dumb and dumber?

This is funny. While the Arabs will stop at nothing in their bid to remove Israel from the map and the Jewish people from this planet, our own Australian diaspora is still hiding under their beds, even though the Australian government is not the one to mince words when it comes to denouncing the islamization of the civilized world in general, and of Australia in particular.

Facts on the Ground: Archeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society.” To see that her analysis of “archaeological practice” has nothing to do with anthropological or archaeological analysis, and is just your run-of-the-mill anti-Israel rhetoric, masquerading as junk research.
Her analysis of Israeli society determines that it is a "settler-colonial community", and has “invented” an ancient history in the region by the use of archeology.
She attempts to demonstrate how "(social) science generates facts or phenomena, which refigure what counts as true or real,” and concludes that the "existence of the ancient Israelite and Hebrew kingdoms should be considered “a pure political fabrication.”
Historians are appalled by her junk research.
“El-Haj is not a practicing archaeologist. She hardly knows the Hebrew in which many Israeli archaeological debates are conducted. She has taken part in very few actual digs. Yet she confidently condemns Israeli archaeology as a tool of the Zionists. With only gossip to go on, she accuses one archaeologist of bulldozing non-Jewish strata to get to the levels that might offer details about ancient Israel. Bizarrely, she then concludes her book by reversing herself on such desecration, asking us to "understand" sympathetically the Palestinian mob that destroyed Joseph’s Tomb on October 8, 2000. I guess it all depends on whose narrative is being bulldozed.” Jonathan Burack, The Family Security Foundation, December 28, 2006

Archaeologists have criticized her book harshly:
The dean of Middle Eastern archeology, William Dever of the University of Arizona, “who has authored more than 20 books on Middle East History, said Ms. Abu El-Haj seems intent on writing Jews out of ancient Middle East history, and demonizing a generation of apolitical Israeli archaeologists in the process. Barnard should deny Ms. Abu El-Haj tenure, he said, ‘not because she's Palestinian or pro-Palestinian or a leftist, but because her scholarship is faulty, misleading and dangerous.’ ” Campus Watch

"At the heart of her critique is an undisguised political agenda that regards modern and ancient Israel, and perhaps Jews as a whole, as fictions… "Abu El Haj's anthropology is undone by her... ill-informed narrative, intrusive counter-politics, and by her unwillingness to either enter or observe Israeli society... "The effect is a representation of Israeli archaeology that is simply bizarre... Filling in what is missing from her text becomes fatiguing. In the end there is no reason to take her picture of Israeli archaeology seriously, since her selection bias is so glaring… "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided." Alexander H. Joffe, Lecturer in Archaeology, Purchase College, SUNY Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago: Oct 2005. Vol. 64, Iss. 4; p. 297

"Perhaps the most astonishing part of the book is a discussion on the last page of the text (p. 281). Abu el-Haj describes and condones the attack, and subsequent ransacking, by a Palestinian mob on what is known as "Jacob's Tomb" in Nablus in 2001. Several people were killed as a result of this attack; the gleeful tone in which she describes this act of vandalism exemplifies how her political agenda completely overcame her duties as a social scientist… "This book is the result of faulty and ideologically motivated research. One can but wonder how the 1995 dissertation on which it is based was authorized at Duke University and how a respected publisher like the University of Chicago Press could have published such unsubstantiated work.”
Maeir, Aren, Professor of Archaeology, Bar Ilan University, Isis, volume 95 (2004), pages 523–524, Solomonia Blog

