In Honour of Israeli Apartheid Week

All is explained here:

An Occupy LA Organizer Refuses to Condemn Anti-Semitism: Defends it as Free Speech

If you are going to protest and call for change, you have to be against some things and for some things. The OWS movement is quickly losing credibility by refusing to be honest about what it wants. They hide behind "democracy" and claim that no one person can speak for the group, which means that they don't officially want anything. Well, they got nothing. So why don't they go home now? They got exactly what they wanted.

The point is that OWS is not really interested in participating in the democratic process; they actually want to subvert it. Well, fine if that is what they want they are an enemy of all democratic people and we need to keep them under control so they don't succeed. Hitler succeeded in subverting democracy and so did Lenin. But we won't let it happen here.

The other day an OWS protester was filmed spouting Nazi-like anti-Semitic garbage. She was a part-time teacher with the LA School Board. She has now been fired, which is appropriate.

But in this clip from a local LA news station, she is unrepentant. The clip also features an interview with an "organizer" of Occupy LA, who is asked to denounce her. The organizer refuses.

Now if you asked the organizer to denounce the banks or the 1% she would, of course, have no problem doing so. Why? Because there is consensus in the OWS movement. But she won't denounce anti-Semitism. Why not? Obviously, there must not be consensus about that issue.

So this seems to me to establish quite clearly that anti-Semitism is (1) present in the OWS movement and (2) tolerated in the OWS movement.

Therefore, I denounce the OWS movement as immoral, hateful and prejudiced and I call on all moral people to do the same.

Can anyone see any flaws in this reasoning?

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Capitalism Always Go Together

Defenders of OWS claim that the many video clips circulating on the internet of anti-Jewish signs and OWS protesters spouting anti-Semitic garbage do not represent the movement as a whole. Well, they might not represent you in particular, but if you are an OWS supporter the fact is that they do represent the movement you have chosen to identify with. The mainstream media is maintaining a discrete silence about the anti-Semitism because it wishes to aid the protesters, who align with their left-wing, anti-capitalist, anti-Israel biases.

Here is a post from Big Government reporting on how OWS Chicago joined in an anti-Israel protest organized by Code Pink, the Gay Liberation Network and the ANSWER Coalition.

Here is another post from Big Government on Lisa Fithian, a union organizer for the Chicago Teachers Union, the Teamsters, the UAW and the SEIU. On May 31, 2010, she led an anti-Israel demonstration. Video of her rants is included in this post and the following comment is given:

The footage above was shot on May 31, 2010 and features Lisa Fithian shouting through a megaphone, accusing the state of Israel of “slaughter[ing] Palestinians every single day.” As Fithian, organizer of the Democratic Party’s new favorite mass protest, looks on, a menacing man decked out in a Palestinian keffiyeh leads her activists in the chant:

“Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea!”

You don’t need a degree in geography to know what that means. From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea there lies a small nation named Israel. If “Palestine” were to be free within those geographic boundaries, that would mean the destruction of Israel– America’s most reliable Middle East ally, and the only true democracy in the entire region.

But the vile chants under Fithian’s leadership don’t stop there. The mindless robotic herd is also led in the chilling chant:

“Long live Intifada!”

The intifada that the Fithian troops pine for is the bloody terrorist war waged upon innocent Israelis, the latest incarnation of which claimed the lives of more than 1,000 (mostly civilian) Israelis–not to mention thousands of Palestinians killed (most of whom were combatants).

As President Barack Obama, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and other Democratic Party leaders line up with the Fithian-led “Occupy” protesters, they might want to consider that they are supporting a movement headed by a woman who organizes and leads radicals who want Israel eliminated from the map.

Fithian is a moving force behind the OWS protests, which are not spontaneous uprisings nor are they a mass movement. They are organized and funded by the hard left in America and other countries and they use unemployed young people and college students as their dupes.

But as this post from FrontPageMag.com reminds us, anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism have been historically associated with one another since before Marx.

It’s a long history. As New American columnist Daniel Sayani points out, the OWS, despite self-professed notions that they are leading a new movement “are merely perpetuating the socialist belief that Jews are to blame for ‘social injustice,’ an idea that began with Proudhon.” Proudhon was a self-professed anarchist who published What is Property? Or, An Inquiry Into the Principle of Right and Government in 1840. He inspired Karl Marx​, who maintained a years-long correspondence with the author. In 1844, Marx himself wrote “On the Jewish Question​,” (alternatively entitled “A World Without Jews”) in which he blames the Jews for the same “income inequality” and “dollar worship” that irks many of today’s protesters.

