A Second Blood Libel Anti-Semite from Israeli Academia

by Steven Plaut

Yehiam Soreq or Sorek is one of the most openly anti-Semitic "academics" employed in Israeli academia. He teaches at the "Beit Berl" college, associated with the kibbutz movement and the Israeli "labor movement" (the Labor Party and the Histadrut); it is named after the Zionist leader Berl Katsenelson. Sorek teaches history there. He is a vicious anti-Israel extremist, signs all the anti-Israel petitions (here is but one). He differs from the other academic anti-Zionists in Israel mainly in turning out propaganda articles that are much loopier and loonier than those of most of the others – see below. (His web site in Hebrew is here.  It says he has a PhD from South Africa.)

Sorek has now become the SECOND Israeli "academic" to endorse medieval blood libels about Jews supposedly using blood for ritual purposes in the Middle Ages. As you know, Prof. Ariel Toaff from Bar-Ilan University has been making such claims and Bar Ilan University is now under ENORMOUS attack for employing such a person. Toaff yesterday refused to appear before a Knesset committee to answer questions and he may be charged with contempt.

Over the past weeks, numerous people, including myself, have been saying that there is not a single Jew in the world who endorses Toaff's ridiculous "research".  Alas, we were wrong.  There is now one other – Yehiam Sorek. In today's Maariv, he basically endorses Toaff's claims (which Toaff himself is now trying to play down). He proclaims Toaff a brave hero and insists that just as there cannot be smoke without a fire, medieval blood libels against Jews must have some factual basis. Criticism of people like Toaff is as illegitimate, writes Sorek, as similar criticisms against pro-Palestinian propagandists in Israeli academia who write about the "Naqba", the Arab word for catastrophe, favorite nonsense word of the braindead Left when referring to Israel's creation.

Yehiam Sorek's blood libel anti-Semitic screed can be read in Hebrew here.

Ben Dror Yemini, editor of Maariv, dismisses Sorek as a vile anti-Semite and pseudo-academic, in Hebrew here. Ben Dror Yemini writes that it is only a question of time before Sorek discovers that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion also are factually correct and entitled to be taught in Israeli schools.

The director or Beit Berl is Ruthie Gavri at
Phone 972-9-7476302   ruth@beitberl.ac.il

Beit Berl's fax is 972-9-7476340
A form letter on the web for writing Beit Berl is here.

You may also wish to write to the Minister of Education, Yuli Tamir, email info@education.gov.il , make cc to mankal@education.gov.il  and owl@education.gov.il  

Here is an earlier posting of mine on Herr Sorek: 

December 15, 2006
Hannuka Among the Hellenists
By Steven Plaut

Article can be read here.   Sorek's email address is yehiam.sorek@beitberl.ac.il

 

Lawrence of Israel?

by Jack Engelhard

Lovers of Zion who admire the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” can finally stop the guilt. Turns out that T. E. Lawrence was “a serious Zionist,” as revealed by acclaimed British historian Martin Gilbert. This comes to our attention thanks to correspondent Ruthie Blum writing in the Jerusalem Post.

Historian Gilbert found the true Lawrence in researching his book, “Churchill and the Jews,” and terms his find “a surprising archival revelation.”

Lawrence had “a sort of contempt for the Arabs,” according to Gilbert – and here’s what’s really startling: “Lawrence was an advocate of Jewish statehood from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” What’s more, Lawrence “felt that only with a Jewish presence and state would the Arabs ever make anything of themselves.”

Those familiar with the 1962 movie (that hasn’t aged a bit) will recall that Lawrence, as portrayed by Peter O’Toole, was a British officer (Lieutenant-Colonel) who, during World War I, championed the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. He lost himself in the cause to such an extent that General Allenby (Jack Hawkins) asked Colonel Brighton (Anthony Quayle), “Has he gone native?”

Followers of David Lean, the director, consider this his masterpiece, and some consider this a masterpiece above all others in the history of film. Equal credit goes to composer Maurice Jarre for his haunting score, and to screenwriter Robert Bolt for his restrained dialogue – not to mention dialogue that is unstinting and occasionally scathing, even, yes, contemptuous.

Arabs are not spared in this seemingly pro-Arab film. Here’s a line that always comes up as a surprise to viewers who may fear they’re in store for some propaganda, instead of a first-rate work of art, which this is – Lawrence/O’Toole: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous and cruel.”

To the question put to Lawrence, “Can you pass for an Arab in an Arab town?”

Here’s the answer from Bolt’s politically incorrect script: Lawrence/O’Toole: “If one of you will lend me some dirty clothes.”

Also this from Col. Brighton when Lawrence tells him that his guide was killed by an Arab: “Bloody savages.”

This, too, from screenwriter Bolt: “Moses was a prophet and beloved of G-d.”

