New Bill in Congress Targets Teachers Who Dare to Question US Support for Israel



By Michael Collins Piper



The Israeli lobby has launched an all-out drive to ensure congressional passage of a bill, approved by the House and now before a Senate committee that would set up a federal tribunal to investigate and monitor criticism of Israel on American college campuses.

Ten months ago the New York-based Jewish Week newspaper claimed that the report by American Free Press that Republican members of the Senate were planning to crack down on college and university professors who were critical of Israel was “a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst.” They were claiming that AFP lied.

However, on Sept. 17, 2003, the House Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act, which was then passed by the full House on Oct. 21. The chief sponsor of the legislation was Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from Michigan.

DANGEROUS LEGISLATION

Critics charge that the bill is dangerous—a direct affront to the First Amendment and the product of intrigue by a small clique of individuals and organizations which combines the forces of the powerful Israeli lobby in official Washington.

Leading the push for Senate approval of the bill are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, run by Abe Foxman, the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee.

Also lending its support is Empower America, the neo-conservative front group established by William Kristol, editor and publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, which is said to be the “intellectual” journal that governs the train of foreign policy thinking in the Bush administration.

One other group has lent its support: the U.S. India Political Action Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely with the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopolitically allied.

H.R. 3077 is bureaucratic in its tone, decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through legislative linguistics. It would set up a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring academic critics of Israel.

Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the House, and three by the secretary of education, two of whom are required to be from U.S. federal security agencies. The various appointees would be selected from what The Christian Science Monitor described on March 11 as “politicians, representatives of cultural and educational organizations, and private citizens.”

FEARS ECHOED

Gilbert Merk, vice provost for international affairs and development and director of the Center for International Studies at Duke University, has echoed the fears of many when he charged that this advisory board “could easily be hijacked by those who have a political axe to grind and become a vehicle for an inquisition.”

The primary individuals promoting this effort to control intellectual debate on the college campuses are prominent and outspoken supporters of Israel and harsh critics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. They are:

• Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University in Israel;

• Stanley Kurtz, a contributor of ex-CIA man William F. Buckley Jr.’s bitterly anti-Arab National Review Online and a research fellow at the staunchly pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and

• Daniel Pipes, founder of the pro-Israel Middle East Forum and its affiliate, Campus Watch, an ADL-style organization that keeps tabs on college professors and students who are—or are suspected of being—critics of Israel.

These three, along with the Israeli lobby, are claiming that they are fighting “anti-Americanism” as it is being taught on the college campuses.

Republicans in Congress have joined this chorus, preferring to allow their constituents to think that this is an “America First” measure.

Juan Cole of the History News Network responds to this extraordinary twist on reality saying that the claim of “anti-Americanism” is intellectually dishonest.

“What they mean . . . if you pin them down is ambivalence about the Iraq war, or dislike of Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or recognition that the U.S. government has sometimes in the past been in bed with present enemies like al Qaeda or Saddam. None of these positions is ‘anti-American,’ and any attempt by a congressionally appointed body to tell university professors they cannot say these things—or that if they say them they must hire someone else who will say the opposite—is a contravention of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The promoters are also suggesting that this legislation would, according to the American Jewish Committee, “enhance intellectual freedom on campus by enabling diverse viewpoints to be heard.” Of course, the legislation would do precisely the opposite, say critics.

Lisa Anderson of the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs said in response that “this plan . . . is not about diversity, or even about the truth.”

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_19_04/New_Bill_/new_bill_.html

aipac is a very dangerous org.

Can you please point me to a copy of the text of this bill? Whenever I type "HR 3077" into thomas.loc.gov's search feature, I keep getting the "Child Health Care Affordability Act."

Is there something that I am not doing right?

Edit: Ah, have found it, will read.

Edit 2: I haven't yet read the text of the bill but this part of the article stood out for me:
H.R. 3077 is bureaucratic in its tone, decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through legislative linguistics. It would set up a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring academic critics of Israel.


I feel that the invocation of the First Amendment in the beginning of the article is unnecessary. I don't see any text stating that the First Amendment guarantees funding. That which the government gives, it may also take away. Reviewing how federal subsidies are spent is a legitimate function of the government.