It’s ironic that while supposedly advocating archeology, Abu el-Haj indelibly aligns herself with the Palestinians, who have absolutely no regard or respect for Biblical archeology whatsoever. Doing everything in their power to destroy the archaeological remnants from the Temple Mount, Palestinians dug out a huge underground Mosque in the “Solomon's Stables” area of the Temple Mount, and proceeded to destroy and dump everything they could find of historic significance, while repeating the mantra, “There were never any Jewish Temples in Jerusalem.”
As Arab mobs riot these days over Israel's attempts to rebuild a bridge to the Temple Mount and the to excavate outside the Mugrabi Gate (and therefore, outside the Temple Mount complex and Mosques), one has to wonder why Barnard College is demeaning itself by offering tenure to junk academics, bent on the denying the legitimacy of the Jewish State.
Are you an alum of Barnard or Columbia?
Why not drop an email to Barnard College President, Judith Shapiro, (jshapiro@Barnard.Edu) or Columbia College President Lee Bollingermailto:Bollinger@columbia.edu) and let them know that tenure for Nadia Abu El Haj degrades your alma mater.
Know someone who studied at Barnard or Columbia who values academic research integrity? Send them a link to this posting.
Universities are research institutions, and politics can and should play a role in formulating opinion. Yet when academic research is corrupted to that point that anti-Israel junk-academia peddlers are eligible for tenure at Ivy League schools, I think we need to take a step back and ensure that research at our universities remains free of the likes of Nadia Abu El Haj.
Pass it on.
Jameel.
PS...
Marilyn Chin '74
Director of Barnard Alumnae Affairs
(212) 854-2005
mchin@barnard.edu
Derek Wittner '65
Dean of Alumni Affairs and Development
(212) 870-2741
daw8@columbia.edu
Office of the President, Judith Shapiro
109 Milbank Hall,Tel: (212) 854-2021

NATIONAL (February 16, 2007)
AIJAC 'dumps' scholar over Muslim remarks
JASON FRENKEL with MELISSA SINGER
THE Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) has withdrawn its support for a visiting Israeli expert on Islam who earlier this week urged Australia to cap its intake of Muslim immigrants. (but then so did your PM)
AIJAC executive director Dr Colin Rubenstein issued a statement on Friday distancing the organisation, which has partly sponsored Hebrew University Professor Raphael Israeli's six-week Australian visit, from the academic's claims that “life will become untenable” unless the Muslim population is kept in check. (Cowards!)
Professor Israeli said Australia was in danger of being swamped by Muslims – especially from Indonesia – and called for a “preventative policy” to protect national security and ensure Muslims remained a “marginal minority”.
But Dr Rubenstein rejected Professor Israeli's "implication that the Muslim community as a whole is a threat or danger". (Right, they are a blessing in disguise).
"Islamist extremism is a genuine and serious global problem, but it is completely wrong to single out all Muslims for suspicion or negatively stereotype the Muslim community as a whole in this way." (Of course not, it's just almost every single individual, not the ENTIRE comunity).
Dr Rubenstein said AIJAC had censured Professor Israeli over the "unacceptable and unhelpful" remarks, and "will not be co-hosting any of his further appearances in Australia". (Your loss, not his, see below - if anyone knows anything about islam, he's the one).
Professor Israeli had just begun a stint as a scholar-in-residence at the Shalom Institute in Sydney, where he is teaching a course on “Understanding Islam”.
Shalom Institute CEO Hilton Immerman said that while Professor Israeli's views do not necessarily represent those of the Shalom Institute, which "rejects any form of racial stereotyping or ethnic quotas", the course would proceed. (Freedom of speech).
An author of 20 books on the Muslim, Arab and Chinese worlds, he was also scheduled to give talks in Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and New Zealand. However, Dr Rubenstein told the AJN that he was unsure whether the talks would go ahead given that AIJAC had withdrawn its support. (Perhaps they should invite and endorse a muslim cleric to explain to them how they are apes, dogs, donkeys, etc.)
In an interview with the AJN, Professor Israeli said radical Islam would not be defeated by a war of words. (Of course not, remember what it took to drive them out of Spain, or what it cost the Balkans to rid themselves of the Ottoman Empire).
“You have to infiltrate all those circles where the Muslim radicals operate, to arrest them, and to limit immigration into western countries where these Muslims, who are bent on destroying western civilisation ... to limit immigration, even students who apply to come from Islamic countries to the West,” he said.
“It serves no purpose when you have this home-grown terrorist, who has been preparing for years to blow up undergrounds in London, and all you do is lead a war of words. The war of words doesn’t help. There is a whole gamut of actions that are possible in order to check this threat of Islam.”
Citing France, where Muslims comprise about nine per cent of the population, as an example, Professor Israeli warned growing Muslim communities could change the political, economic, and cultural fabric of a country. (And how is this not true? Have you not heard of Ilan Halimi? and how his vile murderers appear to have been connected to the Hamas?)
“You have to adopt some kind of preventative policy. In order not to get there, limit the immigration and therefore you keep them a marginal minority, which will be a nuisance, but cannot pose a threat to the demographic and security aspects of a country.”
But Islamic Council of Victoria director Waleed Aly branded the comments “ill-advised and foolish” and said Professor Israeli didn’t understand Australia. (Perhaps, I dare say he understands a thing or two about islam).
“It is clearly possible in the current environment to say things about Muslims that you simply cannot say about anyone else,” Aly said. (Really? when muslims take to the streets and threaten to behead everybody who offends them, their prophet, their god, their quran, their religion, their this and that and the other thing? When they riot and burn flags?)
“The fundamental problem at the heart of this is that he seems to be suggesting that increased marginalisation of Muslim populations will somehow produce something other than mutual resentment. It should be obvious to anyone really that it’s doomed to failure.”
Officially, there are fewer than 300,000 Muslims in Australia according to the 2001 Census, but Islamic community officials estimate the actual number to be at least 500,000 – about 2.5 per cent of the population.
“Even though it’s so low, they are so vocal, and they make so much noise,” Professor Israeli said. “And therefore the situation has to be checked before they increase their numbers, because don’t forget in your immediate proximity dwells the largest or most populous Islamic country in the world [Indonesia], and by necessity, there is demographic pressure from there to channel the surplus of populations to wherever it’s possible.“
And one of the big possibilities is Australia, so they will continue to come legally, or illegally, and settle here, and when they get to the rate of the 10 per cent like in France, then you will see life will become untenable.”He said France might already be at the “point of no return”. (Unfortunately, France is not the only one).
“Then they control whole sections of the economy, there are areas in France where you cannot be elected to Parliament without the support of the Muslims and so on. And therefore, by increasing their numbers they start to have an impact on the social, economic, political and cultural nature of the country.” (There are areas in France where the police are afraid to go in).
He warned that radical Muslims would find it easier to “melt” into the community and plan terrorist acts without scrutiny from authorities if the growth of Australia’s Muslim population was allowed to continue.
“You will have then large concentrations of Muslims, so it’s not thousands, it will be millions, and when they become millions it’s a big mass where individual Muslims, including terrorists, can melt, and then go look for them. (Especially when they wear a burqa).
“In England they already have that problem, they cannot locate them, they cannot sort them out from the general population, and sometimes you have to impose a curfew on a whole area to catch one or two or three terrorists, and by doing that you do an injustice to an entire population, and then they start complaining that they are discriminated against.”
Immigrant Muslims had a reputation for manipulating the values of their adopted countries to suit their own ends, he said.
“And that’s why Islam has become feared in western countries, which are open, democratic, and tolerant of others. And Muslim populations, which are very often minorities, very often abuse that hospitality and use democracy, openness and tolerance to their benefit, to spread their faith and to intimidate their hosts, and very often, to impose their standards and values upon them.”

