Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • October 23, 2010

    Anti-Semitism is Acceptable in Academia

    Laura: It is acceptable in academic circles to make all sorts of vile anti-Semitic statements, call for the obliteration of Israel, the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews. However say anything remotely critical of muslims and islam and the PC crowd will have you fired. Despite calling for the destruction of Israel, muslim “professor” kaukab siddique is in no danger of losing his position at Lincoln University in PA. In fact the very reason he has that position anyway is due to the fact that he is an anti-Semite and anti-American. Academic credentials are not required if you are a whacko leftist or muslim.

    Tenured Muslim Professor Calls for Destruction of Israel “if Possible, by Peaceful Means” – CBN Video Report

    Freedom’s Lighthouse

    “We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel–if possible by peaceful means. Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people. . . . For the Jews I would say, see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up. And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hyra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.”

  • Posted by Laura @ 6:48 am | 20 Comments »

    20 Comments to Anti-Semitism is Acceptable in Academia

    1. keelie says:

      …we will give them [the Israelis] enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people…

      Perhaps he’ll do the same for the descendants of the Arabs in Africa, and the Moguls in India, and all the Muslims occupying what are now “Arab” countries outside of the Arabian Peninsula.

      And as for the “academics”: The good thing is that they are highly feminized, and of course for those “academics” born in the West, this is what makes it

      …acceptable in academic circles to make all sorts of vile anti-Semitic statements, call for the obliteration of Israel, the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews…

      …which makes them cowards, who would never dream of doing that to the Muslims.

    2. rongrand says:

      Laua, Keelie this is a major problem in the US, our colleges and universities are full of liberal left and anti-Semites who should not be teaching our young people.

      Growing up in a Catholic school system we were taught the love for God, Country and to be respectful and tolerant of others. This was the core of every subject taught. In addition although we lived in a Republic we need to respect other forms of governments as long as it was the will of it’s citizens.

      It is evident we the people need to take back not only our country, likewise our educational system that’s gone astray with the liberal left and anti-Semitic teaching.

      Trustee and those in charge need to become more responsible.

      It all can begin with cleaning house on Nov. 2nd.

    3. Bill Narvey says:

      Lincoln University in the lead post article, according to CBN stated:

      The CBN Report says they asked Lincoln University for comment, and their response was that they don’t agree with the views of Siddique on Israel, but he is tenured, and they can do nothing about his personal views and actions as a private citizen.

      This statement raises questions:

      1. How far does tenure go at Lincoln U to protect the job of a professor?

      2. When a professor brings his mind into a classroom, he brings his views. What protections does Lincoln U provide to the students to ensure that a tenured professor with noxious views such as Siddiques never are expressed or implied in what the professor is teaching at the university.

      3. Suggesting that Siddique uttered these words as a private citizen are ludicrous. As soon as Siddique was linked to Lincoln U, it reflected on Lincoln U and thus his views ceased to be a matter of private expression. I wonder whether the politicians pressing Lincoln U on this matter will press Lincoln U to inject some common sense into their thinking before seeking to simply disclaim responsibility?

      Kaukab Siddigue is not backing down from his statements, which he admits were harsh, but that he would not hesitate to utter them again.
      See: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/10300

      In that article, there is the following further disclaimer of knowledge by Lincoln U:

      The university responded in a statement Thursday saying it had not been made aware of any instance in which Siddique’s views were taught in his classes or shared in any public forums on campus.

      Unless universities engage in eavesdropping on classroom discussion and discussion with professors and students in common areas outside the classroom, they will not know what a professor is actually saying unless someone complains to the university. In this case, where you have a professor of such extremist views, it is unimaginable that his students did not know his views.

      One might therefore be drawn to conclude that none of his students complained to the university because they agreed with all he was saying on political subjects involving America, Israel and Jews that were beyond his purported area of expertise in literature.

      This raises more questions as to what the views of the students of Lincoln U are as regards America, Israel and Jews and for that matter, since it is almost certain Lincoln U’s administration knew of Siddique’s views, what their views are on America, Israel and Jews.

      Kaukab Siddique’s resume is found at: http://kaukabsiddique.net/ksiddresume.htm

      In another article reporting on Siddique standing his ground: http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=210120

      Kaukab Siddique, 67, an associate professor of English and literature, said that he had the support of his faculty and students and that he would continue to speak his mind, despite pressure from those who have referred to him as an “anti-Semite.”

