Israel News | Zionism Israel Center | Zionism History | Zionism Definitions | ZioNation | Forum | Zionism FAQ | Maps| Edit

Saturday, February 20, 2010

[Updated] Adalah-NY strikes a blow for "human rights" and against Zionist ballet

Protesters led by Adalah-NY, struck their version of a blow for "human rights" and "justice" by disrupting a performance of the Israel ballet in Vermont. According to Ynet news, the self-proclaimed forces of justice and freedom under Adalah claimed that "anyone who watched the performance was "supporting Israel's apartheid policy."'

Update - Originally, this story claimed, based on the Ynet story, that the protest against the Israel ballet was led by the New Israel fund supported Adalah group. Adalah, it will be remembered is the group that proposed a constitution that would abolish Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and allow "right" of return for Palestinian refugees.

However, Ben Murane of New Israel Fund has written to protest that Adalah of Israel supported by NIF had nothing to do with the disruption of the Israel ballet, which is part of a campaign by a group called Adalah-NY. It seems Adalah in Israel only agitates for return of refugees and abolition of the Jewish state locally. NIF seems to have no qualms about supporting these goals. The NIF-supported Adalah does not disrupt ballet performances in the United States, according to Murane.

Indeed there is an Adalah-NY group ( that is funded by the WESPAC foundation. Ynet has not corrected or retracted their story, however. Neither the NIF nor the Israeli Adalah NGO have issued statements clarifying relationship, or lack thereof, between Adalah, and Adalah-NY. It is strange that New Israel Fund has not not contradicted the YNET story or tried to correct it.

Muqata Web log writes:

Update: Many have been claiming that the YNET story is factually incorrect in [that] the Israel Ballet performance was disrupted by "Adalah-NY" and not by "Adalah" in Israel which is NIF funded. YNET has not changed or updated their story. Despite the YNET report, the Muqata blog notes this, and states that we don't know of a connection between the anti-Israel Adalah-NY organization and the NIF-funded Adalah organization in Israel.

Verdict : NIF role in funding disruption of ballet, "not proven." We have probably been taken in by a canard. NIF role in funding advocacy of ending the Jewish state: proven. If you want to donate to disruption of Israeli ballet in the USA, you'll have to give to WESPAC. If you just want to support right of return for Palestinian refugees and boycotts of Israel, contributions to NIF will support Mossawa, Adalah (in Israel) and Machsomwatch, all organizations that further these goals.

Ami Isseroff

Labels: , ,

Continued (Permanent Link)

Russia to supply Iran with S-300 defense systems after all

Optimistic Israeli reports about Russian re-evalutation of their commitment to supply the S-300 defense system to Iran may well have been wishful thinking. According to a Reuters report:
Russia intends to fulfill a contract to supply S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Friday.
Israel and the United States have repeatedly asked Russia to scrap a contract to sell Iran the truck-mounted S-300, which can shoot down hostile missiles or aircraft up to 150 km (90 miles) away.
"There is a contract to supply these systems to Iran, and we will fulfill it," Ryabkov told Interfax in an interview. "Delays (with deliveries) are linked to technical problems with adjusting these systems," he added.
He also cautioned against politicizing Russia's arms exports to Iran.
"It is absolutely incorrect to put the emphasis on the issue of S-300 supplies... and to turn it into a major problem, to say nothing of linking it to the discussion on restoring trust in the purely peaceful character of Iran's nuclear program," Ryabkov said.
The possible sale of the S-300s, which could protect Iran's nuclear facilities against air strikes, is an extremely sensitive issue in Russia's relations with Israel.
How could sale of the S-300 not be a political issue? In fact, how could any arms exports to a country like Iran not be "politicized?"
Ami Isseroff.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Friday, February 19, 2010

What makes J street the enemy and is it the enemy?