(Sure, just take a look at this little baby):

Western Values in Danger
The goal of militant and imperialist Islam is absolute grandiose and global. The first step to world supremacy is to turn Europe into a Eurabia. The methods are not by armies, but combinations of oil, emigration, fertility, exploitation of tolerance and democracy, spread of fear, uninhibited terrorism, and millenial patience.
So far, Europe has been asleep. A confused continent, without a gathering purpose, and without sustainable integration policies, is at a loss what to do.
The Euro-Arab “bridge-building measures” are self-deceiving, as long as there is only one-way traffic on the bridge.
The author maintains the United States the only power in the world that may secure the world’s free nations. He is discussing the growing anti-Americanism in Europe, a phenomenon evolving despite America’s role as a guaranteeing force for democracy and freedom. Anti-American sleepwalkers do not see that if the American way goes down the drain, Europe will follow.
Hallgrim Berg attacks international leftism, which is constantly marketing twisted stereotypes of America, and is also criticizing the feebleness of European politicians, particularly France, where hypocrisy is developed into mastery.
Challenged by the most comprising and hard-core totalitarianism the world has seen, the only hope for Western democracy, culture, and our way of living is a more confident cooperation and pooling of resources among European nations and the United States.
About the author: Hallgrim Berg (61); Ph.D. in modern history from the University of Oslo; Member of Norway’s Parliament (1981- 97); Main Spokesman for the Conservative Party in matters of Culture and Media; Chairman of the European Democrat Group at the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg (1992-98); self-employed businessman in his native Hallingdal Valley; free-lance writer and entertainer in fields of folklore, music and story-telling.)