Category Archives: Anti semitism
Is it any wonder that so many people dislike Israel, when they are bombarded with false information about the Jewish state?
The story below, courtesy of Honest Reporting Canada, is a prime example of the strange…let’s call it carelessness which seems to permeate so much of the new coverage about Israel.
More often than not, the errors and lies are allowed to stand – below is a rare instance of one such ‘mistake’ being corrected:
CBC National Corrects Gaza Infant Mortality Rate Error
June 16, 2010
By: Mike Fegelman, Executive Director
Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,
Did CBC falsely imply that Israel was responsible for the death of Gaza babies?
Respected Mideast professor and director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) asked this very question regarding a June 1 CBC National report which saw Chief Correspondent, Peter Mansbridge, erroneously refer to the Gaza Strip as having “an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world.”
Writing on his blog “Rubin Reports,” Professor Rubin expounded on this misstatement:
“Here’s an example of the insanity and profound anti-Israel bias currently gripping mass media.
On June 1, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) anchorman Peter Mansbridge stated that the Gaza Strip “has one of the world’s highest infant mortality rates” The obvious implication: it is Israel’s fault because of its sanctions.
In fact, the Gaza Strip has a lower infant mortality rate than Turkey, which has been a modern republic with full independence for about 80 years, and Iran, which enjoys the “benefits” of the kind of Islamist government which Hamas and the current Turkish government applaud.
According to the CIA World Factbook, regarded as a definitive source, the Infant Mortality Rate in the Gaza Strip is 17.71 deaths per 1000 births, about the same as Mexico and below that of Brazil, Romania, and many other countries. In neighboring Egypt, the number is 26.2, in Turkey, 24.8, and Iran, 34.7.
The kind of coverage given to living standards in the Gaza Strip seems an example of what sometimes seems a principle of Western journalism: Third World suffering is only of interest if it can be blamed on the West. Third World suffering is the world’s lead news story only if it can be blamed on Israel.”
HonestReporting Canada (HRC) communicated our concerns to senior editors at the CBC requesting that a review be conducted and that an on-air correction be issued promptly to remedy this error.
In a written response that was sent to HRC by the CBC, a senior editor said that the mistake was more than just problematic: “In an effort to give viewers a clearer picture of the Gaza Strip, the introduction to the report that night from Washington included statistics about Gaza’s area, population, unemployment and infant mortality rates. However, in one instance, we inadvertently included inaccurate information. In fact – and as Mr. Rubin pointed out – according to the CIA World Factbook, a highly regarded source for such information, Gaza is about half way in a ranking of over 200 countries or regions, (109 out of 224) with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 per thousand live births, a little over four times Israel’s. We regret the error. The Friday night (June 11) editions of The National included an on-air note offering viewers correct information.”
Ms. Hiscox stated the following: “Earlier this month we reported the Gaza Strip has an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world, but according to the CIA World Factbook, Gaza ranks 109 out of 224 regions in the world, with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 deaths per thousand live births.”
While we appreciate and commend the fact that the CBC was quick to investigate this matter and to take the appropriate action in correcting this mistake, with that said, there was no indication given about how this error had occurred and how it had gotten past the trained eyes of the CBC’s most veteran editors. Many questions still remain unanswered such as: What was the source of this original erroneous information? It certainly wasn’t the CIA World Factbook, was it Amnesty International’s (AI) error, as this CBC report attributed various statistics as being derived from AI?
Was this just gross incompetence or intentional subterfuge? And finally, since when did the Palestinians achieve statehood? Why is it that this CBC report included a graphic which referred to the West Bank and Gaza as “Palestine” instead of the Palestinian territories?
We trust that this intervention will serve as a teachable moment for the CBC’s reporters and editors who are keenly aware that their Mideast reporting is being vigilantly watched and scrutinized.
Let’s be crystal clear on this: what happened was not a conflict between ‘innocent aid workers’ and Israeli soldiers. It was between armed, violent, gagging-to-fight Hamas supporters and the Israeli army.
Here, posted by the always vigilant Elder Of Ziyon, is footage of one of these ‘aid workers’ STABBING an Israeli:
For several years now, the number of French Jews has been shrinking. Increased violence against them has led to many leaving and moving to Israel. And it doesn’t look as though things are set to improve.
Two violent attacks have taken place in as many days, in fact. On Sunday night, an elderly Jewish man outside a French Synagogue was set upon by three younger men – they sprayed him with tear gas.
And according to the Sunday Telegraph in London, anti semitic slogans were daubed on a nearby wall by the three men.
The attackers, still at-large, launched the attack as the man, described as being in his 80s, was waiting outside to attend daily prayer services. The attack happened in Nimes, in southern France.
And on Friday night, assailants brutally attacked a 42-year-old man in Strasbourg, hitting him across the back of the head with a metal rod and stabbing him in the chest. Authorities later charged a 38-yer-old man for attempted murder.
As many of you will recall, it was a mere three years ago that a French Muslim gang tortured and killed Ilan Halimi, a young French Jew, in a Paris suburb.
Looks like the writing is on the wall – literally in the case of the first attack outside the Synagogue.
sources: Sunday Telegraph
& Israel National News
Sadly, this news story didn’t even surprise me.
Via Totally Jewish:
Police have launched an urgent investigation into a horrific Facebook group that gave graphic details of anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated by its members against Ilford’s Jewish community.
The group, created by a student at Loxford School of Science and Technology, attracted more than 500 members in two weeks following its launch last month and featured teenagers boasting about engaging in anti-Semitic behaviour.