The J Street lobby has managed to generate a lot of publicity for itself. Most of those who praise it however, are anti-Israel and most of those who are critical are pro-Israel. That suggests that J Street may be the enemy. J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami told Haa'aretz
A part of the Jewish community in the United States and some people here are intolerant of people who disagree with them or criticize them.
"And that intolerance immediately flips to 'you are anti-Israel - you're a Muslim lover or you're Muslim,'" ... "These are things that they call me, and this is what some of them call the president. It has to change both in the politics here and in the right wing of the American Jewish community."
Ben-Ami's rant sounds a bit like "Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism." That's true. But some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, and J Street is not only engaged in criticism of Israel.  

Criticism of Israel is not what makes J Street the enemy.  Signing a letter calling on President Obama to loosen the Israeli blockade of the genocidal Hamas organization might make J Street the enemy. Initiating action in Congress against Iran sanctions might make J Street the enemy. Having Congressman Brian Baird as an honorary host of a J Street gala dinner, might make J Street the enemy, since he told students in Gaza that the US should forcefully break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, as it did the Berlin airlift. His views about the "Jewish problem" could hardly have been a surprise to J Street when they invited him.  Taking money from Muslims and Muslim groups doesn't make an organization or its members into Muslims. Muslims are not necessarily anti-Israel either. But when the money comes from the American Iranian Council and similar groups, t it does raise the suspiscion that they are working to serve the interests of Muslims who are inimical to Israeli and Jewish interests. The Iranian regime  after all, is not a great friend of Israel or the Jewish people.
None of these things that J Street did are criticisms of Israel. All of them are inimical actions - attempts to influence a foreign government to take action against Israel, honoring anti-Israel politicians and funding some of them, getting support from anti-Israel groups. Groups that carry out inimical actions are usually known as enemies.
Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

NGO Monitor calls on New Israel Fund to establish "red lines"

NGO Monitor has compiled an even more extensive file on New Israel Fund-supported anti-Zionist NGOs than Im Tirtzu, and they had these data for years. Yet they have been ignored and ridiculed and slandered by the NIF.
This seems a fair enough assessment:
NGO Monitor has raised these topics in reports and correspondence with NIF officials on several occasions, but NIF has been unwilling to engage in substantive debate. Instead, NIF and its supporters have smeared NGO Monitor as "silenc[ing] expression," and being "extremist," "incendiary," the "rotten fruit of Israeli democracy," "McCarthyite," and "right-wing." The aim of these responses is to avoid substantive debate.

Unlike Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor has not engaged in personalities or exaggerations. Yet NIF chose to stonewall and start a slander campaign rather than replying to the issues they raise.

Is it too much to ask of New Israel Fund and its supporters to stick to the issues. Can they explain why they continue to support Adalah, and organization that calls for right of return of Palestinian refugees? Can they explain why they continue to support Machsomwatch, Mossawa and other groups that called on Norway to boycott Israel? Can they explain why they collect donor-advised contributions for the divestment campaign run by Coalition of Women for Peace? Or will we only get from them more and more of the same old litany about McCarthyism and free speach. In Israel, Israeli citizens can say what they please. But the Israeli government doesn't have to cooperate with foreign lobbies that are encouraging destruction of the state.

Ami Isseroff

NGO Monitor has called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear "red lines" regarding the activities and rhetoric of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that it funds. This initiative comes in the wake of wide criticism of NIF for supporting advocacy groups that centrally contribute to demonization of Israel through allegations of "war crimes" and intense lobbying for the Goldstone Report.

These guidelines should prevent NIF funding for organizations that support "Durban strategy" activities such as:

  1. BDS: Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns.
  2. Demonization and delegitimization: Expressions including "apartheid," Nazi rhetoric, "war crimes," and deliberate misrepresentations of international law, as well as the use of UN frameworks for these goals.
  3. Lawfare: Legal threats or activities in courts outside Israel directed against Israeli officials, "Zionist" or "parastatal" groups, or companies that do business in Israel.
  4. Anti-Zionism: Opposition to the definition of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state," including demands for a "one-state solution," the revocation of the Law of Return, and the elimination of national Jewish symbols.

