Help Fight Judonia!

Please help sustain EAAZI in the battle against Jewish Zionist transnational political economic manipulation and corruption.

For more info click here or here!

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Best Book: The Scar of David by Susan Abulhawa

 
USABookNews.com
Congratulations to all Winners & Finalists
of The National "Best Books" 2007 Awards!
Fiction & Literature: Historical Fiction
Winner:
The Scar of David by Susan Abulhawa
Journey Publications, LLC
ISBN: 9772078-8-6

Susan Abulhawa, author of THE SCAR OF DAVID, was announced today by USA Book News as the 2007 Winner of the Fiction & Literature - Historic Fiction category in this year's National Best Book Awards. Last month, Ms. Abulhawa was a featured presenter at The Wisconsin Book Festival and the Dutch edition of TSoD was released in Netherlands (Het litteken van David - DeGeus) with a presale of 10,000 copies, including 9,000 to Oxfam-Novib. Oxfam is a global organization dedicated to confronting social injustice wherever it is found.



The Scar of David Synopsis
The Scar of David is historical fiction about a Palestinian family from the village of Ein Hod, which was emptied of its inhabitants by the newly formed state of Israel in 1948. It is told in the first person by Amal, who is born into that family in a UN-administered refugee camp in Jenin, where her family would eventually die waiting, or fighting, to return to their beloved Palestine.
 
Set in lap of one of the 20th century's most intractable political conflicts, this novel weaves through history, friendship, love, frayed identity, terrorism, exhaustion of the spirit, surrender, and courage. Three massacres and two major wars provide five corners to this novel:
  1. Sabra and Shatila, Southern Lebanon, 1982;
  2. US embassy bombing, Beirut, 1983;
  3. Refugee camp of Jenin, West Bank, 2002;
  4. The Naqbe, Mandate Palestine, 1948; and
  5. The Six Day War, Middle East, 1967.
During the family's eviction from their ancestral village, Amal's brother Ishmael is lost in the mayhem of people fleeing for their lives. Just a toddler at the time, Ishmael is raised by a Jewish family and grows up as David, an Israeli soldier. During the 1967 war, Amal's eldest brother, Yousef, comes face to face with David, his brother the Jew. Yousef recognizes his brother by a prominent scar across David's face. The title of this story takes its name from this scar, and assumes other layers of meaning as it is told.
 
The end is the beginning: terrible suffering packaged by Western press into perfidious sound bites like "the Middle East Conflict" and "War on Terrorism." But through the course of this story, a would-be suicide bomber is given a name, face and life of a man pushed to in comprehensible limits; an Arab girl of pious and humble beginnings escapes her destiny and lives the "American Dream," which her soul cannot bear; an Israeli man becomes tangled in a truth he cannot reconcile, and his identity can find no repose but in the temporary anesthetic of alcohol; and a nation of destitute refugees, living under the general label of "terrorists," emerges in the context of an unredeemed history. This story reveals Palestinians in the fullness of their humanity as they teeter on the margins of life against a cruel military occupation, a corrupt leadership, an indifferent international community, and the undaunted will to take their place among the nations as human beings, worthy of human rights and the basic dignity of heritage.
 
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Mark B Miller, Management
215-674-1711 or 215-852-6960
 
several other translations to be released in 2008
 
Check out Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel: Lobby activities: It's just a fr*ggin' novel! for report on Jewish attempts to suppress this book.
 
 



Sphere: Related Content

Impact of Ashkenazi Racism and Ethnic Fundamentalism on Modern English Culture

Re: Influencing Academic Discourse outside Jewish and Middle East Studies
   
In a message dated 12/12/2006 2:23:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, a.bale@bbk.ac.uk writes:
Dear Joachim -

Thank you for your message. I suggest you read the call for papers more carefully and refrain from jumping to conclusions about the political affiliations of the organizers, who you suggest are 'influenced or controlled by ethnic Ashkenazi racism or Zionist fanaticism'. I suggest too that you look at previous events organized under the same auspices - on the Fear of the Other in Israel-Palestine (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/bih/activities/fearoftheother.shtml)
and on anti-Islamic stereotyping in medieval England (http://www.lecturelist.org/content/view_lecture/1500).

Of course, if you feel you have something scholarly, critical and accurate to add to the conference please do send in a paper proposal, as per the call for papers.

Yours,
Anthony Bale
Hi,
 
I would be very happy if the conference serves as a forum for scholarly, critical and accurate discussion, but Finkelstein makes a good case in Beyond Chutzpah that academic and public discourse about the recrudescence or inherent nature of anti-Semitism in Western society invariably increases tremendously whenever there is an upsurge in criticism of Israel for some new outrageous behavior (like cluster bombing Lebanon).
 
Nevertheless, there is a major difference between conferences that focus on fairly narrow time frames like the crusader time period (anti-Islamic stereotyping) or the twentieth century (Fear of the Other in Israel-Palestine) and one that apparently covers the millennium from the arrival of Gallo-Roman Jewish slavers in England shortly after the Norman Conquest right up to the ongoing manipulation of the British political system by Zionist Eastern European Ashkenazim.
 
At least the religious context is Medieval to Modern Rabbinic Judaism, and your conference does not fall into the fallacy of equating modern Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim with the religiously, ethnically, culturally and linguistically very different populations of Greco-Roman Palestine. 
 
Instead of the sort of essentialist narrative that justifies the theft of Palestine by Eastern European racists as the necessary corrective to two thousand years of Western anti-Semitism, the conference can serve the purpose of discounting of any British criticism of the State of Israel or of Zionism as tainted by a millennium of English anti-Semitism.
 
My concern about the conference is not unreasonable.  Just consider the conference Fear of the Other and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/bih/activities/fearoftheother.shtml.Yes, Daniel Dor has carried out valuable research on media gate-keeping in the Israeli press, and his analysis is directly applicable to help understand the misreporting of the Israel Palestine conflict in the UK and the USA. Yes,  Brian Klug has stood up to racist ethnic Ashkenazim and extremist Zionists to state that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but he also rejected the analogy between Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa.  Guess what. Former US President Carter has just told us what internationals that live among Palestinians have been saying for years:  Israel is an Apartheid state.
 