Also, thomas.loc.gov says:
H.R.3077
Title: To amend title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enhance international education programs.
Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] (introduced 9/11/2003) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 10/21/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
A new bill.

aipac is a very dangerous org.


Not to mention these guys:

the U.S. India Political Action Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely with the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopolitically allied.


It's all starting to make sense now...it won't be long before the Jews and the Indians enslave us all and put us to work in their underground salt mines.

Of course I mean the 7-11 Indians, not the Casino Indians.

Can you please point me to a copy of the text of this bill? Whenever I type "HR 3077" into thomas.loc.gov's search feature, I keep getting the "Child Health Care Affordability Act."

Is there something that I am not doing right?

Yes, you're taking these anti-Jewish nuts seriously.

Raises the bs flag.

I'll never understand why AIPAC is not required to register as a foreign lobby. The fact that it isn't is a standing tribute to the sheer gutlessness of the vasy majority of useless ignorant pukes in Congress.

Bump.

Here's the part that stood out for me:

H.R. 3077 is bureaucratic in its tone, decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through legislative linguistics.

This is odd. How "indecipherable" could this bill be that they can't even quote one single word of it to support what they're saying? Are we just supposed to take their word for it that this bill explicitly authorizes to "cut funding to colleges for criticizing Israel"?

I'll go one further and bet that this bill does not even MENTION the word "Israel" in its text. I found a copy of a "letter of concern" from the ACLU on their website regarding this issue, and they say only that they recommend some "adjustments" to the bill, and they don't even mention Israel. They claim that the issue was instigated by some American conservative who was concerned about anti-American bias on college campuses.

That's anti-American, not "anti-Israel".

I don't know what gives the federal government the audacity to think they can adjust or cut federal funding to institutions based on performance. Well, I'm gonna go read that article about the ex-Taliban "Foreign Minister" who is now attending Yale.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in any education. at all. ever. Education should be up to the states. Sure, this article is BS, but it's a good example of what can happen when you give the feds control of your money. Remember, it's YOUR money, and whether it's being controlled by the federal or the state government, it still ultimately comes from you!!

Bump.

I haven't seen anything in the comments on the bill that get as specific as mentioning Israel. There is some paranoia that this is the exclusive purpose of the legislation, but I think it goes much broader. What should be of concern is that it sets up possibility of "Big Brother" committees "advising"on how classes on "America's foreign policies" are taught, and by whom, and that decisions to recommend change will be made in private.
The question is, how powerful will these committees be? Will title VI funds be directly tied to their recommendations?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BOEHNER
CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

However, the legislation is also very clear in ensuring the scope of the board is advisory in nature, and in fact it expressly prohibits the board from dictating curriculum.
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/markups/108th/fc/hr3077/925sb.htm

I haven't seen anything in the comments on the bill that get as specific as mentioning Israel.

I tried finding that info in the bill too, but I couldn't find it (I admit it was a bad try though). If you do, let me know. The bill is so lengthy.

:cool: BUMP.

why would you want to bump this thread?

on my list of top ten most useless threads posted in the last few weeks, this is #1.

why would you want to bump this thread?

on my list of top ten most useless threads posted in the last few weeks, this is #1.

Would you care to enlighten us or just dazzle us with your opinion?

why would you want to bump this thread?

on my list of top ten most useless threads posted in the last few weeks, this is #1.

Why do you think this is a useless thread? If this is the kind of legislation that congressional reps are enacting, we got problems here in the good ol' USA.

the thread title is a lie.

no one is introducing any legislation that even mentions the word Israel.

The whole story is just a propaganda piece for American Nazis.

Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan) obliged by introducing the International Studies in Higher Education Act, designated H.R. 3077. The bill passed the House of Representatives, after a suspension of the rules, by a voice vote in October 2003. The bill was then referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which is now taking up the issue.

H.R. 3077 calls for establishing an International Higher Education Advisory Board with broad investigative powers “to study, monitor, apprise, and evaluate” activities of area studies centers supported by Title VI. The board is charged with ensuring that government-funded academic programs “reflect diverse perspectives and represent the full range of views” on international affairs. “Diverse perspectives,” in this context, is code for limiting criticism of U.S. Middle East policy and of Israel.