It featured messages from youths using language rife with spelling errors,
profanities and teenage colloquialisms.
One girl wrote: “Jews are the ones that killed prophets in the past. Dirty filthy scum-bags. No wonder they have the curse of Allah upon them. Burn Jew burn.”
Another stated: “OMG! ii Saw a Jew Todaii ii Swearr downn Weariingg Dahh Hatt He Lookedd At Me Liike Man Knowsz Me [sic].”
She went on to describe screaming obscenities at the man and rudely telling him to go away.
In a further disturbing post, a girl bragged about aggressively confronting
a Jewish woman in Argos after she was “looking at me“. She wrote: “Looool i Had a Fight Wif 1 Urgh in Argos [sic].”
The Jewish News was informed about the group, created by a student at
Loxford School, by a private investigator in Australia. It has since been
removed from the popular social networking site.
The group was described by a Community Security Trust (CST) official as “one of the most shocking things I have ever seen”.
A spokeswoman from Redbridge Council, speaking on behalf of Loxford School, said the school was contacted about the group and then immediately reported it to Facebook and the police.
The spokeswoman said: “The student concerned has been dealt with and the school has taken disciplinary action. There is an ongoing police investigation so we are unable to comment further.”
Ilford police confirmed it had “received an allegation regarding anti-Semitic material being published on a social networking website”.
A spokeswoman told the Jewish News that the police are investigating and inquiries continue.
Several comments on the vile Facebook site included references to Islam and the Quran as justification for targeting Jews.
One female youth wrote: “We hate Jews for the sake of Allah as he has told us to do in the Quran.”
The group page included offensive jokes invoking pejorative stereotypes about Jews and money as well as an anti-Semitic cartoon. There was also a link to a YouTube video entitled “Kill All Christians and Jews”.
In addition several members expressed anti-Israeli sentiment. There was a photograph of graffiti saying “Jihad 4 Israel”.
Mike Gardner, director of communications at the CST, said he was left
“utterly chilled” by the casual way that the youths displayed their
He said: “It shows how new media is now facilitating the most shocking
anti-Semitism among groups of youngsters, as if hatred and violence and
gross ignorance were all just a part of their normal lives.
“Anybody who wants to understand how anti-Semitism can be transmitted today should study this online group closely, but they will need a strong stomach
to do so.”
The CST, which is due to release its latest findings on anti-Semitism in the
UK this week, has previously reported 609 incidents in the first six months
of 2009, more than in any other entire year. A report released by the
Jewish Agency last month revealed that there were more anti-Semitic
incidents in Europe in 2009 than in any year since the Holocaust.
Mike Gapes, the local MP for Ilford South, urged the authorities to take
“very strong action”. Gapes told the Jewish News: “I am deeply concerned.
Incitement to hatred is a crime and we must stand very firm and take action
against anyone who incited racial or religious hatred. Anti-Semitism has to
Lee Scott MP for Ilford North also denounced the site, saying: “It is
shocking and I condemn it.”
A Facebook spokeswoman said that the group was removed because it breached the company’s policies. She said: “We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss issues and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others.” She added that users should report groups that they feel violate Facebook’s rules.
Spencer Lewis, the headteacher of local Jewish high school King Solomon
said: “We have had no problems at all with Loxford that I am aware of and we have a very good relationship with the school.”
Why is anyone even surprised by this? The BBC and Guardian feed Brits a relentless diet of anti Israel nonsense. Our elected politicians meet with Hamas members. Israeli officials at present cannot even visit Britain without one Islamic group or another organising arrest warrants, under the specious guise of ‘universal jurisdiction’. (more on this later).
So why is anyone remotely surprised when British teenagers act on the messages they receive from the British media and British government…?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if things don’t improve for British Jews, I predict that in ten years, hardly any of us will remain. Like our fellow Jews in France, we will sadly and reluctantly be forced to leave.
I hope and pray that I am wrong.
A Bangladeshi journalist and peace activist is being punished for refusing to condemn Israel. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was charged with sedition, treason and insulting Islam in 2003.
Choudhury, 44, has worked hard to oppose Islamic extremism through his articles, in particular those for the Weekly Blitz which he started in 2003. He has also called for interfaith dialogue and for normalizing relations between Muslim countries and Israel.
Yet this week will see Choudhary back in court, charged with ‘insulting Islam’. It is possible he will be sentenced to death for this ‘sedition’.
In a letter which was made public at the weekend, Choudhary says:
“According to my lawyers in Bangladesh, the government is determined to conclude the trial as soon as possible.No one knows what will be the verdict. But, of course, seeing the past track record, we cannot hold any hope for a good result because the court is not applying its judicial mind, but trying to appease the Islamists.”
Choudhary has already suffered violence for his views. In 2006, his newspaper offices were bombed, after he publicly expressed sympathy for the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam.
And in October of that year, he was attacked in his office by a mob that included prominent members of the then-ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which historically has aligned itself with Islamist parties in the country.
In March 2007, US House Resolution 64 referred to Choudhury and protested his ongoing “harassment and intimidation” as well as his incarceration in 2004 for 17 months without legal recourse, during which he was placed in solitary confinement and “suffered harsh interrogation techniques and received no treatment for a debilitating case of glaucoma.”
The House resolution called for the Bangladeshi government to “immediately drop all pending charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury… and take steps to protect Mr. Choudhury.”
