Jorge Marsical Slams Ken Burns for "Erasure" of Hispanic Veterans

In a syndicated Scripss-Howard News Service column, Vietnam Veteran Jorge Marsical blasts Ken Burns with both barrels:

First, by erasing the contributions of this nation's Spanish-speaking communities, Burns distorts the collective history of all the people in these United States.

Second, his erasure means that he has no clue about where we are and where we are going as a nation. That as many as half a million Latinos and Latinas served in that war as well as in Vietnam, Iraq and every other U.S. conflict cannot be disconnected from the fact that today Latinos are the largest minority ethnic/racial group in the country...

...Recently, when confronted by a small group of Latinos in San Francisco, Burns offered a flippant, "The film doesn't include gays either."

Mr. Burns, the Latino community will pursue our future by pursuing our past. Despite your obstinate refusal to recognize willful ignorance, we are insisting that we do indeed have a past whether or not you can see it from your isolated outpost in New England.

Our collective future will not be understood without an acknowledgement of the service and the sacrifices that decades of Latinos have bestowed upon the nation.

Is Ken Burns Anti-Hispanic?

According to Josphine Hearn's article in The Politico, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus seems to think think that he is--because his latest PBS documentary about World War II fails to include a single Hispanic veteran:

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has joined a campaign to include Hispanics in an upcoming PBS documentary on World War II, vowing to "put the squeeze" on top public television executives.

"We're very much concerned about the lack of Hispanics in the documentary," Chairman Joe Baca (D-Calif.) said. "That's appalling. That's a no-no to us."

The Hispanic Caucus and other Latino interest groups have been troubled that the 14-hour series -- "The War," by renowned filmmaker Ken Burns and scheduled for broadcast in September -- features no Hispanics, even as it highlights African-Americans and Japanese-Americans. They note that 500,000 Latinos served in World War II.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tex.) echoed Baca's concerns.

"There is a lot of outrage and anger and disappointment," he said. "We've come so far, and then we haven't. It's our responsibility to put the squeeze on people and educate them."

Baca, Rodriguez and a half-dozen other caucus members met with PBS President Paula Kerger on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to discuss the issue. They did not rule out trying to restrict federal funding of public television if PBS officials do not address some of their concerns.

"The bottom line is we also have the right to do what we can economically with PBS to show our displeasure," Rodriguez said. "I hope it won't come to that."

To help Ken Burns and PBS figure out why Hispanic members of Congress believe he is a racist, here's a link to a website listing Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients from World War II. And, as an old PBS-watcher, might I suggest to the Hispanic Caucus that to speed up a response they might contact Ken Burns' other agency, corporate and foundation sponsors, as well? Here's a list from the PBS website:

Corporate funding is provided by General Motors and Anheuser-Busch. Major funding is provided by Lilly Endowment, Inc.; Public Broadcasting Service; National Endowment for the Humanities; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations; The Pew Charitable Trusts; The Longaberger Foundation; and Park Foundation, Inc.

BTW, I didn't see any Hispanic surnames in these credits listed on the documentary's website:

A Production of Florentine Films and WETA-TV

Directed and Produced by KEN BURNS and LYNN NOVICK; Written By GEOFFREY C. WARD; Produced by SARAH BOTSTEIN: Co-Producers PETER MILLER and DAVID McMAHON; Supervising Film Editor PAUL BARNES; Editors PAUL BARNES, ERIK EWERS and TRICIA REIDY; Cinematography BUDDY SQUIRES; Associate Producers MEGHAN HORVATH and TAYLOR KRAUSS; Narrated by KEITH DAVID with TOM HANKS, JOSH LUCAS, BOBBY CANNAVALE, SAMUEL L. JACKSON, ELI WALLACH, among others; Original Music Composed and Arranged by WYNTON MARSALIS; “AMERICAN ANTHEM” music and lyrics by GENE SCHEER.

Accompanying the series will be a companion book, written by Geoffrey C. Ward and introduced by Ken Burns, that will be published by Alfred A. Knopf in August 2007. The soundtrack will be released in September 2007 by Sony BMG Legacy Recordings.

Victor Davis Hanson on 300

A Classics professor analyzes Hollywood's latest big-screen blockbuster:

Finally, some have suggested that "300" is juvenile in its black-and-white depiction — and glorification — of free Greeks versus imperious Persians. The film has actually been banned in Iran as hurtful American propaganda, as the theocracy suddenly is reclaiming its "infidel" ancient past.