Under the proposed legislation, three advisory board members would be appointed by the Secretary of Education; two of them from government agencies with national security responsibilities. The leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate each would appoint two more.

This proposal represents a dangerous threat to academic freedom. The advisory board could investigate scholars and area studies centers, applying whatever criteria it pleases. The criteria almost certainly would be political. The whole point of the legislation is to impose political restraints on activities of Middle East centers.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/761

American scholars are alarmed by a controversial education bill that would increase government monitoring of federally funded programs in international studies at colleges and universities. Backers of the bill say it will help restore balance to Middle East studies programs, which they say are overly critical of Israel and of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Opponents say the bill could lead to intrusive investigations of faculty and will undermine the credibility of American scholarship.

Known as HR 3077, the International Studies in Education Act, the legislation reauthorizes funding for international studies. Its most controversial provision calls for the establishment of an advisory board comprised of seven government appointees: one each chosen by the majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress and three selected by the Secretary of Education, two of whom represent agencies responsible for national security. The proposed board would have the authority “to study, monitor, apprise and evaluate a sample of activities” to ensure that programs represent “diverse perspectives.”


http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/090304/090304h.php

November 6, 2003 | On Oct. 21, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that could require university international studies departments to show more support for American foreign policy or risk their federal funding. Its approval followed hearings this summer in which members of Congress listened to testimony about the pernicious influence of the late Edward Said in Middle Eastern studies departments, described as enclaves of debased anti-Americanism. Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a right-wing think tank, testified, "Title VI-funded programs in Middle Eastern Studies (and other area studies) tend to purvey extreme and one-sided criticisms of American foreign policy." Evidently, the House agreed and decided to intervene.

Emboldened by its dominance of Washington, the right is trying to enlist government on its side in the campus culture wars. "Since they are the mainstream in Washington think tanks and the right-wing corridors of Congress, they figure, 'Let's translate that political capital to education,'" says Rashid Khalidi, who was recently appointed to the Edward Said Chair of Arab studies at Columbia University.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/06/middle_east/index.html

Note that the federal government only gave itself authority to monitor federally funded institutions, and the only power it has to persuade those institutions is the threat of pulling funding.

Well, the federal government shouldn't be involved in education in the first place. And academics who fund their own institutions without stealing money from taxpayers are still free to teach however they like.

I say we just demoslish the federal department of education. This is one area that the states are clearly capable of handling on their own. And cut federal taxes to give the money back to the people, so we can decide how our education dollars get spent.

Well, the federal government shouldn't be involved in education in the first place. And academics who fund their own institutions without stealing money from taxpayers are still free to teach however they like.
Well, that's all very nice, but kind of off-topic. The question at hand is not whether the government should provide education funding at all but whether it should use funding as an ideological club to ensure that "education" is more about the party line than the truth. Many might consider a government that uses taxpayer money to push a foreign government's agenda to be even worse than one that didn't fund education at all. This bill is a step toward the kind of "education" that was popular during the Cultural Revolution in China, or in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

From the thread start article:

The Republican House members who originally joined Hoekstra in co-sponsoring this legislation should be named for the record. They are: John A. Boehner (Ohio), John R. Carter (Texas), Tom Cole (Oklahoma), James Greenwood (Penn.), Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.), Patrick J. Tiberi (Ohio) and Joe Wilson (South Carolina).

Americans will not be able to find out how their representatives voted on the bill. Hoekstra asked for a suspension of the House rules, which was approved, making it possible for the controversial measure to be passed with an unrecorded “voice vote.” There is no record of how individual House members voted or if they even voted at all.

That's just flat out wrong. Undemocratic,...

Well, that's all very nice, but kind of off-topic. The question at hand is not whether the government should provide education funding at all but whether it should use funding as an ideological club to ensure that "education" is more about the party line than the truth. Many might consider a government that uses taxpayer money to push a foreign government's agenda to be even worse than one that didn't fund education at all. This bill is a step toward the kind of "education" that was popular during the Cultural Revolution in China, or in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

It's not off topic at all! I'm addressing the root of the problem. You can't just EXPECT your government to act ethically! That's the basic principle behind all Libertarian ideology. If you give the government the power, it WILL abuse it!