These activities, which promote the isolation of Israel internationally, are entirely inconsistent with NIF claims that "our supporters love Israel."

NGO Monitor has raised these topics in reports and correspondence with NIF officials on several occasions, but NIF has been unwilling to engage in substantive debate. Instead, NIF and its supporters have smeared NGO Monitor as "silenc[ing] expression," and being "extremist," "incendiary," the "rotten fruit of Israeli democracy," "McCarthyite," and "right-wing." The aim of these responses is to avoid substantive debate.

For more details, see NGO Monitor's report, NIF-Funded NGOs: Goldstone's Building Blocks, February 9, 2010.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

New Israel Fund supports divestment

New Israel Fund insists that the charges against it (see  Funding Anti-Zionism - Adalah, NIF and the "New Israel"   New Israel Fund supports anti-Zionist Propaganda and NIF Funds anti-Zionists Take II )  made by Im Tirzu and others are all bogus McCarthyism:
The New Israel Fund, in its defense, says it does not support those who demonize Israel or call for divestment or boycott of Israel, and that it will not assist those who advocate the "right of return" for Palestinians to reclaim land lost to them in 1948. 
But the truth is that New Israel Fund funds Adalah, a group that wrote a proposed Israeli constitution calling for Right of Return. (see   Funding Anti-Zionism - Adalah, NIF and the "New Israel" ). NIF also supports Mossawa and Machsomwatch, both of which called on the Norwegian government to support a boycott of Israel, and NIF collects "donor advised" donations for Whoprofits. Click this link and see for yourself: You can see there that the instructions state: "Make out a check to "New Israel Fund", write in the memo line "for the Coalition of Women for Peace – Who Profits Project."  This was not invented by Im Tirtzu or by me. Who Profits is a project of the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP). Despite express denials, it seems that NIF supported CWP in 2008, with a grant that channeled money from the Ford Foundation, and they continue to support Coalition of Women for Peace though donor-advised channeling.
Why does the Ford Foundation find it convenient to channel grants through NIF, and why does NIF act as a conduit for the Ford Foundation? Any organization that was once funded by NIF is allowed to use NIF as a donor-advised contribution channel unless a decision is made to the contrary. New Israel Fund knows that CWP supports divestment, but did not cancel its donor-advised status.
The "donor-advised" status actually means that money contributed to them is tax-deductible in the United States as if it had been donated to NIF. Formally, it means that the money was donated to NIF for the express purpose of funding CWP, and NIF used it to fund CWP. If it was not formally recognized as a donation to NIF, it would not be tax deductible, as CWP has no 501c(3) tax deductible status in the United States. So NIF is supporting CWP at least formally. If NIF claims they are not supporting CWP and divestment, then the tax shelter given to these donations is a fraud.
It is beyond my understanding how people can claim that telling potential donors to New Israel Fund that it supports CWP and denies that it does so, that it supports Adalah and other organizations that call for divestment and right of return is not "democratic" or why it is "McCarthyism" to ask the Israeli government to investigate its ties with a group that is funding delegitimation of Israel. Don't NIF donors have rights? Doesn't the Israeli government and the Israeli taxpayer have rights? Don't we have the right to know how our money is being spent, and to donate to causes we believe in? Isn't it wrong to collect money for "democracy" and use it to support groups that are trying to destroy Israel?
Ami Isseroff  

Labels: ,

Continued (Permanent Link)

Monday, February 15, 2010

British in no hurry to change "lawfare" law that allows bogus Human Rights arrests