Furthermore, Sayani points out, the American Left’s favorite economist, John Maynard Keynes​, whose economic policies “of bailouts, central banking, and massive governmental intervention to ‘stabilize’ output over the business cycle” was himself an anti-Semite who once stated, “It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains.”

No Christian should have anything to do with OWS, which is a hateful and negative movement that uses naive people who have grievances to advance a worldview that is opposed to Christianity.

More Anti-Semitism from Occupy Wall Street

Here is another very calm, very coherent, very hate-filled OWS protester admitting to an interviewer that she thinks the Jews who run the bands and the Federal Reserve should be run out of the country. She talks like she thinks that everybody agrees with her and it isn't even that controversial. In her circles it probably isn't.



Tony Katz has a post in which he describes his interview on Cross Talk, which was afterward posted on YouTube. He gives a list of the some of the comments it attracted and the anti-Semitic theme was prominent once again.

HAs tony ever been punched? Id like to be the first. – MrMrEvin

The only acts of violence are by the police! don’t listen to that Jew! – murmur6666

lol, just what i expected from a tea party douche. Pull the string, get the pre-programmed ideas. Sheesh. – ForestSongUnLTD

The guillotine needs to make a comeback. – bamboo4tameshigiri

T. Katz needs a bitch slappin’. Pick me! Pick me! – phillisthebarbarian

Teabaggers need to be put in re-education camps! Roseanne Barr was right! – petersz98

Tony’s face would look good arguing from the bottom of a basket. – Will224000

What a fat f*** – arturro666

tony should be wearing a white hood… – SHACKTRESS

What a dumb Zionist tool in the bottom right corner – megamogx

will someone please violently obliterate the man on the bottom right – humanboy1221

Who is this stupid Tea Party guy. Make me want to stand up and punch his face. What a dick head!!! – nhu111

Didn't we see this movie before in the 1930s? Do you who identify as leftist not see the danger of your 1% class-warfare rhetoric? Don't you see that it has already led you to become identified with some really seriously evil people and attitudes? Do you really want to be part of this?

Remember, in 2012 in North America conservatives are neither racist nor anti-Semitic. Conservatives stand against hate and prejudice. Will those on the Left join us in condemning anti-Semitism and rooting it out of their organizations?

Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street and Leftist Hypocrisy

Some of my critics think I an being too hard on Occupy Wall Street. (See comments on the last post.) But, actually, I've been restraining myself. No, really!

There are several (probably a lot more than I've seen, but I've seen several) videos circulating on the web of evidence of gross anti-Semitism being expressed and tolerated at OWS protests. When I saw the first one, I thought it was an isolated wacko and it might be dangerous to put it up; after all, maybe the leaders of OWS have already condemned it. Then I saw more and heard nothing from the OWS leadership about it. I checked the website. Nothing.

But the Emergency Committee for Israel, which is doing yeoman's work fighting back against the Obama administration's anti-Israel agenda, has just done an ad in which excerpts from several of these videos are collected together. The point of the ad is to challenge Democratic leaders for daring to support a protest movement that is obviously deeply infested with filthy anti-Semites.

Just imagine if right-wing anti-Semitic groups showed up at Tea Party rallies and ranted against the "Jewish bankers" who control the country and if they were tolerated by the rally organizers and participants. Just imagine how big a story it would be. Just imagine what Keith Olberman, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews would say. Just imagine what Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean would say. Just imagine how vilified the Tea Party would be and how much screaming and self-righteous indignation would ensue.

Now listen to the silence from the Left over anti-Semitism at OWS: (cue sound of crickets chriping)

Here is the ad from ECI.



I think the silence is eloquent.

Note:
Don't even bother leaving comments saying that the movement can't be held responsible for every loon who associates with it and that an open, democratic movement can't police itself. That is baloney. Maybe OWS can't prevent an anti-Semitic thug from carrying an OWS sign and getting filmed spouting anti-Semitic garbage, but once that happens and they are called on it, the movement can disown, denounce and separate itself from the anti-Semitism - if it wants to do so. When that happens, let me know and I'll gladly post a notice of it.

Columbia University Welcomes the Man Who Would Finish Hitler's Work

A student asked me if there is anybody I would want to see banned from speaking at Tyndale or if I think freedom of speech is absolute. My answer was that yes, there are speakers who should be banned from Tyndale.