In this case, we've given the federal government the power to control education, and lo and behold, they've abused it! You really shouldn't be surprised.

It's not off topic at all! I'm addressing the root of the problem. You can't just EXPECT your government to act ethically! That's the basic principle behind all Libertarian ideology. If you give the government the power, it WILL abuse it!

In this case, we've given the federal government the power to control education, and lo and behold, they've abused it! You really shouldn't be surprised.
OK, then. I disagree, but let's pursue this a little further. There are three options on the table:

No government involvement in education.
Government involved in education with some semblance of fairness.
Government involvement in education to use it as an ideological club.

How would you rank those three? More importantly, since #1 is just not going to happen, how would you rank the other two? #3, when wielded by an authoritarian-conservative government such as we have now, would be contrary even to libertarian interests, so by attempting to derail discussion of how to get somewhere in the vicinity of #2 you support an agenda that conflicts with your own purported beliefs. Is that an innocent miscalculation, or is your goal not as you have presented it?

OK, then. I disagree, but let's pursue this a little further. There are three options on the table:

No government involvement in education.
Government involved in education with some semblance of fairness.
Government involvement in education to use it as an ideological club.

How would you rank those three? More importantly, since #1 is just not going to happen, how would you rank the other two? #3, when wielded by an authoritarian-conservative government such as we have now, would be contrary even to libertarian interests, so by attempting to derail discussion of how to get somewhere in the vicinity of #2 you support an agenda that conflicts with your own purported beliefs. Is that an innocent miscalculation, or is your goal not as you have presented it?

You're wrong. There is no option #2. I thought I was clear about that. I have no idea where you got the notion that I was suggesting it was possible for the government to act benevolently. I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite of that.

So now YOU get to choose between #1 and #3.

You're wrong. There is no option #2. I thought I was clear about that. I have no idea where you got the notion that I was suggesting it was possible for the government to act benevolently. I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite of that.

So now YOU get to choose between #1 and #3.
Not until you either answer the question that was posed first or concede that without either #1 or #2 there's just nothing to discuss. Good job leading this discussion in a productive direction.

Not until you either answer the question that was posed first or concede that without either #1 or #2 there's just nothing to discuss. Good job leading this discussion in a productive direction.

The question posed was how I expect #2 to work.... I've said five times now that the government cannot be trusted to act benevolently when it comes to education.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is the hyper-aggressive tactics of neo-conservative apologists for Israel, such as Daniel Pipes (a big supporter of this type of law), who will stop at nothing to harass, intimidate and silence anyone who even contemplates deviating from the party line on America's blind support of Israel. Because universities are traditional bastions of free inquiry and learning, they are a priority target for the goon squad and its bootlicking lackeys in Congress.

The question posed was how I expect #2 to work.... I've said five times now that the government cannot be trusted to act benevolently when it comes to education.
The question posed was how you rank the three alternatives, and all you've done so far is evade.

I'd still like ONE person to show me where this bill even MENTIONS the word "Israel".

Unless any of you irrational, half-witted Jew-bashers can show me that, isn't this thread in violation of the new "inflammatory title" rule?

Pure BS.

Spot on Guido

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is the hyper-aggressive tactics of neo-conservative apologists for Israel, such as Daniel Pipes (a big supporter of this type of law), who will stop at nothing to harass, intimidate and silence anyone who even contemplates deviating from the party line on America's blind support of Israel. Because universities are traditional bastions of free inquiry and learning, they are a priority target for the goon squad and its bootlicking lackeys in Congress.

You are a bald-faced liar. Where is the mention of Israel in this bill?

I'd still like ONE person to show me where this bill even MENTIONS the word "Israel".

Unless any of you irrational, half-witted Jew-bashers can show me that, isn't this thread in violation of the new "inflammatory title" rule?

Pure BS.