In truth, Carter is much too generous.  I can provide massive social statistics to demonstrate that Israeli Palestinians live under conditions comparable to those under which German Jews lived in 1935 or 1937, that Jerusalem Palestinians live under conditions comparable to those experienced by German Jews in 1939, and that Palestinians in the rest of the Israeli Occupied Territories live under conditions comparable to those experienced by ethnic Ashkenazim in German occupied Poland during 1940.
 
I know that I am applying the Zionistically-incorrect analogy between Nazi German and Zionist Israel, but if we really had a scholarly, critical, and accurate discussion of ethnic Ashkenazi racism, Zionism and the State of Israel, we would long ago have seen a plethora of papers showed the unsurprising relationship between modern Israel and 1930s Germany and Poland.  After all, the founders of the State of Israel came from the same intellectual milieu that gave the world the German Nazi Party and the Polish Endeks.  Do we seriously believe that Central and Eastern European Jews unlike Central and Eastern European non-Jews were fundamentally incapable of developing their own form of Nazism?  Would not such a belief be a form of racism that posited the innate ethical superiority of Jews to non-Jews?
 
I appreciate Judith Butler's and Jacqueline Rose's break with and criticism of Zionism, but there is a rational way to talk about the Holocaust, Zionism, and the State of Israel as well as the  historical period from Wilhelm Marr to Adolf Hitler when racist, biological determinist, ethnic fundamentalist or social Darwinist anti-Semitism is an important political phenomenon. 
 
One need only put these topics properly in their Central European, Eastern European, and Russian context.
 
Modern genocidalism starts in 19th century Russian expansionism, which involved genocide, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing of populations deemed not assimilable into the Tsarist Empire. In many regards Russian ethnic Ashkenazim were in the forefront of this wave of genocidalism that spreads westward from the Russian Empire into Eastern and then into Central Europe, for they often served as academic Orientalists in Russian Universities, where scholarship served the purposes of Russian Imperialism.
 
In the 20th century genocidalism in the Soviet Union becomes for all intents and purposes an assembly line phenomenon.  The Holocaust and German Nazism itself are only comprehensible in terms of Central and Eastern European fear of the Soviet Union and awareness of Soviet atrocities.  Careful analysis of Soviet archival data shows that the common Central and Eastern European identification of ethnic Ashkenazim with the Soviet Union was quite rational, for Soviet ethnic Ashkenazim formed the quintessential Soviet class and generally filled the leading roles in planning and executing Soviet crimes like the Great Starvation (Holodomor) in the Ukraine, collectivization, dekulakization, the mass shootings by the secret police, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Because the mentality of Soviet Ashkenazim and Zionist Ashkenazim is so similar in many regards, it is hardly surprising that alienization, which made entire Soviet ethnic groups aliens in their own lands, has strong similarities to the Zionist process of dispossessing, murdering, ethnic cleansing and genociding the native population of historic Palestine.
 
Certainly there was a lot of completely neglected material that should have been addressed in the conference Fear of the Other and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, but, as far as I can tell, none of the speakers had the necessary expertise.  Instead the conference appears to make a bizarre equivalence between the Zionist Israeli population and the native Palestinian population. 
 
I know that I am about to enter once again the forbidden realm of comparing Zionist Israel with Nazi Germany, but anyone that like me is familiar with both 1930s Nazi Germany and today's Zionist Israel and that understands Modern Israeli Hebrew cannot help but be struck by similarity of the language and the ethnic fundamentalist mentality of German Nazis and Israeli Zionists with the qualification that Israeli Zionists are far more extreme.
 
If it were the 1930s, would Birbeck College have hosted a conference on Fear of the Other and the Nazi Jewish Conflict?  From looking over the program, I have the impression that it was crafted in order to demonstrate that it had the stamp of approval from at least some group of Jews, and it is fairly clear that it conforms to the model that no discussion of the conditions of Palestinians is permissible without reference to Jewish suffering or the Holocaust. It looks like some sort of mechanism to put international academics through a form of Pavlovian conditioning that is probably far more effective in manipulating or in controlling academic discourse than the less circumspect methods that the organized Zionist/Jewish communist community uses here in Boston and that consist of bribery via large contributions, threats to withhold contributions, FLAC* attacks on university administrators, and the establishment of pseudoscholarly "research" or "interfaith" institutes at local universities to disseminate the narratives with which the organized Jewish community wishes to indoctrinate the American academic public.
 
The requirement of Jewish approbation or conformance to some approved formulation of Jewish history taints a tremendous amount of scholarship in the US and the UK.  It reminds me to some extent of the official Communist party version of history that used to be written in the Soviet Union. 
 
If I am in London in July 2007, I will definitely attend the conference -- at the very least it may provide me with data for my research project in the Zionist manipulation or control of academic discourse. Here in Cambridge (USA) thanks to Professors Walt and Mearsheimer some of the obstacles to honest discussion of Zionism, the State of Israel and Jewish history are disappearing. I hope that within a year or two a conference like Antisemitism and English Culture will be outmoded or overtaken by events.  In the near future I expect academic institutions to sponsor conferences with more relevant much more manageable topics like The Impact of ethnic Ashkenazi Racism and Zionist Ethnic Fundamentalism on Modern English Culture.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
Joachim Martillo
 
*  FAXes, letters, and calls.




See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Less Blatant Thought Control

Zionists do not always use the sorts of intimidation and coercion that characterizes the cases of Rashid Khalidi, Juan Cole, Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi, Georges Saliba, Nadia Abu el Haj, Debbi Almontaser, et al. ad infinitum. 
 
