Thursday, April 29, 2010

"What is holding up a peace agreement?"

Shalom All,

It has been asked, "What is holding up a peace agreement?"

The primary problem is the definition of "settlement." The Arab League considers ISRAEL a settlement. The UN sees no difference between the Western Wall, Gilo, Ariel and tiny outposts in the middle of Palestinian fields in the West Bank. All are on the other side of the green line.

The secondary problem is that Israel considers the 1949 border to be an ARMISTICE LINE rather than a PERMANENT border. Hence, it feels that it is perfectly appropriate to change that border under new circumstances. The US in arguing on UNSC 242 and 338 basically argued the fact that the 1949 border was unstable and that Israel would NOT be expected to return to it.

A third problem is that a Palestinian state was never created. There was a plan for it that was overridden by the recognition of Israel's borders in 1948-1949. Why? Because Israel's recognized border at that time was not in accord with the proposal. There actually is no currently valid boundary of Palestinian territory, only an absence of recognition of expanded Israeli territory.

A fourth problem is connected to the third, namely that the US OFFICIALLY considers ALL OF JERUSALEM to be an INTERNATIONAL CITY as was intended prior to the creation of Israel. This is RIDICULOUS!!! But is the declared reason why the US embassy was never moved to WEST Jerusalem pre-1967, much less to a unified Jerusalem post-1967. Obviously, pressure from the Arab states may have played a SMALL part in that as well.

A fifth problem is that Israel has no reason to fight against its radicals about settling territory when it knows full well that it could withdraw if it wished. The Palestinians also know that in any peace deal Israel will withdraw and cede territory, so to complain about settlement in any form in any place actually distracts from the primary issues.

The primary issues are these: JERUSALEM and control of the Holy Basin in particular, border control both with Israel and with Jordan and Egypt, and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Compensation for lost property will be done through restitution. Neither Israel nor a future Palestinian state could possibly absorb any significant number of Palestinian refugees (Israel because it would threaten the Jewish nature of the state and the PA because it cannot support its current population, much less tens of thousands more people) and therefore that is not really an issue BETWEEN THEM, but primarily one between the UN and the Arab League which will have to agree on absorption of refugees. Land swaps are relatively easily accomplished by comparison.

Everybody knows this and in spite of criticism of Israel, the Obama Administration seems to be in agreement with them as well. Those who oppose what is above, primarily, are those who want to see the ultimate demise of the Jewish state or equally absurd, a Jewish state controlling all of the land that either denies hundreds of thousands of Palestinians any rights of citizenship or expels them. Neither of these are realistic possibilities, much less good ones. Where the Administration is wrong in my mind is in the belief that the Palestinians and Arab League are ready or, more accurately, MIGHT BE ready to deal with the POSSIBLE solutions to the conflict and that forcing Israel to make symbolic concessions will have any effect upon that readiness.

The possibility that it would be of benefit to the US as it deals with the Muslim world not to have continued conflict between a close US ally and the Arab world is a problem that is IRRELEVANT to the pursuit of the solution to the conflict at this point because the basic solution has already been reached. It has simply failed to be accepted by one of the sides in the dispute. The US cannot pressure Israel to concede on any of the major issues because Israel would not be able to comply. It cannot pressure the Palestinians to concede or impose the obvious solution because it would anger the Arab world. The Arab leaders, for the most part, see the solution too, but cannot advocate for it because it would upset the ignorant masses. Hence, the conflict continues.

The argument that the status quo cannot continue is simply wrong. Not only can it, but it will, unless a better alternative is presented and one or both sides choose to pursue it. The fact that they are not is in and of itself evidence that the alternatives present now are not better than the status quo for them. A bad peace agreement can be far worse than the status quo. The obvious solution is one in which the Israelis gain from the 1949 armistice position and the Arab League and Palestinians lose. They don't want to accept that, so the suffering continues in the hope that someday what is unreasonable will be forced upon Israel. Their current hope is that Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions programs will achieve that because military action has failed repeatedly.


