We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to: Ber Lazarus, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 – Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284; E-mail: ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
Download today's Isranet Daily Briefing.pdf
Download an abbreviated version of today's Isranet Daily Briefing.pdf
How to Turn a Campus Into an Indoctrination Center: Barry Rubin, Jewish Press, Sept. 27, 2013—If you want to understand how the far left controls campuses, consider this story. There is no university more supportive of the Arab nationalist (historically), Islamist, and anti-Israel line in the United States than Georgetown's programs on Middle East studies.
Israel at Center of Censorship Controversies in Canadian Universities: Spencer Ho, Times of Israel, Sept. 25, 2013 —Over half of Canada’s universities fail to adequately protect free speech and the Arab-Israeli conflict looms large over these failures, a study released Tuesday claims.
After Told He’s Racist, UW-M Student Rejects Further Diversity ‘Training’: Jennifer Kabbany, College Fix, Sept. 23, 2013 —Jason Morgan, a University of Wisconsin-Madison student earning his doctorate there, has told his supervisor he objects to the school’s mandated diversity training for teaching assistants (TAs) because leaders of the first session he attended essentially called him – and the whole class – racist.
Jews in the US: Editorial, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 2, 2013—The newly released Pew Research Center survey on the US Jewish community reveals important trends. However, claims that it shows a “massive” or “major” shift in American Jewry should be weighed carefully against the larger historical picture.
On Topic Links
Shalom Yoran, Jewish Resistance Fighter, Dies at 88: William Yardley,New York Times, Sept. 16, 2013
The Write Stuff: ADL Sends a Message to Northeastern: Charles Jacobs, The Jewish Advocate, September 26, 2013
Calif. College Professor Hands Out Middle East Map — but Something Big Is Missing : Sharona Schwartz, The Blaze
September 17, 2013
HOW TO TURN A CAMPUS INTO AN INDOCTRINATION CENTER
Barry Rubin
Jewish Press, Sept. 29, 2013
If you want to understand how the far left controls campuses, consider this story. There is no university more supportive of the Arab nationalist (historically), Islamist, and anti-Israel line in the United States than Georgetown's programs on Middle East studies. Every conference it holds on the Middle East is ridiculously one-sided. The university has received millions of dollars in funds from Arab states, and it houses the most important center in the United States that has advocated support for a pro-Islamist policy.
One day in 1975, not long before he died, the great Professor Carroll Quigley walked up to me when I was sitting in the Georgetown University library. Everyone was in awe of this brilliant lecturer (remind me to write him a tribute explaining why he was so great).
[In fact the classroom where Carroll Quigley taught his main class was Gaston Hall, where decades latest Obama demanded to cover up the cross before he spoke there! What would this pious Catholic have said!]
I thought he might have remembered me from my extended explanation of why I was late for class one day because I had rescued a sparrow and taken it to a veterinarian (true). I vividly recall that detail, because I couldn't think otherwise why he would want to talk to such a lowly person.
“May I sit down?” he asked.
“Of course!” I said, stopping myself from adding that it was an honor. Without any small talk, he launched into a subject that clearly weighed on his conscience. “There are many who don’t like your people.”
What was he talking about? I thought, is he talking about Jews?
He explained that he had just come from a meeting where it was made clear that the university had a problem. They were getting Arab money, but on the secret condition that it was for teaching about the Middle East but none of it could be used to teach about Israel. How was this problem to be solved?
Simple. They would call the institution to be created the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. It was explicitly expressed that this was how the problem would be dealt with. Quigley was disgusted. Ever since then, I have referred to that institution as the Center for Contemporary Arab Money.
Georgetown was the place where the university accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi–who was, of course, very active in promoting anti-American terrorism–to establish an endowed chair in Middle East studies. When the president of the university backed down due to bad publicity, the professor who had been named to the post responded by calling the Jesuit university president a “Jesuit Zionist.”
This same professor–and I am not joking in saying that compared to today, he was a fine scholar and a comparatively decent man given what goes on now–was also a personal friend of Palestinian terrorist leader Nayif Hawatmeh and an outspoken Marxist.