Only a naive simpleton would assume that a law has to use the word "Israel" in order to achieve the goal of silencing dissenting opinions about Israel. It's an irrational, half-witted assumption that demonstrates a complete and thorough ignorance about government, law-making and tactics.

The question posed was how you rank the three alternatives, and all you've done so far is evade.


Well, the federal government shouldn't be involved in education in the first place.

I say we just demoslish the federal department of education. This is one area that the states are clearly capable of handling on their own. And cut federal taxes to give the money back to the people, so we can decide how our education dollars get spent.

That pretty much indicated that I prefer option #1, no government involvement in education. I don't know how I could have been any more clear.

It's not off topic at all! I'm addressing the root of the problem. You can't just EXPECT your government to act ethically! That's the basic principle behind all Libertarian ideology. If you give the government the power, it WILL abuse it!


To translate for you: that means option #2 (benevolent government) is impossible.


In this case, we've given the federal government the power to control education, and lo and behold, they've abused it! You really shouldn't be surprised.

...and that means that option #3 (government abusing power) is bad and is what we have now.


Do you get it now? I'm not evading anything.

Now you tell me: would you rather have a government that uses education as an ideological club, or a government that is not involved in education at all?

Only a naive simpleton would assume that a law has to use the word "Israel" in order to achieve the goal of silencing dissenting opinions about Israel. It's an irrational, half-witted assumption that demonstrates a complete and thorough ignorance about government, law-making and tactics.

Ahhh. So, in other words, the bill makes no mention of Israel whatsoever, and you are a liar, pure and simple.

Does it make you feel good to lie in order to smear an entire nation of people who've never done anything to you?

Here is a thread that was posted when the issue first came out:

Silencing criticism on Israel

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31338

More background

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042803.html

Here is a thread that was posted when the issue first came out:

Silencing criticism on Israel

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...ad.php?t=31338

More background

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042803.html

I want the specific text of this bill explicating that it is designed to "defend Israel from criticism", not more deceitful rhetoric from ignorant reactionaries.

Does it make you feel good to lie in order to smear an entire nation of people who've never done anything to you?

Ha, it's all the fault of jews and bicycle riders. The listener is supposed to ask - why bicycle riders. Allways works.;)

Do you get it now? I'm not evading anything.
Sure you are. I asked you whether you preferred #2 or #3, because #1 is merest fantasy, and you have avoided making that choice by rejecting #2 on false grounds. I was pretty careful to specify some semblance of fairness, because I know that absolutely perfect fairness is impossible. You claim, without any basis whatsoever other than your own biases, that even that can't be achieved. That's evasion.
Now you tell me: would you rather have a government that uses education as an ideological club, or a government that is not involved in education at all?
Unlike you, I'll try to answer honestly. So long as the government involvement in education as an ideological tool is not combined with other, separate abuses such as imprisonment or forced labor for refusing to regurgitate the party line, I think I'd actually prefer #3. With that, people still have a choice and can seek alternatives. Without any government involvement at all in education, some people would have none. They would be consigned by an accident of birth to a life of less opportunity, and the stratification would only increase over time. Only someone who's comfortable with a caste system, who believes "all men are created equal" means nothing, would choose #1.

In any case, I have been quite clear that I prefer #2 to either of those choices and consider it achievable. What you present is a false dilemma, in which valid options have been excluded to tilt the conversation in a particular direction. It's the resort of a coward, afraid to face the strongest counterarguments to their own position.

Ha, it's all the fault of jews and bicycle riders. The listener is supposed to ask - why bicycle riders. Allways works.;)

A few people on here have definitely escaped from their trees.

"Oh, the bill might not actually mention Israel but WE know what they're talking about..."

lmao @ crazy-ass people.

A few people on here have definitely escaped from their trees.

"Oh, the bill might not actually mention Israel but WE know what they're talking about..."

lmao @ crazy-ass people.

You are either unbelievably dense or thoroughly dishonest. I'm not sure which is worse. Most apologists for Israel are one or the other, or a little of both.

A few people on here have definitely escaped from their trees.

"Oh, the bill might not actually mention Israel but WE know what they're talking about..."

lmao @ crazy-ass people.