      This is not the 1st time Siddique has drawn attention. In the following 2008 article Far-Right and Muslim Extremists Gather in Baltimore on the ADL website http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/jamaat_baltimore_conference.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2 the lead paragraph states:

      Jamaat al-Muslimeen (JAM) is a small Muslim organization based in Baltimore that promotes Holocaust denial and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Its leader, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, is an associate professor in the English department at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania.

      In 2002, Siddique addressed the Black Panthers and called down America as anti-democratic: See video of his address at:
      http://www.rbgtube.com/play.php?vid=3097

      Siddique’s views were already known by 1986, some 24 years ago and well before he became an associate professor at Lincoln U in Pensylvania
      http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/Jam/intro.html

      There is actually much on the internet concerning Kaukab Siddique.

      It is unimaginable that Lincoln U did not know what this man was about when they first interviewed him for a job and chose to hire him some 18 years ago. It is unimaginable that Lincoln U did not know what this man was saying over the years as a “private citizen”.

      In light of the evidence that is now coming to light about Kaukab Siddique and which is readily available on the internet, Lincoln U should be given no peace as it is pressed to account for itself on having a person like Siddique on their staff and what in the world prompted them to give the man tenure.

    4. Bill Narvey says:

      Please release my moderate comment of several hours ago that still awaits moderation.

    5. Shy Guy says:

      Hey, Rongrand, your chess piece is a shmuck! Worship that!

    6. yamit82 says:

      Hey, Rongrand, your chess piece is a shmuck! Worship that!

      It’s no secret that the Church is the Church and hasn’t changed much in 15 centuries at least where the Jews are concerned.

      The current former Hitler Youth now Pope was before becoming Pope the head of what remains of the Inquisition.

      (As Cardinal Ratzinger, he spent 24 years as one of the senior figures in the Vatican, heading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – once known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition.)

    7. Bill Narvey says:

      Yamit, while I am no fan of the pope and the Catholic church, especially the conservative elements within it, you are being unfair in your characterization of the current Pope Benedict, implying he is a closet Nazi.

      The Pope has said a number of times in relation to his time with the Hitler Youth that he did not agree with Hitler and Nazi philosophy, but felt in the ethos of Hitler Germany, he had little choice but to join the Hitler Youth.

      I have not read any article offering proof that the Pope lied in that regard. I thus take Pope Benedict at his word on that issue, unless you are aware of articles that do credibly challenge the Pope’s denials in that regard.

    8. It is unfortunate that the N word is offensive to African-Americans (and rightly so given its history of usage by racists), because this is a perfect application for it according to its secondary definition: a person of ANY race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, and so on–in other words, the secondary definition classifies people by the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin. And the secondary definition fits this (Caucasian) individual perfectly.

    9. rongrand says:

      Uncle, the Pope doesn’t speak for all of us.

      Right now he is counterproductive as far as I am concerned.

      I am praying G-d removes the Arabs from the Holy Land.

      I believe G-d and me are on the same page.

      I’ll have to talk to the old guy, he’s acting more like a poop instead of a Pope.

    10. yamit82 says:

      Narvey I didn’t say he was a Nazi then or is one today but he is a liar and not quite up to the moral standard one should expect from the head of the church


      Resistance to the Nazis was dangerous and difficult, but not impossible. Elizabeth Lohner, a Traunstein resident whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, has been quoted as saying, “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others. The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”

      A few hundred yards away from the Ratzingers’ house, a family hid Hans Braxenthaler, a local resistance fighter who shot himself rather than be captured again. The SS regularly searched local homes for resistance members, so the Ratzingers couldn’t have not known about resistance efforts.

      Traunstein also saw more than its share of local violence. In his biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen, Jr. says that anti-Semitic violence, displacement, deportation, death, and even resistance turned the town into “an over-populated lunatic asylum of hopeless inhabitants.”

      It’s curious that one of the lessons which Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, draws from the experiences of German Catholics under the Nazis is that Catholics should become even more obedient to their ecclesiastical leaders rather than more free to adopt independent courses of action. Ratzinger believes that greater fidelity to Catholic doctrine, as defined by the Vatican, is necessary to counter movements like Nazism.

