eighth, you omitted one important detail. You fixated on Norman “sitting sullenly with his face in his hands”. You certainly have mischaracterized him. He maintained a low profile, sitting at the end row during our second panel discussion. After the second panel finished, members of the audience literally flocked to his side asking him a plethora of questions regarding the crisis in Gaza.



It is no wonder that you at FrontPage Magazine are quivering in your boots: your support for Palestinian injustice and Apartheid is dwindling. More so than with the Lebanon-Israel War in 2006, a sizeable number of Jews around the world has expressed solidarity with Palestinians from the US, Canada, Europe and Morocco. Both Norman and my friend, the director at Levantine, had immediate relatives that perished in the Holocaust, but they had the intestinal fortitude to fight in the struggle against the annihilation and oppression of the Palestinian and Lebanese people. Thank god for people like this they have given Arab Americans a voice."


Diane Shammas
PhD, Urban Education, Policy, and Planning
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response on Frontpage:


Ms Shammas,



I will try to respond to your points one by one.


As for the number of attendees, I think my estimate was pretty accurate. At the first event-the Lebanon film, I estimated about 50 people and at the fullest, I estimated about 150. But let's not quibble.


As for your invitations to Hillel and Anteaters for Israel (I don't know why you call them Ardvarks for Israel other than as a gratuitous slap), I cannot speak for their presence or non-presence. The Jewish community is divided including Jewish students at UCI. As for Hillel, they prefer to ignore you and not get involved, for which I criticize them. Perhaps one reason for the low-or non-existent Jewish attendance was the fact that it was scheduled on Saturday. I don't know, but as a non-Jew, I cannot speak to that.


As for Finklestein, you really discredit your cause when you use a character like that. He is indeed arrogant and obnoxious. He can't say two sentences without insulting somebody. The moment I was referring to was clear. He would not stop talking and LeVine had to cut him off. I watched Finklestein's reaction, and he acted like a spoiled child. If the audience flocked to him after the panel, why should I be surprised? The entire audience with the exception of myself, was on his side. Our university treats him like a rock star. Deans and Vice Chancellors laugh at his jokes and applaud his attacks. They should be ashamed, and I have repeatedly criticized them for their lack of concern for our Jewish students who are being subjected to anti-Semitism by UCI's radical MSU and their hateful speakers like Mohammed al-Asi and Amir Abdel Malik Ali.


I have not called Finklestein a "self-hating Jew". I will repeat that his manner is arrogant. On a previous visit to UCI, he browbeat a student who asked him a critical question but in a polite manner. I frankly don't know what his motivation is. It is clear to me that he hates Israel and he hates America as well. When he wasn't tearing down Israel, he was tearing down his own country. And please do not associate me with Alan Dershowitz. I may agree with him on Israel, but I am no fan of his due to his defense of OJ Simpson.


As to your 7th point, what do you want me to say? I know nothing of your biography, I know nothing about you or your family nor do I care.


As for me, I am not a member of Frontpage. They printed my report. Nor am I quivering in my boots. I was the one who was alone in the audience questioning the one-sided bias against Israel. I was the skunk at the garden party. If you were there when I asked questions about the morning film, did you think I was quivering in my boots?


Ms Shammas, I am not a Jew. What I am is a Christian who is an amateur scholar of the 3rd Reich and the Holocaust and who has lived for a few years in Germany. I am very sensitive to the issue of anti-Semitism. I realize there are two sides to the Israel-Palestinian issue-something your event ignored. What I see is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in my country which is being fueled by radical Islamists aided by radical leftists in academia (like Finklestein) and enabled by cowardly university administrators. I intend to fight that. While I support Israel, my main focus is anti-Semitism.


I stand by every word I wrote.


Gary Fouse
Adjunct Teacher
UCI-Ext