If students want someone to protest, there are plenty of opportunities.

For example, just the other day I came across this article by Mona Charon, which talks about how Columbia University has "Oops, done it again." It is once again hosting Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he is in town to speak at the United Nations General Assembly.

And some students, at least a few in the student newspaper anyway, are protesting. Good on them. Charon writes in the National Journal:

The Columbia Spectator is the student newspaper at Columbia University, the school I was once proud to call my alma mater. A report in that newspaper raises the following question: Are leading American universities producing moral illiterates?

According to the Spectator, a group of students who are members of a group called CIRCA, the Columbia International Relations Council and Association, has been invited to attend a private dinner with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he travels to New York for the United Nations General Assembly meeting next week. A student spokesman for the group, asked if the invitation provoked controversy within CIRCA, seemed surprised by the question. “Everyone was really enthusiastic,” said Tim Chan. “They’re thrilled to have this opportunity.”

Ahmadinejad represents everything that campus liberals profess to hate. In order of importance, those things would be: (1) persecuting homosexuals; (2) cruel and abusive treatment of women; (3) brutal treatment of minorities; (4) shooting opponents of the regime in the streets; (5) restricting free speech; (6) building nuclear weapons; and (7) sponsoring terror worldwide. Tehran provides material and moral support for Bashar Assad’s murderous regime in Syria, which has mowed down protesters by the thousands in the past few months. The Iranian regime is also guilty of fetid anti-Semitism, and has the blood of many American soldiers who served in Iraq on its hands — though it isn’t clear that the latter two offenses rate very highly with Columbia students.

Even as members of CIRCA were eagerly anticipating dining with one of the world’s true fiends, the Iranian government was refusing to release American hikers Shane Bauer and Joshua Fattal, who were recently convicted of espionage after a secret trial and sentenced to eight years in prison. Both Bauer and Fattal are graduates of Berkeley, and believers — if you can extrapolate from their backgrounds in “sustainable development” and freelance photography for leftist outlets like Democracy Now! — in liberal causes. Even if members of CIRCA feel no particular solidarity with the hikers as fellow Americans, they might at least feel something for fellow members of the liberal clerisy. But apparently not.

College students are old enough to be responsible for their own moral decision-making, but the faculty and administration of Columbia University certainly provided an appalling example in 2007 when they invited Ahmadinejad to speak.

It is, shall we say, problematic, that Columbia thinks this Jew-hating, holocaust-denying, anti-Western instrument of a totalitarian theocracy is a lovely dinner guest. Why would they think so? Charon nails it in the final paragraphs of her article:

Something is inoculating Ahmadinejad from the total contempt members of the university community would ordinarily feel toward someone with his views and his behavior. . . .

My suspicion is that the harshly adversarial pose of the university toward American society and culture leads to a misplaced benefit of the doubt toward enemies of this country. It is Ahmadinejad’s very hatred of the U.S. that makes him intriguing to Columbia.

This is an excellent example of how blind people have become as a result of the anti-Western, anti-Zionism, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-colonialism, anti-patriarchy, anti-Catholic, anti-Tradition propaganda that almost totally dominates most secular universities today. Just because Muslim fanatics are anti-Western, they are treated as allies by the Left. It is just like Jane Fonda going to Hanoi and calling America evil during the Vietnam War. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The answer to the student newspaper's question above is: "Yes, leading universities are turning out moral illiterates." Here we see the results. Bow to dictators and haters; attack and ban those who would stand up to them. The problem with Columbia is that George W. Bush would be protested and Ahmadinejad gets a pass. It is the mindset that sees this as normal that I see as the problem. We are talking about radically different worldviews here.

What unites radical Islamists, anarchists, Marxists, radical Feminists etc. is the conviction that Western civilization and Christianity are evil and must be destroyed. You can see it in the sexual revolution, which is an assault on the family. You can see it in the way the Obama administration refuses to hold Islamic extremism accountable. You can see it in the way the Left treats Israel.

As the writer of Ecclesiastes might well have said, "There is a time to protest and a time to keep silent."

Yale Closes Its Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism

More news from Yale University that vindicates Bill Buckley's indictment of it in his famous book, God and Man at Yale (as if it needed further vindication). Saudi oil money and leftist political correctness apparently trump the truth at today's postmodern Yale University. The latest bit of evidence for this depressing conclusion is the announcement of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism."