Some more information for you straight from the people that support this piece of ideological terrorism:

Several other top Republicans or staff representatives, including one for Senate Majority Leader Frist of Tennessee, attended the March meeting with Jewish activists. Senators at that meeting discussed an investigation or commission as alternatives to legislation.

The possibility of a congressional solution is creating ripples in the Jewish community, the director of the Center for Israel Affairs for the Hillel Foundation, Wayne Firestone, said. Mr. Firestone, whose group serves Jewish students, made a presentation at the March meeting.
"Everywhere I go,this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest," he said. The inflammatory remarks of a Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, who said he was wishing for "a million Mogadishus," have only heightened the interest, Mr. Firestone said.

on edit :Mr. Firestone acknowledges that defining and enforcing "ideological diversity" could be tricky, but may be necessary. "If left to their own devices, universities aren't going to do this. They clearly need a push," he said."I'm not surprised they're skeptical, and I'm sure they'd resist an external effort

Very interesting. Mr Firestone seems to be supporting the idea of having professors dragged before some type of university sponsored inquisition.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/649



I guess it's just a coincidence that these Jewish activists are supporting this bill. They don't name other non jewish groups that support this amendment that's because there were none.

Raises the bs flag.http://www.smiliesftw.com/!/bsflag.gif

i'd worry more about the muslims, and anti-semites like guido

Some more information for you straight from the people that support this piece of ideological terrorism:
Y'know, I noticed that all of the second-hand descriptions of this bill seem to be from extremist sites, so I actually went and read the bill. Thomas uses nasty dynamic links that can't be copied, and (as another poster pointed out) there seems to be confusion about which bill is HR3077, so the easiest way to find it is to visit the Committee on Education and the Workforce (http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation/highereducation.htm) site and find "3077" there. Alternatively, you can get the latest version from the GPO (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h3077rfs.txt.pdf) in PDF format.

It's a bit of an eye-opener. Not only is Israel never mentioned, but in many respects the bill is the exact opposite of how it's being portrayed. For example, under section 633(d)(1)(D) describing the functions of the International Higher Education Advisory Board you can read this:
make recommendations to the Secretary and the Congress regarding such studies, surveys, and analyses of international education that will provide feedback about the programs under this title and assure that their relative authorized activities reflect diverse perspectives and the full range of views on world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs
Does that sound like a mandate to ensure that only one nation's foreign-policy perspective is discussed in academe? If it weren't for the statement in 633(b) to the effect that "nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the International Advisory Board to mandate, direct, or control an institution of higher education's specific instructional content, curriculum, or program of instruction" it would indicate the exact opposite.

The portrayal of this bill as being specifically pro-Israel is purest crap. There are still serious concerns about the government meddling in academe even with the best of intentions and none of this changes anything in my discussion with Feenix about the principle of the matter (in case anyone's dumb enough to think so) but please, don't about what's in the specific bill in question. The supporting statements from Hoover or Campus Watch are in no way authoritative. As written (and as voted on) the bill might be ill advised but is not specifically Zionist.

Y'know, I noticed that all of the second-hand descriptions of this bill seem to be from extremist sites, so I actually went and read the bill. Thomas uses nasty dynamic links that can't be copied, and (as another poster pointed out) there seems to be confusion about which bill is HR3077, so the easiest way to find it is to visit the Committee on Education and the Workforce (http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation/highereducation.htm) site and find "3077" there. Alternatively, you can get the latest version from the GPO (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h3077rfs.txt.pdf) in PDF format.

It's a bit of an eye-opener. Not only is Israel never mentioned, but in many respects the bill is the exact opposite of how it's being portrayed. For example, under section 633(d)(1)(D) describing the functions of the International Higher Education Advisory Board you can read this:

Does that sound like a mandate to ensure that only one nation's foreign-policy perspective is discussed in academe? If it weren't for the statement in 633(b) to the effect that "nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the International Advisory Board to mandate, direct, or control an institution of higher education's specific instructional content, curriculum, or program of instruction" it would indicate the exact opposite.