To his credit, he told me in 1974 on a visit of mine to Lebanon, “One day we will be ashamed of all the terrorism [against Israel].” But I don’t think he ever spoke out publicly. At my Ph.D. oral exams, he said something like this as his question: “I don’t care whether you believe it or not, but give the Marxist analysis of development in the Middle East.” He did not ask me to critique it! As a Marxist, atheist though, the son of a Muslim imam, he did participate in the traditional glass of scotch after they passed me. And they did pass me, something I would never assume might happen today. These professors really did believe in scholarship and balance in the classroom.
Another professor (you can guess I was sure he was not on my board), however, was an example of the new generation of indoctrinators. One day, I was standing in the line in the campus post office shortly after I had clashed with him in class. The two girls I could overhear were talking about the disturbing incident in class. To my relief, they took my side. I guess that, too, wouldn't happen today.
This teacher’s radicalism and knee-jerk hatred of Israel was so terrible that we used to joke about it. A right-wing Zionist in the class did an experiment. He wrote an exaggerated version of a Marxist, anti-Israel rant. It read like a satire. He got an “A” from this professor. In retrospect, however, we should have seen that the field was getting far worse.
Ironically that professor was the unjust victim recipient of his own doctrine. He was later fired on a complaint by an African student that he was a racist, which of course he wasn't.
In one graduate seminar, still another professor–an older anti-Israel guy but still a conservative and a gentleman of the old school–couldn't stop the class from laughing as it discussed the ridiculous new book, Orientalism, by Edward Said. We easily pointed out the holes in the book and Said’s claims of perpetual Western bias against Arabs. We looked at Orientalism itself as outdated but respectable, too anthropological and generalizing for our tastes. We looked at ourselves as historians and social scientists.
But the idea that Orientalists were agents of imperialism was untrue. They were great scholars, though some did do political work in which their views weren't shaped but often mistakenly implemented, just like such things happen today. Who would have believed that this ignorant and malicious book could ever take over the entire field and destroy scholarship?!
I guess we should have also known better from the fate of the professor who I had openly argued with. He was the new-style leftist referred to above, the kind who is typical today. While I disliked him, he was clearly not a racist but the very model of the new Politically Correct falsifier. He was fired after being accused by an African student of alleged racial bias due to his low grade. No kidding. This professor was obviously not racist, a victim though of his own Political Correctness.
I didn't feel this was a victory but that he had been mistreated, albeit ironically. I faced similar situations. I will never forget how my job interview at another university, the only time I ever applied for a teaching position, was interrupted by one professor screaming at me, “How could you ever possibly represent the narrative of the Palestinian people?” To which I responded that I didn’t think I was supposed to represent its case, clearly. I merely thought I was supposed to teach about it.
Note that the professor who would have been willing to hire me was an Arab liberal. But he tried to hint to my naive younger self why I didn't have a chance.
You should understand that at that time, in the early 1980s, I had never written about the Arab-Israeli conflict. And although this professor had me in his Arabic class, I don’t think he remembered me and certainly knew nothing about me. I think the problem was my last name. All of this reminiscing is prompted by a news story I just read.
An Arab professor at Georgetown, a place that is flush with Arab money, full of apologists for anti-American Islamism, a place where no Israeli or pro-Israel student might dare to tread, has just launched a campaign claiming that he was discriminated against and fired for anti-Israel bias! So this is how you handle things. You lie.
Take over the university or relevant departments; spend 30 years or more in biased hiring practices and dishonest, propagandist “scholarship;” and no matter how many insiders know the truth, you still claim that the university is biased against the left and the defamers of America and Israel!
And those who don’t know better may believe it. The problem for this Egyptian professor is that there was no organized campaign against him, and no one outside the university knew who he was. The fact is that his scholarly work wasn't very good. Highly politicized, though obscure media appearances are still not sufficient to demonstrate research excellence.
You could call this the Juan Cole principle after a radical professor whose radical pronouncements on contemporary Middle East issues were frequent–though he was a specialist on Middle Ages religious disputes–and who missed out on a good job (at Duke) because of his lack of scholarly work, then claimed bias.
It was sufficient in a notorious case at Columbia University for a crackpot extremist to get a promotion but not at Duke University. At any rate, we now see that crying bias is the first refuge of scoundrels. The real victims never get far enough along in the process for them to build a case and can never muster support from a biased media either.
Contents
ISRAEL AT CENTER OF CENSORSHIP
CONTROVERSIES IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES
Spencer Ho
Times of Israel, Sept. 25, 2013,
Over half of Canada’s universities fail to adequately protect free speech and the Arab-Israeli conflict looms large over these failures, a study released Tuesday claims.
The Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms graded 45 schools in its 2013 Campus Freedom Index, and 23 of the schools received at least one failing grade. The study evaluated and assigned two letter grades, A-F, to the administration and student union of each university, one based on their policies and the other on their practices.
Instances of censorship relating to Israel, such as Israel Apartheid Week and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, were reported at 12 of the universities and were detrimental to their grades in a number of circumstances.
McGill University received an F, tying it with seven schools for second worst in the country. In 2012, the Students’ Society of McGill University told the student group McGill Friends of Israel that they had to change the name of their Israel A-Party event because executives felt it made “a mockery and/or trivialization of various oppressions some people of the world are subject to on a day-to-day basis.” The event was designed to be a counter to Israel Apartheid Week, an annual nationwide event that seeks to promote labeling Israel as apartheid.
Co-author of the study Michael Kennedy said that it was a particularly glaring transgression, considering the university permitted Israel Apartheid week events to take place without protest, according to The Gazette, a Montreal-based newspaper.
“They should have allowed it,” he said. “It was very micro-managing to allow one and not the other.”
He added that free speech is in danger at universities across the country.
“You have universities that cancel events organized by student groups because the ideas they’re discussing are too controversial, and you have student unions who deny certification to student groups based on their views as well.”
President of McGill’s Post-Graduate Students’ Society Jonathan Mooney, however, said that these decisions are not so simple because students have differing opinions on how far universities should go in protecting free speech.
“It is challenging to strike a balance,” he told the Gazette. “The difficulty is that deciding what is unacceptable can be a subjective exercise, while acting to restrict speech merely because it is offensive to one individual could shut down the free exchange of ideas in a university setting.”
Also tied for second worst was the University of Manitoba Student Union Council, due in part a decision on April 11 of this year to pass a resolution remove official student group status from Students Against Israeli Apartheid, and to ban the club from UMSU spaces, because the group’s annual Israeli Apartheid Week event discriminates against “Zionists.”
Other schools that received failing grades over issues relating to Israel included Wilfrid Laurier University, Guelph University, University of Ottawa and University of York.
However, the study also lauded several universities for protecting free speech in their handling of Israel-related controversies.
In May 2009, former Israeli political advisor Dr. Josef Olmert was scheduled to speak at an event, and in anticipation of hecklers, the university warned students that students that interrupted Olmert in an inappropriate manner would face disciplinary actions by the university.
“STU’s pre-emptive action to ensure Olmert’s lecture could proceed without incident is testament to the school’s commitment to free speech,” the report stated.
The University of Regina was one of three universities to earn an A for protecting free speech. In 2011, the university partnered with the City of Regina for a lecture series called Profs in the Park and the university rejected demands that one of its professors change the topic of her speech, entitled ‘Solidarity with Palestine: The case for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel.’
“The University … defended the right of professors and citizens to express unpopular views,” the study said.
The University of Toronto and Ryerson University also were praised in the report for promoting open discussion and exchange of views by withstanding pressure from Jewish groups to cancel events with controversial speakers.
AFTER TOLD HE’S RACIST, UW-M STUDENT
REJECTS FURTHER DIVERSITY ‘TRAINING’
Jennifer Kabbany
College Fix, Sept. 23, 2013
Jason Morgan, a University of Wisconsin-Madison student earning his doctorate there, has told his supervisor he objects to the school’s mandated diversity training for teaching assistants (TAs) because leaders of the first session he attended essentially called him – and the whole class – racist.