Fans of the movie, like myself, bypassed the politics to sit back and get swept up in Lean’s glorious imagery. Even DeMille never captured the wilderness so mystically. Lean himself wanted Lawrence trimmed of politics. Lean wasn’t happy with an original script that got bogged down in historical details. He hired Bolt, who turned the screenplay into a character study of Lawrence – as captured in the movie’s refrain, “Who are you?”

Bolt’s screenplay ends with politics indeed, and, in the hands of director Lean, we’re treated to some prophecy. After Lawrence’s Arabs defeat the Turks and arrive victorious in Damascus, the in-fighting begins (tribe against tribe) and chaos reigns, a scenario that’s up to the minute in Gaza.

Historians quibble as to the film’s veracity against the true “revolt in the desert” but most (some?) agree that, allowing for dramatic liberties, this IS the story.

Given the direction by Lean, the script by Bolt, the music by Jarre, and a cast that includes O’Toole, Hawkins, Claude Rains, Quayle, Omar Sharif, Jose Ferrer and Alec Guinness, it’s no wonder that “Lawrence” won seven Academy Awards in 1963, notably Best Picture. The American Film Institute ranks it as fifth best picture of all time.

Those of us who rank this movie number one for its artistry cannot be blamed for imagining those nomads to be our Hebrews. (Except for the savagery and the ending.) Lean’s picture is really about one man’s quest to find himself in a desert as endless as the stars. The immensity of this wilderness causes us to reflect (through the director’s lens) upon our own loneliness and insignificance against the majesty of G-d’s creation. This is the movie’s sub-theme, or, in my view, the primary theme.

“Who Are We?”

Now that we have Lawrence proven to be a “serious Zionist,” we can rewind and start this movie with new eyes.

Taking Revenge in Advance

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

Firing Frauds in Israeli Academia

by Steven Plaut

Anna Nicole Smith Wipes Israel off the News

by Jack Engelhard

People outside the United States, mainly people in Israel, actually believe that we’re worried about what goes on beyond Anna Nicole Smith. Let me be the first to inform the world (are you listening?) that, sure, once in a while, we care about foreign affairs, but mainly it’s Anna Nicole Smith.

Anna Nicole Smith, dying as she did several weeks ago, and thus leaving behind an inheritance that everybody wants, did something that even Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad failed to do – she wiped Israel off the map, so far as news. Click on the TV, scroll to any channel, and here’s the latest not on Iraq, not
Israelis operate on the (dangerous) assumption that their well-being depends on our thumbs up or thumbs down.
on Sudan, certainly not on Israel, but on Anna Nicole Smith. Wall to wall, this coverage.

This is important information, especially for Israelis, who give up 10 miles of territory whenever they think we, in America, are not happy with their behavior. As soon as they think America is displeased, they say, “Okay, what do you want us to give up next?” Anything to make us (and the rest of the world) happy.

Last time I was in Israel, people asked, “Does America love us?”
I guess my answer wasn’t affirmative enough because a day later Israel they gave away Gaza.

Israelis operate on the (dangerous) assumption that their well-being depends on our thumbs up or thumbs down.

They think we’re paying attention, yes, but to Anna Nicole Smith.

In a moment, I will update the world on what else is hot here in America, on the news front, but meanwhile, let’s get back to Anna Nicole Smith. Anna Nicole Smith was an actress. No, wait. Not exactly. Anna Nicole Smith was a TV star. Well, not that, either. I give up. I really don’t know what she was.

Trust me, though. Nearly everybody claims to be the father of her baby – because of the inheritance. Did I mention that she once married a 90-year-old billionaire?

Now everybody claims to be the father. Barack Obama claims to be the father, as does Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards and John McCain and even Hillary Clinton.

Mitt Romney is the latest to claim fathership. Oh dear, my mistake. These are people running for president.

Never mind. That’s what happens when all the news is about Anna Nicole Smith, but not totally. There’s been other news.

Before Anna Nicole Smith, we were obsessed round-the-clock and round-the-dials with a jealous lady astronaut who wanted to send a romantic rival to the moon with one punch. This story was big at the time but it’s old now so there’s no sense in recapping, except that there’s always more on this if you tune in Greta or Geraldo, both of whom, incidentally, are also on top of the Anna Nicole Smith saga, naturally.

Before all that? Are you kidding me? Before all that we had the Super Bowl. For weeks leading up to this we had experts, across all the dials, discussing the commercials, the half-time show, and even the game. Like everyone else in America, I watched the game. Please don’t ask me who played. All I remember is that one team won, the other team lost.

But now, all that’s done, so we can really concentrate on Anna Nicole Smith.

To my friends in Israel, listen, please don’t be so quick to give up any more territory. You’re not doing us any favors and we have more important business.

We’ll get back to you after we’re done with Anna Nicole Smith, if that ever happens.

One more quick note. Canvass any street in America and, I’ll bet, only one person in 10 can name the prime minister of Israel – you know, what’s his name.