But that good/bad contrast comes not from the director or Frank Miller, but is based on accounts from the Greeks themselves, who saw their own society as antithetical to the monarchy of imperial Persia.

True, 2,500 years ago, almost every society in the ancient Mediterranean world had slaves. And all relegated women to a relatively inferior position. Sparta turned the entire region of Messenia into a dependent serf state.

But in the Greek polis alone, there were elected governments, ranging from the constitutional oligarchy at Sparta to much broader-based voting in states like Athens and Thespiae.

Most importantly, only in Greece was there a constant tradition of unfettered expression and self-criticism. Aristophanes, Sophocles and Plato questioned the subordinate position of women. Alcidamas lamented the notion of slavery.

Such openness was found nowhere else in the ancient Mediterranean world. That freedom of expression explains why we rightly consider the ancient Greeks as the founders of our present Western civilization — and, as millions of moviegoers seem to sense, far more like us than the enemy who ultimately failed to conquer them.

US Government Still Funds Palestinian Terror University

Joel Mowbray's FrontPageMagazine.com article makes sobering reading:

When asked by this journalist about its funding decisions in the West Bank and Gaza, USAID pointed to $2.3 million in assistance provided to Al Quds University. Undermining USAID’s argument that funding the school is wise policy, however, was the weeklong celebration this January of Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas leader known as “the shahid [martyr] engineer.” He is credited with creating the first suicide belts in the mid-1990s and training the next generation of suicide bomb makers.

The school’s celebration of a leading terrorist actually seems to be in line with the beliefs of its leader. The president of Al-Quds University President, Sari Nusseibeh, is widely considered a leading Palestinian moderate—USAID praised him as “one such prominent and respected figure”—yet he, too, celebrates the glories of terrorists.

In an appearance on Al-Jazeera in 2002 with Hamas political bureau chief Khalid Mashaal and the mother of a suicide bomber, Nusseibeh had this to say of the woman who proudly raised a terrorist: “When I hear the words of Umm Nidal, I recall the [Koranic] verse stating that ‘Paradise lies under the feet of mothers.’ All respect is due to this mother; it is due to every Palestinian mother and every female Palestinian who is a Jihad fighter on this land.” (Transcript provided by PMW.)

As Palestinian colleges go, Al-Quds University might well be quite moderate—but that’s the problem. If terrorists are hailed as heroes at the moderate schools, imagine what happens at the more radical ones.

British Hostages on Iranian TV

Submission...(ht Drudge):

Bermard Lewis on the Clash of Civilizations

Bernard Lewis spoke at the AEI's March 7th Irving Kristol award dinner, and had this to say, among other things (ht Melanie Phillips):

That game is now over. The era that was inaugurated by Napoleon and Nelson was terminated by Reagan and Gorbachev. The Middle East is no longer ruled or dominated by outside powers. These nations are having some difficulty adjusting to this new situation, to taking responsibility for their own actions and their consequences, and so on. But they are beginning to do so, and this change has been expressed with his usual clarity and eloquence by Osama bin Laden.

We see with the ending of the era of outside domination, the reemergence of certain older trends and deeper currents in Middle Eastern history, which had been submerged or at least obscured during the centuries of Western domination. Now they are coming back again. One of them I would call the internal struggles--ethnic, sectarian, regional--between different forces within the Middle East. These have of course continued, but were of less importance in the imperialist era. They are coming out again now and gaining force, as we see for example from the current clash between Sunni and Shia Islam--something without precedent for centuries.

The other thing more directly relevant to my theme this evening is the signs of a return among Muslims to what they perceive as the cosmic struggle for world domination between the two main faiths--Christianity and Islam. There are many religions in the world, but as far as I know there are only two that have claimed that their truths are not only universal--all religions claim that--but also exclusive; that they--the Christians in the one case, the Muslims in the other--are the fortunate recipients of God's final message to humanity, which it is their duty not to keep selfishly to themselves--like the Jews or the Hindus--but to bring to the rest of humanity, removing whatever obstacles there may be on the way. This self-perception, shared between Christendom and Islam, led to the long struggle that has been going on for more than fourteen centuries and which is now entering a new phase. In the Christian world, now at the beginning of the 21st century of its era, this triumphalist attitude no longer prevails, and is confined to a few minority groups. In the world of Islam, now in its early 15th century, triumphalism is still a significant force, and has found expression in new militant movements.