      Background

      Neither Ratzinger nor any member of his immediate family joined the NSDAP (Nazi Party). Ratzinger’s father was critical of the Nazi government, and as a result the family had to move four times before he was ten years old.

      None of this is remarkable, however, because the same happened with other German Catholic families. Although many German Catholic leaders were willing to work with the Nazis, many individual Catholics and Catholic priests resisted as best they could, refusing to cooperate with a political regime they regarded as anti-Catholic at best and the embodiment of evil at worst.

      Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys. Millions of Germans were in a position similar to that of Joseph Ratzinger and his family, so why spend so much time focusing on him? Because he is no longer merely Joseph Ratzinger, or even a Catholic Cardinal — he is now Pope Benedict XVI. None of the other Germans who joined the Hitler Youth, were part of the military in Nazi Germany, lived near a concentration camp, and watched Jews being rounded up for death camps has ever become pope.

      The pope is supposed to be the successor of Peter, leader of the Christian Church, and symbol of unity for all Christendom. The past actions — or inactions — of such a person matter a great deal if anyone is going to treat him as any sort of moral authority. Ratzinger’s recollections of his youth in Nazi Germany makes it seem as though all the problems, violence, and hatred existed outside his local community. There is no recognition that resistance to the Nazis existed — or was needed — just outside his door.

      Joseph Ratzinger was a member of an anti-aircraft unit protecting a BMW factory that used slave labor from the Dachau concentration camp to make aircraft engines, but he was drafted into the military and didn’t have any choice in the matter. In fact, Ratzinger also says that he never fired a shot and never participated in any combat. Later he was transferred to a unit in Hungary where he set up tank traps and watched as Jews were rounded up for transport to death camps. Eventually he deserted and became a prisoner of war.

      Criticism of Joseph Ratzinger

      Hitler Jugend: Joseph Ratzinger’s claims about the Hitler Youth are not true. Compulsory membership was first defined in 1936 and reinforced in 1939, not in 1941 as he says. Ratzinger also says that he was “still too young” at the time, but he was 14 in 1941 and not too young at all: between the ages of 10 and 14, membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk (a group for younger children) was mandatory. Yet there is no mention of Raztinger belonging. If he had managed to avoid the required membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk, why did he suddenly join the Hitler Youth in 1941?

      Resistance: Both Joseph Ratzinger and his brother, Georg, have said that “resistance was impossible” at the time and, therefore, it’s not surprising or morally culpable that they also “went along.” This is also not true. First, it’s insulting to the many who risked their lives to resist the Nazi regime, both in organized cells and on an individual basis. Second, there are many examples of those who refused service in the Hitler Youth for a variety of reasons.

      Whatever the Ratzinger family did and whatever Joseph Ratzinger’s father did, it wasn’t enough to be arrested or sent to a concentration camp. It doesn’t even appear to have been enough to warrant being detained and questioned by the Gestapo.

      Military: Although it is true that Ratzinger deserted the military rather than continue fighting, he didn’t do so until April 1945, when the end of the war was quite close.

      Resolution

      There is absolutely no reason to think that Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is now or has ever been secretly a Nazi. Nothing he has ever said or done even remotely suggests the slightest sympathy with any of the basic Nazi ideas or goals. Any claim that he is a Nazi is implausible at best. However, that is not the end of the story.

      While Ratzinger was not a Nazi in the past and Benedict XVI is not a Nazi now, there is more than enough reason to question his handling of his past. It appears that he hasn’t been honest with others — and probably not honest with himself — about what he did and what he could have done.

      It’s simply not true that resistance was impossible at the time. Difficult, yes; dangerous, yes. But not impossible. John Paul II participated in anti-Nazi theater performances in Poland, yet there is no evidence of Joseph Ratzinger even doing this much.

      Ratzinger may have done more than many others to resist, but he also did far less that some. It’s certainly understandable that he wouldn’t have had the courage to do more and, were he any average person, that would be the end of the story. But he isn’t an average person, is he? He’s the pope, a person who is supposed to be the successor of Peter, head of the Christian Church, and symbol of unity for all Christendom.

      You don’t have to be morally perfect to hold such a position, but it’s not unreasonable to expect such a person to have come to terms with their moral failings, even the moral failings that occurred in youth when we don’t usually expect a great deal. It was an understandable mistake or failing not to do more against the Nazis, but still a failing that he hasn’t come to terms with — it sounds rather like he is in denial. In a sense, he has yet to repent; yet he was still considered the best of all the candidates for the papacy.