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Occupation and Peace: Obsessed with Symptoms and Ignoring Causes

Doctor: Why are you here today?
Patient: I'm in pain.
Doctor: You have a splinter. You need to fix the splinter.
Patient: I'll think about that. I'm afraid of needles. But this pain is killing me.
Doctor: I can give you something to help with the pain but you need to deal with the splinter or I can, if you want.
Patient: NO!!! I'm REALLY afraid of other people with needles! Just give me something for the pain.
Doctor: Okay.

A few days later, the patient returns.

Doctor: Why are you here today?
Patient: I'm in pain.
Doctor: You seem to still have a splinter. You need to fix the splinter. It's becoming infected.
Patient: I'll think about that. I'm afraid of needles. But this pain is killing me.
Doctor: I can give you something to help with the pain and the infection, but you need to deal with the splinter, of I can if you want.
Patient: NO!!! I'm REALLY afraid of other people with needles! Just give me something for the pain and the infection.
Doctor: Okay.

A few days later, the patient returns.

Doctor: Why are you here today?
Patient: It's the pain!!! I still have the pain!!! It hurts so badly!
Doctor: You still have the splinter! When I ask you why you are here, you keep saying, "Pain." Pain is not why you are here. The splinter is why you are here. The pain is the result of the splinter. I can't really help you unless you are willing to remove the splinter.
Patient: I'll think about that. I'm afraid of needles. But this pain is killing me and it's infected again. End the pain. It hurts so badly!
Doctor: Okay, here's the pain killer and the antibiotic, but they will not really help unless you remove the splinter.

Israeli Majority: Why are you here today?
Israeli Left and Palestinians: It's the occupation! I still have the occupation! It hurts so badly!!!
Israeli Majority: You won't work to remove the cause of the occupation. When I ask you why you are here, you keep saying, "Occupation!" Occupation is not why you are here. The occupation is the result of your refusal to agree to peace. I can't really help your unless you are willing to agree to peace.
Israeli Left and Palestinians: I'll think about that. I'm afraid of compromising. But this occupation is killing me and its going to result in intifada again! End the occupation! It hurts so badly!
Israeli Majority: Okay, here's yet another minor concession and we'll work on security cooperation to deal with the potential intifada, but those things really won't help unless you are willing to agree to peace.

A little while later the patient returns: "It's the occupation..."


Friday, April 16, 2010

Rabbi Kaufman on the 2010 AJC Poll of American Jewish Opinion

Rabbi Kaufman on the 2010 AJC Poll of American Jewish Opinion

Here is the link to the full poll. I have included relevant questions below:

The 2010 AJC Poll of Jewish Opinion is being referenced in numerous places to show strong support for the Obama Administration’s position in reference to Israel. On closer look it does not do so. Why?

Question 4 is a generic approve/disapprove of the Obama Administration’s handling of US-Israel relations. While some would say that 55-37 is a sizeable majority, it is likely far worse than any President would have rated since Jimmy Carter if then. Note also Question 5 about the Netanyahu Administration’s handling of relations. It scored HIGHER than the Obama Administration and with a wider margin, 57-30. What this tells me is that American Jews think that relations are generally good, BUT that Netanyahu, who is no liberal fan favorite and American Jews tend toward being liberal, is seen as doing a BETTER job than Obama. That is actually a frightening result for Democratic Party advocates.

If you look at the specific issues addressed in recent events and reconsider the question of whether or not American Jews approve of the Administration’s policies, you will find that the somewhat positive result for Question 4 should be taken with a grain of salt. Why? Because American Jews do not support the specific policies being pursued by the Administration when they are asked about them individually.

In responding to Question 7, only 48% of American Jews were in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state in the current situation. We can assume a divergence of views both about the nature of the state and what is meant by “the current situation,” but the result is hardly a strong endorsement of ramping up pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to pursue peace now.

In responding to Question 8 in which they were asked whether or not Israel should compromise on having Jerusalem as a “united city under Israeli sovereignty” 61% said “No.” That is hardly a sign of support for the Administration calling most of that city “Settlements” and demanding a halt to construction there. Only 35% said "Yes."

Question 10 which suggested that the Palestinians ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel found 75% in support of that statement. If the Obama Administration believes otherwise, it is hardly supported by the Jewish community in America on that issue.