What’s more, the next session – on how to support transgender students – is something Morgan said he cannot support, as it runs in direct contradiction to his religious beliefs.
The letter, sent by email Sept. 22, states all new TAs in the university’s history department are required to attend one orientation session, two training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Morgan, in his letter, called the first of the two diversity sessions, held Friday, “an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, ‘re-education’) entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.”
Below Morgan’s letter has been reproduced in its entirety. Morgan, a College Fix contributor, also sent copies of the letter to various Wisconsin news outlets:
Dear Graduate Director Prof. Kantrowitz,
Please forgive this sudden e-mail. I am writing to you today about the “diversity” training that new teaching assistants (TAs) are required to undergo. In keeping with the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea, I am also blind-copying on this e-mail several journalistic outlets and state government officials, because the taxpayers who support this university deserve to know how their money is being spent.
As you are probably aware, all new TAs in the History Department are required to attend one orientation session, two TA training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Yesterday (Friday, September 20th), we new TAs attended the first of the diversity sessions. To be quite blunt, I was appalled. What we were given, under the rubric of “diversity,” was an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, “re-education”) entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and students at probably every other public institution of higher education in this country, have long since grown accustomed to incessant leftism. It is in the very air that we breathe. Bascom Hill, for example, is roped off and the university is shut down so that Barack Obama (D), Mark Pocan (D), and Tammy Baldwin (D) can deliver campaign speeches before election day. (The university kindly helped direct student traffic to these campaign events by sending out a mass e-mail encouraging the student body to go to the Barack Obama for President website and click “I’m In for Barack!” in order to attend.) Marxist diatribes denouncing Christianity, Christians, the United States, and conservatives (I am happy to provide as many examples of this as might be required) are assigned as serious scholarship in seminars.
The Teaching Assistants Association (TAA)–which sent out mass e-mails, using History Department list-servs, during the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker, accusing Gov. Walker of, among other things, being “Nero”–is allowed to address TA and graduate student sessions as a “non-partisan organization”. The History Department sponsors a leftist political rally, along with the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, and advertises for the rally via a departmental e-mail (sent, one presumes, using state computers by employees drawing salaries from a state institution). In short, this university finds it convenient to pretend that it is an apolitical entity, but one need not be particularly astute to perceive that the Madison campus is little more than a think tank for the hard left. Even those who wholeheartedly support this political agenda might in all candor admit that the contours of the leftism here are somewhat less than subtle.
At the “diversity” training yesterday, though, even this fig leaf of apoliticism was discarded. In an utterly unprofessional way, the overriding presumption of the session was that the people whom the History Department has chosen to employ as teaching assistants are probably racists. In true “diversity” style, the language in which the presentation was couched was marbled with words like “inclusive”, “respect”, and “justice”. But the tone was unmistakably accusatory and radical. Our facilitator spoke openly of politicizing her classrooms in order to right (take revenge for?) past wrongs. We opened the session with chapter-and-verse quotes from diversity theorists who rehearsed the same tired “power and privilege” cant that so dominates seminar readings and official university hand-wringing over unmet race quotas. Indeed, one mild-mannered Korean woman yesterday felt compelled to insist that she wasn’t a racist. I never imagined that she was, but the atmosphere of the meeting had been so poisoned that even we traditional quarries of the diversity Furies were forced to share our collective guilt with those from continents far across the wine-dark sea.
It is hardly surprising that any of us hectorees would feel thusly. For example, in one of the handouts that our facilitator asked us to read (“Detour-Spotting: for white anti-racists,” by joan olsson [sic]), we learned things like, “As white infants we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda,” “…there was no escaping the daily racist propaganda,” and, perhaps most even-handed of all, “Racism continues in the name of all white people.” Perhaps the Korean woman did not read carefully enough to realize that only white people (all of them, in fact) are racist. Nevertheless, in a manner stunningly redolent of “self-criticism” during the Cultural Revolution in communist China, the implication of the entire session was that everyone was suspect, and everyone had some explaining to do.