Last update - 09:20 15/02/2010       
'Livni may cause own arrest to shame U.K. into changing law'
By Haaretz Service
Opposition leader Tzipi Livni reportedly indicated on Sunday that she would be willing to travel to the U.K. in order to provoke her own arrest, hoping thus to move London into changing a controversial law enabling the arrest of visiting politicians, the London Times reported on Monday.
"Britain has obligated itself to me personally that this subject will be taken care of and fixed," she said. "Now is the time."
Livni reportedly added that getting herself arrested was the only way to "shame" the British government into changing the law giving judges the power to arrest visiting Israeli politicians and generals.
Israel's government confirmed late last year that Livni canceled a planned London trip after her office received news of a secretly issued arrest warrant awaiting her arrival.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband later announced that Britain would no longer tolerate legal harassment of Israeli officials in this fashion.
But the Times report said Monday that the promised swift change could be delayed by the country's upcoming elections, citing a cabinet split over timing issues which may postpone any alteration of the rules until after the vote.
The report added that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, was privately warning against remaking the law over such a fundamental issue in haste, saying that it ought to be explored by a body such as the Justice Select Committee, a move which would further delay any new law until the next Parliament.
Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Oalmor, told the Times "If Israeli dignitaries cannot travel unhindered to Britain, than they will not travel. Automatically the political dialogue between the two countries will be reduced. This is not something that London or Jerusalem wants."

Continued (Permanent Link)

Take Action: J Street supported congressman: US should break the Israeli blockade of Gaza

Representative Brian Baird (Washington Democrat) a protege of the J Street Lobby, is on a solidarity visit to Gaza, to show his support for the genocidal, racist, religious fanatic reactionary Hamas regime there. Baird told Gaza students that the United States should break the Israeli blockade of Gaza:

"We ought to bring roll-on, roll-off ships and roll them right to the beach and bring the relief supplies in, in our version of the Berlin airlift,"

So much for the "unbreakable bond" between Israel and the United States. So much for J Street's "pro-Israel" politics. Baird was an honorary host of the J Street Gala dinner. Baird and about 50 other congresspersons, along with J Street, were signatories of a recent letter calling on President Obama to life the Gaza siege and let Hamas have the materials it so desperately needs to rebuild its terror capabilities, as well as to ensure that a satisfied population will support the Hamas regime. The supposed rationale of the policy was that improving the lot of the population would make them more likely to support compromise and peace proposals. This is analogous to claiming that the allies should have lifted the blockade of Nazi Germany in order to put the Germans in a friendlier mood. The Democratic party got a gift from the Republican Jewish Coalition, which made out that the letter is even worse than it is, and circulated inaccurate information about it. This allowed apologists for the letter to blunt criticisms by shifting the issue to the RJC's misrepresentations.

But the letter was not enough for Baird, since he is evidently an all-out open Hamas supporter, and insists that the US must show solidarity with the Hamas in the same way it showed solidarity with blockaded Berlin in 1948.
If you live in Washington State, please write to Congressman Baird, though he has announced his retirement. Every US citizen, especially Democratic Party supporters, can and should write to these contacts to protest support for Hamas by J Street and by Democrat law makers:

National Jewish Democratic Council
, Marc Stanley Chairman - (fill out the form to contact the Washington office); By phone in Washington DC; 202-216-9060; New York:; Addditional phone, fax and email contacts at the above Web site
J Street: Jeremy Ben-Ami; Isaac Luria
Be respectful of persons and institutions and constructive. Focus on issues. Do not confuse partisan political pleading with Israel advocacy - and remember - the Gaza agitation is the work of a handful of senators, it is not policy of the Obama administration and should not be blamed on Barack Obama or any administration personnel.
Pass it on to friends and fellow Democrats.