The portrayal of this bill as being specifically pro-Israel is purest crap. There are still serious concerns about the government meddling in academe even with the best of intentions and none of this changes anything in my discussion with Feenix about the principle of the matter (in case anyone's dumb enough to think so) but please, don't about what's in the specific bill in question. The supporting statements from Hoover or Campus Watch are in no way authoritative. As written (and as voted on) the bill might be ill advised but is not specifically Zionist.

I see your point in regards to wording but who else is has been more active in supporting this bill besides groups like Hillel, Campus Watch, David Horowitz and pals? The bill is the brainchild of congressman Sanotorum in response to students complaining of anti-semitism(students interpreting criticism of Israel as being so) on campus. If it's not then tell me what the catalyst is and how this bill came to be.

I see your point in regards to wording but who else is has been more active in supporting this bill besides groups like Hillel, Campus Watch, David Horowitz and pals? The bill is the brainchild of congressman Sanotorum in response to students complaining of anti-semitism(students interpreting criticism of Israel as being so) on campus. If it's not then tell me what the catalyst is and how this bill came to be.
I'm no fan of any of the people or organizations I've heard associated with this bill, that's for sure, but I don't care about the catalyst. I care about the bill as it's written, voted on, and implemented. Truth be told I don't like the bill much at all, not because of who it's associated with (really just an extended ad hominem) but because I think it's bad policy for the government to be that involved with academic curricula even at a review level and even when their intentions are good. That's the argument people should be making against it, not "the Jooz are behind it" (racist) or "get rid of federal funding" (unrealistic). If this bill does get passed, it will be because its most vocal opponents are crackpots and it's easy to characterize all opponents that way. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

You are either unbelievably dense or thoroughly dishonest. I'm not sure which is worse. Most apologists for Israel are one or the other, or a little of both.

You can personally insult me to your heart's content. I asked you for something very basic. The title of this thread is "New Bill in Congress Targets Teachers Who Dare to Question US Support for Israel".

That title is a lie, because there is no bill that would "target teachers who question Israel".

In fact, there is no mention of Israel anywhere in the particular bill being discussed. So you are a liar, because you keep talking as if this bill is about Israel and it's clearly not.

Understand now? Was that simple enough for you?

Some more information for you straight from the people that support this piece of ideological terrorism:

Several other top Republicans or staff representatives, including one for Senate Majority Leader Frist of Tennessee, attended the March meeting with Jewish activists. Senators at that meeting discussed an investigation or commission as alternatives to legislation.

The possibility of a congressional solution is creating ripples in the Jewish community, the director of the Center for Israel Affairs for the Hillel Foundation, Wayne Firestone, said. Mr. Firestone, whose group serves Jewish students, made a presentation at the March meeting.
"Everywhere I go,this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest," he said. The inflammatory remarks of a Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, who said he was wishing for "a million Mogadishus," have only heightened the interest, Mr. Firestone said.

on edit :Mr. Firestone acknowledges that defining and enforcing "ideological diversity" could be tricky, but may be necessary. "If left to their own devices, universities aren't going to do this. They clearly need a push," he said."I'm not surprised they're skeptical, and I'm sure they'd resist an external effort

Very interesting. Mr Firestone seems to be supporting the idea of having professors dragged before some type of university sponsored inquisition.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/649



I guess it's just a coincidence that these Jewish activists are supporting this bill. They don't name other non jewish groups that support this amendment that's because there were none.

:blahblah:

Put up or shut up. Either show me specifically where and how this bill would "target those who question Israel" or admit that this whole thread is just another anti-Jewish circle jerk and slink off to spread your lies another day, when there's nobody around to call you on your bullshit.

Is that too much to ask?

I'm no fan of any of the people or organizations I've heard associated with this bill, that's for sure, but I don't care about the catalyst. I care about the bill as it's written, voted on, and implemented. Truth be told I don't like the bill much at all, not because of who it's associated with (really just an extended ad hominem) but because I think it's bad policy for the government to be that involved with academic curricula even at a review level and even when their intentions are good. That's the argument people should be making against it, not "the Jooz are behind it" (racist) or "get rid of federal funding" (unrealistic). If this bill does get passed, it will be because its most vocal opponents are crackpots and it's easy to characterize all opponents that way. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I agree with academic freedom but it cannot be discounted who had input into the bill. More than likely it was amended by said groups. Mr. Santorum authored the legislation with these groups in mind. It's disingenuous to think that these groups would not use this legislation especially when they had input into it. It also disingenous to think that Mr. Sanoturm is for some type ideological diversity for everyone when it comes to our universities.

The policy/bill is bad no matter who is behind it.

:blahblah:

Put up or shut up. Either show me specifically where and how this bill would "target those who question Israel" or admit that this whole thread is just another anti-Jewish circle jerk and slink off to spread your lies another day, when there's nobody around to call you on your bullshit.

Is that too much to ask?

Do you have evidence to the contrary who supported the the bill besides the groups I mention. Are you saying that these groups never met with congressmen or senators and the bill was not in response to them? If it wasn't for them then who was congressmen Santorum making the bill for?

Do you have evidence to the contrary who supported the the bill besides the groups I mention.

:confused: You mean do I have evidence that this mysterious bill (which doesn't even mention Israel) is not some sinister Jewish conspiracy?

I can't say that I do. I don't have any evidence that little green men aren't secretly dictating the evening news to Jim Lehrer every night, either.

Kind of hard to disprove a wacked-out conspiracy theory.

Are you saying that these groups never met with congressmen or senators and the bill was not in response to them? If it wasn't for them then who has congressmen Santorum making the bill for?

Who the hell knows? What's at the bottom of the Marianas Trench? Any answer would only be a thousand different kinds of conjecture on my part.

I still wouldn't concoct any crazy Jewish conspiracy theories over it. Even if it is shady politics, you can't convince me that it's worse (in fact it's far more benign) than the kind of lobbying that a hundred other countries/ethnicities/churches/businesses do on Capitol Hill every single day.

:confused: You mean do I have evidence that this mysterious bill (which doesn't even mention Israel) is not some sinister Jewish conspiracy?

I can't say that I do. I don't have any evidence that little green men aren't secretly dictating the evening news to Jim Lehrer every night, either.

Kind of hard to disprove a wacked-out conspiracy theory.

I guess the newspaper of note NY Sun, Hillel, Campus Watch, congressmen and senators must be on the conspiracy theory too if you want to call it that. I don't see any other parties involved.



Who the hell knows? What's at the bottom of the Marianas Trench? Any answer would only be a thousand different kinds of conjecture on my part.

I guess the NY Sun just reports on events that never happen. Did they or didn't they meet with congressmen or senators when it came to this legislation?

I still wouldn't concoct any crazy Jewish conspiracy theories over it. Even if it is shady politics, you can't convince me that it's worse (in fact it's far more benign) than the kind of lobbying that a hundred other countries/ethnicities/churches/businesses do on Capitol Hill every single day.

I'm just not aware of other groups supporting legislation that involves suppression of certain point view that involves another country and tries to dress it up as ideological diversity and also gets the government involved.

I guess the newspaper of note NY Sun, Hillel, Campus Watch, congressmen and senators must be on the conspiracy theory too if you want to call it that.

The problem is that there is no "it". Do you understand? The title of this thread is a L-I-E.

There is NO bill to "target those who question Israel".

That's it. That's the end of the story. You can talk about Rick Santorum meeting a million Jewish people. You can publish photos of Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton in bed with the Chief Rabbi of Israel. You can broadcast secret footage of Dick Cheney dancing around in a yarmulke and a tallit.

But no matter what, even if you could do all that, the title of this thread would still be a flat-out, plain and simple, 100% bald-faced LIE.

That's it. That's the end of the story. You can talk about Rick Santorum meeting a million Jewish people. You can publish photos of Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton in bed with the Chief Rabbi of Israel. You can broadcast secret footage of Dick Cheney dancing around in a yarmulke and a tallit.

I never talked about how many people Rick Santorum meat but I did talk about a bill that he supported that was in response to anti-semtism(criticism of Israel) on campus. I don't think this is some type of mythological event. The bill is a matter of record irregardless of what it says and it does exist. Mr Santorum and others authored this bill in response to certain Jewish groups.
Obfuscate(thread is a lie) as much as you want. It changes nothing.