You have always been very kind to me, Prof. Kantrowitz, so it pains me to ask you this, but is this really what the History Department thinks of me? Is this what you think of me? I am not sure who selected the readings or crafted the itinerary for the diversity session, but, as they must have done so with the full sanction of the History Department, one can only conclude that the Department agrees with such wild accusations, and supports them. Am I to understand that this is how the white people who work in this Department are viewed? If so, I cannot help but wonder why in the world the Department hired any of us in the first place. Would not anyone be better?
There is one further issue. At the end of yesterday’s diversity “re-education,” we were told that our next session would include a presentation on “Trans Students”. At that coming session, according to the handout we were given, we will learn how to let students ‘choose their own pronouns’, how to correct other students who mistakenly use the wrong pronouns, and how to ask people which pronouns they prefer (“I use the pronouns he/him/his. I want to make sure I address you correctly. What pronouns do you use?”). Also on the agenda for next week are “important trans struggles, as well as those of the intersexed and other gender-variant communities,” “stand[ing] up to the rules of gender,” and a very helpful glossary of related terms and acronyms, to wit: “Trans”: for those who “identify along the gender-variant spectrum,” and “Genderqueer”: “for those who consider their gender outside the binary gender system”. I hasten to reiterate that I am quoting from diversity handouts; I am not making any of this up.
Please allow me to be quite frank. My job, which I love, is to teach students Japanese history. This week, for example, I have been busy explaining the intricacies of the Genpei War (1180-1185), during which time Japan underwent a transition from an earlier, imperial-rule system under regents and cloistered emperors to a medieval, feudal system run by warriors and estate managers. It is an honor and a great joy to teach students the history of Japan. I take my job very seriously, and I look forward to coming to work each day.
It is most certainly not my job, though, to cheer along anyone, student or otherwise, in their psychological confusion. I am not in graduate school to learn how to encourage poor souls in their sexual experimentation, nor am I receiving generous stipends of taxpayer monies from the good people of the Great State of Wisconsin to play along with fantasies or accommodate public cross-dressing. To all and sundry alike I explicate, as best I can, such things as the clash between the Taira and the Minamoto, the rise of the Kamakura shogunate, and the decline of the imperial house in twelfth-century Japan. Everyone is welcome in my classroom, but, whether directly or indirectly, I will not implicate myself in my students’ fetishes, whatever those might be. What they do on their own time is their business; I will not be a party to it. I am exercising my right here to say, “Enough is enough.” One grows used to being thought a snarling racist–after all, others’ opinions are not my affair–but one draws the line at assisting students in their private proclivities. That is a bridge too far, and one that I, at least, will not cross.
I regret that this leaves us in an awkward situation. After having been accused of virulent racism and, now, assured that I will next learn how to parse the taxonomy of “Genderqueers”, I am afraid that I will disappoint those who expect me to attend any further diversity sessions. When a Virginia-based research firm came to campus a couple of years ago to present findings from their study of campus diversity, then-Diversity Officer Damon Williams sent a gaggle of shouting, sign-waving undergraduates to the meeting, disrupting the proceedings so badly that the meeting was cancelled. In a final break with such so-called “diversity”, I will not be storming your office or shouting into a megaphone outside your window. Instead, I respectfully inform you hereby that I am disinclined to join in any more mandatory radicalism. I have, thank God, many more important things to do. I also request that diversity training be made optional for all TAs, effective immediately. In my humble opinion, neither the Department nor the university has any right to subject anyone to such intellectual tyranny.
JEWS IN THE U.S.
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, Oct. 2, 2013
The newly released Pew Research Center survey on the US Jewish community reveals important trends. However, claims that it shows a “massive” or “major” shift in American Jewry should be weighed carefully against the larger historical picture.
It is the first large survey in a decade to look at the Jewish community, and was conducted from a pool of 70,000 respondents, of which 3,475 were interviewed.