Ali Pahlavan: "I Am Very Worried..."

The executive editor of Tehran's Iran News spoke with the BBC about the dangers to world peace in Britain's current hostage crisis:

My understanding of the situation is that this could be a reaction to the UN sanctions which were passed two days ago... the revolutionary guards had promised that some sort of reaction would be forthcoming from Iran.

The revolutionary guards are a very hard line, ultra-conservative wing of the regime who believe that the US and Britain need to be challenged in the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East... their interests need to be challenged in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq and elsewhere.

So this could be part of the strategy to challenge the British and American supremacy in this part of the world which is troubling. It could lead to confrontation and be a trigger and which could lead to escalation...

... I am worried because it's very different than the 2004 incident. The revolutionary guard is the government now.

So it is troubling and it is worrying. Many of us analysts had predicted an incident in the Persian Gulf, which is very crucial to the global economy and to Western interests and could trigger something disastrous.

Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Global Jihad:

From a summary of a January, 2007 report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, written by Dore Gold:

From the analysis that follows, new principles of Western policy become necessary that reflect the new realities of the Middle East:

*Iran is more determined than ever to achieve regional hegemony in the Middle East and is fueling regional instability across the entire area. It is a cardinal error for the West to believe that Iran can be turned into a status-quo power by addressing a series of political grievances that its leadership may voice (or by apologizing for Western colonial policies toward Iran in the past). Iran's role in the UN-sponsored "Six-Plus-Two" talks over Afghanistan in the late 1990s (with the U.S., Russia, and Afghanistan's neighbors) cannot be compared to its intended role in Iraq. In the Afghan case, Iran had an interest in the containment of a radical Sunni state under the Taliban, where Shiites were only a minority. In the Iraqi, case in contrast, Iran is threatening to dominate a Shiite-majority country. In any case, after 2001, Iran's limited contacts with the West did not prevent its leadership from sheltering elements of al-Qaeda.

*The primary threat to the Sunni Arab states now clearly comes from Iran. The residual Arab-Israeli conflict is not their utmost concern. Indeed, Israel and the Sunni Arabs may have many common threat perceptions. The resulting coincidence of their security interests may not be sufficient to produce any diplomatic breakthroughs in the peace process, where wide gaps remain between Israel and the Palestinians on all the core issues, but it might warrant low level discussions between Israel and its neighbors about how to address the threats that they face.

*There is no short-term diplomatic option for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As long as the present wave of radical Islam continues and successfully dominates Palestinian politics, it is extremely unlikely that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will produce any long-lasting agreements. Further Israeli unilateral pullbacks, in the absence of a Palestinian negotiating partner, are likely to strengthen the grip of radical Islam on Palestinian society and vindicate the success of radical Islam across the region as well. This is precisely what happened with the Gaza Disengagement in August 2005.

*The stabilization of the Middle East requires the neutralization of any of the components of the current radical Islamic wave. In this sense, it doesn't matter if Sunni or Shiite organizations are defeated, for the failure of any one of the elements in the present wave will weaken the other elements as well. The defeat of Hamas among the Palestinians or Hizballah in Lebanon would constitute an enormous setback for Iran. Today, Ahmadinejad's Iran is the main source of regional instability across the Middle East, both directly and indirectly, through proxy organizations that it supports.

*Israel has a continuing need for defensible borders. With the rise of both Sunni and Shiite terrorist capabilities around Israel, the Middle East has become a more dangerous region. Deterrence of these organizations may be very difficult to achieve. Under such conditions, were Israel pressured to concede the Jordan Valley, for example, it would likely expose itself to a steep increase in infiltration to the strategic West Bank, including weapons and volunteers, and thus face the same experience it had with the Philadelphi corridor after the Gaza pullout. At the same time, the vacuum such a move created would increasingly attract global jihadi groups to Jordan, thereby undermining the stability of the Hashemite kingdom, and ultimately the region as a whole.

Smithsonian Chief Forced Out By Scandal

Jacqueline Trescott and James V. Grimaldi report on the end of Lawrence Small's tenure, in today's Washington Post:

Congressional criticism mounted after articles in The Washington Post detailed $2 million in housing and office expenditures by Small, as well as $90,000 in unauthorized expenses...

...Small's spending was the subject of intense public scrutiny after The Post published details last month of a confidential inspector general's report examining his $2 million in housing and office expenses over the past six years.

The Post reported in February that Small accumulated unauthorized expenses from 2000 to 2005, including charges for chartered jet travel, his wife's trip to Cambodia, hotel rooms, luxury car service, catered staff meals and expensive gifts, according to confidential findings by the Smithsonian inspector general.

Last week the Post reported that Small spent nearly $160,000 on the redecoration of his offices in the institution's main building on the Mall shortly after he took the helm. The expenses include $4,000 for two chairs from the English furniture maker George Smith, $13,000 for a custom-built conference table and $31,000 for Berkeley striped upholstery.

Small has also received $1.15 million in housing allowances over a six-year period in return for agreeing to use his 6,500-square-foot home in Woodley Park for Smithsonian functions. To justify those expenses, Small submitted receipts for $152,000 in utility bills, $273,000 in housekeeping services and $203,000 in maintenance charges, including $2,535 to clean a chandelier. The home-repair invoices show $12,000 for upkeep and service on his backyard swimming pool, including $4,000 to replace the lap pool's heater and water pump.

Controversy was a frequent feature of his tenure. In 2004, Small was convicted in federal court of purchasing the feathers of endangered birds. A Post investigation into animal care and deaths at the National Zoo brought reprimands from a leading science group and dismissal of the zoo director, who was handpicked by Small. Early in his tenure Small angered scientists over proposed changes in research across the institution. He eventually backed down.

Last year he upset historians and filmmakers seeking access to institution archives when he signed a semi-exclusive deal with Showtime to mine the Smithsonian's resources for a documentary film channel.

A native New Yorker and graduate of Brown University, Small had a 35-year career in banking and corporate management, including 27 years at Citicorp and eight years as president of Fannie Mae. A tall, imposing man who speaks fluent Spanish, Small is a passionate flamenco guitarist and avid collector of Latin American art.

Last year, a federal investigation into Fannie Mae's business practices found that Small was prominent among executives there who encouraged employees to hit profit targets so that managers, including himself, would receive larger annual bonuses. Regulators say Small advocated tactics that violated generally accepted accounting rules and misled investors.

Despite his troubles, Small never received any public admonishment from the Smithsonian board. Regents boosted his salary from $333,000 in 2000 to $884,733 in 2006. The Smithsonian is both a nonprofit organization under tax laws and a creation of Congress that receives federal appropriations -- last year it got $621 million.

Interview With Jeffrey Gedmin

At the Hudson Institute panel on Russia, "U.S-Russian Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?", there was a presentation by someone named Don Jensen from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, who appeared instead of Zeyno Baran, the speaker I came to hear. I can't really comment on Jensen, because I couldn't understand what he was saying, if anything. But his presentation made me curious about who is running the store at RFE/RL...

The answer turns out to be one Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin, a former AEI colleage of BBG honcho James Glassman. According to his bio, Gedmin is a trained musician and German area studies expert, last seen heading the Aspen Institute in Berlin. Although he apparently has no broadcasting, media studies, or news gathering experience, Google did turn up this provocative interview with Gedmin containing some memorable quotes worth sharing:

"Why has it become so acceptable that - at elegant dinner parties - very distinguished people openly say, 'I'm not anti-American, but Bush disgusts me and makes me physically sick? He is a war criminal and a real threat to world peace.' I can only interpret such statements as being partly about Bush and partly about using him as an acceptable cover to bash America.

"One can similarly interpret texts such as, 'I despise Sharon, he is a war criminal.' It reflects partly what some people think about Sharon and at the same time it gives them a justifiable cover to express what they truly think, 'Damn the Israelis and Jews, they disgust me.'"

Gedmin suggests that one can almost draw a model of the typical dinner conversation on these subjects in Berlin. "The number of diners is about twelve. Around eight are very angry at me and say, 'You are just wrong.' Some will say condescendingly and patronizingly, 'I'm sorry you feel like that because you have not been nicely treated here and you are a good person.' They add, 'But most Americans, Jews, and Israelis here are completely happy, you must really have been at the bad end of things.'