Is freedom of speech absolute? Here’s a candid answer: not for readers of my blog. I’ve been pondering ‘freedom of speech’ because I stand accused of ‘blocking opinions differing from your own’. My accuser? A regular poster on Jew With A View that I’ve now had to, reluctantly, bar from posting full stop. Nor do I claim to be ‘right’ in all I say. Indeed, if I make factual errors, I hope someone will correct me and I am most grateful when they do! Hell, I’m appreciative when anyone takes the time to post a comment, and I hope regulars especially, know this Let’s call the person I’ve banned Reader X. He knows who he is. He’s posted many long comments on this blog and that was fine, though I passionately disagree with him. But as he seems a reasonably decent soul, and as he’s taken the trouble to express his views, I’ve welcomed his thoughts. But here’s the thing. Everyone has the right to their own opinions. But nobody has the right to their own facts. That’s where a line exists, and it can’t be crossed if one still wants any form of rational discourse. The discrepancy between these two was illustrated vividly back in 2007 when Oxford University decided to allow known Holocaust Denier David Irving, and his fellow weasel BNP head Nick Griffin, to speak at the Union debate. The move was publicly condemned by Jewish and Muslim students alike, along with anti facism activists and numerous politicians – several of whom cancelled membership of the Oxford Union as a result. But Oxford Union was unrepentant. These two racist twits had, it declared, the right to ‘freedom of speech’. If Irving and Griffin wish to go around peddling their mad and subjective belief that six million Jews did not perish, that is their right to do so – within the confines of their homes and in hushed conversations with their fellow neo Nazis. But once they start publicly twisting and misrepresenting objective facts in their bid to deny history, then no. A thousand times, no. They don’t have any unconditional, inalienable ‘right’ to do that. Nor did Oxford Union have any ‘duty’ to help them. I have the right to declare a disbelief in gravity. Does Oxford Union have any obligation to provide a platform for me to unveil my copious notes and ideas in ‘support’ of this idea…? No, of course not – and nor would Oxford dream of doing so! Yet when it suits, countless individuals and institutions play the ‘freedom of speech’ card in order to promote all manner of absurd, irrational and sometimes dangerous beliefs. Which brings us to Reader X. He has repeatedly stated: ‘I insist that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation’. Nor do I accept that Reader X has any ‘right’ to use my blog to condone bigotry. Last week I posted a story about how a top Obama aide cheerfully shared a platform with a man who then claimed that Hurricane Katrina was G-d’s ‘punishment’ towards Gay people, and that Jews are seeking to ‘control the world’. Most sane people recognise this bigotry towards Gays and Jews for what it is: appalling. Likewise, they understand that it is not OK for a top Obama aide to share a platform with and thus legitimise someone expressing such spite. But what did Reader X think? ‘It’s good that Obama is prepared to talk to lots of people.’ Er, right… In particular, Reader X has condemned my apparent unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions on Israel. So let’s clarify. If someone wants to criticise Israeli policies, they are free to do so. If someone wants to post condemnation of specific decisions made by Israel or particular Israeli politicians, they are free to do this too. If their posts are based on facts and – this is key – an accurate understanding of the situation. But when someone makes it clear that they don’t even know the term ‘palestinian’ always referred to Palestinian Jews, and when they then try and ‘prove’ their case by anecdotal evidence, and when all they do is regurgitate weary old Arab propaganda that has been disproven time and again – then no, I don’t have any obligation to publish this person’s misconceptions. And finally, Reader X, I reserve the right to reject your blatant hypocrisy. For example, you have often stated that you trust the UN. Thus if the UN condemns Israel for something, it is ‘good enough‘ for you – note, I’m using your own words here. Yet at the same time, you ignore that the UN also stated in a resolution that Hezbollah should have disarmed. But you don’t care what the UN says about this. Indeed, only recently you tried to submit a post claiming that Hezbollah has nothing to do with terrorism! Finally, and most egregiously, Reader X, you showed how little value you attache to Jewish life, any Jewish life, by your response to the recent update on murdered and tortured French Jew Ilan Halimi. Responding to this post, what did you say? You spoke of Palestinians in prison in Israel – and did not say a single word about the way that this young French man was abducted, tortured, set alight and killed by French Muslims. Muslims who admitted to being obsessed with killing Jews and who actually phoned the victim’s parents and quoted to them from the Quran. Now of course, you’re not obliged to respond to the Ilan Halimi post at all. But to submit a response to it that totally ignores his death? That is in poor taste and again, just reveals your hypocrisy. You care so much for Palestinian Arabs – yet don’t give a damn when Jewish blood is spilled. And if at any time you decide to adopt a fairer approach, then you are most welcome to post here again. But, until and unless that time arrives, you’ll have to take your right to condone terrorism and bigotry and exercise it on other blogs - ’cause you ‘aint doing it on this one!
I make no apologies for this stance. Only one person has total free speech in this particular arena – and that’s me!
Is freedom of speech absolute?
Here’s a candid answer: not for readers of my blog.
I’ve been pondering ‘freedom of speech’ because I stand accused of ‘blocking opinions differing from your own’. My accuser? A regular poster on Jew With A View that I’ve now had to, reluctantly, bar from posting full stop.
Nor do I claim to be ‘right’ in all I say. Indeed, if I make factual errors, I hope someone will correct me and I am most grateful when they do! Hell, I’m appreciative when anyone takes the time to post a comment, and I hope regulars especially, know this
Let’s call the person I’ve banned Reader X. He knows who he is. He’s posted many long comments on this blog and that was fine, though I passionately disagree with him. But as he seems a reasonably decent soul, and as he’s taken the trouble to express his views, I’ve welcomed his thoughts.
But here’s the thing. Everyone has the right to their own opinions. But nobody has the right to their own facts. That’s where a line exists, and it can’t be crossed if one still wants any form of rational discourse.