And on Iran, the American Jewish community clearly believes that the Administration is doing a poor job, does not support the minimalist sanctions effort being pursued by the Administration (by a margin of 68% to 31%), but does support military action against Iran either by America 53% or Israel 62% both of which are strongly opposed by the Administration.

A friend of mine, Richard Friedman, Executive Director of the Birmingham Jewish Federation, pointed out that the period during which the AJC did the polling began March 2nd, a week before the flap over Biden's visit, March 10th, ten days before Sec. Clinton's lambasting of Netanyahu on March 12, and concluded two weeks after, March 23rd, so some of the respondents would have been responding to the issue having no idea that the administration would act as it did a week or two later. Remember also that in the evening of the 23rd, one of the most egregious events occurred. That night, after the AJC polling was over, Netanyahu met with Obama who abandoned him for dinner at the White House and allowed no pictures to be taken of the visit. This would all likely result, as my friend pointed out, in a significantly more negative view of the administration if the poll was conducted today than is represented in this poll.

The relevant questions may be found below.


4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of U.S.-Israel relations?

Approve 55%
Oppose 37%
Not Sure 8%

5. Do you approve or disapprove of the Netanyahu government's handling of Israel-U.S. relations?

Approve 57%
Oppose 30%
Not Sure 12%

7. In the current situation, do you favor or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state?

Support 48%
Oppose 45%
Not Sure 7%

8. In the framework of a permanent peace with the Palestinians, should Israel be willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction?

Yes 35%
No 61%
Not Sure 4%

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”

Agree 75%
Disagree 20%
Not Sure 5%

13. Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration’s handling of the Iran nuclear issue?

Approve 47%
Disapprove 42%
Not Sure 11%

14. How much of a chance do you think there is that a combination of diplomacy and sanctions can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is there a good chance, some chance, little chance, or no chance?

Good chance 5%
Some chance 27%
Little chance 45%
No chance 23%
Not sure 1%

15. Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?

Support 53%
Oppose 42%
Not sure 4%

16. Would you support or oppose Israel taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?

Support 62%
Oppose 33%
Not sure 5%

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The Linkage Theory

Shalom All,

The linkage theory contends that moving the peace process toward Palestinian goals in order to appease the Arab League would then encourage or enable Arab states to stand up against Iran and its nuclear ambitions. This theory makes no sense for many reasons. At the most basic level, it benefits the United States, Israel, AND THE ARAB NATIONS for Iran NOT to have nuclear weapons. This is something the Arab nations wish to avoid also. They are not on the other side of the issue. They do not need to be convinced to oppose Iranian nuclear weapons.

Everyone for whom Israeli-Palestinian peace is of vital importance is already aligned against Iranian nuclear weapons. Those nations unwilling to stand against Iran do not agree that it is actually pursuing nuclear weapons and do not wish to punish it regardless of what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The L.I.E. from 2007, excuse me the NIE or National (Lack of) Intelligence Estimate, concerning the Iranian nuclear program continues to bolster opponents of action against Iran. It is almost certain that the Obama Administration, beyond loathe to engage Iran militarily or even strongly with sanctions, is increasingly reluctant to release a new NIE that would refute the earlier one because it would result in a political necessity to act with far more force than the administration currently desires and would be highly embarrassing.

Another major problem for the Linkage Theory is that Iran is a major supplier of weaponry to both Hizballah and Hamas. One of the most basic principles of the peace process is that it must result in security for Israel. It would make far more sense to address first reducing the threat to Israel from Hizballah and Hamas, something requiring dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue and Iranian weapons distribution to Palestinian and anti-Israel forces. Ensuring Israel's security as the process moves forward is perhaps the top priority of the peace process.

The theory that advancing Israeli- Palestinian peace would enable action against Iran makes no sense without even taking into account any issues besides these two: that the nations who believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons are already aligned to oppose it and that the security of Israel, the major issue in the peace process, cannot possibly be guaranteed unless the Iranian nuclear weapons program is halted.

If there is a linkage between Iranian nukes and peace, it is precisely the REVERSE of what is being proposed, namely that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians necessitates progress on reducing the Iranian nuclear threat.