"Usually at such a dinner a minority of two or three people remain silent. After the dinner they approach me or call me up the next day and say something like, 'Thank God you expressed your opinion, you are absolutely right. We have been thinking what you said the whole time.' I usually reply, 'Where were you at the dinner last night? I would have liked your voice in the conversation.' They rationalize their answer, saying, 'Well, I know, but you made the points so well.'

"Sometimes people even say to me, 'Many more believe in what you said than you think.' I reply, 'Where are they? Let them come out of the closet and join the party.' They remain silent because they are cowards, and they want to be liked and to see what the group thinks. To be in the minority is unpopular. What I do, speaking up for America, or Israel, however, does not require courage such as being a member of the American military in Iraq does, or of the Israeli defense forces fighting terrorism."

After reading the interview in its entirety, I thought: Maybe RFE/RL might direct its broadcasts towards Germany, instead of the former Soviet Bloc...

Will Iran Hang British Marines?

At a panel about Russian-American relations, I ran into Dr. Kenneth R. Weinstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Hudson Institute. I asked him what he thought would happen to the 15 British marines held by Iran, who face death by hanging.

"I think Iran will back down," he responded, saying they would eventually be released. I hope he is right, but I told him that I thought Iran might hang them, just to make a point. Perhaps they are only being held as hostages, to trade for Iranian prisoners in Iraq, or as insurance against UN action.

However, Iran has hanged alleged spies in the past.

In addition, there may be a special significance to hanging Britishers, given England's prior history of imperial domination--Britain occupied half of Iranian territory, then called Persia, for many years. So, I wouldn't be too sure about Iran letting these poor souls go home, unfortunately. Especially given the context of war in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as related threats made against Iran by the British government.

Not just Persians and Arabs have trouble dealing with Britain. As I mentioned to Weinstein, even Israel felt the need to hang British military personnel, during the Yishuv's 1947 struggle for independence. Here's an account of the episode, from the Jewish Agency's website, Studies in the History of Zionism:

* Etzel's most daring operation was the organization of an escape from Acre prison, where dozens of prisoners were incarcerated -- members of Etzel and Lehi -- many sentenced to terms of imprisonment, others - to death. In a brilliantly planned operation, a group of Etzel members broke into the prison at the beginning of May 1947 and freed 41 Etzel and Lehi members held there. The British newspapers dubbed it the greatest prison break in history. In the battle that ensued, 5 Etzel members, including the operation's commander, were killed. 5 more Etzel fighters were taken prisoner by the British, of whom 3 were sentenced to death.

The Etzel kidnapped 2 British sergeants and threatened to hang them if this sentence were carried out. The British did not believe the Etzel would actually hang two innocent British soldiers, and on the 29th of July, 1947, the 3 Etzel members were hanged in Acre prison. They were the last martyrs of the Jewish underground. The next day, Etzel executed both captured British sergeants.

After that, the British stopped hanging Jews.

Royal Navy Permitted British Marine Capture

Seems like my retired US Navy friend was right, the Royal Navy allowed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to seize British marines, according to its rules of engagement, reports Terri Judd in The Independent (UK):

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Forbidden Salad

Google video is addictive, it seems there are people all over the world uploading their videos. From the Hometown Baghdad website, this interesting Iraqi YouTube download is called "Forbidden Salad":

Weird Al Yankovic Videos

From Google Video's Top 100 downloads:White & Nerdy
Which led me to:
Don't Download This Song

Hassan Butt Speaks...

To Bob Simon, on 60 Minutes Sunday night, about his career as a terrorist based in Londonistan. I'm surprised (and somewhat interested in knowing the backstory) to see that 60 Minutes has aired a couple of very interesting--and anti-terrorist--news items lately...

Rudy Giuliani's New Website

Here:

Max Frankel: How Washington Really Works

Today's New York Times Sunday Magazine runs an interesting article by Max Frankel on how "secrets" are routinely revealed in the nation's capital--and why this is a vital part of the American democratic system. He quotes from a memo he wrote to justify publication of the Pentagon Papers:

The governmental, political and personal interests of the participants are inseparable in this process. Presidents make “secret” decisions only to reveal them for the purposes of frightening an adversary nation, wooing a friendly electorate, protecting their reputations. ... High officials of the government reveal secrets in the search for support of their policies, or to help sabotage the plans and policies of rival departments. ... Though not the only vehicle for this traffic in secrets — the Congress is always eager to provide a forum — the press is probably the most important.

Captured British Sailors Face Iranian Death Penalty

The confrontation between Iran and the UK appears to be heating up, according to the Times of London

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.

A friend who once served in the US Navy tells me that the only way the British marines could have been captured is if the British frigate supporting their operation backed down to the Iranian navy in the first place, when the marines were captured. He says the British could have fired on their Iranian captors, which might have stopped them. If that is indeed the case, then Britain may, in a sense, have lost its first naval engagement with the Iranian fleet...so it looks like "mush" rather than "steel" from NATO and the Iraq/Afghan "coalition of the willing."

French Court OKs Mohammed Cartoon Publication

Reuters reports that French public opinion favors the anti-Islamist verdict:

PARIS (Reuters) - A French court on Thursday ruled in favour of a satirical weekly that had printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said the publication incited hatred against Muslims.

Following a recommendation by the public prosecutor, the court said the cartoons published by the weekly Charlie Hebdo fell under the category of freedom of expression and did not constitute an attack on Islam in general.

"The acceptable limits of freedom of expression have not been overstepped, with the contentious pictures participating in a public debate of general interest," the court said.

The cartoons, originally published in 2005 by a Danish daily, provoked violent protests in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that left 50 people dead. Several European publications reprinted them as an affirmation of free speech.

With France's presidential election just a month away, the court case has been overshadowed by election politics and added to a debate about freedom of speech and whether religions can be criticised.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative presidential frontrunner, his centrist rival Francois Bayrou, and Socialist party leader Francois Hollande have all spoken out in defence of the weekly.

Melanie Phillips on Leeds University's Kuntzel Affair

Melanie Phillips accuses Leeds University of defending Nazism, when the administration cancelled Matthias Kuntzel's planned lecture on the Nazi roots of Islamist extremist ideology:

Now, fresh information has reached me which reinforces the view that the cancellation was indeed designed to suppress Küntzel’s views. After meeting the university authorities the head of the German department, Professor Stuart Taberner, told his staff that, although he didn’t think censorship was the issue, if Küntzel were to be re-invited the university would have to ‘look closely’ at the subject of his talk.

‘Having now found the text of what I take to be his talk on the web,’ he said, ‘I’m convinced that the university would want to be reassured that it was striking the correct balance between free speech — the expression of ideas — and its obligation to be mindful of the language in which these ideas are framed’.

The real reason for the cancellation was thus laid bare. It was because of what Küntzel was saying. The implication was that his language was somehow inflammatory. But his lecture — which he previously delivered in January at Yale — is merely a scholarly and factual account of the links between Nazism and Islamic antisemitism.

He argues that the alliance between the Nazis and the Arabs of Palestine infected the wider Muslim world, not least through the influence of the Nazi wireless station Radio Zeesen which broadcast in Arabic, Persian and Turkish and inflamed the Muslim masses with Nazi blood libels laced with Arabic music and quotes from the Koran.

Subsequently, this Nazified Muslim antisemitism was given renewed life by both the Egyptian President Nasser and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the intellectual inspiration for both Hamas and much of the current jihad against the west.

So what exactly is the ‘correct balance’ that this account fails to strike? Indeed, Küntzel makes the eminently balanced claim that this history shows there is nothing inevitable about Muslim antisemitism, which is merely Nazism in new garb.

The link he makes is no more than the demonstrable truth. But clearly, it is not possible to speak this truth at Leeds university. And the reason for this is surely that it draws a straight line between today’s Islamic world and Hitler’s Germany.

Indeed, Küntzel sees a seamless connection between Nazism and the jihad against the west. Hitler, he says, fantasised about the toppling of the skyscrapers of New York, the symbol of Jewish power. And the Hamburg trial of terrorists associated with 9/11 heard evidence that New York had been selected for the atrocity because it was a ‘Jewish city’.

For Islamists, however, such a connection threatens the image they have so assiduously cultivated for themselves as the victims of prejudice.

For their appeasers, it destroys the illusion that Islamist extremism arises from rational grievances such as the war in Iraq or ‘Islamophobia’. Worse still, those on the left who march shoulder to shoulder with radical Islamists are thus exposed as the allies of Nazism.

The result is that Leeds has now joined the growing list of universities which have spinelessly given up the defence of free speech, and thus, in the great battle for civilisation against barbarism, run up the campus white flag.