    11. yamit82 says:

      Uncle, the Pope doesn’t speak for all of us.

      Ron don’t sweat it, a lot of this is relatively new to you and I am sure you aren’t happy about it but it’s not your fault or your call. We react to what is and our attitudes in general towards the church is tempered by our history with it. I’m personally not offended or even upset over it as I expected nothing else. As long as we still sit in Jerusalem he can get stuffed for all I care. :)

    12. Bill Narvey says:

      Yamit, did you write post #10 from personal knowledge or have you provided the text of an article? If the former impressive. If the latter, still impressive that you found an article, but a link would be helpful.

      It does raise questions about the Pope’s moral clarity, not when he was 14 years old, but now.

    13. malibu says:

      Narvey; you are correct, being antizionist does not necessarily mean that you are antisemitic.Example, Heredi Jews are usually against the concept of a Jewish state as presently constituted, but can hardly be accused of being antisemitic.

      The converse is true as well. The best friends of Israel were really no friends of Jews in general. Were not Stalin and Truman the godfathers of the Jewish state?. Stalin of course was probably the worst antisemite since Adolph Hitler, And as for Truman, his July 21, 1947, diary entry will prove my point.

      “The Jews, I find are very selfish,. They care not how many Estonians,Latvians,Finns,Poles, Yugoslavians or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as long as they get special treatment.. Yet when they have power, physical financial,or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruely towards the the underdog.”

      Richard Nixon, was a covert antisemite and yet a strong backer of Israel.

      There is much we don’t really know about what is happening in the middle east.

    14. AmericanEagle says:

      Narvey,

      Based on the objective of weakening Israel by bashing every conceivable supporter, why wouldn’t “you know who” demonize the Pope?

      Just notice the numerous snide comments and “facts” taken out of context to twist the conclusion.

      Talk about being a liar.

    15. Bill Narvey says:

      AE, your preceding comment does not have the clarity your writing typically does.

      I don’t know who you are calling a liar and why, whether you say the Pope is an ardent supporter of Israel and Jews and what facts do you allege have been taken out of context to twist a conclusion.

      If you would be good enough to expand on your views and clarify your thinking as you usually do, we may have something to discuss or debate.

    16. yamit82 says:

      Narvey I don’t think you understand your friend at all but then maybe you do. How does that saying go: “It takes one to……!”

      I don’t think your FRIEND likes what I wrote about his Idol at all. :)
      How many trillions of dollars does the church owe the Jewish People? Pay Up!!

    17. AmericanEagle says:

      Narvey,

      Is there anyone more mean-spirited, untruthful, destructive and harmful to Israel than your “friend” who is so popular in the coffee shops of Gaza and the West bank?

      How many trillions does Israel owe the USA for all the support over the years?

    18. Bill Narvey says:

      AE, who are you talking about? Yamit? He would definitely not be popular anywhere in Palestinian society.

      As for your suggesting Israel owes trillions to the U.S., why is it that you insist on holding to your view, without bothering to consider the advice you have received from me, Ted and articles that deal with that issue?

      Discussion on this point will not advance unless you dig deeper than your own preconceived notion.

      Yamit, I am not clear at all as to what AE thinks of the Pope, save that he disagrees with your take on the Pope’s having joined Hitler Youth or mine that assuming what you wrote is correct, it does call into question the Pope’s sense of moral clarity at least in some respects.

      I am still waiting for AE’s response in order to figure out what his views exactly are.

    19. AmericanEagle says:

      Au contraire, mon ami. Your friend would be like a hero in the coffee shops in Gaza and the West Bank, where they would be delighted by his attacks on friends of Israel, as even the balanced Malibu has observed.

      Israel and the US are in the same foxhole in the battle against Islamic radicalism and international terrorism. Your friend would be like finding a cobra in our foxhole in the middle of a firefight, insisting that the US is firing on Israel.

      No, Israel doesn’t owe the US anything other than some minimal gratitude, for what the American taxpayer has picked up the tab for. We knew what we were doing when we gave Israel those BILLIONS, and it was to help Israel while helping ourselves as well. We have protected our allies at our expense throughout our history.

      I have no idea what is in the Pope’s heart, but he is clearly not a Nazi sympathiser:
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5119309.ece

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites