Monday, September 26, 2016

Just a Bit of Anti-Semitism

Note the features of the Jew in this caricature by E.H. Shepard in the UK 'Punch', September 18, 1946:


Sunday, September 25, 2016

Intellectuals or Immoral Dummies?

This letter has been published and is being trumpeted by this Haaretz headline:

Over 70 American Intellectuals Call for 'Targeted Boycott' of Israeli Settlements

We, the undersigned, oppose an economic, political, or cultural boycott of Israel itself as defined by its June 4, 1967, borders. We believe that this 1967 armistice line, the so-called Green Line, should be the starting point for negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian parties on future boundaries between two states. To promote such negotiations, we call for a targeted boycott of all goods and services from all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, and any investments that promote the Occupation, until such time as a peace settlement is negotiated between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.
We further call upon the US government to exclude settlements from trade benefits accorded to Israeli enterprises, and to strip all such Israeli entities in the West Bank from the tax exemptions that the Internal Revenue Service currently grants to American nonprofit tax-exempt organizations. The objects of our call are all commercial and residential Israeli-sponsored entities located outside the 1967 Green Line. It is our hope that targeted boycotts and changes in American policy, limited to the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, will encourage all parties to negotiate a two-state solution to this long-standing conflict.

My comments: 

a.  On June 4, 1967, Israel did not include the Western Wall or any other portion of the Old City where there was a Jewish population for centuries that had been ethnically cleansed.  They really uphold Israel redividing its capital? Jerusalem is a "settlement"?

b.  If there is no action called against the Palestinian Authority, only Israel is considered by these intellectuals as "guilty". That is an immoral position. To disregard the terror, the support of terror and the incitement, for example, is dumb.

They are targeting the wrong side.  Why should this boycott encourage the Palestinian Authority to do anything but wait?


Why not boycott something of the Palestinian Authority to encourage them to negotiate after, for example, Netanyahu's construction moratorium?

See here for roots of this letter. And earlier.


Isn't There a Law?

As reported:

A cabinet resolution that will likely be debated this week would require the World Zionist Organization’s Settlement Division to consult with the attorney general over its work plan. Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Uri Ariel objects to the proposal.The coalition agreement signed in 2015 gives Ariel responsibility for the quasi-governmental agency. The Settlement Division has not received state funds for two years, after Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber ruled that the agency was in fact a nongovernmental entity carrying out governmental activities.


According to the Law of the Standing of the WZO/Jewish Agency, a covenant of cooperation is established, among other things, to further the tasks of these two bodies which include:

 הפעולה המעשית של ההסתדרות הציונית העולמית וארגוניה למילוי תפקידיה ההיסטוריים בארץ ישראל

the fulfilment of their historic tasks in Eretz-Israel 

I guess I am just asking?

Judea and Samaria are in Eretz-Yisrael.


Palmach vs. Palmach and What About That Castration?

I caught this in Haaretz this week:

“Have a little sensitivity. Our generation may be nearing the end of the road, but we have children, grandchildren and families,” said Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Horev, 92, on Wednesday.Horev, a Palmach veteran, has joined the Palmach veterans’ protest against a cabinet decision to build a permanent memorial to former minister Rehavam Ze’evi at the national memorial site at Sha’ar Hagai, near Jerusalem – one of the symbols of the Palmach generation and its Harel Brigade.“The Israeli government did a terrible thing; this isn’t wise or fair,” said Horev, who took part in Palmach battles near Jerusalem in the War of Independence.

A "terrible thing"?

Not "wise"?

Not "fair"?

No "sensitivity"?

A little research will reveal something interesting about Horev, who waves about now the banner of "purity of arms".

In 1945 a series of sexual assaults troubled the Jewish inhabitants of Beit She’an Valley [and] motivated the regional commander of the Haganah to react. The suspect was identified shortly after the first incident...[as] Aref Ben Ahmad Esh Sharida, a nineteen year old Arab from Biesan, was arrested, identified [ Amos Nevo, a journalist who interviewed Palmachniks who participated in the operation, identifies the rapist as Mohammad Tawash. This indiscrepancy might be attributed to the fact that the rapist had an accomplice. Amos Nevo, "The Punishment," Yediot Ahronot April 30, 1993]...members of the Palmach, the striking forces of the Haganah, made their own inquiries about the identity and whereabouts of the suspect, and resolved to castrate him (after two more sexual assaults had occurred). The operation was approved by the Palmach’s chief commander, Isaac Sadeh, who decided they should teach a lesson, but not kill. A Palmach unit prepared for the operation. Undercover agents gathered information about the suspect and consulted with a doctor [Mendele of the Kupat Holim Clalit] who instructed them how to use ether and which veins to cut. Disguised as Arabs, they came to the suspect’s house and lured him to come with them to a wadi. Despite the anaesthesia their victim remained confused and active, and was therefore stunned with a club’s blow on his head. The primitive operation was performed with a shaving knife and the veins were tied with a shoe lace...The brutal castration was commemorated in a popular Hebrew song “We castrated you, Mohammed!”...

Two members of the Palmach unit were Yochai Bin-Nu and ... Amos Horev. A book by Gamliel Cohen, “Undercover: The Untold Story of the Palmach’s Undercover Arab Unit,” published by the Ministry of Defense and the Galili Center for Defense Studies, provides more details.

Would Ze'evi had done this?


Friday, September 23, 2016

When Did The Partition Plan of 1947 Become Impotent?

What happened after the November 29, 1947 partition proposal was rejected by the Arabs, diplomatically?

And what possible ramifications were there in the process?

Well, there was U.N. General Assembly Resolution 186Appointment and terms of reference of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine; May 14, 1948

186 (S-2).
The General Assembly
Taking account of the present situation in regard to Palestine,
Strongly affirms its support of the efforts of the Security Council to secure a truce in Palestine and calls upon all Governments, organizations and persons to co-operate in making effective such a truce;

...1. Empowers a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, to be chosen by a (i) Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine; (ii) Assure the protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Palestine; (iii) Promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine;

...Relieves the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.

The Arabs of the former territories of the Mandate of Palestine mst certainly did not do what was asked in that decision.

This was followed by the establishment of a Palestine Conciliation Commission [PCC] in December 1948 but as this article suggests, even before the PCC

Following Israel's emergence, some U.S. officials were openly prepared to jettison the Partition Resolution as obsolete. Philip Jessup, a member of the Policy Planning Staff and the deputy U.S. representative on the Security Council in the summer of 1948, was one of them. He was not the only one who believed that the Resolution was no longer applicable; that its proposal for a Palestinian state and an economic union with Israel was unlikely; and that Israel and the United States would be better served by promoting an increased role for Transjordan's King Abdullah in Palestine.

So, the position that the partition was a dead letter less than a year after it was proposed and cannot be now entered into the diplomatic discourse as, for example, that Jerusalem's fate is till undetermined since the last effective act was its declaration as an international regime, as the US maintains, is contradicted by its own diplomats at that time.


J Street's Wrong Turn

First, J Street goes after Regavim's tax-exemption status.

While the US has consistently opposed illegal settlement expansion, it has allowed Americans to make tax-deductible contributions to groups actively engaged in dispossessing Palestinians of their land and aiding the spread of settlements. Today, we're calling on the Treasury Department to review whether tax-deductible treatment for donations to such groups meet the relevant requirements -- and, if not, to cut off the flow of tax-deductible US dollars...To: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew -  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements are clear about the criteria organizations must meet to benefit from tax-deductible, charitable donations: Their activities must not be “illegal [or] contrary to a clearly defined and established public policy.”

This follows a campaign (see here) which asserts

Support for settlements...contradicts the clearly established, bipartisan US policy of opposition to settlement expansion. Why should US taxpayers subsidize activities expressly designed to oppose and undermine decades of consistent US policy, which are illegal under international conventions signed and ratified by the United States? This is a question we’re asking of the Treasury in an action we launched last week. 
Then, MK Michal Rozin lends support.

As a Member of Knesset, my job is to speak out on behalf of the best interests of my fellow citizens and my country...the settler movement and its powerful allies in the Netanyahu government have been quietly laying the groundwork for annexation in the West Bank’s Area C...This process is led in part by influential right-wing NGOs (like the group Regavim),...Incredibly, Regavim and their fellow settler groups often benefit from tax-free contributions coming from the USA -- even while they actively oppose the two-state solution, undermining key US and Israeli interests.
That’s why J Street has called on the US Treasury Department to review whether the activities of Regavim should make them ineligible to receive tax-free contributions...I’m so grateful to J Street supporters like you, and to all those Jews around the world who love Israel and know that supporting Israelis means standing up for diplomacy and peace -- and speaking out when our government’s policies put our values and security at risk.
Thank you for all that you do,
MK Michal Rozin

But it's based on a lie.

First of all, that "public policy" claim is wrong. it's an administration policy, not public.

Whereas way back in 1978, a legal opinion was expressed by the State Department's legal advisor that activity related to the promoting and facilitating of Jewish civilian residency in the disputed areas of the former Palestine Mandate territories not currently under Israel sovereignty (and let's not forget that all of Jerusalem is still considered as I write by the State Department not to be Israel territory) is

inconsistent with international law.

the arguments are weak and misrepresent international law.  Even a Peace Now resource reveals, as does this one, that most of the US Presidents' words they use avoid the legal aspect as has President Obama as he refers to the communities as "illegitimate'.  Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually admitted the Jewish communities across the Green Line are legal as have many other American political figures and scholars.

This campaign seems to be based on this Nicholas Mirkay article from 2013 and on this one by Amanda Berman in 2010 Already in 2011, Mirkay went after the JNF to the delight of some. And seems he started at this as early as 2008 based on his 2007 paper. (And the NYTimes has pumped it like here in 2010 and see this letter by William H. Welsch Sep 22, 2006). But already, as noted there, it was pointed out that Mirkay and comrades are mixing apples and pears:

“I do not think racial [discrimination] in America, with our own unique history, is the same as the unique situation of Israel and the Palestinians,” Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School

Indeed, as my second point, the challenge to a presumed tax-exemption status must prove a negation of or actions of that organization is does it go againts "fundamental public policy" and "well-defined standards of public policy" as stated clearly here.  It must be shown to be "contrary to well-established and clearly defined public policy." 

As further clarified in IV Scott on Trusts Section 377 (3d ed. 1967):

"A trust cannot be created for a purpose which is illegal. The purpose is illegal ... if the trust tends to induce the commission of crime or if the accomplishment of the purpose is otherwise against public policy.... Where a policy is articulated in a statute making certain conduct a criminal offense, then ..., a trust is illegal if its performance involves such criminal conduct, or if it tends to encourage such conduct." . 
....In determining whether activities of this type are consistent with IRC 501(c)(3), the Service relies on a three-part test. Rev. Rul. 80-278. Such activities will be considered permissible under IRC 501(c)(3) if: (1) The purpose of the organization is charitable; (2) the activities are not illegal, contrary to a clearly defined and established public policy, or in conflict with express statutory restrictions;

One more opinion on this:

The Treasury Department is empowered to enforce "established public policy" with respect to tax-exempt charities.' Under this public policy power, the Treasury has revoked the tax-exempt charitable status of organizations that discriminated against blacksorganizations whose members engaged in civil disobedience against war, and organizations involved in illegal activity. The Treasury interprets its public policy power as applying to any activity that violates clear public policy...The point at which a public policy is sufficiently established for purposes of applying the Treasury's public policy power is unclear...Presently, neither Congress or the United States Supreme Court has decided conclusively whether race-based affirmative action violates public policy.

Besides the obvious, that Jewish resettlement activity in Judea and Samaria is not to be compared to the rest of the examples - which are mainly race-oriented or proven criminal activity but also internal American issues and to extend the IRS power to actions of non-Americans, even if supported by American citizens - it is clear that no illegality is involved.

But more important, American public policy was quite the opposite.  It supported Jewish resettlement activity through the Anglo-American Convention of 1924 when the territory defined as the Jewish national and historic homeland was all the region between the sea and the river.  If it was legal then, it's legal now and as there is no equal sovereign power to Israel who can prove claims to that territory, all this legalese fumfitting (to mutter, splutter and stutter in Yiddish) is just pro-Palestine propaganda (PPP).


Even Mahmoud Abbas Gave His 'Hechsher'

Snapped this a few days ago:

For those whose Hebrew in inadequate, this real estate development offer at "Givat Edumim" proclaims that even Mahmoud Abbas checked and found out that the land does not belong privately to an Arab.