The survey estimates there are 5.2 million American Jews, similar to the number found by the National Jewish Population Survey of 2001. It provides a fascinating overview of the wide spectrum that make up US Jewry in this century.
Among the significant findings: Around 22 percent said they were “Jews of no religion.” These respondents consisted of Jews who identified as Jews but said they were atheists or agnostics. In contrast, the survey did not include those born Jewish who identified themselves as members of another religion.
The survey appears to show that the number of Jews of no religion is growing, with 32% of those born after 1980 identifying this way. “US Jews see being Jewish as more a matter of ancestry, culture and values than of religious observance,” Pew noted.
The phenomenon of identifying with Judaism as a culture or ethnicity, and not being a member of a religious community, is likely related to the findings that remembering the Holocaust was the most common response to the question of what an “essential part of being Jewish means.”
The new survey found that around 70% of US Jews felt attached to Israel, similar to in 2001. It indicated that around 20% of Jews aged 18-29 do not think caring about Israel is important, whereas only 7 to 10% of those over 50 felt this way. Some would say this resembles a trend, but the survey did not ask how those over 50 felt about Israel when they were in their 20s. It may simply be that as Jews get older, their view of Israel grows fonder.
Around 43% of American Jews have been to Israel, with the proportion rising to 70% among Orthodox Jews. A 1990 National Survey of American Jews found that only 25% had been Israel, showing that there has been a remarkable increase in the numbers visiting, helped in no small part by programs such as Birthright Israel.
American Jews tend to be more optimistic about peace with the Palestinians than other Americans, with 61% saying it is possible versus only 50% of the general public. About half of American Jews think continued building of Jewish homes in the West Bank hurts Israel.
In general the survey reveals a very strong connection to and support of Israel, a positive trend that appears to be slightly increasing.
The statistics about intermarriage provide a wealth of information. Whereas 44% of Jews said they were married to non-Jews, the number rose to 58% among those marrying since 2005. Unsurprisingly, 98% of those identifying as Orthodox married Jews, whereas 50% of Reform Jews and 31% of non-affiliated reported doing so.
This, combined with the finding that almost 50% of those born Orthodox change their affiliation, points to increased intermarriage. But these statistics can be misleading.
Although it appears “just 17%” of those married before 1970 intermarried, this does not take into account all those who intermarried who no longer identify as Jews and thus are not included in the survey.
In 2001 it was reported that 13% of those who wed before 1970 were intermarried. Were more pre-1970 intermarriages discovered in the past 10 years or did more Jews come forward who intermarried and begin identifying once again as Jews? The shock expressed after data such as these is released, showing so much intermarriage, reminds us of the “Will your Grandchildren be Jews” article published in 1996 in the Jewish Spectator or the “Vanishing American Jew” article in Look in 1964. Reports of the disappearance or decline of American Jewish community due to intermarriage have been exaggerated in the past, and there is no reason to think the current rate of intermarriage is an existential threat. The Pew research provides an important snapshot of the Jewish community, but it should not be concluded that it reveals major shifts, because it does not.
Shalom Yoran, Jewish Resistance Fighter, Dies at 88: William Yardley,New York Times, Sept. 16, 2013 For three years, Shalom Yoran survived the German occupation of Poland even as he saw his fellow Jews slaughtered by the Nazis. When he and his family inevitably became targets themselves, his mother knew she would not escape.
The Write Stuff: ADL Sends a Message to Northeastern: Charles Jacobs, The Jewish Advocate, September 26, 2013
More than a year since the public became aware of the situation at Northeastern University (NEU), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of New England has written privately to university President Joseph Aoun, urging him to investigate reports of anti-Semitism on his campus – including complaints that NEU Professors intimidate and bully students who express support for Israel.
Calif. College Professor Hands Out Middle East Map — but Something Big Is Missing : Sharona Schwartz, The Blaze
September 17, 2013 Some San Diego State University students studying the Arabic language were dismayed when they were handed a map by their professor at the beginning of the semester which labeled the State of Israel as "Palestine."
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Ber Lazarus, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