Please see Yoram Ettinger's article concerning the linkage theory below:,7340,L-3876368,00.html

Tune in for Rabbi Kaufman's - Understanding the World from 2-3 pm Central every Thursday on for the most in depth analysis of issues relating to Israel, the Middle East, and Foreign Policy as well as general Jewish issues and interfaith issues.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Analysis of the J Street Poll on US and Israel

This is an analysis of the poll released by J Street allegedly showing support of the Obama Administration's efforts in the peace process. For J Street's view of this poll's findings see

A friend asked, in essence, "Why was the J Street March Poll so skewed?" He asked me what I thought of the poll. I thought I would respond not only to the general question, but to the actual poll.

First, I must point out that few Jews respond to polls specifically aimed at Jews. The various Jewish Population Surveys have found that out through their population studies. Of those who would respond, they tend to be very liberal socially and politically as well as tending toward secularism. It is also well known that there are lies, damn lies, statistics, polling numbers and polling numbers from which policy arguments are being made. It is easy to skew polling numbers if you know what you are doing and I will demonstrate with J Street's poll to make it clear.

What is unknown about the J Street poll is anything having to do with methodology. If they only have survey results from people willing to spend 20 minutes discussing something with a J Street advocate, their numbers would be WAY SKEWED. Whom did they question, how, where and whe? It also depends upon how they ASKED the questions.

Here is the actual polling data.

One of the points that J Street wanted to make is to argue that the administration would not take a political hit if it acts against Israel and largely ignores Iran. The agenda is clearly to play down security issues and foreign policy issues in general. How was this done in the poll? Let’s look at one of the major questions being discussed.

"Q.7 Below is a list of issues facing our country today. Please mark which TWO of these issues are the most important for you in deciding your vote for Congress in November.”

The answers were:

The economy 55
Health care 41
The deficit and government spending 17
Social Security and Medicare 16
Terrorism and national security 13
Israel 10
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 10
Taxes 8
Education 7
The environment 7
Illegal immigration 6
Energy 4
Separation between religion and state 3
Iran 2

“Look how far down Israel and Iran are,” J Street wishes to argue. However, let’s take a closer look, shall we? This question alone has numerous problems. Just for starters, many concerned about Iran might well have put it into “Israel” or “Terrorism and National Security.” More importantly, however, in the poll they asked for people to pick ONLY TWO of the issues. I myself would have picked The Economy and National Security and I am obviously concerned about Israel and Iran! For me, Terrorism and National Security covers Israel and Iran as well as potentially covering Americas wars.

Thinking about this question a bit more; if I asked you to name the two most important things in your life, what would you choose? If you begin the list with the two primary essentials of life, food and water. You've already left out shelter and clothing. Forget about love, safety, etc... To pretend that picking TWO of the above issues is indicative of much of anything is questionable at best.

Regarding the most frequently quoted issue there are also concerns.

J Street asked, "Q.26 (IF SUPPORT ACTIVE ROLE) (SPLIT A) Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs? 86% support.

What constitutes "publicly stating its disagreements?" Is this "We don't think you should be expanding Ramat Shlomo right now?" Or is this, "We think that you need to give in on this issue because we want our administration to look like we're the friend of the Arab world?" The question presupposes that the US' disagreements will be reasonable and fair. Who wouldn't answer this "Yes" in THAT context? In the context of "Would you support the US dramatically altering its policies of the past forty years regarding Israeli control of Jerusalem in order to appease the Palestinians and then turning the ensuing argument into a public berating of the Israeli government?" What do you want to there wouldn’t be 86% in favor of that?

The percentage of respondents who would support US criticism of Israel or pressure on Israel without mentioning the Palestinians is consistently lower than the percentage who would support criticism or pressure on both. This is for UNKNOWN criticism or pressure which allows respondents to assume reasonable positions. If actions were known to be unreasonable, one would assume a less supportive response.