Ami Isseroff

Labels: ,

Continued (Permanent Link)

Clinton: "Iran is turning into a military dictatorship"

Actually, Iran already was a military dictatorship and has been one almost since the beginning of Khomeini rule. Anyone who read "Reading Lolita in Tehran" and followed the history of repression in Iran can see all the tell-tale symptoms: arbitrary arrests for dissent, direction of policy by the Iranian National Guard Corps, mass executions. The only difference is that of late, the even more militant Basij have achieved more power.
Iran has a democratic facade of "elections" that should not have fooled anyone. Apparently, it has fooled people in the US State Department for quite a long time.
Ami Isseroff  
Clinton: Iran is turning into military dictatorship
By Amos Harel and Haaretz Service
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday the Obama administration believes Iran is becoming a military dictatorship.
In remarks to Arab students at Carnegie Mellon's campus in Qatar, Clinton said the Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran appears to have gained so much power, saying "the Revolutionary Guard ... we believe is, in effect, supplanting the government of Iran."
"That is how we see it. We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship. That is our view."
Clinton's comments came after it was announced earlier Monday that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will be arriving in Israel within weeks on an official visit, amid growing regional tensions over Iran's controversial nuclear program.
Referring to U.S.-led effort to force new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Biden told Meet the Press on Sunday that he hoped to recruit China's support to the campaign.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will be arriving in Israel within weeks on an official visit, Haaretz learned on Monday, amid growing regional tensions over Iran's controversial nuclear program.
Referring to U.S.-led effort to force new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Biden told Meet the Press on Sunday that he hoped to recruit China's support to the campaign.
"We already have the support of everyone from Russia to Europe, and I believe we could also garner China's support so to isolate [Iran]," Biden said, adding that the world had "to make it clear to them that we can't go on like this."

On Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen appeared keen to relay a public message to Israel: The U.S. is leading the international effort to levy harsh sanctions on Tehran, so Israel must exercise complete restraint.
Mullen told reporters he was concerned about the unintended consequences of a military strike on Iran's nuclear program.
The U.S. army chief said after arriving in Israel on Sunday that American policy on the matter is clear: "Iran must not acquire nuclear capability."
However, Mullen also said that if a regional confrontation were to break out following a strike on Iran, it "will be a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike."
In a fairly unusual step, Mullen held a short press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. He then met with the Israel's military leadership, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.
In June 2008, when Mullen was last here, circumstances were similar: Then-president George Bush and his administration also interpreted Israeli statements as meaning that the country intended to attack Iran. Mullen was dispatched by the Bush administration in order to clarify that Israel cannot do this.
Mullen was asked Sunday about the red lines the Obama administration set for Iran's nuclear program. He refused to offer a detailed response, but said, "President Barack Obama was very clear that from a policy standpoint, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons."
He added that he still hoped a solution could be found through diplomacy and sanctions, and that there would not be a regional war.
"We haven't taken off any option from the table," he said. While the military option had not been discounted, "it's pretty hard to be specific."
He reiterated the assessment that unless Iran's nuclear program was halted, Tehran could have its first nuclear bomb within one to three years.
Mullen expressed concern at the behavior of the Iranian leadership and said it had a destabilizing influence on the region. He cited as cause for concern Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent statement that Iran could step up uranium enrichment, and added that the country was linked to Hezbollah, Hamas and the instability in Yemen, and played a role in Afghanistan.
Stressing America was committed to Israel's security, he commended the countries' close defense and security ties, and their stabilizing effect on the region.
The admiral also noted that the U.S. has taken steps to protect several countries in the region from Iranian threats, and mentioned that Patriot air defense missiles had been deployed in the United Arab Emirates. Mullen added that all measures are defensive.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Qatar that Iran is leaving the international community little choice but to exact a heavy price from Tehran over its provocative actions.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Funding anti-Zionism: Adalah, NIF and the "New Israel"