The discrepancy between these two was illustrated vividly back in 2007 when Oxford University decided to allow known Holocaust Denier David Irving, and his fellow weasel BNP head Nick Griffin, to speak at the Union debate.
The move was publicly condemned by Jewish and Muslim students alike, along with anti facism activists and numerous politicians – several of whom cancelled membership of the Oxford Union as a result.
But Oxford Union was unrepentant. These two racist twits had, it declared, the right to ‘freedom of speech’.
If Irving and Griffin wish to go around peddling their mad and subjective belief that six million Jews did not perish, that is their right to do so – within the confines of their homes and in hushed conversations with their fellow neo Nazis.
But once they start publicly twisting and misrepresenting objective facts in their bid to deny history, then no. A thousand times, no. They don’t have any unconditional, inalienable ‘right’ to do that. Nor did Oxford Union have any ‘duty’ to help them.
I have the right to declare a disbelief in gravity. Does Oxford Union have any obligation to provide a platform for me to unveil my copious notes and ideas in ‘support’ of this idea…?
No, of course not – and nor would Oxford dream of doing so! Yet when it suits, countless individuals and institutions play the ‘freedom of speech’ card in order to promote all manner of absurd, irrational and sometimes dangerous beliefs.
Which brings us to Reader X. He has repeatedly stated: ‘I insist that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation’.
Nor do I accept that Reader X has any ‘right’ to use my blog to condone bigotry.
Last week I posted a story about how a top Obama aide cheerfully shared a platform with a man who then claimed that Hurricane Katrina was G-d’s ‘punishment’ towards Gay people, and that Jews are seeking to ‘control the world’.
Most sane people recognise this bigotry towards Gays and Jews for what it is: appalling. Likewise, they understand that it is not OK for a top Obama aide to share a platform with and thus legitimise someone expressing such spite.
But what did Reader X think? ‘It’s good that Obama is prepared to talk to lots of people.’
In particular, Reader X has condemned my apparent unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions on Israel. So let’s clarify.
If someone wants to criticise Israeli policies, they are free to do so. If someone wants to post condemnation of specific decisions made by Israel or particular Israeli politicians, they are free to do this too. If their posts are based on facts and – this is key – an accurate understanding of the situation.
But when someone makes it clear that they don’t even know the term ‘palestinian’ always referred to Palestinian Jews, and when they then try and ‘prove’ their case by anecdotal evidence, and when all they do is regurgitate weary old Arab propaganda that has been disproven time and again – then no, I don’t have any obligation to publish this person’s misconceptions.
And finally, Reader X, I reserve the right to reject your blatant hypocrisy. For example, you have often stated that you trust the UN. Thus if the UN condemns Israel for something, it is ‘good enough‘ for you – note, I’m using your own words here.
Yet at the same time, you ignore that the UN also stated in a resolution that Hezbollah should have disarmed. But you don’t care what the UN says about this. Indeed, only recently you tried to submit a post claiming that Hezbollah has nothing to do with terrorism!
Finally, and most egregiously, Reader X, you showed how little value you attache to Jewish life, any Jewish life, by your response to the recent update on murdered and tortured French Jew Ilan Halimi.
Responding to this post, what did you say? You spoke of Palestinians in prison in Israel – and did not say a single word about the way that this young French man was abducted, tortured, set alight and killed by French Muslims. Muslims who admitted to being obsessed with killing Jews and who actually phoned the victim’s parents and quoted to them from the Quran.
Now of course, you’re not obliged to respond to the Ilan Halimi post at all. But to submit a response to it that totally ignores his death? That is in poor taste and again, just reveals your hypocrisy. You care so much for Palestinian Arabs – yet don’t give a damn when Jewish blood is spilled.
And if at any time you decide to adopt a fairer approach, then you are most welcome to post here again.
But, until and unless that time arrives, you’ll have to take your right to condone terrorism and bigotry and exercise it on other blogs - ’cause you ‘aint doing it on this one!
.Some of you will recall my earlier posts on the terrible murder of French Jew Ilan Halimi. Back in 2006, he was lured to an empty basement in Paris and then tortured for several weeks. His killers were members of a Muslim mob who have recently stood trial in France.
The latest news on this tragic case is that fourteen of the twenty-five gang members will be retried. This is because of protests about their having received absurdly lenient sentences. The French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie intervened just three days after the gang members – or evil, racist bastards as I prefer to call them – were sentenced for the 2006 killing of Halimi.
The gang leader and chief bastard, one Youssouf Fofana, was sentenced to life in prison. He was the only gang member convicted of murder. The other mob members were given prison terms shorter than recommended by the prosecuting attorney. This sparked a massive protest by French Jewish groups and Halimi’s family.
Among the fourteen who will be re-tried, are two of Fofana’s main accomplices, as well as the woman who acted as the ‘honeytrap’ and lured Ilan Halimi to that isolated basement in the first place.
One key thing to remember about the murder of Ilan Halimi is that he was not a random victim. Fofana and his mob had been, by their own admission, fixated on finding and killing Jewish men for a considerable length of time. Anti semitism was not incidental to this murder – it was a fundamental cause.
Ilan Halimi was 23 and had everything in the world to look forward to. Yet he ended up being tortured and beaten for three weeks nonstop, before finally being set alight by his abusers and then left, naked, by a railway line. By the time someone found him, it was too late.
As the star of the Harry Potter films, Daniel Radcliffe plays a boy who above all else, has integrity. A boy who loathes the bigotry of his enemies and is proud of his ‘mudblood’ friends.
What a pity that in real life, Radcliffe doesn’t embody those traits. For this week, in an interview with the Guardian Radcliffe shocked many by producing the type of anti semitic ‘joke’ that anyone with a functioning brain recognises as vile. He claimed, absurdly, that because his own mother is Jewish, he ‘is allowed’ to make ‘jewish jokes’.
His remarks are disingenuous in the extreme. Firstly, the ‘joke’ that Radcliffe offered does nothing but repeat the weary old stereotype of Jews being mean and caring only about money. Did it never occur to Radcliffe that the millions of youngsters who hang on his every word would be taking this, too, as gospel…?
Can he really be so naive as to think that what he says in a national newspaper won’t be read, remembered, and absorbed by his legions of young fans…?
Secondly, Radcliffe then tried to convince us, in this same article, that he is ‘proud’ of his Jewish heritage. Er, no, Daniel. You’re not, actually. If you were, you would be incapable of maligning Jews in this manner. Those of us who are truly proud of our heritage do everything we possibly can to counter the spiteful lies historically told about Jews – not promote them to the masses.
Radcliffe’s ‘jewish identity’ is interesting, in fact. He clearly feels it is something he can switch on and off when it suits him. Thus, for the most part, his heritage doesn’t get a mention – and that’s just fine. But when he does suddenly decide that ‘being jewish’ might make him more interesting, how does he reference his religion? With an anti semitic jibe. At the same time, another British newspaper has revealed that Radcliffe secretly writes poetry which he submits to an ‘underground’ publication under the name of – wait for it – Jacob Gershon.
Thus in private, Radcliffe cheerfully uses a Jewish name for his poetic scribblings yet in public, where it counts, the only thing he offers is bigotry.
There’s a word for behaviour like that. It’s hypocrisy.
So here’s the thing, Daniel. Please feel free not to identify as Jewish, either in public or private. I promise – the rest of us don’t mind and won’t miss you.
Because frankly, with ‘jews’ like you, who needs enemies…?
Alan Dershowitz is apparently either unable, or unwilling, to talk straight when it comes to Obama‘s hypocrisy re Israel. And it is truly a terrible thing to read Dershowitz’s pathetic rationalisations of the suicidal ‘compromises’ Israel is being pressured to make at the behest of the Obama administration.
Melanie Phillips says it best:
The American lawyer Alan Dershowitz is one of the most prolific, high-profile and indefatiguable defenders of Israel and the Jewish people against the tidal wave of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish feeling currently coursing through the west. So a piece by him in the Wall Street Journal giving expression to the rising anxiety being felt about Obama by American Jews naturally arouses great interest.
But just like the majority of American Jews, getting on for 80 per cent of whom voted for Obama, he is a Democrat supporter who is incapable of acknowledging the truth about this President. For most American Jews, the horror of even entertaining the hypothetical possibility that they might ever in a million years have to vote for a Republican is so great they simply cannot see what is staring them in the face — that this Democratic President is lethal for both Israel and the free world.
And in this article Dershowitz shows that he too is just as blind. Acknowledging the anxiety among some American Jews about Obama’s attitude to Israel, Dershowitz concludes uneasily that there isn’t really a problem here because all Obama is doing is putting pressure on Israel over the settlements, which most American Jews don’t support anyway.
But this is totally to miss the point. The pressure over the settlements per se is not the reason for the intense concern. It is instead, first and foremost, the fact that Obama is treating Israel as if it is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Obama thus inverts aggressor and victim, denying Israel’s six-decade long victimisation and airbrushing out Arab aggression.
The question remains: why has Obama chosen to pick a fight with Israel while soft-soaping Iran which is threatening it with genocide? The answer is obvious: Israel is to be used to buy off Iran just as Czechoslovakia was used at Munich.
Indeed, I would say this is worse even than that, since I suspect that Obama – coming as he does from a radical leftist milieu, with vicious Israel-haters amongst his closest friends — would be doing this to Israel even if Iran was not the problem that it is.
In any event, the double standard is egregious. Obama has torn up his previous understandings with Israel over the settlements while putting no pressure at all on the Palestinians, even though since they are the regional aggressor there can be no peace unless they end their aggression and certainly not until they accept Israel as a Jewish state, which they have said explicitly they will never do.
On this, Obama is totally silent. So too is Dershowitz. That’s some omission.
Next, Obama is pressuring Israel to set up a Palestine state – within two years this will exist, swaggers Rahm Emanuel. But everyone knows that as soon as Israel leaves the West Bank, Hamas – or even worse – will take over. The only reason the (also appalling) Abbas is still in Ramallah, enabling Obama to pretend there is a Palestinian interlocutor for peace, is because the Israelis are keeping Hamas at bay.
Yet Dershowitz writes: “There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel`s right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.”
So what exactly does he think would happen if Israel came out of the West Bank and the Hamas rockets were down the road from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (literally: many in the west have absolutely no idea how tiny Israel is). It’s not a question of Israel’s ‘right to defend its children’.
If Obama has his way, Israel would not be able to defend its children or anyone else, because Obama would have removed its defences by putting its enemies in charge of them.
It is astounding that Dershowitz can’t see this. Then there was Obama’s appalling Cairo speech — which I wrote about here – in which he conspicuously refrained from committing himself to defending Zionism and the Jewish people from the attacks and incitement to genocide against them, but committed himself instead to defending their attackers against ‘negative stereotyping’.
On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Worse still, by falsely asserting that the Jewish aspiration for Israel derived from the Holocaust, Obama effectively denied that the Jewish people were in Israel as of right and thus endorsed the core element of the Arab and Muslim propaganda of war and extermination.
On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama drew a vile – and telling – equivalence between the Nazi extermination camps and the Palestinian ‘refugee’ camps. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama`s statement that the Palestinians ‘have suffered in pursuit of a homeland’ was grossly and historically untrue, and again denied Arab aggression. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.
Equally vilely, Obama equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the resistance against apartheid in South Africa. On all of this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Dershowitz also grossly underplays the terrible harm Obama is doing to the security not just of Israel but the world through his reckless appeasement of Iran.
In the last few weeks, this has actively undercut the Iranian democrats trying to oust their tyrannical regime, and has actually strengthened that regime. All the evidence suggests ever more strongly that Obama has decided America will ‘live with’ a nuclear Iran, whatever it does to its own people. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry.
But even here, where he is clearly most concerned, Dershowitz scuttles under his comfort blanket – Dennis Ross, who was originally supposed to have been the US special envoy to Iran but was recently announced senior director of the National Security Council and special assistant to the President for the region. It is not at all clear whether this ambiguous development represents a promotion or demotion for Ross.
Either way, for Dershowitz to rest his optimism that Obama’s Iran policy will be all right on the night entirely upon the figure of Dennis Ross is pathetic. Ross, a Jew who played Mr. Nice to Robert Malley’s Mr. Nasty towards Israel in the Camp David debacle under President Clinton, is clearly being used by Obama as a human shield behind which he can bully Israel with impunity.
American Jews assume that his proximity to Obama means the President’s intentions towards Israel are benign. Dazzled by this vision of Ross as the guarantor of Obama’s good faith, they thus ignore altogether the terrible import of the actual words coming out of the President’s mouth.
The fact is that many American Jews are so ignorant of the history of the Jewish people, the centrality of Israel in its history and the legality and justice of its position that they probably saw nothing wrong in Obama saying that the Jewish aspiration for Israel came out of the Holocaust because they think this too.
Nor do they see the appalling double standard in the bullying of Israel over the settlements and what that tells us about Obama’s attitude towards Israel, because – as Dershowitz himself makes all too plain — they too think in much the same way, that the settlements are the principal obstacle to peace. Many if not most American Jews have a highly sentimentalised view of Israel. They never go there, are deeply ignorant of its history and current realities, and are infinitely more concerned with their own view of themselves as social liberals, a view reflected back at themselves through voting for a Democrat President.
Whatever else he is, however, Dershowitz is certainly not ignorant. Which makes this lamentable article all the more revealing, and depressing.
I recently read an excellent article over at the Investigative Project On Terrorism and the good folk there have kindly said I can re-post some of it here. It’s an important story – do read and then share this information. And do visit the IPT’s superb site!
The article details how one of Obama’s top aides cheerfully shared a platform with people promoting Jihad, Anti semitism, homophobia, and Islamic terrorism. This is an abbreviated version of the original piece; the extra emphasis in italics and colour are mine:
A top aide to President Barack Obama provided a keynote address at last weekend’s 46th Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) national convention, a gathering that attracted thousands of people and also featured anti-Semitic, homophobic rhetoric and defense of the terrorist group Hezbollah.
In her remarks, Senior Advisor for Public Engagement and International Affairs Valerie Jarrett noted she was the first White House official to address ISNA. She spoke in general terms about interfaith dialogue and cooperation. She praised her hosts for “the diversity of American organizations, and ideas that are represented and will be debated” at the convention.
And she openly invited ISNA President Ingrid Mattson to work on the White House Council on Women and Girls that Jarrett leads.
The ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-support conspiracy and maintains significant leadership ties to its foundation 28 years ago by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. A more pointed statement also would have stood as a powerful retort to extremist sentiments offered in other segments of the conference.
While many panels featured criticism of U.S. policy and law enforcement, one stood out for its hate-filled rhetoric, and ISNA officials should have seen it coming a mile away. During a “meet the authors” session, Imam Warith Deen Umar, former head of the New York state prison chaplain program managed to:
Argue that key Obama aides are “Israeli,” proving Jews “have control of the world.”
Malign the motives of Jews active in the Civil Rights movement.
Portray the Holocaust as punishment of Jews for being “serially disobedient to Allah.”Insinuate that Hurricane Katrina was a result of tolerance for homosexuality.
Umar’s radicalism is no secret. He previously hailed the 9/11 hijackers as martyrs who were secretly admired by Muslims. He has called for violent jihad. In a January 2004 speech, he urged people:
“Rise up and fight. And fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. You think there is no terror in Quran? It’s called [word unclear] read it in the 56th Surah of the Quran. There’s no lack of translation, there’s no mistranslation There’s not one Sheikh says one thing, no, it’s very clear. When you fight, you strike terror into the heart of the disbeliever.’”
He has a website promoting a past book, Judaiology, which features an excerpt describing “the inordinacy of Jewish power.” Jews, he wrote, are “an amazing people who can steal you blind as you watch. If you discover the theft, they can put you to sleep. If you wake up to them, they can put you back to sleep with mind games, tricks of fancy, smoke screens, and magic. Henry Ford almost uncovered them.”
Other choice comments of his included:
“It’s against the laws of Allah and against the laws of the Bible for homosexuality. And if you think the Quran talks about harsh punishment from Allah, you should read what the Bible says. I don’t have the time to go into it, but it’s in my book. The Bible is very hard on, he says, Allah says that the land itself is doomed. You wonder why things are happening in America are going to happen? You think that Katrina was just a blow of wind?”
“My conclusion is that there should be more jihad,” he said. “But people don’t want to hear that. They’re scared.”
This is the man responsible for the Muslim chaplain program in New York prisons for 20 years. He was forced out of that job after his praise for the 9/11 hijackers became known. This is who ISNA chose to showcase in a “meet the authors” panel and provide an unchallenged platform for.
Umar shared the microphone with another author who did not spew out bigotry, but who did cast Hezbollah as an innocent player. Cathy Sultan described her book, Tragedy in South Lebanon: The Israeli/Hezbollah War of 2006, as a history of “the tragedy of the repeated incursions and wars in South Lebanon, the complexities of the Lebanese politics.”
She made no mention of Iranian funding for Hezbollah or Syrian meddling in Lebanese politics or its suspected involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Nor did Sultan describe indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket fire toward Israeli civilian communities, or the cross-border attack on an Israeli army base by Hezbollah that left three soldiers dead and two others kidnapped.
In response to a question, Sultan said: “Hezbollah still serves a role. I think that Lebanon is still under constant threat from its southern neighbor. And I see nothing wrong, as long as Hezbollah abides by certain rules and regulations; I see no reason why Hezbollah should not remained armed.”
The United States considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist group, and some experts consider it a bigger potential threat to the United States than Al-Qaeda.
The panel did not feature anyone with contrasting viewpoints to challenge Sultan or Umar. The program drew about 50 people, who sat passively during most of the remarks.
Umar’s books were available for purchase at the convention. Government agencies were represented with booths of their own, including the departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
In Cairo, Barack Obama said:
“Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong and a hindrance to peace.”
But somehow, partnering with a group that invites the same thing is okay?
With thanks to the Investigative Project On Terrorism for allowing me to re-post this material.
Visit the IPT by clicking
My, how easily the world condones the notion of this new, racist Palestinian state as championed by Obama.
The plan supported by his administration will lead to a new Palestinian Arab nation – in which Jews and maybe also Christians are banned from living.
At the same time, of course, Israel is being told she must kick out Jews in Judea and Samaria, to make way for this new, ‘Judenfrei’ Palestinian Arab state.
The world either doesn’t care, or doesn’t recall, that 80% of what was Palestine is already taken up by Jordan – which is already Judenfrei, as no Jews are permitted to live there.
Has anyone, ever, read any pieces in the international press condemning Jordan for this racism…?
I know I haven’t.
Thus while the world yells in rage the second Israel lifts a finger to respond to Palestinian terrorism, Israel is held to a far higher standard than either Jordan, or any Muslim country, or the new Palestinian state which is being carved out of Israel by the Arabs and Obama.
In other words, land is being taken from Jews, to form part of a Palestinian Arab, Judenfrei state.
And the world nods and smiles and mutters ‘about time’ as it sits back and watches this happen.
So when a few of my regular readers and even blogger friends chastise me for claiming that Obama is less than fair to Israel, well, they can chastise all they want.
What – am I as a Jew now meant to praise an American leader who seeks to turn the only middle eastern democracy into the size of a postage stamp?
Am I expected to cheer the idea of a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel that will serve as a base for yet more terrorism?
The world is, again, either forgetting or ignoring what happened when Israel left Gaza. Israel gave the Palestinian Arabs what they were demanding – and what happened? Increased terrorism.
A new Palestinian Arab state beside Israel will just be Gaza redux. So excuse me if I’m not throwing a party and cracking open the champagne at the prospect.
And just to illustrate how Palestinian Arabs truly feel on these issues, here’s a fascinating glimpse into their hopes for this new state, courtesy of Arutz Sheva:
A survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development among 1,200 Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, found that many felt Jerusalem should not be shared with Jews and Christians.
When asked to what extent they agreed with a statement made by Barack Obama that Jerusalem should be “a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims,” less than 17% said they agree, while 20 percent said they “somewhat agree.” More than 42 percent said they disagree with the statement, while 17 percent “somewhat disagree.”
More than 45 percent of those surveyed disagreed with a second statement of Obama’s in which the president called on the Arab world to reject violence and killing as a means of struggle.
Twenty-two percent did not give an answer, while the remainder said they “agree” or “somewhat agree” with the statement.
Roughly 300,000 Jews reside in Judea and Samaria, and approximately 250,000 more live in Jerusalem neighborhoods now being demanded by the Palestinian Authority.
The PA demands that any future Arab state in Judea and Samaria be rid of the current Jewish minority.
Jews are currently allowed full access only to the latter site, while the Tomb of the Patriarchs is split into Jewish and Muslim sections, and Jews are allowed to visit Joseph’s Tomb only intermittently.
I think we can all envisage the rage and the threats 0f violence if Muslims were not allowed total access to their holy sites! Yet many of them would ideally ban Jews and Christians from Jerusalem. Talk about rank hypocrisy.
Jerusalem was holy to Jews and Christians before Islam even existed.
So to those who complain when Jews dare to use words like ‘Judenfrei’ and ‘Judenrein’ in connection with Obama’s plans for a new Palestinian Arab state, I say: tough.
It’s the ugly policy that you should be protesting – not the accurate words Jews use to describe it.
The excellent Elder Of Ziyon blog offers this information about Jordan’s bans on both Jews and Israelis:
In 1933, a number of prominent Arabs in Transjordan asked Great Britain to allow Jews to settle there, to help its ailing economy, and Zionists were enthusiastic about the idea. But since the British saw the riots that were happening in Palestine at the time they didn’t want to worry about more problems of that type, so they created a law banning Jews from living there.
This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan’s law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963.
It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.
So, yes, Jordan really has a law banning Jews – not Zionists, but Jews – from becoming citizens. And the original source of this law was none other than Great Britain.
Here’s the law: (h/t british18)
The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:
(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;
(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;
(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;
(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;
(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;
(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.
But what if a Jew wants to become a naturalized citizen? Well…
Any Arab who has resided continuously in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for not less than 15 years may acquire Jordanian nationality, by decision of the Council of Ministers taken on a proposal by the Minister of Internal Affairs, if he renounces his nationality of origin and the law of his country permits him to do so..
‘Judenfrei‘ and ‘Judenrein’
Nazi terms used to designate an area free of Jewish presence. The words bear slightly different connotations; while Judenfrei merely refers to “freeing” an area of all of its Jewish citizens, Judenrein (literally “clean of Jews”) demands that any trace of Jewish blood be removed as an impurity.
Some of the locations declared Judenfrei
Establishments, villages, cities, and regions were declared Judenfrei after they were ethnically cleansed of Jews.
- Gelnhausen, Germany – reported Judenfrei on November 1, 1938 by propaganda newspaper Kinzigwacht after its synagogue was closed and remaining local Jews forced to leave the town.
- German-occupied Luxembourg – reported Judenfrei by the press on October 17, 1941.
- German-occupied Estonia – December, 1941 . Reported as Judenfrei at Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942
- German-occupied Belgrade, Serbia – August, 1942
- Vienna – reported Judenfrei by Alois Brunner on October 9, 1942
- Berlin, Germany – July 16, 1943
Check out also ‘Jordan’s Identity Crisis’ over at Elder Of Ziyon:
American Arab journalist Joseph Farah is one of the few commentators who talks straight about what Obama is trying to do to Israel. Here he makes it clear what Obama is really doing:
Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as “a more balanced approach to Middle East policy.”
Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.
It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.
Of course, that would never happen with “a more balanced approach to the Middle East.”
It’s the 1930s all over again. This time, it’s the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all. I know you haven’t heard it put like this before. I don’t really understand why.
There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world. Israel is being reduced to “Auschwitz borders.” Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip.
Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.
Again, I ask: Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn’t even tolerate the mere presence of Jews? Can anyone answer that question for me?
Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don’t understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.
Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea? Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims? Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
That’s what we do when we forbid “settlement construction,” repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities. This is “balance”?
Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No.
Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No.
Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No.
Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well.
But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors.
Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely. But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends.
These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
I say: “No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live.”
Original article at
Throughout Jewish history, enemies have burned and destroyed our books. People who know Jews and who understand the Jewish religion and even more, the Jewish psychology, understand that we are a people who revere books and the written word. Indeed, as one commentator on Judaism once wrote, while we are banned from worshipping anything bar G-d, the closest we ever come to this is our deep love and adoration of the Torah.
So it was with a sense of historical deja vu that I read today’s headlines about Arabs attacking a yeshiva in Samaria yesterday, and torching dozens of books including a Torah and also volumes from the Talmud. The attack was pure spite – the arsonists ignored everything else there and attacked only the books. Clearly, some of our Arab cousins do understand the Jewish love of words and books – and struck us where they knew it would wound.
Rabbi Elishama Cohen, head of the yeshiva, said: “It was a horrible sight to see dozen of holy books of the Talmud and Bible burned almost completely.”
And he added:
“The Arabs did this very thoroughly and carefully. We succeeded in saving the remains of some of the burned books and several pages where the letters still are recognizable, the same pages we learned the past several days.”
Rabbi Cohen said that instead of the spirit of the yeshiva students being broken, their numbers will increase next year as a reaction to desecration. Samaria Regional Council chairman Gershon Mesika called on the police to search and arrest the perpetrators. Police said they have begun an investigation.
Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon commented:
“Whoever has not yet understood with whom we are dealing should look at the pictures of the burnt holy books. If Jews had burned dozens of Muslim books, the whole world would be shaking.”
Yule Edelstein, Minister of Information and Diaspora Affairs, said. “To my sorrow, this grave incident is a result of classic anti-Semitism and a reminder of the dark days of the past. It is sad to think that if there were permanent homes and official security, we would not be witness to this grave incident.”
Let’s make this really simple:
See that tiny blue sliver?
Hardly been on a ‘land grab’ now, has it…?
Let’s get more specific:
Egypt also has a border with Gaza. And prior to 1967, when Egypt occupied Gaza, it stuck the Palestinian Arabs in camps and then left them there to rot and garner world sympathy. Guess what? The world did not say a damn word. The Palestinians did not protest and they sure as hell didn’t aim deadly missiles into Egypt. There was no international condemnation of Egypt behaving like ‘Nazis’, despite their abuse of the Palestinians.
Saudi Arabia is a known supporter and funder of Islamic terrorism. Saudi Arabia can always be heard lambasting Israel for its ‘expansionist’ desires. Obscene, is it not…? Look at their comparative sizes again.
Now let’s take a good look at the relative sizes of Israel and America. Obama is so obsessed with ordering Israel to give up land – easy for him to demand that, isn’t it? After all, what does he know about living in a country so small that it’s a miracle it’s managed to survive this long surrounded by hostile states dedicated to its destruction?
And especially for my fellow Brits:
And finally, just to really put it in perspective, here is Israel, compared with Lake Michigan:
So next time you hear someone trotting out the weary old Arab propaganda about Israel being on a ‘land grab’, you’ll know their claims are utter fiction. By looking at these maps, you’ll perhaps now also realise that if Obama and the Arab and Muslim worlds get their way, you won’t be able to see Israel on any map for that much longer.