People generally assume fairness and reasonableness. For example, the poll asked:

Q.29 (IF SUPPORT ACTIVE ROLE) (SPLIT B) Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States exerting pressure on Israel to make the compromises necessary to achieve peace? 63% offered support.
However, if they asked "Would you support the US government primarily or ONLY pressuring Israel" or "Would you support the US government specifically pressuring Israel to give Jerusalem to the Palestinians" I bet those numbers wouldn't be close. They DIDN'T because they didn't want to know the answer to those questions. The purpose of this poll, and every poll has a purpose, is to support J Street's policy position that the United States SHOULD USE ITS INFLUENCE on Israel regardless of the policies or actions of the Palestinians in order to pressure Israel to concede to Palestinian demands in the hope of bringing about peace.

This agenda necessitated AVOIDING questions that might have resulted in answers they did not want to receive. By not defining what kind of pressure and to do what, the poll avoided the vital questions.

For example, "Should the United States exert pressure on Israel not to attack Iran in order to destroy or delay Iran's nuclear weapons program by threatening to cut off military aid?" "Should the US exert pressure on Israel to concede Jerusalem in order to meet the demands of the Arab world by publicly calling out its leadership and refusing to meet publicly with Israeli leaders?" You would get VASTLY different results if you asked these detailed questions.

When they get to MORE detailed questions later in the poll (even the later more detailed questions leave out vitally important information), they continue to manipulate the responses. One question was so deliberate that I was shocked: Respondents were asked to state with which of these two statements they were most closely in agreement:

32 When Israel takes actions that publicly embarrass the United States and weaken our international credibility, the United States is right to publicly express our disagreements and request Israel to change certain policies.
Regardless of the issue, the United States should not publicly express our disagreements with Israeli government policy because this emboldens Israel's enemies and encourages them to attack Israel.

It amazes me that anyone would argue against the first statement regardless of the reasonableness of the second, but SHOCKINGLY the respondents were nearly DIVIDED on this issue. WOW! I am frankly scared about the people they asked! How could you possibly not support the first statement??? It was clearly a set up and in failed!!!

They then asked

33 Given America's security interests in the Middle East, resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is critical for maintaining a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
Ending the conflict requires America to serve as an honest broker and publicly state our
disagreements with both Israelis and Palestinians when it is necessary to lead the parties to a peace agreement.
Israel is America's only democratic ally in the Middle East and our shared values form a special relationship between our two countries that is stronger than any dispute. Public criticism of Israel sends the wrong message to Israel's enemies, and we should keep any disagreements private while presenting a united front against those who want to harm Israel...............

Clearly they anticipated a strong result for the first alternative just as they did in the previous question, but didn't get it. Again the result was a nearly even split.

THEN after asking general questions already designed to elicit the same response when details are added later, "But you said A before, why not say A now?" the poll tells the respondents what is going on? Only 44% really were following the news and what qualifies as “Following Closely” is not specified. Is that reading the NY Times daily or is that reading J Post, Haaretz, and numerous commentaries?

More than half didn't really know what was going on and were basing their answers SOLELY on the information provided. This means that the information provided could easily and dramatically skew the poll results and did. Here is the poll's description of the events. I have underlined the key phrases.

Q.35 Vice President Biden's visit to Israel last week was planned in order to demonstrate U.S. support for Israel, advance peace talks with the Palestinians, and coordinate US-Israel policy regarding Iran's nuclear program. During the Vice President's visit, Israel announced it would build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, an area where the U.S. has requested Israel not to build new housing because this is internationally disputed territory. Vice President Biden condemned the Israeli announcement, stating thatit _undermines the trust required for productive negotiations_ and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said
the timing and substance of the announcement was insulting to the United States.
Did the U.S. do the right thing by strongly criticizing the Israeli announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem during the Vice President's visit?
The U.S. did the right thing ...........................................................55
The U.S. did not do the right thing ................................................45

If the question has said, "in Ramat Shlomo, a long established Jewish neighborhood and northern suburb of Jerusalem, which is also an area that the Palestinians want Israel to turn over to them, forcing the evacuation of the tens of thousands of Jews who currently live there and in nearby Jewish neighborhoods established in the area around Jerusalem after the 1967 war in which Israel's neighbors declared war upon it and Israel miraculously survived."

I bet I could change those poll numbers pretty significantly with my more accurate version of the question.

Then, they asked:

Q.36 From what you know about Vice President Biden's visit, do you think Israel's announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem caused a great deal of damage to US-Israel relations, some damage to US Israel relations, not much damage to US-Israel relations, or no damage at all to US-Israel relations? 60% said “Yes.”

They were basically told, “Biden came to help and Israel offered an insult.”
Even under this misleading explanation, where is the following question:

Q. XX PM Netanyahu apologized for the timing of the announcement and that apology was accepted by VP Biden. Following that apology Sec. State Clinton lambasted PM Netanyahu and accused Israel of not being serious about peace the same week that a public square in a Palestinian Authority controlled town was named after a notorious terrorist who killed 38 people including an American and 13 children. Israelis were extremely upset by the Sec. State's comments and subsequent mistreatment of PM Netanyahu by President Obama himself when the President treated the leader of Israel poorly. Do you believe that the Obama Administration caused damage to the US-Israel relationship?

I bet I could have gotten an interesting response to that question. J Street didn't want the answer.

All of the questions are heavily skewed by J Street's explanation of the events and therefore cannot be used to determine whether or not people agree with the administration's actions. But...believe me, that is exactly what they intended for this poll to show.


Letter to the UC Leadership about Divestment

Shalom Chancellor, President, Senate and others concerned with peaceful coexistence among people of all faiths,

This coming weekend, my Reform Jewish congregation in Des Moines, Iowa is being picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that spouts the most vicious hatred and filth out there. They will shout "God Hates Jews" and "God Hates Fags" as families with children arrive to attend a Bat Mitzvah celebration. They come to spew this hatred because we are a Jewish institution and because we support the equal right of Homosexuals to marry, something legal in Iowa now unlike in your state, which has recently re-entered the dark ages. Now your school has unfortunately followed.

I do not make this charge lightly. Age old Jew hatred is rearing its ugly head, not in the form of RIGHT WING hatred, but in the form of LEFT WING "pro-Palestinian" hatred under the guise of anti-Israel sentiment originating with grossly anti-Israel international institutions. The document created by the student Senate is filled with half truths and untruths, just as the sources used to create the document were. In fact, even Judge Goldstone himself wouldn't agree with its conclusions just as he didn't agree with the conclusions put forward in his name by the UNHRC.

Goldstone himself said of his investigation, "Ours wasn’t an investigation, it was a fact-finding mission, we made that clear.We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”

Taken by the highly anti-Jewish UNHRC that didn't matter. The accusations enabled rabid Jew haters to sentence the Jewish state, just as the Student Senate at UC now has, in spite of the mountain of evidence that counters the claims.

The day that the Westboro hate tour comes to visit my congregation, I will feel more comfortable as a JEW than I would at the University of California right now. What is going on there is despicable and resembles the worst anti-Jewish behaviors in history, sentencing Jews based upon deliberately false accusations that demonize the Jewish people. That this has the imprimatur of the Student Senate is revolting.

This week, 77 years ago, on 1 April 1933, the Nazis carried out the first nationwide, planned action against Jews: a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. This was a direct response to the Jewish boycott of Germany in an effort to further cripple their economy which started in March 1933 (according to The Daily Express of London of 24 March 1933). This one-day boycott was both a reprisal and an act of warning prompted by Greuelpropaganda (false atrocity stories) that German and foreign Jews, assisted by foreign journalists, were allegedly circulating in the international press to damage Nazi Germany's reputation. [Sounds similar to the false accusations in the Goldstone Report and other charges found in the UC student document].

On the day of the boycott, the SA stood menacingly in front of Jewish-owned department stores and retail establishments, and the offices of professionals such as doctors and lawyers. [Sounds eerily similar to the shouting down of the Israeli Ambassador and calls for boycott of Israelis]. Signs were posted saying "Don't Buy from Jews" and "The Jews Are Our Misfortune." Throughout Germany, rare acts of violence against individual Jews and Jewish property occurred. [Those should be expected to occur unless this climate of hatred on the UC campus is ended].

It is shocking that this is happening right now on the campus of the University of California in 2010, only the word "Jew," has been replaced by the word "Israel." You should be ashamed.

You are helping to make "Never Again," AGAIN!!!