The New York Post has the gory details:

Yale University last week killed the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplin ary Study of Antisemitism -- the only program of its kind in the country, an academically stellar one-stop anti-Semitism research shop. Worse, it almost certainly did so because YIISA refused to ignore the most virulent, genocidal and common form of Jew-hatred today: Muslim anti-Semitism.

Citing an official review by a faculty committee that it refuses to identify, Yale will shut down the program at the end of next month. The university's top flack, Director of Strategic Communications Charles "Robin" Hogen, wrote an e-mail claiming that YIISA had failed a key test: It was supposed to "serve the research and teaching interests of some significant group of Yale faculty and . . . be sustained by the creative energy of a critical mass of Yale faculty."

Funny, last year, at YIISA's hugely successful inaugural conference on global anti-Semitism, Yale Deputy Provost Frances Rosenbluth said just the opposite, noting that YIISA was "guided by an outstanding group of scholars from all over the university representing many different disciplines," including professors of history, sociology, comparative languages, psychiatry, economics and political science.

Actually, Hogen's e-mail itself contradicts Yale's stated excuse: He notes that "the steering committee did express continued support for the faculty reading group on anti-Semitism." Plus, "institutional support will remain for the group of faculty who wish to continue their scholarly exploration of this important subject."

Which is it -- no faculty interested in studying anti-Semitism, or lots of faculty interest in studying anti-Semitism?

It apparently depends on which anti-Semitism. Christian anti-Semitism is fine; political Jew-hatred, like communist or fascist anti-Semitism, no problem. But get anywhere near Muslim or Middle Eastern anti-Semitism, as presenters at YIISA's conference did last year, and you've crossed the line.

Yale certainly got an earful after the conference. The PLO representative in America scolded the school's president, Richard Levin, complaining of the attention paid to anti-Semitism among Palestinians and Muslims.

"It's shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views," PLO "Ambassador" Maen Rashid Areikat wrote. "I urge you to publicly dissociate yourself and Yale University from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display during this conference."

Other attacks came from left-wing bloggers and anti-Israel bigots, as well as one Yale law student who complained about the conference's potential dangers.

Citing the supposed "dangerous landscape on which American Muslims now dwell" to complain about alleged "anti-Muslim bigotry disseminated under Yale's banner of credibility," Yaman Saleh insisted that "the university cannot preach tolerance and inclusion while simultaneously also providing a haven for bigoted ideas about Muslims and Arabs that often form the basis for Islamophobic sentiment in this country."

Funny, there wasn't a peep about bigoted ideas presented under "Yale's banner of credibility" a year earlier, when a lecturer at Yale's new Jackson Center for Global Affairs took her graduate students to New York to visit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad explained to the students that there is no hard scientific proof that the Holocaust happened.

Neither the lecturer nor the center faced much criticism about meeting with a dictator just a few months after he'd murdered, tortured and terrorized his own citizens to hijack an election.

Read the rest here.

The Jewish Anti-defamation League issued a press release:

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said in a statement:

Whatever purported issues and problems arose regarding the Yale Interdisciplinary Center, what was required was a concerted effort to work out the problems rather than ending the program. Especially at a time when anti-Semitism continues to be virulent and anti-Israel parties treat any effort to address issues relating to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as illegitimate, Yale's decision is particularly unfortunate and dismaying.

The Yale Center was organized in a serious way and, under the leadership of its director, Professor Charles Small, produced significant programs and research in its short history. If there were problems that the university raised, they needed to be dealt with and resolved. The decision to end the Center was a bad one on its own terms, but it is even worse because it leaves the impression that the anti-Jewish forces in the world achieved a significant victory.

You may remember the flap in which Yale University Press refused to print the Danish Mohammed cartoons in a scholarly book about the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Free speech at Yale increasingly seems to be limited to those who refrain from criticizing Islam.

Hatred of the Chosen People is Rooted in the Hatred of God

The form that the ancient and primal hatred of the Jews takes today is being anti-Israel. (It also often took this form in past eras, such as the Second Temple period.) The hatred of God's Chosen People is rooted in the Fall - in the hatred of God. Obviously, the people of God are easier to get at than the Creator Himself and so they bear the brunt of Satanic/human wrath all through history. You can read about it in the book of Revelation.

Hatred of the Chosen People is irrational, unprovoked and unlike the usual run-of-the-mill ethnic jealousies and prejudices. It is religious: anti-Semitism is the ultimate in religious war. So it quite ironic that today it is the most secular of Western elites - proud and smug that they are not religious fanatics like those other men (like American Evangelicals, for example) - who succumb to this particular fanaticism.

Melanie Phillips, in her column in the Spectator, has a column entitled: "And now, those on the side of civilization." She quotes Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, who stands in a great tradition of British Judeophilia. He has some very interesting things to say about today's anti-Israel prejudice:

This malevolent portrayal of the Israeli Defence Forces is carefully and systematically planned, cultivated, developed, expanded and relentlessly driven forward. It is the key part of what amounts to nothing less than a pernicious and increasingly dangerous global conspiracy of propaganda aimed at the total delegitimization of the state of Israel. A conspiracy that has so far exceeded in its international scope, anything dreamt of even by that master of propaganda, Dr Josef Goebbels himself, spreading the idea that Israel is so evil that it has no right even to exist, aiming for the point where that idea becomes an acceptable, mainstream argument in our societies.

It is no surprise of course that such a campaign has great popularity in the Arab and the wider Islamic world any more than Goebbels’s twisted propaganda machine succeeded in persuading so many Germans to his murderous cause. But what is truly shocking is the traction that this propaganda has gained in the west among student bodies, teachers, university authorities, academics, think tanks, human rights organizations, aid agencies, parliamentary bodies, and – perhaps most damaging of all, the mass media.

...The Report of the UN Fact Finding Mission into the 2009 Gaza Conflict, better known as the Goldstone Report, accused Israeli forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, deliberately killing, wounding and terrorising innocent civilians...only last month, Judge Richard Goldstone retracted the most serious allegations that he had made, saying that Israel did not in fact intentionally kill or wound innocent civilians. He wrote that if he had known at the time of his investigation what he knows now, the Goldstone Report would have been a very different document. Well, I, with my far more limited resources and access, could have told him a great deal of what is now apparently new to him.

In fact, I did tell him at the time of his report, in evidence I gave to the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2009:

“During its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

I based my opinion on 30 years of experience fighting terrorists and insurgents, of my detailed study of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, of my extensive knowledge and understanding of the Israeli Defence Forces, and of my knowledge of Hamas and its military strategy and tactics. The same strategies and tactics used by insurgents and violent jihadists in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other parts of the world.

Many people have contradicted my assertion about the IDF. But no one has been able to tell me which other army in history has ever done more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone. In fact my assertions about the steps taken in that conflict by the Israeli Defence Forces to avoid civilian deaths are inadvertently borne out by a study published by the United Nations itself. A study that shows that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymetric conflict in the history of warfare.

The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three-to-one. In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia.

In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.

This extremely low rate of civilian casualties flatly contradicts many of Goldstone’s original allegations, and the bleating insistence of various other human rights groups about Israel’s alleged crimes against humanity.

His entire speech is well-worth reading; you can read it here.

The world-wide propaganda campaign currently being carried on against the IDF is spear-headed by Muslim nations in cooperation with Western left-wing media, government and union elites. It uses the United Nations as its tool and is in the process of totally discrediting the UN in so doing. In a line from his speech not quoted by Phillips, Kemp said:

A favourite vehicle for the anti-Israel conspiracy is the United Nations Human Rights Council. While continuing to neglect the woefully abused rights of 350 million citizens of the Middle East, not to mention the rights of many more people the world over, the Council focuses its attention almost exclusively on Israel.

I invite you to do some reading on the UN Human Rights Council. It is dominated by human-rights abusing countries and is a complete sham. Its only function is to attack Israel, which it does relentlessly and without regard for the truth. It is so unbalanced and one-sided that its activities can only be described as anti-Jewish propaganda.

It is a particularly pernicious and evil thing to attack the only Western democracy in the Middle East as the incarnation of all evil. Those who let themselves be drawn into anti-Israel propaganda need to beware of the snares of the Evil One. This is not just politics; it is a spiritual war.

Palestinian Pathological Hatred for Jews on Full Display

If you lived in Israel, this is what you would be up against. This is a government spokesman for the Palestinian Authority talking about the latest incident in which Israel retaliated after a shell from Gaza hit a school bus. The rhetoric sounds exactly like Western Left-wing, anti-Israel rhetoric.

Even when the terrorists attack innocent civilians deliberately and Israel retaliates in such a way as to minimize civilian casualities, they have the nerve to accuse Israel of war crimes! Where is the righteous indignation of the world? Oh, right, they were just Jews.