The expose of New Israel Fund funding of anti-Zionist groups by Im Tirtzu (see New Israel Fund supports anti-Zionist Propaganda and NIF Funds anti-Zionists Take II ) drew fire from people who insist that New Israel Fund is pure as the driven snow, well-intentioned liberal Zionists, and that Im Tirtzu is a "right-wing" organization intent on stifling free speech. Im Tirtzu admittedly is a right wing group, but you can and should judge for yourself about the organizations that New Israel fund is funding.
Adalah is one of the organizations funded by New Israel Fund, as you can verify here. According to the statement of NIF:
[Adalah] Seeks to achieve equal rights for the Arab citizens in Israel, and to protect their minority rights with regard to land, housing, education, employment, language, political participation, women's rights, prisoner rights and cultural and religious rights.
That sounds wonderful. What does it mean in practice? In 2007, Adalah proposed a new constitution for Israel. It is posted on the Web at the Adalah Web site here.
Here are some features of this proposed constitution:
From the introduction:
"Adalah is issuing "The Democratic Constitution," as a constitutional proposal for the state of Israel, based on the concept of a democratic, bilingual, multicultural state."
No more Jewish state. Halas! Mafeesh! This is indeed a "New Israel."
Chapter 1 Article 4: " The State of Israel must recognize, therefore, its responsibility for the injustices of the Nakba and the Occupation; recognize the right of return of the Palestinian refugees based on UN Resolution 194..."
Chapter 2 Article 15 implies repeal of the law of return: Israel will no longer be a country for Jews seeking to live as part of a sovereign nation:

"The laws of citizenship and immigration will be established on the basis of the principle of anti-discrimination and will define the arrangements by which the State of Israel will grant citizenship to:

A. Anyone who was born within the territory of the State of Israel and whose parent was also born within the territory of the State of Israel;

B. Anyone who was born to a parent who is a citizen of the state;

C, The spouse of a citizen of the state;

D. Those who arrive or remain in the state due to humanitarian reasons, including those who are persecuted on the basis of political background."

Chapter 2 Article 20 is the foundation essentially of a binational state, but one that guarantees only Arab rights. It proposes one of two models. In the first model, every law will need to be approved by a committee composed of at least 50% representatives of Arab parties. Model II states:
"No bill will be approved by the plenum of the Knesset if 75% of the members of the Knesset who belong to parties which by their definition or character are Arab parties or Arab-Jewish parties vote against it under the reasoning that the bill violates the fundamental rights of the Arab minority."
Jews do not get this right. It won't be needed anyhow, since following exercise of the "right" of return, the Arabs will soon be a majority.
Chapter 3, Articles 29 and following supposedly guarantee civil rights - freedom of religion, information, privacy, etc. But contrary to Western constitutions, and like the Palestinian and other Arab country constitutions, they each include a provision that the right can be limited or nullified by a special law, in this language:
"...these liberties shall not be restricted except by a law enacted for a necessary purpose which is in accordance with the basic principles of a bilingual and multicultural democratic society, and to an extent that is no greater than is required.:"
That is an anti-constitutional provision that makes a joke of rights. Essentially, it states that people have rights unless the government decides to take them away. It means the government can enact any law it likes to abridge civil rights. Who decides what is in accordance with the principles? Who decides what extent is no greater than required? What is a "necessary purpose?"
Chapter 3: Article 39 - Restitution of all the property of all Arabs taken in 1948, and compensation for all the time they were denied use of their property:
" Every person whose land has been expropriated or whose right to property has been violated arbitrarily or because of his or her Arab nationality under the following laws is entitled to have his or her property restored and to receive compensation for the period during which his or her right to property was denied: the Land Ordinance (Acquisition for Public Purposes) of 1943, and/or the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law of 1953, and/or the Absentee Property Law of 1950, and/or article 22 of the Statute of Limitations of 1958, and/or Regulation 125 of the Emergency (Defense) Regulations of 1945."
Since the constitution also calls for right of return, that means giving up all the land of all the Arabs who ran away or were expelled in 1948
The constitution is alluded to euphemistially in the NIF page about Adalah as the following goal:
Drafting and proposing a Charter of Human Rights as an alternative document to the various proposals for constitution in Israel .
The actual proposed constitution, which is not a charter of human rights, is published at Adalah's Web site. It has been public knowledge since 2007, but NIF does not tell their donors about it at all. NIF continued to fund Adalah after they published their proposed constitution.
Nobody disputes that Adalah has a right to their opinions. They have the right to free speech and freedom of the press and assembly. Not even Im Tirtzu disputes that. But the constitution they propose puts an end to the right of the Jewish people to self-determination under the pretense of ensuring minority rights. It calls for "right" of return, return of refugee property, Arab veto over legislation, arbitrary abridgement of civil rights, abolition of the Law of return and abolition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. Is Adalah an organization that is worthy of the support of a Zionist fund?
While Adalah has a right to have and express their opinions, some people seem to dispute the right of NIF donors to know that that is what they are funding, and some people insist, for reasons I can't understand, that the Israeli government and Jewish Agency must continue blindly cooperating with NIF, which funds Adalah, and financing their birthright trips, which no doubt inculcate more of the same philosophy.
As with Adalah, we can go through the list of organizations funded by NIF - Mossawa, Birthright, Betselem.... Is it "McCarthyism" to ensure that NIF donors know what they are actually funding, as opposed to the euphemistic account given by NIF at their Web site? Is it "McCarthyism" to investigate whether the Israeli government should or should not cooperate with Adalah? Decide for yourself.
Ami Isseroff