The value of the property will rise greatly, the Mayor of Maaleh Adumim favors the project, there's a government decision in favor of a community at the location which is but 7 kilometers from Jerusalem, etc., etc.

What a sell.

Is it a buy?


Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Shiloh Wine Mention

From Wine Spectator's October 15th issue:

You noticed Shiloh in there?


You Will Be Pilloried, King Abdullah

Thus said Abdullah II, Monarch of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (aka eastern Palestine) in the United Nations yesterday

...Safeguarding Jerusalem is a key concern ... the Holy City; a strategic linchpin not only for my region but for the world. This is a priority for me personally, and for all Muslims. We utterly reject attacks on Muslim and Christian Holy Sites ... and any attempts to alter the historic Muslim, Christian and Arab identity of the Holy City. As the Custodian of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, I will continue my efforts to protect these places, and stand up against all violations of their sanctity, including attempts for temporal and spatial division of Al Aqsa Mosque/Al Haram Al Sharif.

Sir, there are no "attacks" but visits, with Jews being restricted by Israel's governments to tours only, as if Jews had no rights to this holy site.

The only "altering" is the work done by the Waqf funded by you to either destroy, deface or cover-up the Temple Mount's Jewish past or to new construction.

It is you who seek to change the "identity" of the site or falsify it or deny it.

If you do not adhere to the terms of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty which are

Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance...The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace...The Parties will seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance based on shared historic values, and accordingly undertake: to abstain from hostile or discriminatory propaganda against each other, and to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent the dissemination of such propaganda by any organisation or individual present in the territory of either Party;

then you are the one to be pilloried in international forums.



I realized that I need to clarify a point for the newcomers to my blog.

Abdullah refers to sites. That means not only the Haram Courtyard but all over (is that "conquest expansion"?) and as an example here is an item from 2013:

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs Nasser Judeh on Thursday voiced Jordan's total rejection of what has been reported by the media on Israeli plans to expand the Buraq Square in the courtyard of Al Aqsa Mosque in a way that threatens the Islamic monuments.

The Buraq Square is none other than the Western Wall Plaza which is outside the Haram precincts.  That is definitely upsetting any status quo.


Tuesday, September 20, 2016

If Only, President Obama

U.S. President Barack Obama told the United Nations today that

Both sides would benefit if Israel recognised it cannot permanently occupy Palestinian land and if Palestinians rejected incitement and recognised Israel's legitimacy, 

Now, if only the Palestinians recognised that they are actually occupying Jewish land and Israel recognised that incitement is never going to be halted by the Palestinians, there'd be a better base for understanding what the conflict is about and its chances for a negotiated settlement. 

And if Obama had recognised that earlier, well, we wouldn't have had all the problems we did have, unnecessarily.


Add 1777 the Anniversary List

At a conference I attended this morning, an official of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, Asher Fredman, a Senior Coordinator for Diaspora Affairs, made a wonderful presentation.

Referring to the upcoming 2017 which will mark 50 years to the Six Day's War as well as the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, he mentioned other events that took place in a "7" year like the First Zionist Congress, 1897, the Peel Commission Partition Plan, 1937, the UN's Partition scheme, 1947 and Sadat's visit to Israel, 1977.

I have involved myself in this Balfour Centenary since 2012 (my letter to Mr. Netanyahu, in Hebrew, is below* and I have in my files a similar letter to Naftali Bennett from November 2, 2014), especially what I saw happening in England with the Balfour Project..

I was impressed with the change I detected from Asher's words in government policy.

However, there was one other date I wanted to suggest to him to be included: 1777.

In that year occurred the Aliyah to Eretz-Yisrael of the Hassidic leaders. Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Vitebsk (1730-1788) and Avraham Kalisk (1741 - 1810) and with them some 300 immigrants. They set themselves down in Tiberias, where Rabbi Menahem Mendel oversaw the building of a Hassidic synagogue. 

They laid the foundations for what would come to be called the Old Yishuv. Etkes has written that 

Scholars are divided on the question of the causes of this migration. Simon Dubnow connected it to the persecution of hasidim by mitnagedim. According to this explanation, the establishment of a hasidic center in the Land of Israel sought to affirm the standing of Hasidism and refute the claims of its opponents. Israel Halpern maintained that the hasidic immigrants aspired to sanctify themselves with the holiness of the Land of Israel. Ben Zion Dinur, on the other hand, saw the migration as bearing messianic significance. An important element in this debate on the reasons for the hasidic migration was the discovery of a contemporary Karaite source. This source, first discussed in an article by David Assaf, links the hasidic migration to rumors that the Messiah son of David, had appeared in the Land of Israel.

My friend, Mor Altshuler has some important research material.

I also suggest Arie Morgenstern's book.

In any case, 1777 should be included.

כ"ה תשרי תשע"ג
10 באוקטובר 2012

לכבוד מזכיר הממשלה
עו"ד צבי האוזר

הנדון: ציון 100 שנים להצהרת בלפור

שלום רב,

ביום 7 בנובמבר 2017, בעוד חמש שנים, נציין הצהרתו של הלורד בלפור, שעליה מושתת מעמדו של מדינת ישראל במשפט העמים בחלקו הגדול.

אין צורך להפריז על חשיבותו של האירוע הזה, פרי עמלו של הציונות המדינית של הרצל, מה עוד אלא שכבר היום פועלים כוחות אנטי-ציוניים ואנטי-ישראליים לציין את האירוע – בדרכם שלהם (ראה באתר זה:

שוחחתי עם השרים בני בגין ולימור לבנת והם הפנו אותי אליך, אם כי שלחתי אל מזכירות הממשלה פקס לפני חודש ועדיין לא קבלתי תגובה.

האם הממשלה החליטה כבר על הקמת מנהלת 100 שנה להצהרת בלפור?

אם לאו, אני ממליץ על הדבר כולל שיתוף פעולה עם גורמים אחרים כמו ההסתדרות הציונות העולמית אשר יוטלו על המנהלת הזאת משימות מהתוויית הדרך לציין את האירוע ועד לפיקוח על עריכת כנסים, הוצאה לאור של פרסומים, ניהול אתרי מדיה חדשה ועוד ועוד. כמובן, אשמח להיות חלק מהמערך הארגוני הזה.

אשמח להתייחסותך,

ישראל מידד
שילה, ד.נ. אפרים 44830


So, The US State Department Boycotts?

​As reported

U.S. Embassy Accidentally Sends Settlement Wine as Jewish New Year Gift
...the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv sent gift baskets to a number of Israeli organisations, as it does every year. Among the recipients was Peace Now, a group opposed to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank....An embassy official confirmed the baskets had been sent out, saying they were purchased from a vendor who put together the contents, which were not checked before distribution.  "This should in no way be interpreted as a change of our policy on settlements, which is long-standing and clear," the official said.

So...the policy is not to purchase products produced, grown and/or made in the Jewish communities?

Would that be called, er, boycotting "settlement goods"?

To answer "no", you'd have to claim that all that happened was that the Embassy's choice of wine pissed off Peace Now.​  But that doesn't sound like a State Department policy.

I guess they must be engaged in boycotting then (taking his advice?).


Monday, September 19, 2016

The Murder of Avraham Stern in Parliament

In parliamentary question time in Britain's House of Lords, on the subject of "Palestine Terrorism", we have this record for 02 June 1942 

My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.

[The question was as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government when and under what circumstances a Palestinian Jew named Stein or Stern was killed while attempting to escape.]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cranborne has had to leave the House, and he has asked me to make the following statement on his behalf. Abraham Stern, to whom the noble Lord's question presumably refers, was the leader of a secret terrorist organization of Jewish extremists formed in Palestine about the middle of 1940. The Stern group included persons known to have been responsible for the murder of two British police inspectors in 1939, but against whom nothing could be proved, and others concerned in cases either of murder or robbery with violence who have subsequently been convicted.

Soon after the group was formed, its members entered upon a campaign of organized terrorism, primarily with the object of obtaining funds for the furtherance of their 69so-called political programme, which was Fascist in character. In the furtherance of their objectives, they sought to enlist the help of Italy after Italy had entered the war. Steps were taken by the authorities to round up the gang, and the activities of these Jewish terrorists reached their climax in the cold-blooded murder at Tel Aviv in January last of three police officers and the wounding of four others. Vigorous action has since been taken by the police in rounding up members of the gang, and this resulted in the death, while attempting to escape, of Stern himself and of two other terrorists in February last, and in the detention of the principal members of the gang.

LORD WEDGWOOD My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord realizes that the connotation of the words "killed while attempting to escape" is unfortunate. They have a very unfortunate background and, indeed, come from Germany. I hope that that sort of thing is not going to develop in Palestine.

Stern, Yair, was shot dead while his hands were manacled.

Did [Geoffrey Morton] or did he not shoot an unarmed Stern in cold blood? Morton maintained, for the rest of his life that he shot Stern dead because the latter had tried to escape through a window and might have triggered an ‘infernal device’ that would blow everybody in the room up. This version of events was called into question several times in subsequent years. The most damaging testimony came from a fellow policeman, Sergeant Bernard Stamp, who claimed to have been in the room when the shooting took place. According to Bishop, in a statement Morton gave immediately after the event, he acknowledged Stamp’s presence, but years later he denied the sergeant had ever been there. Not long before he died, Stamp said that Morton shot Stern without him having made any attempt to escape, and that any talk of there being an ‘infernal device’ was trumped up nonsense.
And this:

Another policeman, Bernard Stamp, later told Israel Radio that in his judgment, Stern was "killed by the police force, he was unarmed, no chance of escape."


Sunday, September 18, 2016

Not As Good As You Thought It Was

There is a new book out by Goran Adamson entitled The Trojan Horse: A Leftist Critique of Multiculturalism in the West and it provides a lot that will make you comfortable in feeling that all these mew-fangled ideas of multicilturalism and moral relativsm and such are not really that good.

Excerpt from one review:

reason, freedom and individuality – the cornerstones of democracy and civil rights – are being undermined by the ideology of multiculturalism and its elevation of particular identities and rights over universal political freedom.

the methods and theories of multiculturalists are similar to those of right-wing extremists: both want to force reality to conform to their worldview, rather than respond to it as it really is.

parallels between multiculturalism and old-fashioned racial thinking. For instance, as Adamson points out, multicultural ideology makes a fetish, like the racial theories of yore, of ethnic diversity. What matters is not, as Martin Luther King believed, the content of one’s character, but the colour of one’s skin. Common human traits, such as the capacity for abstract thinking, creativity and self-consciousness, are effaced in the name of what divides us. In this sense, multiculturalism is just as fixated on race as the racist thought of the past.

treat[ing] them as individuals who have a basic human need for self-determination; rather, ‘the immigrant’ is an abstract type, a species, a race. Thus the racist implications of multiculturalism loom large despite its ostensible anti-racism. The ‘other’ is presented as either inherently fascinating or as a fragile victim. They are not like us. And in this separation of us from them, racism festers,

universalism and inclusivity of the civil-rights movement appears to the ardent multiculturalist as an embarrassing form of ‘cultural imperialism’.

European liberalism unique, and different to its pre-Enlightenment rivals, Adamson suggests, is that it explicitly attempts to remove questions of moral value from the political sphere

in their eagerness to avoid accusations of racism, left-leaning liberals have abandoned traditionally progressive liberal principles. And, in doing so, they have unwittingly embraced a form of multiculturalism that is deeply ideological and illiberal in its current form.

And from another:

multiculturalism contains numerous intolerant qualities bordering on racism; such as the exotification of the ethnic group, and the thin veil between ethnicity and nationalism. Multiculturalism replaces racism towards other cultures with a fascination and an obsession with the other.

assumption that diversity is anti-racism and that multiculturalism rests on a progressive, tolerant, and egalitarian foundation and finds it deeply troubling that views that contest such thinking are denigrated. On the contrary Adamson asserts that a scientific discussion should allow for the opposite point of view where diversity and racism are two branches of early 19th century political romanticism. By not so doing, Swedish universities have failed in their intellectual mission – the only mission that matters – and descended into ‘mindless trumpeting of Social Democratic pseudo-radicalism’. He concludes that ideas embedded in multiculturalism under whose umbrella diversity falls, have failed concerning the independence of universities in regard to ideological debate and critical thinking. This has undermined the autonomy of lecturers and researchers and ‘infiltrated panels, projects, institutes, faculties, offices, courses and curricula’. The final damning charge is that it has let students down: ‘instead of showing them how to think, it has told them what to think’.