Influencing Academic Discourse outside Jewish and Middle East Studies
Joachim Martillo - thorsprovoni@aol.com
December 13, 2006 (Repost to EAAZI blog because of current relevance)

I have attended many Israel advocacy sessions at Boston-area colleges, synagogues, Jewish community centers, a few churches and the Combined Jewish Philanthropies building on High St.  I have also joined the audiences at media update sessions that the Jewish Community Relations Council, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, Jewish student groups and other Jewish organizations hold throughout the area.  Like most Americans I am constantly bombarded by almost subliminal pro-Israel, Jewish nostalgic, and anti-Arab anti-Muslim propaganda or indoctrination in the movies or on TV.
 
I have a fairly good understanding how the organized Jewish community keeps individual American Jews on one page with Israel solidarity.  I also see how media gate-keeping works, and the influence of Hollywood over pop culture provides a straightforward explanation of longstanding pro-Israel anti-Arab anti-Muslim sentiments among the American population.
 
But how does this bias make its strength felt in academic disciplines subjected to rigorous scholarship where there are not so many biased Jewish scholars?  How does it get to countries less subject to Hollywood influence or where there are fewer Jews and whose media is not owned by large Jewish-dominated media companies.
 
The conference described at the end of this email suggests a mechanism.  Here is the short description.
A major international interdisciplinary conference on the histories and cultures of antisemitism in England, from the Middle Ages to the presentday. To be held at Birkbeck College, University of London, Bloomsbury, London: 9-11 July 2007.
At Harvard, I have heard talks sponsored by Jewish groups that implicitly or even explicitly have called for genocide against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, but when the issue of criticizing Israel or the behavior of such Jewish groups is raised, ethnic Ashkenazim at Harvard fling accusations of anti-Semitism in order to silence discussion.  I am extremely disgusted.  Such behavior is a synchronic attempt to control discourse.  Now we can watch an attempt to create a diachronic English narrative of anti-Semitism to manipulate whole academic disciplines, which relate to the history and culture of England but which normally would be rather distant from the conflict over Palestine.
 
The conference covers such an extremely broad period that one has to worry about some very illegitimate essentialist assumptions simply in the choice of topic.  If we focus on Shakespeare, whose play Shylock or The Merchant of Venice has been subjected to extensive analysis for anti-Semitism, we can get a sense of the reasonableness of the conference topic.
 
While there are various forms of Judeophobia throughout history, there simply is not a common intellectual current among them, and when I and most experts in the field use the term anti-Semitism, we mean the modern biological determinist, social Darwinist form of Judeophobia, which develops in the specific region of historic Poland in the context of modernization and economic competition and which spreads to Central Europe.
 
Wilhelm Marr, who was himself half-Jewish (German Jewish not ethnic Ashkenazi), created the term Antisemitismus in the 1870s to describe this form of obsession. Despite his anti-Jewish writings, it is not even clear whether he is anti-Semitic according to his own definition, for he only married Jewish women.  As sort of a counterpoint the eminent Zionist leader Nordau carried on a long-term affair with the infamous anti-Semite, Olga von Novikoff.  Nordau's writings on racial degeneracy, racial revival and eugenics were at least as influential among German Nazis as they were among Zionists. (If one lays Nordau's Entartung [Degeneracy] down beside Mein Kampf or Hitler's Table Talk, the similarity of ideas and phraseology is often quite striking.)
 
In any case, as complex as this phenomenon of anti-Semitism was, it certainly does not exist to any measurable extent today, and when people express hatred of Zionist colonizers and racist ethnic Ashkenazim that support the crimes of Zionist colonizers, such hate is not anti-Semitism despite the claims of a bigot like former Harvard President Lawrence Summers.  All decent Americans should hate Zionist colonizers and their Ashkenazi American supporters because the atrocities of Zionism are heinous, and they are carried out in the name of Israeli American alliance with the support of US tax dollars.
 
The accusation of anti-Semitism certainly does not apply the Merchant of Venice, which is at least as much a lambasting as it is a presentation of stereotypes.  It is an extremely complex work, and the attempt to control the discourse about the Merchant of Venice by certain groups of ethnic Ashkenazim reminds me somewhat of the reaction that the very same people tried to orchestrate against The Heartbreak Kid (original version directed by Elaine May), which was a movie written by Neil Simon, who is an ethnic Ashkenazi American stage, screen and TV writer sometimes described as the Shakespeare of modern America. The movie told the story of a Jewish newly wed, who while on his honeymoon falls in love with the beautiful daughter of a Midwestern non-Jewish banker. The director, producer, the actors and the production crew of The Heartbreak Kid were almost entirely ethnic Ashkenazi Americans, who wanted to explore certain stereotypes in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi American society.  It was called the most anti-Semitic movie ever made, and it certainly was not.
 
Neil Simon's sin lies in rejecting the traditional ethnic Ashkenazi anti-Christian anti-Gentile and anti-Catholic polemic while the assault on Shakespeare is a transparent attempt to incorporate Shakespeare into the Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazi pogrom and persecution version of Jewish history. The accusations of anti-Semitism against Shakespeare are a sort of preventive strike to indict the greatest of all writers for anti-Semitism so that all non-Jews can be held suspect  and so that all criticism of Israel and its ethnic Ashkenazi supporters can be categorized as anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.  I am as tired of this nonsense as I am of Lawrence Summers, Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz. The academic discourse about anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice is infra dig. and sub-scholarly.
 
Academic specialists are often so focused on their field that a program like this Birkbeck College conference, which provides a multidisciplinary approach to numerous fields that no single scholar can encompass within his research, can just indoctrinate a very large number scholars outside of Jewish and Middle East studies what to think about anti-Semitism, relations between Jews and non-Jews, and the debt that non-Jews owe Jews for the Holocaust.  It will generate numerous questionable scholarly papers that will then be cited in numerously scholarly works and become part of the general Western academic discourse heavily influenced or controlled by ethnic Ashkenazi racism or Zionist fanaticism.
 
If the reader doubts my take on this conference, just consider the lack of attention that Shakespeare scholars have paid to racial and religious stereotyping in Othello or The Moor of Venice in comparison with Shylock.  Throughout English history relations and interactions with Moors (the Elizabethan term for Arab) and Muslims have been far more consequential and generally far more violent or prejudiced than those with Jews of any ethnicity.  Othello shows nothing comparable to Shylock in terms of the lambasting of stereotypes that have pervaded English culture since Shakespeare's time to the present day.  Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense for Birbeck College to host a conference on Anti-Arabism and Anti-Islamism in English Culture -- especially when the Blair government has been so willing to fall into lockstep with the fanatic anti-Arab anti-Muslim (very often Jewish/ethnic Ashkenazi) racists that dominate the US government?

Here is the original announcement.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0982  Sunday, 5 November 2006
 
From:         Carol Barton <cbartonphd@earthlink.net>
Date:         Saturday, 4 Nov 2006 17:10:47 -0500
Subject:     Call for Papers: Antisemitism and English Culture
 
This is a cross-posting from H-Albion, in case anyone is interested in
participating in behalf of Will and Kit: if so, please answer Dr. Bale
(a.bale@bbk.ac.uk), not me.
 
Best to all,
Carol Barton
 
Call for Papers: Antisemitism and English Culture
Location: United Kingdom
Conference Date: 2007-07-09
Date Submitted: 2006-10-27
Announcement ID: 153477
 
 
A major international interdisciplinary conference on the histories and
cultures of antisemitism in England, from the Middle Ages to the present
day. To be held at Birkbeck College, University of London, Bloomsbury,
London: 9-11 July 2007.
 
Plenary speakers:
Anthony Julius (Birkbeck College/London Consortium, University of London)
Miri Rubin (Queen Mary, University of London)
Ira Katznelson (Columbia University)
 
Key questions to be addressed include:
 
Can we talk of a distinctly English kind of antisemitism?
 
Is antisemitism inherent in Englishness?
 
What is, or has been, the relationship between 'high' or intellectual
English culture and antisemitism?
 
How far can specific English contexts be seen to have engendered
antisemitism?
 
Is there a meaningful history of English philosemitism, and what is its
relationship to antisemitism?
 
In what ways is England's antisemitic past reflected in the present?
 
What is the relationship between English antisemitism and communism,
socialism, fascism, Zionism, Islamism, secularism, liberalism, and other
ideologies?
 
How is antisemitism mediated in English art, literature and other
cultural forms?
 
What are the contours of continuity and transformation in English
antisemitism?
 
To what extent have the terms 'antisemitism' and 'Englishness' become
redundant? How much use do they retain?
 
Papers from all disciplines, or interdisciplinary submissions, are
welcomed; panel proposals of 3 speakers are also welcomed. Papers will
be of 20 minutes duration. Paper proposals of no more than 150 words
should be sent as soon as possible and by 15 December 2006 to Dr Anthony
Bale (a.bale@bbk.ac.uk), School of English & Humanities, Birkbeck
College, University of London, Malet Street, LONDON, WC1E 7HX, England.
 
 
The Conference is organised in association with the Jewish Museum,
Camden Town, London.
 
Dr Anthony Bale
School of English
Birkbeck College
Malet Street
Bloomsbury
LONDON WC1E 7HX
United Kingdom
Email: a.bale @ bbk.ac.uk



Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

[Short Version] Tutu addresses Sabeel Conference

Abridgement by Karin Friedemann

October 27, 2007, Boston, MA --  At the behest of Nancy Kaufman of the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) and under the leadership of Hillel Stavis of the David Project, which is an Israel advocacy group, Boston-area Zionists stationed themselves on the corner next to Old South Church in order to protest  the Conference that the Palestine Christian Sabeel organized called together to discuss "The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine/Israel: Issues of Justice and Equality."

Despite inclement weather, a far larger audience attended the conference than was expected, and far fewer stuffed grape leaf wraps were available for lunch than the number of hungry attendees.

After the audience sang "Happy Birthday" to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Laureate gave the keynote speech.

Tutu first discussed the slander to which President Rev. Dennis Dease of the University of St. Thomas subjected him. Although Tutu was grateful for the gracious apology and for the invitation to come to speak, he reiterated his unwillingness to visit the University before it reinstated Professor Cris Toffolo to her position as director of the University's peace and justice studies program with her personnel file cleared of all criticism related to the incident.

Next, the Archbishop observed the similarity of the seizure of Palestinian property and forced relocation of the native Palestinian population to squalid refugee camps in 1947-8 to the seizure of property and forced relocation of the non-white population of Capetown to squalid ghettoes at the beginning of the 20th century. The Archbishop remarked that Palestinians were subjected to forms of oppression that non-whites had never experienced in South Africa.

Then, Desmond Tutu discussed several Bible passages in order to demonstrate that God demands justice and that therefore Palestinians have the right to justice. He asserted, "When you uphold an unjust dispensation it corrodes your humanity."


Overall Desmond Tutu sent an extremely mixed message. Tutu claimed to support justice for Palestinians even as he advocated a two-state solution that unjustly sacrifices Palestinian property rights to illegitimate Zionist claims. Tutu confused modern Ashkenazi Jews, who have no ancestral ties whatsoever in Palestine, with the  Judeans and Galileans of Jesus' time period.

At the conclusion of the Archbishop's address, the conference organizers requested that the audience not engage the protesters as it departed for the rally in Copley Square, where peace marchers circled the Square to express solidarity with the Sabeel Conference. 

In Copley Square, American Jews tried to
intimidate two women in hijab into expressing support for Israel.

 





See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
Sphere: Related Content

Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism

The Failure of Jewish Studies in America
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
I put up the lecture entitled Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism at http://www.eaazi.org/ThorsProvoni/history/naaplecture.htm . It does not address the distortion of the history of the Holocaust and of the Soviet Union in connection with Zionist historiography, but the material contained in this document is a useful starting point for understanding the Zionist indoctrination of Americans.




See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 29, 2007

Another Take on David Horowitz

David Horowitz' Islamophobia Unites the Ummah 

By Karin Friedemann

ccun.org, October 26, 2007

I was surprised and delighted to find that David Horowitz managed to do what no one else could ever do - get every major Islamic and Arab association and every personal opinion of every Muslim as well as anyone even remotely progressive on the same page as each other - united against "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week," united against his Judeo-Supremacist hate campaign.

David Horowitz has moved the boundary of rational discourse on Islam and Arabic politics so far to the right that previously unacceptable Islamophobia and Arabophobia became acceptable or even moderate positions in American public discourse. Juan Cole has identified Horowitz as a pioneer of the "google-smear" method of discrediting a political opponent where lies "can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information."

I have to disagree with the mainstream Muslim organizations that "dawah" or "explaining Islam" is the best method of counter-attack against the liar pundits who are using Muslims as scapegoats to distract from the wars the neo-conservatives are forcing America to wage, pay for and die for. For every lying sentence someone like Dershowitz or Horowitz might say, it would take an hour to unravel all the falsehoods and racist misconceptions. This is the neo-con method of argumentation. They are not trying to understand Muslims or help Muslims, they are trying to defeat Muslims politically and socially. It is therefore necessary to use normal political debate tactics to gain the upper hand. There is no evidence that dawah will likely solve the problem of the David Horowitz's of the world. They have more money and more media connections and they can do what they want. A more useful approach is to work on discrediting them by talking about THEM. Not by insisting we don't support terrorists. They are trying to wedge you into a corner and force you to say that you support Israel's right to murder Palestinians and take their property and sell it for subsidized rates to American Jews at discounts funded by our tax dollars.

The important thing to point out is that pro-Israel fanatics are disloyal to America and that they are traitors. David Horowitz in his FrontPage newsletter openly supported putting Prof. Sami Al-Arian in prison on secret evidence (read: no charges) and he wants all Muslims deported. He also wants Muslims to be imprisoned. He uses the very 1980's topic of "female circumcision" as a debate tactic when the real question is why are innocent women giving birth to babies on floors covered in shit and why are they being raped and sodomized by US soldiers in Guantanamo? Whose idea was that?

David Horowitz, like most pro-Israel Jews in America, wanted very much for the US to invade Iraq and imprison its population and murder the children. He is also strongly supportive of bombing Iran for no good reason except for his seething hatred against the United States. The neo-cons want to end the era of the American Constitution. David Horowitz supports trials without evidence, without charges, Muslims being locked up for life and tortured like Jose Padilla, who was given so much LSD he lost his mind and was unable to speak for himself at his own trial.

David Horowitz is part of a network of well-funded Jewish think tanks whose goal is to enslave the American population so that we will eternally subsidize the Israeli economy, send our children to die fighting Israel's enemies both real and imagined, and to give up our sovereignty.

I think it's really great that the Muslims and Arabs have united against David Horowitz's hate campaign. But what people still don't understand is that the anti-Islam speech is just a circus show. What this clown is advocating is the end of the United States Constitution. The end of civil liberties. The end of human rights. He advocates everything that Israel stands for. He wills the destruction of the American economy and our very moral fabric. Look at what frontpagemag.com wrote about Prof. Sami-Al Arian, about mosques around the country. He wants every person who is loyal to the ideals of the United States to rot in prison.

 





See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
Sphere: Related Content

Boston Sabeel Conference Keynote Address

Zionists Oppose Justice
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

October 27, 2007, Boston, MA -- Boston Zionists at the behest of Nancy Kaufman of the Jewish Community Relations Council and under the leadership of Hillel Stavis of the David Project, which is a Boston Israel advocacy and anti-Arab anti-Muslim hate group, stationed themselves in front of the Boston Public Library and on the corner next to Old South Church in order to protest the Sabeel Conference entitled "The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine/Israel: Issues of Justice and Equality."

Despite inclement weather, a far larger audience attended than was expected, and far fewer lunches, which consisted of wraps of stuffed grape leaves and other foods, were available than the number of attendees.

From 1:30 until 2:20, after Bishop Tom Shaw and Archbishop Michael Peers introduced him and after the audience sang "Happy Birthday" to him, Nobel Laureate and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu gave the keynote speech. Desmond Tutu first discussed the slander to which he was subjected by President Rev. Dennis Dease of the University of St. Thomas. Although Tutu was grateful for the gracious apology and for the invitation to come to speak, he reiterated his unwillingness to visit the University before it reinstated Professor Cris Toffolo to her position as director of the University's peace and justice studies program with her personnel file cleared of all criticism related to the incident.

Next, the Archbishop briefly compared Apartheid and the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian territories. He observed the similarity of the seizure of Palestinian property and forced relocation of the native Palestinian population to squalid refugee camps in 1947 to the seizure of property and forced relocation of the non-white population of Capetown to squalid ghettoes at the beginning of the 20th century. The Archbishop remarked that Palestinians were subjected to forms of oppression that non-whites had never experienced in South Africa.

Then, apparently under the false assumption that Zionism draws its inspiration from Jewish religion, Desmond Tutu advocated reconciliation between Israeli Zionists and Palestinians by quoting Leviticus 19:2: "Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" and referred to other passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy like Leviticus 19:9-10:

9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleaning after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip you vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.
He also discussed David's sin against Uriah the Hittite as well as murder of Naboth by Jezebel with the connivance of Ahab in order to demonstrate that God demands justice and that therefore Palestinians have the right to justice within the framework of the two state solution.

Such arguments are probably much more effective with Christians than with American Jews because Jews generally consider Christianity a false religion and usually view Christian clergy as Jew-haters, who are especially hypocritical when they make sermons to Jews on morality. For the most part American Jews long ago abandoned worship of God, and the vast majority of them express their yiddishkeyt (Jewishness) via ethnic narcissism, Holocaust obsession and worship of the State of Israel.

A Zionist could reply to Desmond Tutu by quoting Psalm 137:5-9 with emphasis on the last verse.
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy!

7 Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, "Rase it, rase it!
Down to its foundations!'
8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
9 Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
Zionists are immune to the faith and justice based arguments of Desmond Tutu because Zionism is an Eastern European politicized form of ethnic fundamentalism that judges right and wrong only by benefit to Jews. Zionists slice and dice scripture to fit their ideology. Believers like Tutu drive Zionists wild because reminding Christian Zionists of the true meaning of the Bible might create an awareness among Christian believers of how alien Zionism is to the core of Christian (as well as genuine Jewish) beliefs and values.

Overall Desmond Tutu sent an extremely mixed message. He mentioned that "a recent report by clinical psychologist Nufan Yishai Katrim at Hebrew University speaks of how Israeli soldiers were gratuitously cruel and carried out acts of brutality to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." He asserted, "When you uphold an unjust dispensation it corrodes your humanity." Yet, he implied that the unjust dispensation was the Occupation and not the belief that racist Eastern European invaders had the right to make Palestine into a Zionist state despite the democratic will of the native Palestinian population.

Tutu claimed to support justice for Palestinians even as he advocated a two-state solution that unjustly sacrifices Palestinian human rights -- especially residence and property rights -- to illegitimate Zionist claims. Tutu confused modern Rabbinic Judaism with Second Temple Judaism even though the two religions are very different, and he equated Judeans and Galileans of Jesus' time period with modern ethnic Ashkenazim, who for the most part are quite secular and who are descended from mixed Eastern European and Southern Russian populations with no ancestral ties whatsoever in Palestine.

In 1989 in the midst of the First Intifada, when IDF soldiers were casually killing, maiming, and breaking the bones of unarmed Palestinians, Tutu visited Yad Vashem and preached the following message.
"Our Lord would say that in the end the positive thing that can come is the spirit of forgiving, not forgetting, but the spirit of saying: God, this happened to us. We pray for those who made it happen, help us to forgive them and help us so that we in our turn will not make others suffer."
Both Rabbi Hier of the Wiesenthal Center, which uses the Holocaust to deflect criticism of Jewish extremism, and also the ADL, which is one of the leading Jewish hate groups in the USA, strongly condemned Tutu for expressing this fundamental Christian religious belief.

Unfortunately, Tutu's 1989 prayer was already too late. At that time period conditions then as now for Israeli Palestinians were comparable to the situation of German Jews circa 1935 or 1937 while Jerusalem Palestinians lived in circumstances similar to the experiences of German Jews during the first half of 1939, and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories faced conditions worse than those of Polish ethnic Ashkenazi in German-occupied Poland during 1940. Today, Israeli Zionists move ever closer to carrying out the sorts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide that Soviet Ashkenazi Communist leaders and officials planned and orchestrated in the Soviet Union during the 20s and 30s.

Of course, Tutu's logic for forgiving Israeli Zionists and their American Zionist supporters is compelling, but there must also be honest acknowledgement that Israeli Zionists are for the most part unrepentant, remorseless murderous genocidal thieves and interlopers, who are fanatically supported by some very racist Ashkenazi Americans and some very un-Christian non-Jewish Zionists of the sort that stood outside Old South Church and waved signs during the Sabeel Conference (see pictures below).

At the conclusion of the Archbishop's address, the conference organizers requested that that audience not engage the protesters as it departed for the rally in Copley Square, where Martin Federman, Jeff Halperin of ICAHD and others spoke. According to one attendee, Jeff Halperin stated the day before that a two-state solution was no longer viable. Toward the end of the rally, indie singer/songwriter David Rovics performed in support of Palestine.

During the rally New England United marched as part of a nation-wide demonstration against the US occupation of Iraq and plans to attack Iran. The marchers circled Copley Square to express solidarity with the Sabeel Conference.

I joined them as they confronted the Zionist groups with shouts of "No more wars for Israel." I yelled in Hebrew at the pro-war anti-Palestinian Jewish groups that Jewish racists like them should go f*ck themselves and received only blank stares or occasionally smiles (for speaking Hebrew?) in return.

After a few blocks of marching, I returned to Copley Square and noticed that some of the Zionists were harassing two ladies in hijab. They were Turkish from Bursa and were in a local English language class. One of the young women intended to study engineering at Northeastern after completing the class.

An elderly female Jewish Zionist was trying to get them to agree that the democratically elected ruling Turkish AK party was a force for Islamic extremism. I pointed out that Turkey has a problem with intolerant secularists, who are unwilling to permit religious women to wear hijabs in universities and in government buildings. I asked the Zionist whether she would support an American government that forbade married Orthodox Jewish women from attending a university because they wore head coverings. She left.

Then three more Zionists ganged up on the Turkish women to intimidate them into expressing support for Israel. An Oriental argued that Israeli Palestinians had equality because he knew an Israeli Palestinian that had a successful law practice within the State of Israel. I retorted than one of the largest slaveholders in ante bellum Georgia was black. Did that mean that blacks and whites were equal before the Civil War?

The Zionists cycled through the usual claims. Because there was no sovereign Palestinian state, Jews could create their own state there despite the wishes of the native population. The Zionists won, and the Palestinians should just get over it. It was ridiculous for Palestinians to claim a right of return on the basis of events that took place 60 years ago even though Jews may dishonestly claim a right of return on the basis of a misinterpretation of events of 2000 years ago. These Zionists were racist, denied the human rights of the native population and rejected the concept of democratic self-determination for all but white Europeans. For the sake of the State of Israel they were willing to sacrifice every American principle as well as American lives, influence, and wealth.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Horowitz: Archetype of Racist American Jewish Incitement

The Paradigmatic Career of David Horowitz
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

David Horowitz' career provides a lens through which the intellectual, political and social developments of an important segment of the American Jewish community can be analyzed for the period from the 1930s until today. 

David Horowitz was born in 1939. His parents were Russian Jewish American communists loyal to the Soviet Union at least until Khrushchev denounced Stalin.  While he was an undergraduate at Columbia, Horowitz passed through a phase of Schachtmanism, which was a variant of Trotskyitism less hostile to the Soviet Union.  As a graduate student at Columbia, he was active in the New Left. After his graduate studies, he became an editor at the leftist magazine Ramparts. At this time period he become involved with the Black Panthers as an expression of his civil rights activism. An accountant friend was killed while she tried to straighten out Black Panther finances, and an attorney friend was crippled while attempting to defend some members of the Black Panthers. As a consequence, according to Horowitz he became disenchanted with the Black Power movement, and the mass killings of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge in combination with the apologetics of the Left and growing left hostility toward Israel eventually caused him to break with the Left and become a Neocon even if he rejects this label for himself.  Horowitz differs with Christian evangelical conservatives primarily because of his support for homosexual rights.

Nowadays, Horowitz despises affirmative action and rejects reparations for slavery. In 1989 he founded the Center for the Study of Popular culture whose name was changed to the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2006. This think tank has raised about $1 million per year primarily from the ultraconservative Olin and Scaife foundations. Horowitz opposed US intervention in Kosovo but has supported every US military action against Muslims since the 1970s. Controlling academic discourse especially with respect to Israel is a major project of the Freedom Center, and since 2001 the Center has been heavily involved in inciting Islamophobia.

The secular Russian-Jewishness of Horowitz' career is striking. Russian Communism was to a large extent the revenge of Russianized populations that were denied the same political access as the Russian elite. Russian Jews took leadership roles in Russian communism because of their higher level of education and experience in organizing. Russian Jewish Americans brought this pattern to the USA even though the degree of exclusion of Jews from positions of power in the USA was nowhere as strict as it had been in Czarist Russia. Jews became union organizers and leaders in left-wing and radical politics. Support for African American civil rights was to some extent opportunistic because the higher African Americans rose socially and politically, the less alien American Jewish elites began to appear to traditional American white Christian elites. Jewish activists in the civil rights movement also tended to manipulate African American leaders to support Israel, and David Horowitz' career with the Black Panthers shows examples of such behavior.

Stokely Carmichael and other Black Power leaders drove the Jewish leadership from the civil rights movement when they lost patience with Jewish activists, who like Horowitz were using civil rights activism as a means of advancing Jewish interests. In the 70s Horowitz came into direct contact with some of the wealthiest Americans while he and Peter Collier were researching a series of books on America's monied elite. During the same time period a portion of unaccounted cash aid to Israel as a result of the Egypt-Israel peace was diverted to the US to promote Israeli interests. One can imagine that a higher income might have begun to look quite attractive to Horowitz, and he began to move away from leftism to a political position that could serve both the interests of the wealthiest Americans and the State of Israel while he enriched himself in ways that working for leftist causes never could.

In the pattern of secular or messianic Eastern European Jewish antinomianism that goes back to the 17th century, Horowitz dumped and married several wives while he kept company with a succession of college students as he worked on academic freedom issues that served as cover for the goal of making sure that colleges indoctrinated ideas favorable to the conservative white racist and Jabotinskian Zionist political agenda. In attacking academics David Horowitz has pioneered the google-smear tactic, which Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan describes as follows.
It seems to me that David Horowitz and some far right wing friends of his have hit upon a new way of discrediting a political opponent, which is the GoogleSmear. It is an easy maneuver for someone like Horowitz, who has extremely wealthy backers, to set up a web magazine that has a high profile and is indexed in google news. Then he just commissions persons to write up lies about people like me (leavened with innuendo and out-of-context quotes). Anyone googling me will likely come upon the smear profiles, and they can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information.
The attempt to control or intimidate academic discourse corresponds to a Central and Eastern European Jewish pattern. The Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany by R. S. Levy describes in detail how German Jewish advocacy organizations like the Zentralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith) used the legal system
  • to force perceived enemies into bankruptcy,
  • to attack members of the academic community believed unfriendly,
  • to ban books or
  • to force publishers to change offending passages.
Horowitz works with Daniel Pipes's CampusWatch in the ongoing attempt to intimidate university professors under the aegis of the following Freedom Center programs describe at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center.
Note that JihadWatch/DhimmiWatch is for the most part run by the non-Jewish Robert Spencer, who lately has been meeting with the European extremist anti-Muslim right in order to coordinate anti-Muslim political efforts. (See http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2007/0004686363&EDATE= .)

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is the latest Islamophobic project of the Freedom Center. If Horowitz is trying to increase suspicions of American Muslims, the silliness of his program seems to create contempt for the Freedom Center while it inspires non-Muslim American interest and conversion to Islam.

According to http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/23/horowitz-islamofacism/,
Kareem Shora, the Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, said that Horowitz was dramatically overstating the number of participating schools:
    • We contacted those institutions, alerting them to the fact that their name was being used, and wondering what exactly was taking place. … It's important to note though, after we contacted those institutions, most of those institutions indicated that no such events is taking place on those campus. And many contacted the sponsors and told them, "do not use my institution's name in your campaign," including some very renowned universities such as Yale and Princeton.
Shora also said that the president of Liberty University, the evangelical school founded by Jerry Falwell, also had their name removed from Horowitz's list.
Much of the criticism that Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week speakers make about Islam also applies to Orthodox Judaism. Possibly Horowitz et al. are so ignorant of Judaism that they are unaware of the similarities of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but it is more probable that the Islamophobes are just trying to recast Islamophobia according to the model of late 19th and early 20th century anti-Semitism and are focusing on critiques that worked against Judaism in the past.

Horowitz may not care about the effectiveness of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. He may be able to raise money simply on the basis of presence at American universities and the degree of controversy that he creates. If such is the case, attempts to suppress Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week may benefit Freedom Center fundraising.  Instead of becoming defensive, American Muslims should go on the offensive and strengthen alliances with progressive and conservative non-Muslims, who are aghast at the damage that Zionists and extremist American Jews have managed to do to American society and to US foreign policy.. 

If it is legitimate to open up discussion of Islamo-Fascism on American campuses, can American Jews and prejudiced Judeophiles object to a Zionazism Awareness Week? The late but highly respected University of Wisconsin professor George Mosse discussed the similarities of German Nazi and Zionist ideology extensively while Harvard Professor Jay Harris has mentioned in his classes the superficial likeness of German Nazism and Zionism.  Zionists so casually commit atrocities against the native population of Palestine that "superficial" is probably an inappropriate adjective.  Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is an opportunity for Muslims to open up a discussion of the legitimacy of the Zionist state, of the damage that the US Israel alliance does to America, and of the excessive influence that Jewish fanatics have in the USA.
Sphere: Related Content

Overcoming Zionism (i.e. StandWithUS) at UMich

Sometimes they win -- Sometimes they loose

Here is the latest press release relating to the attempt to deny distribution to Pluto Press for publishing Professor Joel Kovel's book entitled Overcoming Zionism.
Executive Board of the University of Michigan Press:
Statement on the status of the Pluto Press contract
October 22, 2007
 
The University of Michigan Press Executive Board unanimously agreed to continue the distribution contract between the University of Michigan Press and Pluto Press under existing contract terms.
 
Distribution agreements are undertaken strictly as business relationships and have historically been a small part of the UM Press's business. Currently, the Press distributes for five publishers. As is the case with all such commercial arrangements, books distributed on behalf of clients are not edited, reviewed, or produced by the UM Press, and they do not bear the imprimatur of the Press or of the University of Michigan.
 
University presses typically do not have stated guidelines for distribution agreements, but
the recent controversy surrounding the contract with Pluto Press has underscored the need for them. In the coming year, Executive Board members will develop policy guidelines for distribution agreements. Underlying its deliberations will be the principle of freedom of expression, which is both fundamental to the University of Michigan's educational mission and integral to the UM Press's goals.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips

Quoting Phillips is appropriate because he was a leading abolitionist. Zionism is a crime similar to Southern Slavery, and many of its primary ideas can be traced to John C. Calhoun's defense of Slavery.
Just as abolitionism was the only ethical response to Southern Slavery, a new abolitionism to dismantle the Zionist state and anathematize Zionist ideology is the only acceptable course of action today.

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Natalie Portman's Genocidal Racism and Utter Hypocrisy

Harvard Honors Remorseless Unrepentant Racist
by Joachim Martillo HC '78 (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

The State of Israel is impoverishing and brutalizing the native population of Palestine as part of rapacious genocidal program that racist Eastern Europeans developed in the late 19th century and that the State of Israel is carrying out right before our eyes to this day.

Could the Harvard Business School, Professor Michael Chu, FINCA, the Social Enterprise Club, the Women and Public Policy Program of the KSG, and the Women's Center of the FAS possibly come up with a more offensive way to highlight microfinance than by hosting unrepentant Zionist hypocrite Natalie Portman as FINCA's Ambassador of Hope and co-chairperson of FINCA's Village Banking "Call to Action" Campaign?

If Natalie Portman were genuinely concerned about international social work, she should spend at least four months in Gaza in living under brutal murderous Zionist oppression just as the Palestinians do and then return to Harvard to talk about "taking leadership in the fight against poverty" and against criminal political ideologies that like Zionism cause so much suffering and impoverishment in the world.

Until Natalie Portman (Hershlag) acknowledges and repents the crimes that have been committed in her name as a Jew and shows some genuine remorse for the horrors that Zionists have perpetrated, she is just another vicious genocidal Israel-born Zionist Euro-Jewish racist, who has benefitted and continues to benefit from the plunder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of the native population of Palestine. 

According to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Portman.html, Portman spews the usual nonsense about Jewish-Arab cousinhood.
When the Harvard Crimson ran an op-ed article labeling Israel "racist," Portman wrote a rebuttal that said "Israelis and Arabs are historically cousins. Until we accept the fact that we are constituents of the same family, we will blunder in believing that a loss for one 'side' is not a loss for all humankind."
The above claim is the sort of vacuous propaganda by which ethnic Ashkenazim like Portman justify the invasion and theft of Palestine.

Portman's Wikipedia entry indicates that Porman lives and breathes Zionist lies.  "Portman is credited as a research assistant to Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel."

From http://www.natalie-portman.ws/news.html:
Natalie Portman's Israeli Dreams
29th May 2002
Actress Natalie Portman is determined to find a home in her native Jerusalem, Israel, as soon as political strife in the Middle East dies down. The Jewish star admits she's deeply troubled by ongoing violence in her homeland, but it's not putting her off her dream of owning a home there one day. She says, "I really love the States, but my heart's in Jerusalem. That's where I feel at home. Anytime anything happens to anyone there, it's like a limb's been ripped off. I'm very protective of Israel, obviously, but I'm more protective of humanity than of any of my own personal desires."
Portman's ancestral homeland is in Europe. She lived for three years in the State of Israel as the child of Euro-American thieves and interlopers. Is there not something completely psychotic, unethical and monstrous that she considers Jerusalem her home without a second thought about the atrocities that people like her have committed and continue to commit against the native population of Palestine?


october 24
FINCA and Natalie Portman Action and Leadership in the Fight Against Poverty
Wednesday, October 24, 6 PM Burden Auditorium Harvard Business School
Join us for a special event featuring Natalie Portman, Golden Globe Award-winning actress and social activist, who will disc
uss her work with global microfinance organization FINCA International and how to get involved in FINCA's Village Banking "Call to Action" Campaign.
As FINCA's Ambassador of Hope and co-chairperson of the recently launched campaign, the 26-year old Harvard graduate has traveled around the world to see how microfinance is changing lives. Portman will discuss her experiences with clients in the field, show video clips of her travels, and talk with HBS Professor, Michael Chu about microfinance and the next generation's responsibility for taking leadership in the fight against poverty.
Presented by the Social Enterprise Club Presents in conjunction with the Women and Public Policy Program, KSG and the Women's Center, FAS. For more information, please go to www.villagebanking.org
Must present valid Harvard Student/Faculty ID to attend
 
 
For the most current WAPPP event information, please visit us online at www.ksg.harvard.edu/wappp/events/index.html
For directions to the Kennedy School campus, please go to http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/main/directions.htm.
 
Sphere: Related Content