Continued (Permanent Link)

Subscribe to
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by

Feedblitz subcription
To this Blog only

You can receive our articles by e-mail. For a free subscription, please enter your e-mail address:

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Web Logs & Sites

This Site

Zionism & Israel
Zionation Web Log
IMO Web Log (Dutch)

ZI Group
Zionism-Israel Pages
Israël-Palestina.Info (Dutch & English)
Israël in de Media
MidEastWeb Middle East News and Views
MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log

Brave Zionism
Israel: Like this, as if
Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog

Friends and Partners
EinNews Israel
Israel Facts
Israel Proud Adam Holland
Middle East Analysis
Irene Lancaster's Diary
Middle East Analysis
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israel Facts (NL)
Cynthia's Israel Adventure
Jeff Weintraub Commentaries and controversies
Meretz USA Weblog
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
Simply Jews
Fresno Zionism
Anti-Racist Blog
Sharona's Week
Z-Word Blog
Jewish State
Take A Pen - Israel Advocacy
Zionism on the Web
ZOTW's Zionism and Israel News
Zionism On The Web News
ZOTW's Blogs
Christian Attitudes
Dr Ginosar Recalls
Questions: Zionism anti-Zionism Israel & Palestine
Southern Wolf
Peace With Realism
Sanda's Place
Liberal for Israel
Realistic Dove
Blue Truth
Point of no Return
Christians Standing With Israel
Christians Standing With Israel - Blog

Encylopedic Dictionary of Zionism and Israel
Middle East Encyclopedia
Zionism and its Impact
Zionism & the creation of Israel
Zionism - Issues & answers
Maps of Israel
Christian Zionism Resources
Christian Zionism
Albert Einstein
Gaza & the Qassam Victims of Sderot
Zionist Quotes
Six Day War
Jew Hatred
Learn Hebrew
Arab-Israeli Conflict
International Zionism

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Israel Boycott
Boycott Israel?
Amnesty International Report on Gaza War
Boycott Israel?
Dutch Newspaper Reporting: A Study of NRC Handelsblad
Hamas (Dutch)
Dries van Agt (Dutch)
Isfake lobby

At Zionism On the Web
Articles on Zionism
Anti-Zionism Information Center
Academic boycott of Israel Resource Center
The anti-Israel Hackers
Antisemitism Information Center
Zionism Israel and Apartheid
Middle East, Peace and War
The Palestine state
ZOTW Expert Search
ZOTW Forum

Judaica & Israel Gifts
Jewish Gifts: Judaica:
Ahava Products

Elsewhere On the Web
Stop the Israel Boycott


Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

RSS V 1.0

International Affairs Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory