The PLO and the Saudis pay for Khalidi's chair at Columbia?
For the past week, many right wing bloggers - including me when I've been able to get on my blog - have been screaming about the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release a videotape in which Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama is present at a going away party for former PLO operative Rashid al-Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia. Even the Left is a bit uncomfortable with the notion of one of their own trying to throw the election, so they have attempted to minimize the impact of the Times' actions by claiming that Khalidi was not a member (Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs) of the PLO in the 70's and 80's, when it was officially a terror organization, or that even if he was, Khalidi is a 'moderate' 'Palestinian' who is being victimized (Hat Tip: Memeorandum) by the McCain - Palin campaign (an astounding ignoring of reality).
This evening, I received the following email that suggests that not only was Khalidi a member of the PLO, but it was the PLO that was actually responsible for getting him his current position in the Edward Said chair of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia.
Was the Palestinian Liberation Organization behind Khalidi’s being hired by Columbia University as a professor? Was Rashid Khalidi a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization? Apparently, it not only depends on who you ask but when you ask them.
Lee Kaplan, Chief editor and Investigative journalist with DAFKA and former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat are available to discuss some very disturbing realities about not only Khalidi’s ties to the PLO but the PLO’s level of involvement in landing Khalidi a job at Columbia as a professor.
According to Kaplan, prior to Khalidi getting the job as Middle East professor at Columbia an anonymous donation was made in the amount of $5,000,000 to the Univeristy with the proviso of hiring Khalidi as professor.
“Anonymous donations to Universities in New York and NY is illegal,” says Kaplan “and State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle insisted on the information about the donor be made known.” After some resistance from Columbia University they released the information.
According to Kaplan, the money was paid by the law firm Stroock and Stroock with the Rita Hauser as the attorney, under the instruction and use of assets of the PLO. This should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Khalidi was an operative of the PLO. “That Terror money is being funneled into our Universities to promote propaganda to undermine the legitimacy of Israel and indoctrinate students to hate America,” Kaplan said.
I have mentioned Stroock before on this blog - they were a registered agent for the PLO until 2001 (yes, of course, it's a Jewish law firm). But this is from a post I did about Khalidi in March 2006. And it leaves little doubt that the PLO - and the Saudis - both had a role in Khalidi getting his professorship at Columbia.
A link at FrontPage Magazine.com took me to this profile of Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi was interviewed by the Beirut Daily Star on March 7 regarding his opinions about recent developments in the Israel - 'Palestinian' conflict.
As with Said before him, Khalidi's involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support. Though Khalidi has consistently denied the charge, news reports, including a 1982 dispatch from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, suggest that he once served as the director of the Palestinian press agency, Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija. Khalidi's wife, Mona, was reportedly the agency's main English-language editor between 1976 and 1982. Commentators have also noted that Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, designated a terrorist organization by the State Department during Khalidi's affiliation with the Yasser Arafat-run political entity in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as "we" when expounding on the PLO's agenda.
Additional evidence of Khalidi's intimacy with the PLO can be seen in his involvement with a so-called PLO "guidance committee" in the early 1990s. Describing his appearance in the company of several PLO operatives at a 1991 conference, Khalidi related that "We had political decisions to make and diplomatic strategy to decide."
Khalidi's often aggressive cheerleading for the PLO has not escaped the notice of his employers in the academy. Upon luring Khalidi away from the University of Chicago in 2003, Columbia president Lee Bollinger conceded that has his hire "has a particular point of view, pro-Palestinian nationalism." It is also a prominent selling point for the financial backers of Khalidi's endowed chair, the total funds for which are estimated at between $3 and $4 million: Among the donors to the chair are the United Arab Emirates and the Hauser Foundation, a New York charity headed by Rita Hauser, a controversial philanthropist whose onetime law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, was registered with the Department of Justice as an agent for the Palestinian Authority until 2001. Yet another donor was the Olayan Charitable Trust, a New York-based charity with ties to the Olayan America Corporation, an arm of the Saudi organization the Olayan Group.
A link at FrontPage Magazine.com took me to this profile of Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi was interviewed by the Beirut Daily Star on March 7 regarding his opinions about recent developments in the Israel - 'Palestinian' conflict.
Regarding Hamas' victory in the January 2006 Palestinian elections, Rashidi stated, "They [Hamas] have an interpretation of this [suicide bombings against Israelis] that is actually closer to the view of most Palestinians and most people in the Arab world than to the American or Israeli interpretation, which is that the overwhelming majority of the violence that goes on daily is the violence of the [Israeli] occupation, ...until that stops there's going to be resistance....Now, the Israelis want to be able to maintain their occupation and have the Palestinians abjure any form of violence. ... it means you can do anything you want as the most powerful party, and that what you do is not bad and that anything they do is unacceptable."
When observers advert to the problems of Middle East Studies programs at American universities—notorious for their rabidly polemical pedagogy and the pronouncedly anti-American and anti-Israeli dispensation of the professors tasked with their instruction—Rashid Khalidi's is a name that rarely escapes mention. Holding the lushly-subsidized Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies at Columbia University, and serving as the director of that university's government-funded Middle East Institute, Khalidi ranks among the most prominent members of the Middle Eastern studies community in the United States. Less well known is that he is also among its most radical.
It is a revealing commentary on Khalidi's approach to Middle Eastern studies that he has long cited Edward Said, the late radical professor of literature at Columbia and an untiring propagandist for the Palestinian cause, as his main influence. Following Said's death in 2003, Khalidi penned a revealing obituary that valorized Said's "eloquent espousal of the cause of Palestine." Khalidi acknowledged neither Said's long history of anti-Israel provocation—a tendency that found its most militant expression in Said's willingness to hurl rocks at Israeli defense forces—nor his unscrupulous anathematization of the Jewish state. Instead, he portrayed Said's career as one of "giving a voice to the voiceless." In this context, Khalidi likened Said to another of his idols: Noam Chomsky. Wrote Khalidi:
"Like Noam Chomsky and very few others, he [Said] managed not only to reshape his own field of scholarly endeavor, but to transcend it, influencing other fields and disciplines, and going well beyond the narrow boundaries of the American academy to become a true public intellectual, and a passionate voice for humanistic values and justice in an imperfect world."
As with Said before him, Khalidi's involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support. Though Khalidi has consistently denied the charge, news reports, including a 1982 dispatch from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, suggest that he once served as the director of the Palestinian press agency, Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija. Khalidi's wife, Mona, was reportedly the agency's main English-language editor between 1976 and 1982. Commentators have also noted that Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, designated a terrorist organization by the State Department during Khalidi's affiliation with the Yasser Arafat-run political entity in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as "we" when expounding on the PLO's agenda.
Additional evidence of Khalidi's intimacy with the PLO can be seen in his involvement with a so-called PLO "guidance committee" in the early 1990s. Describing his appearance in the company of several PLO operatives at a 1991 conference, Khalidi related that "We had political decisions to make and diplomatic strategy to decide."
Khalidi's often aggressive cheerleading for the PLO has not escaped the notice of his employers in the academy. Upon luring Khalidi away from the University of Chicago in 2003, Columbia president Lee Bollinger conceded that has his hire "has a particular point of view, pro-Palestinian nationalism." It is also a prominent selling point for the financial backers of Khalidi's endowed chair, the total funds for which are estimated at between $3 and $4 million: Among the donors to the chair are the United Arab Emirates and the Hauser Foundation, a New York charity headed by Rita Hauser, a controversial philanthropist whose onetime law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, was registered with the Department of Justice as an agent for the Palestinian Authority until 2001. Yet another donor was the Olayan Charitable Trust, a New York-based charity with ties to the Olayan America Corporation, an arm of the Saudi organization the Olayan Group.
As many of you know, I graduated from Columbia College twenty-eight years ago. Not one cent....
It's come to this: Ramaz has to ban Rashid Khalidi
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
It's come to this: Ramaz, one of the most prominent Jewish high schools in the New York City area, where one of the most prominent anti-Islam, pro-Israel Jewish bloggers sends their children, had to ban Rashid Khalidi to prevent him from appearing at the school. The students wanted him.
Students of a Jewish modern orthodox upscale high school in New York
City are demanding that the administration permit its political society
to host the noted Palestinian-American academic Professor Rashid Khalidi
after the head of the school barred his appearance.
The
controversy erupted earlier this week when the anti-Zionist blogger
Mondoweiss reported that the Ramaz day school had nixed an appearance by
Khalidi, who was invited to the Manhattan campus by the student-run
political society.
The move angered some students, who were moved to circulate an online
petition that called on the Ramaz headmaster, Paul Shaviv, to reverse
his decision.
...
In a statement issued to JTA on Friday, Shaviv said he was working
with students to “navigate a delicate political situation, respecting
their wish for open exchange of ideas, but also being mindful of
multiple sensitivities within our varied school constituencies.”
The
statement from Ramaz said, “The issue is not whether or not students
should hear another view – they should. Our question was: ‘Is this the
appropriate program?’”
The school’s administration said it
believed the controversy would “massively overshadow any conversation
and would make an educational experience impossible,” and that Khalidi
was not the right partner for dialogue with high school students. Shaviv
said he met with Khalidi and amicably explained the situation to him,
and Ramaz’s statement said the school is “working with the politics club
to arrange an event that will provide the program content they
originally envisaged.”
Sorry but as far as I am concerned a private school has the right to ban whomever they want from appearing at their school, and if the families don't like it, they have the right to vote with their feet and send the kids elsewhere.
It's almost important to remember who Khalidi is.
Khalidi, a professor at Columbia University, was born to a
Saudi-Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother. According to the Jewish
Telgraph Agency, Khalidi was an adviser to the Palestine Liberation
Organization during the Madrid peace negotiations in the early 1990s. Khalidi has generated controversy in the past for stating that the Palestinians were legally entitled to resist Israel’s occupation by targeting soldiers.
Prior
to taking up his current post as the Edward Said Professor of Modern
Arab Studies at Columbia, Khalidi also taught at the University of
Chicago and Georgetown University.
Not mentioned: Khalidi is a close friend of President Hussein Obama. When Khalidi left Chicago, there was a going away party at which it was rumored that the future President made anti-Semitic comments. The videotape of that party has never been released.
On Sunday, CNN's Fareed Zakaria interviewed former JPost editor and current Wall Street Journal editor Bret Stephens and 'Palestinian' professor Rashid Khalidi. You will recall that during the election campaign, the Los Angeles Times had but did not release a video of Khalidi's going away party from Chicago, which was attended by Barack Obama, at which some extremely anti-Israel statements were made.
Let's go to the videotape and then we'll talk about it. This is a long tape. The segment about Israel with Khalidi and Stephens starts around the 11:00 mark and ends around the 27:15 mark.
During the discussion, Zakaria asked whether or not it was “a shift for the — the United States to be suggesting that this stalled peace process [between Israel and the Palestinians] hurts America’s ability to pursue its interests.” What the administration is now saying, Khalidi responded, “is that Israel is a drag on the United States. It’s not a strategic asset, and this is a discursive shift of some significance.” (my emphasis) To put it a bit differently, Rashid Khalidi, who in 2008 worried that because of American politics Obama had to appear to be a supporter of Israel, now believes that Obama’s promise to move U.S. policy towards the Palestinian perspective is coming true.
Khalidi again emphasized his main point: “that Israel is not the strategic asset it was touted as during the Cold War” and that the U.S. had returned “…in effect, to the Eisenhower administration’s view of the Middle East as an area where the United States has problems, and Israel is, in some small way, one of those problems.” Clearly, all the boilerplate assurances coming from the Obama camp in the past few weeks — assuring Americans that the U.S. commitment to Israel as a major ally is as firm as ever — have not dissuaded Khalidi from reaching a quite different conclusion.
Khalidi’s perspective, of course, comes entirely from that of the Arab world and its perpetual narrative: that Israel alone is at fault for the failure to attain peace or a Palestinian state. He explained: “If Israel continues to act in a way that antagonizes opinion all over the Muslim world, all over the Arab world, and in other parts of the world, to tell you the truth. You go other places, people say, why is the United States supporting this crazy policy? Then it becomes a liability instead of an asset.”
The debate became sharp, as Stephens retorted that rather than moving a peace process forward, everything the Obama team has been doing is moving things in the opposite direction. As Stephens said, “It basically sends a signal to Israel that this administration is not reliable, there’s no longer a kind of a hug-me-close mentality, which has — which has, in fact, moved Israel to, for instance, remove its settlements, its settlers from Gaza.”
Khalidi goes far beyond saying that the conflict is a drag. He says Israel is a drag - that Israel is no longer worthy of being an American ally. Recall that Khalidi is one of Obama's closest friends. Is that what Obama's thinking? I would bet on it.
LA Times has video of Obama attending Jew-bashing event
The Los Angeles Times has video of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama attending a farewell party for PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi, which can best be described as a Jew-bashing event. It's an event I've written about before. (The picture at top left is of Obama sitting next to PLO Council member Edward Said. Khalidi now holds the Edward Said chair at Columbia). But the existence of the video - and the mainstream media's out-and-out refusal to release it - is an ugly addition to an already ugly Presidential campaign. Here's more from Midwest Jim.
LA Times writer Peter Wallsten wrote about Barack Obama's close association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi back in April.
Wallsten discussed a dinner held back in 2003 in honor of Khalidi, a critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights.
According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:
"During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Barack Obama also praised the former PLO operative during the event. And, Obama confessed that his family often shared dinner with the Khalidis:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
...The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
Khalidi and the Obamas were great friends in Chicago and often shared meals together.
...
On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi:
Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate.
Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.
I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video. Wallston also said he did not know if Khalidi's good friend Bill Ayers was at the event or not.
So, there you have it.
The LA Times has video of Obama toasting a former PLO operative at a Jew-bash but will not release the video.
This is outrageous.
Obviously, this video would do great damage to Obama who struggles with Jewish voters due to his circle of close anti-Semitic friends.
Maybe this is the reason it is not being released?
But none of that will stop all the residents of Daddy's assisted living facility - who haven't voted for a Republican since Herbert Hoover - from pulling the lever in favor of Obama next Tuesday. If I thought it would make a difference, I would start leaving these articles around the newspaper piles. Maybe I'll do that anyway.
By the way, in the comments on Midwest Jim's site, there's a comment from Debbie Schlussel who says that the LA Times' original article was ripped off from her. Unfortunately, that's happened to Debbie too many times before.
Will Obama enforce the law against Rashid Khalidi?
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Andy McCarthy lays out the legal case for prosecuting Columbia Professor and Obama buddy Rashid Khalidi in the event that, as he announced this week, Khalidi organizes a ship to attempt to bust the Gaza blockade in September. One of the statutes McCarthy suggests using is one I have discussed several times on this blog (principally in connection with Jimmy Carter's diplomatic freelancing): The Logan Act.
For example, Section 962 makes it a crime to furnish or fit out a vessel in the service of any foreign entity “to cruise, or commit hostilities” against a nation with which the U.S. is at peace. Israel is an American ally and the planned voyage is intended for the benefit of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Challenging a blockade — regardless of whether one thinks the blockade complies with the shifting sands of international law — is a hostile act. The boat needn’t embark in order for Khalidi to violate the law; it is a crime to conspire or attempt such a voyage. That is, the law is being violated now.
So, very likely, is the Logan Act, Section 953 of the penal code. This prohibits American citizens (Khalidi was born in New York City) from carrying on “any correspondence or intercourse” with any foreign government with the intent to influence the “measures or conduct of any foreign government” regarding “disputes or controversies with the United States,” or to “defeat the measures of the United States.”
It would require Justice Department investigation to determine exactly what communications Khalidi and his friends have had with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Yet, given Khalidi’s history of close relations with Yasser Arafat and his successors, as well as the clamor by Islamists and leftists to include Hamas in what Turkey eerily calls the “final solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there has undoubtedly been significant contact between Palestinian officials and Audacity of Hope planners. Beyond that, it could not be plainer that the planners are seeking to influence the behavior of both Israel and Hamas. Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that the United States is enmeshed in the controversy over the blockade; indeed, Khalidi and his confederates expressly allege that the blockade is “U.S.-backed.” And wholly apart from the blockade, the planned stunt will strengthen the hand of Hamas and make Israel’s defense more uncertain. Since it is American policy to weaken Hamas and protect Israel, the flotilla aims to defeat measures of the United States.
Finally, the Gaza voyage would manifestly benefit Hamas. Its specific purpose is to eradicate a national-defense measure by which Israel secures itself from the terrorist organization’s attacks. It would make supplying Hamas with money, weaponry, and other assets far easier. The Islamists and leftists behind the flotilla know this only too well — they refuse to acknowledge that Palestinian brutality against Israel (particularly, against the Israeli government) is “terrorism,” portraying it instead as legitimate “resistance” against an illegitimate occupying power. For them, facilitating this sort of aid would be a welcome result.
Will Obama go after Khalidi and some of his other friends who are involved in this project (Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and former Black Panther Angela Davis among others)? Or will he welch on his commitment to Israel? One thing is for certain: If Khalidi and friends keep pushing this, we may find out once and for all where Obama stands. And that would not be a bad thing, especially before November's elections.
Until 1991 most Palestinians, although under Israeli military
occupation, could nonetheless travel freely. Today, an entire generation
of Palestinians has never been allowed to visit Jerusalem, enter Israel
or cross between the West Bank and Gaza. This ghettoization of the
Palestinians, along with the unrest of the second intifada of 2000-5 and
the construction of seemingly permanent settlements and of an
apartheid-style wall, are the tragic fruits of the so-called peace
process the United States has led.
Khalidi mentions the second intifada and the travel restrictions (which
aren't as total as Khalidi writes) and the security barrier as if they
are unrelated. Of course the intifada - which was orchestrated by Yasser Arafat - is the reason that Israeli had to impose travel restrictions and build a separation barrier.
Later Khalidi writes:
If Mr. Obama decided to devote energy toward resolving the conflict — a
big if — it would not be easy. The Palestinians are deeply divided
between supporters of Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction, which governs the
West Bank, and Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. An even
bigger obstacle is Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government, hellbent on
territorial expansion.
"Right-wing?" Really?
Hamas isn't a militant organization but a terrorist organization. It is
devoted to destroying Israel. It has stockpiled weapons to threaten
much of southern Israel. And the Israeli government is a bigger obstacle
to peace? Who does Khalidi think he's kidding.
Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi wants President Obama to guide a peace
process that any Palestinian would applaud: an end to Israel’s
“intransigence,“ “illegal” settlements, “apartheid-style wall,” and
“ghettoization” of Palestinians, with a government “hellbent on
territorial expansion.” The Israeli “occupation” must end, and
settlements must be removed. What Palestinians must do is not mentioned.
From their quite different perspectives Friedman, Shavit and Khalidi
reach the shared conclusion that surely pleases Times editors: the
absence of peace is entirely Israel’s fault. And, no surprise, Jewish
settlers are primarily responsible. Not a word about the Palestinian
terrorism that led to the “apartheid-style wall” separating Israel from
the West Bank. Nor about Israel’s 10-month settlement freeze two years
ago that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pointedly ignored. Nor
about the vast Hezbollah accumulation of rockets in south Lebanon that
probably exceeds what Hamas has stored in Gaza. Nor about the absurd
claim, echoed by Khalidi, that “5 million” Palestinians live “in a state
of subjugation or exile” for which Israel implicitly bears
responsibility.
It is highly unlikely that the Times would publish three op-eds in a
decade, no less in a single day, that even mention, no less defend, the
right of “close settlement” west of the Jordan River enjoyed by Jews
ever since the League of Nations approved the Mandate for Palestine
nearly a century ago. That right has never been rescinded. Or that UN
Resolution 242 following the Six-Day War called upon Israel to withdraw
its military forces from “territories,” not from “the” territories or
“all” the territories that it had gained from Arab aggression. Or, even
in passing, that there already is a state (now known as Jordan) with a
Palestinian population majority, in Palestine as originally defined by
the League of Nations. Or that settlement in the Land of Israel is what
Zionism has always meant. Might the Times recognize that the largest
Jewish settlement in the Middle East, endlessly calumnied in its own
pages, is the State of Israel?
With President Obama scheduled to visit this week, the government has
postponed action on several East Jerusalem projects, to make sure there
are no awkward events like when Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
arrived in 2010 and was greeted by an announcement of 1,600 new units.
Those more traditional, government-financed settlements may be delayed,
but The Jerusalem Post has for weeks been running advertisements
promoting Maalot David and another new apartment block, Beit Orot — both
privately owned and developed — as a “dream come true” for their
proximity to the Old City and the 3,000-year-old Jewish cemetery on the
Mount of Olives.
While most experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have long
imagined Jerusalem as ultimately being divided, with Jewish
neighborhoods remaining part of Israel and Arab ones joining Palestine,
these new buildings make such a plan more complicated if not impossible —
which may be exactly the point.
While many (experts) imagined Jerusalem being divided, Yaacov Lozowick has presented an extensive case why Jerusalem can't and shouldn't be divided.
The article has one egregious error. Also as Yisrael Medad shows, Rudoren reports facts but doesn't seem to comprehend the significance of them.
Unlike Rashid Khalidi, or Ben Ehrenreich or Joseph Levine, I don't think
that Jodi Rudoren is informed by hostility to Israel. Still, her
reporting fleshes out the arguments made by the others. If one is
anti-Israel, Israel's actions must also be suspect.
Towards the end of the article Rudoren writes:
After Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped in the Gaza Strip, was
released in late 2011 in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, Mr.
Zaghal said, some Jews threw stones and water at people celebrating in
the street, and made a big sign declaring, “One Jew is Worth 1,000
Arabs.”
“Everyone knows they don’t love us and we don’t love them,” Mr. Zaghal,
32, said. “They think that this is their place and this is their land,
but this is not the case. We are here and we are staying here, but they
won’t. There are people here who won’t let them.”
The other day, I dumped on Thomas Friedman. I'm not alone in my
assessment of the columnist.
Recently,
Elder of Ziyon interviewed Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the
Ministry of Strategic Affairs in the Prime Minister's office. In their second interview, Gen. Kuperwasser asks why Thomas Friedman can't admit that he's been wrong about the Middle East.
You will recall that in October 2008, the Los Angeles Timessuppressed a tape it has in its possession of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi's departure party from Chicago. Among those present at the party were Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Barack Hussein Obama. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, what went on at that dinner would have taught us a lot about the current President of the United States.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
...
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
But the Times refused to release the videotape in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election. Could that videotape have influenced the 2008 election? We'll never know for sure.
Fast forward two and a half years. The Times still hasn't released the video, but this week it released 24,000 private emails belonging to Sarah Palin (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Would those emails have been released if they belonged to Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton? Would the video have been released if it were a video of Sarah Palin with the head of the John Birch Society? (I doubt any such video exists).
A few days ago, I published a piece by Bret Stephens that suggested that President Obama's views of Israel have been mostly influenced by radical Leftist Jews, particularly one rabbi, Arnold Wolf. Sunlight points me to this piece by Martin Kramer from 2009, which indicates that Wolf alone cannot be blamed and that attempting to do so is sweeping Rashid Khalidi under the rug.
But how is it possible to mention Wolf and not Rashid Khalidi, Obama’s University of Chicago colleague? Not only did Obama famously have his own “conversations” with Khalidi, but Wolf attested that his own conversations with Obama on Israel and the Palestinians were three-way, involving Khalidi. A journalist who interviewed Wolf last year wrote this:
Wolf has impressions about Obama’s initial views on Israel more than specifics, and the impression was one of sympathy for the views that he and their mutual friend, Palestinian advocate Rashid Khalidi, expressed to him on Israel—views including the need to pressure Israel to give up the West Bank. In retrospect, he believes that Obama was carefully considering their perspective rather than endorsing it. “When he was listening, we had his ear, but he didn’t come down on our side,” he reflects. “I think he was listening and learning and thinking.”
“Our side,” no less. It makes no sense to invoke Wolf’s influence without even mentioning Khalidi, because on the question of the West Bank, they were a tag-team.
That’s why writing Khalidi out of the story of Obama’s view of the settlements is absurd.
Nutroot Keith Olbermann claims on MSNBC tonight that John McCain is connected to Rashid al-Khalidi and gave him more money that Obama and Ayers did. Let's go to the videotape.
Nice try but Olbermann doesn't get it.
The reason everyone wants that tape is to see what Obama said at that dinner, not to see how much money Obama gave Khalidi. McCain wasn't at that dinner. Recall that this is what it was claimed Obama said at that dinner:
“Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”
That goes way beyond the simple question of whether Obama - who is selling himself as a friend of Israel - gave Khalidi money.
Olbermann presents no proof that McCain was actually in control of any of the money that the group with which Olbermann claims McCain was associated gave Khalidi. On the other hand, the moneys given by the Woods Foundation to Khalidi - the board of which was chaired by Obama - are well documented. The moneys McCain supposedly gave Khalidi don't sound any different than the money that the US government (unfortunately) gives the 'Palestinians' and were given at a time when the PLO was (mistakenly) no longer a designated terrorist organization under US law.
I agree that the McCain campaign made a mistake by not pursuing this earlier. But I believe they also made a mistake by not making Reverend Wright an issue in the campaign. I look at Olbermann's entire comment as a sign that the Obama camp is panicking.
Are you busy Wednesday night? How would you like to be on a conference call with Barack Obama's good friend Rashid Khalidi?
Key Historical Lessons for the Obama Administration in their Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian Peace
A TOWN HALL CONFERENCE CALL with Rahid Khalidi
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
9:30 pm ET / 8:30 pm CT / 7:30 pm MT / 6:30 pm PT
Dr. Rashid Khalidi will distill from his historical research on the region what he sees as the key lessons the Obama Administration must consider in its pursuit of a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi is a leading American public intellectual and a distinguished scholar of Middle East and Palestinian history and of American foreign policy in the region and has written widely about these issues. His commentary will include both general lessons and specific commentary in light of the Administration's actions to date.
TO JOIN: Dial 1-218-936-4700 within 5 minutes of the call's designated start time and then enter the access code 123432#. You are responsible only for domestic long distance charges.
QUESTIONS: The presentation will be followed by an extensive question-and-answer session open to all participants. Please send brief questions before or during the call to townhall@btvshalom.org.
Those are their instructions - here are mine (okay - copied from the person two emails up in this chain).
Andrew Breitbart has it exactly right in today's Washington Times. I think the choices are pretty clear: we can either continue to subdivide into, literally, thousands of yahoo groups and google groups , send each other articles and feel like at least we're doing something or we can organize in the way Breitbart speaks of. This conference call is a perfect testing ground. Khalidi is out of control. Some of you rcvd my email over the weekend about his two-day CUNY conference this week . It would seem to make sense that we somehow organize a way to interrupt peacefully but repeatedly so they cannot accomplish anything on their conference call. I read smart observations all day long on the two listservs I belong to. We need some of that wisdom to organize a machine, to go on the offensive, both online and on the phone. This email is going to Switzerland, San Francisco, Sydney and everywhere in between . We need leaders before it's too late.
Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, a close friend of President Obama, is trying to raise money for a ship to run the Gaza blockade (Hat Tip: Will).
Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, has signed an appeal for funds to outfit a ship--to be named The Audacity of Hope after Barack Obama's second book--that will challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza in September or October, according to a report by Robert Mackey at The Lede, a blog of the New York Times. His wife Mona is also a signatory.
The appeal is posted at the site USTOGAZA.ORG, which says the ship will sail from the US to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it will join ships from "Europe, Canada, India, South Africa and parts of the Middle East." The appeal employs the word "we" when speaking of the upcoming trip, which gives the impression that the signatories intend to be aboard.
The site's opening paragraph is laden with falsehoods of commission and omission:
This is an important moment in history. In the aftermath of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla massacre and increased world-wide scrutiny of Israel's blockade of Gaza, the Israeli government has mounted a huge public relations campaign spreading the lie that by letting a few more items into Gaza the blockade has been lifted. This is not the reality. Gaza is still under siege, vital building materials and other supplies are banned, exports of goods from Gaza are denied and neither ships nor people can travel without permission from Israel, permission which Israel will not give. Gaza is essentially an open-air prison under a U.S.-backed Israeli blockade.
Somehow, USTOGAZA omitted reference to this video, which shows Israeli commandos being brutally attacked by those on board.
It notes the amount of money needed and the size of the ship:
We turn to you to help make the U.S. boat, The Audacity of Hope, a reality. We must raise at least $370,000 in the next month. These funds will be used to purchase a boat large enough for 40-60 people, secure a crew, and cover the licensing and registering of the boat. In addition, the funds will subsidize some other costs of sending a U.S. delegation.
Mackey's brief report notes the Khalidi-Obama connection....
Perhaps even more outrageous is this report from Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post.
The news of Khalidi's involvement in the boat has already led the National Review to call for a Justice Department probe of the academic for providing material support of a terror group.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. In response to an e-mail asking whether the appeal is embarrassing to the president, Khalidi said that he was not aware the boat would be named after Obama's book when he agreed to add his name to the list of sponsors.
"But if the name is a problem for the administration, it can simply insist publicly that Israel lift the siege: end of problem, end of embarrassment," he wrote, "That of course would require it to respond to the systematic mendacity of those in Congress and elsewhere who support the siege, and indeed whatever else the Israeli government does."
Khalidi added: "I signed because the siege/blockade of Gaza, which is effectively supported by the United States, is a disgrace. I support the idea because it may cause the media to pay attention to the effective imprisonment and collective punishment of 1.5 million people who by the admission of Israeli officials, are being subjected to this ordeal in order to bring down their government. As the Goldstone Report suggested, this may rise to the level of a war crime, in which our country is complicit. That is truly embarrassing."
In a way, it would almost be a good thing to force Obama to show just how pro-'Palestinian' he is.
Maybe Khalidi has a copy of that video that he can release.
LA Times reporter who 'saw' Obama - Khalidi tape is legally blind?
LA Times reporter Peter Wallsten, who 'saw' the videotape of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama speaking at a going away party for PLO terrorist Rashid al-Khalidi is apparently legally blind (Hat Tip: Heroyalwhyness). Here's a video from 2006 of President Bush accidentally insulting Wallsten at a press conference. The President was not aware of Wallsten's condition as you will see in the story below the screen. Let's go to the videotape.
ABC News confirmed at the time that Wallsten - the man with the dark glasses in the video - is legally blind.
Wallsten has Stargardt's Disease, a degeneration of the central area of the retina called the macula, where cells sensitive to light send visual signals to the brain.
It turns out Wallsten wasn't trying to be hip or cool or cop a 'tude -- he was wearing the pricey sunglasses because recent studies indicate that the progression of Stargardt's disease can be slowed by wearing sunglasses that protect the eyes from ultraviolet rays.
Wallsten suspects the president was informed of his gaffe by White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, who knows Wallsten and been aware of his vision problem for years, dating back to when both were in Tallahassee, where he worked for the Miami Herald and she for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
Midwest Jim talked to Wallsten last Wednesday and wrote about it on Friday.
On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi:
Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate.
Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.
I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video. Wallston also said he did not know if Khalidi's good friend Bill Ayers was at the event or not.
So, there you have it.
There are a few things that need to be pointed out here. First, 'legally blind' is not the same as 'totally blind.' 'Legally blind' means 20/200 vision. So it is possible that Wallsten could have seen the video. Second, even without 'seeing' the video, Wallsten could have heard the dialogue and recognized Obama's voice. Even I recognize Obama's voice already, and I've probably heard it less than any of you who live in the US. Third, Wallsten has a degenerative disease. He doesn't say when he saw the video. He may have seen it in 2003 for all we know, and his vision may have been much better than it was in 2006 or 2008. So I would not take this story as discredting the existence of the video (sorry nutroots). It's just a curiousity.
I also find it curious that someone with a disease like that would work in Florida and California. If - God forbid - I were in that position, I'd find a job in the Northeast or the Midwest.
Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, well-known for his
anti-Israel rhetoric, slammed J Street, an organization which claims to
be pro-Israel, for failing to adequately oppose Israel's military
actions in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge.
Speaking at the "Open Hillel" conference, Khalidi said that J Street
"needs more radical critique...if it wants real change,"Jeremy Pressman wrote on Twitter. One Jewish Voice for Peace activist noted
that Khalidi stated to J Street that "if u [sic] call Israel's attacks
on Gaza 'self defense' you can't be agents of change." Khalidi's remarks
were met with strong applause.
...
According to one attendee, J Street U members in attendance huddled
together at the conclusion of the speech, were "visibly upset" and could
be overheard reassuring each other not to worry about
Khalidi's demands.
Is Obama getting ready to throw J Street under the bus?
Three weeks ago, Rashid Khalidi, who holds the Edward Said chair in Arab studies at my alma mater, Columbia University, wrote an article in the Boston Globe three weeks ago in which he decried the history of the 'Palestinians' having "disappeared under the powerful impact of the painful and amply recounted story of the catastrophic fate of the Jews of Europe in the 20th century." In other words, according to Khalidi, the fact that there is no 'Palestinian' history is the Jews' fault. At the American Thinker, Rachel Neuwirth has a more plausible explanation:
Professor Rashid Khalidi raises a very pertinent question in his article Unwritten History, recently published in the Boston Globe. In essence, he laments that the Palestinians have not written down their own history and he observes that their failure to do so has made their claim for Palestinian statehood more problematic.
Mr. Khalidi’s initiative must be welcomed by all those who seek the historical truth in the Middle East conflict. But we may wonder why it is that the history of the Palestinian people has suddenly become such an important issue. After all, many years ago, Yasser Arafat lifted any lingering doubt by tracing Palestinian history all the way back to the Jebusites!
Peoples – real ones – know their history. History precedes the collective consciousness of a people. Jews, Kurds, Tibetans, Mongols, and a myriad others are very much aware of who they are. They need no latecomer to remind them of their origins, or to forge a newly minted history to redefine their identity. They know their past achievements and they have a common will for the future. So, if forty years after the word “Palestinian” entered the international lexicon – in its new, twisted and widely circulated meaning – we are still in search of their history, we may conclude it is because there has never been such a people. The “Palestinian people” was a late creation for political purposes aimed only at destroying the national aspirations of a real people – the Jews – rather than building a peaceful society.
I do not know what motivated Mr. Khalidi to delve into the historical quest of the Palestinian people. Was it to prop up a “cause” whose merit is increasingly questioned by their former supporters? Was it to create a means to cement the many disparate factions who are speaking with different voices? Or was it to counter what social anthropologist Ernest Geller observed, namely, that “nationalism [often] invents nations where they do not exist.”? Whatever the motives may be, this historical investigation should be respectful of factual truths, which does not seem to be the thrust Mr. Khalidi had in mind, in view of the article he penned.
There really is no such thing as a 'Palestinian people.' Read it all.
Obama's buddy releases videotape in support of flotilla of fools
It's been just four days since I last discussed the infamous videotape of Rashid Khalidi's 2003 departure party from Chicago at which anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks were made in front of a young Illinois Senator and Khalidi friend named Barack Hussein Obama.
Now Khalidi has made another videotape. In this videotape, Khalidi and other radical Obama buddies urge the President of the United States to support the breach of Israel's legal blockade of the Gaze Strip. Khalidi has a vested interest in the ships reaching Gaza: He helped to raise money for the Audacity of Hope, the American entry in the flotilla of fools, which is named after a book written by Barack Hussein Obama.
For those of you who are too young to remember Angela Davis (whom you will meet in this video), go here.
Let's go to the videotape.
Pretty slick (and fact free), isn't it? More here.
Obama's 'gate crashers' may have been invited after all
In a story that has gotten a lot of attention in the US, but comparatively little in Israel, a couple 'crashed' President Obama's state dinner for the Indian Prime Minister last Tuesday night. The couple turned out to be Michaele and Tareq Salahi. AP described Michaele Salahi as "a reality TV hopeful trying to get on Bravo's 'The Real Housewives of D.C.'" The Secret Service is quite upset about the security breach - the Salahis got into the receiving line and shook hands with President Obumbler and Vice President Biden - and there has even been talk about them receiving prison time for their offense. One reason why they may have succeeded in 'crashing' the party without anyone noticing is that you would have had to check the guest list to realize that they were not invited. You see, the Salahis have met and been photographed with President Obama before. Jim Hoft fills in the details (Hat Tip: Ashan).
From the Polo Contacts Website– “America’s Cup Polo Pre-Event with President-Elect Barack Obama”
From Left to Right is: Randy Jackson, better known as a Judge on American Idol – his previous life he was a bass player for the Rock band JOURNEY, which also performed at the America’s Polo Cup. Others pictured are Black Eyed Peas Rock Band, Tareq Salahi the President of the America’s Polo Cup, President Elect Obama, Fergie from Black Eyed Peas and Michaele Salahi a former Miss USA and SuperModel.
But here's where it gets interesting.
American Power discovered this on the White House party crashers- They belong to a radical anti-Israeli group [unfortunately, ATFP is not considered that radical anymore. Obama's National Security Adviser James Jones spoke to them last month. CiJ]:
Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The “right of return” has long been considered the backdoor to Israel’s destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat’s funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department’s designated-terrorist group, Hamas.
And, there’s more…
There sure is.
The former Vice President of ATFP is... Rashid Khalidi. Yes, the same Rashid Khalidi whose videotape the Los Angeles Times refused to release before the election (or since) because it showed Khalidi and Obama bashing Israel at Khalidi's farewell to Chicago party. The same former PLO member (when the PLO was classified as a terror organization by the United States government) whom Barack Hussein Obama described as his friend at the University of Chicago. The same Rashid Khalidi around whose table Obama held 'conversations' that forced him to re-examine his prejudices.
Ashan speculates that this might have been the reason that the state dinner was held in a tent. That way, the Salahis could have a conversation with Obama in the reception line and it would be less likely to be recorded. It's an interesting thought.
You will recall that during the 2008 US Presidential campaign, the Los Angeles Times had, but would not release, a tape of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi's going away party when he left Chicago for Bir Zeit on the Hudson. It is alleged that at said party, much hostility toward Israel was expressed, and that one Barack Hussein Obama - then a State Senator from Illinois - was present and a part of the festivities.
The tape came up again recently when it was contrasted with the Times' release of thousands of private emails written by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
But don't expect the Times to suddenly have pangs of conscience and release the video says Roger Simon. There is no way this uber-Liberal newspaper is going to do anything that could harm the re-election chances of Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps because I live in L.A. and know the LAT well, have written for it on occasion, I am far less optimistic than Stanley that such a revelation would occur. Though better written than the lefty blog, the L.A. Times is barely three degrees to the right of the Daily Kos and many times more stodgy. The Times admits mistakes less often than Markos Moulitsas. And I suspect their editorial board would rather see the return of the McNamara Brothers, who dynamited the Times building in 1910, than do anything that might possibly harm the reelection of Barack Obama.
This is true even though the L.A. Times seems to have had little problem with Wikileaks or in disseminating their leaked information. It’s not just the Palin emails. Blabbing is fine as long as it’s on the proper side.
Meanwhile, Peter Wallsten, the man who received the clandestine tape from a mysterious donor and wrote the original attenuated LAT article on the Khalidi party (“Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama“), has moved on from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal and, now, the Washington Post and he isn’t talking. (At least to me. I called him some time back, but the moment I broached the subject he essentially hung up.) These days he’s cheerleading for Obama at the WaPo with “daring” articles like “White House seeks to connect with young voters” with smiling photos of you-know-who.
No, in all probability, the only way we will ever see the tape or read even a redacted version of the transcript is courtesy of one of the better second story men on the West Coast or a retired KGB agent. (The Mossad need not apply. They will be blamed anyway.)
This is a shame because events are conspiring to make the production of this tape increasingly important, if only to clear the air. Among the soi-disant activists backing the second flotilla currently revving up to bring supposedly needed supplies to allegedly impoverished Gaza is one Rashid Khalidi. He has been raising money in support of one of the vessels with a familiar name:
This year’s American vessel, named The Audacity of Hope after US President Barack Obama’s best-selling book, is being organized by an American group called “US Boat to Gaza.”
Obama links to the Audacity do not end there, however. Prof. Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and a friend from Obama’s time in Chicago, is among the supporters of an appeal launched by the group last week.
“We must raise at least $370,000 in the next month,” a statement on US Boat to Gaza’s Web site read indicating it doesn’t have the money needed to sail yet.
I will be thrilled if this works: Breitbart News has announced that it is offering a $50,000 reward to anyone who can produce the video of then State Senator Obama making anti-Semitic remarks at a departure party for Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi (Hat Tip: Bad Blue).
Breitbart News hereby announces a $50,000 reward to whomever can provide the complete video recording of the 2003 farewell party for radical Palestinian academic and activist Rashid Khalidi, at which then-state senator Barack Obama spoke--and which the Los Angeles Times has refused to release since reporting the event in April 2008.
...
In further attempts to locate the tape or determine its whereabouts, Breitbart News has contacted the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) in Chicago, which Khalidi founded and which Obama provided with money while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers. However, a request for comment received no response, despite verbal assurances from AAAN that a response would be forthcoming.
Breitbart News also attempted to contact blogger and activist Ali Abunimah, who served on the board of AAAN at the time and wrote in early 2007 about his disappointment with then-U.S. Senator Obama's alleged abandonment of the Palestinian cause. No response was received.
The occasion for the farewell party was Khalidi's departure from the University of Chicago for Columbia University in New York. His provocative advocacy for the Palestinian cause had created controversy in Chicago, and would do so in New York as well. Obama's participation in a special event in Khalidi's honor reflected not only the friendship between their two families, but also the eagerness with which Obama attempted to win support from left-wing constituencies in advance of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in 2004.
The $50,000 reward is contingent on Breitbart News being able to obtain independent authentication of the video recording, as well as verification that the video recording contains Obama's complete remarks at the event.
I really hope this works. That video could have made a huge difference in 2008 (assuming it contains what it's said to contain), and it could make an even bigger difference in 2012.
I have discussed more times than I care to recall the Los Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi's going away party when he left Chicago. Among those present at the affair were 60's radicals Billy Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and a young Senator from Chicago named Barack Hussein Obama. The rumor - indeed the assumption - is that Obama said lots of not very nice things about a small Middle Eastern country whose back he claims to have these days.
The video was reported on during the course of the 2008 campaign, and the Times has refused then and since to release it. Breitbart.com has offered a $100,000 reward for the video, and the LA Times responded in a column by James Rainey this past Friday. This is Breitbart's response to the Times (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
There is nothing fantastical about suggesting that the reason that theTimesdidn’t originally report Obama’s words at the event, or the more radical words of the evening, was to protect their beloved presidential candidate. Given theTimes’ track record of Obama defense, it’s the only rational conclusion to draw.
But Rainey’s condescension continues. “In what will doubtless be a vain attempt to quell the bleating from the political fringe, I offer here a review of the trust history of the ‘Khalidi tape,’” he writes. What was that history that would shed light on theTimes’ non-transparency? Not much. He rehashes the original Peter Wallsten story labeling Obama a quasi-moderate, without evidence to support that view. He then states:
In the case of the Khalidi video, the unnamed source agreed to share the illuminating bit of video evidence with Wallsten, but only with the understanding that the reporter could not reproduce or rebroadcast the images. The journalist had to make a decision: Do I agree to that condition and get to see evidence that no other reporter has seen of Obama meeting with Palestinian Americans? Or do I insist on a full public release of the video, with the likely outcome that the source would share nothing?
...
Well, then, where’s the transcript? Why is it that the source was comfortable divulging the video to theTimes, but not to a less Obama-friendly source like Breitbart News for far more money? Asking theTimesto hand over a transcript, and asking the source to hand over the tape, is far from “fringe.” It’s an attempt to vet a candidate that theTimesclearly had little interest in completely vetting.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
For the past week, many right wing bloggers - including me when I've been able to get on my blog - have been screaming about the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release a videotape in which Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama is present at a going away party for former PLO operative Rashid al-Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia. Even the Left is a bit uncomfortable with the notion of one of their own trying to throw the election, so they have attempted to minimize the impact of the Times' actions by claiming that Khalidi was not a member (Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs) of the PLO in the 70's and 80's, when it was officially a terror organization, or that even if he was, Khalidi is a 'moderate' 'Palestinian' who is being victimized (Hat Tip: Memeorandum) by the McCain - Palin campaign (an astounding ignoring of reality).