People who justify deliberately blowing up children to score political points are not civilized and they do not deserve a country of their own. They only deserve a prison cell - and that is being kinder than they deserve.

Who are the Real Nazis in the Middle East?

In Academic, among professional historians, it is common knowledge that German Fascism took root in the Middle East during World War II and the anti-Semitism that characterizes radical Islam today is directly influenced by German anti-Semitism of the kind that powered Hitler's National Socialism.

The following article, "Iranian Antisemitism: Stepchild of German National Socialism" is by German academic Mathtias Kuntzel and was published in The Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 2010/5769, pp. 43-51. Kuntzel's book, Jihad and Jew Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, is published by Telos Press and won the Grand Prize at the 2007 London Book Festival.

"Many Iranians — including those in exile — claim that currently there is not any antisemitism in Iran. They point to the fact that the Jews of Iran today constitute the largest Jewish community in any Muslim country, which is true, and that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not attack “the Jews,” but rather “the Zionists.”

At the same time, no other regime in the world is as antisemitic as that of the Mullahs in Tehran. It is true that Ahmadinejad does not attack “the Jews”, but instead claims that “two thousand Zionists want to rule the world.”^[1] He says, “For sixty sears now, the Zionists” have blackmailed all western governments.”^[2] “The Zionists have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors.”^[3] “The Zionists” are responsible for the Danish Muhammad cartoons. “The Zionists” are responsible for the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Iraq.^[4] Of course, he invests the word “Zionist” with exactly the same sense with which Hitler once invested the word “Jew”: namely, that of being the incarnation of all evil. Whoever makes Jews responsible for all the ills of the world – whether as “Judas” or “Zionists” — is clearly driven by antisemitism.

Thus, in the special case of Iran we have both individual Jews, who are afforded some degree of protection as long as they agree to live in accordance with the religious concept of Dhimmitude and maintain a low profile, and the Jews in the abstract, i.e. “the Zionists,” who are considered to be the embodiment of global evil.

It is not hard to explain why individual Jews are more or less accepted in Iran: At least since the beginning of the rule of Reza Shah in 1925, the Iranian concept of “Aryanhood” included non-Muslim religious groups such as Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews. This concept of national integration (which also embraces Jews) remains somewhat applicable to this day.

The hatred of the abstract “Jew” and of Israel is more difficult to explain. Israel and Iran have no territorial disputes and there is no Iranian refugee issue; indeed, the pre-1979 period saw decades of good relations with Israel quite unlike the strained relation between Iranians and Arabs. In addition, the delusion of a “global Jewish power” was unknown in the Shia Muslim tradition. It is a hallmark of modern European antisemitism.

Thus the main question is when and how this kind of modern antisemitism, this hatred of the “abstract Jew”, was transplanted to Iran?

In the course of researching my study on the German-Iranian relationship over the past hundred years, I discovered archival documents that at least partly answer this question — documents relating to a period when the intensity of German-Iranian relations reached its peak: during World War II.^[5]

- - snip - -

Politically, the two countries shared common enemies from World War I onwards. Although Iran was officially neutral in both world wars, the hearts of most Iranians beat for Germany. They were battling the same adversaries: the Russians and British and later the Americans and Zionists or Jews. In addition, Germans became immensely popular in their role of technicians and engineers. In the mid-1920s, Germany provided Iran with both the backbone of its industrial infrastructure and the trained personnel needed to run it. Soon the German work ethic was legendary in Iran.

- - snip - -

By the beginning of the World War II, bilateral cooperation between Iran and Germany had become extremely strong. In 1940, Germany accounted for 47,1 percent of all Iranian exports and 42,9 percent of imports.^[6] Eighty percent of all machinery in the country came from Germany. But that is not all that was imported: at the same time, European antisemitic ideology was brought to Tehran in Farsi via a Berlin-based short-wave radio transmitter.

Iran was of strategic importance to Germany. As Hitler envisaged it, after the assault on the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht would also occupy the Caucasus and in so doing, open the way to the Middle East. Then Iran and Iraq would be conquered and the British Empire destroyed from the south. A pro-German movement in Iran reinforced by a concentrated propaganda effort would prepare for the German invasion of that country.

At that time, most Iranians were illiterate and used to listened to the radio in town squares or in bazaars and coffee houses. The German short wave radio station, called Radio Zeesen, was the most popular one in the country.^[7]

“Even if we do broadcast in Persian,” British Ambassador to Tehran Reader Bullard wrote in 1940, “we cannot hope to rival the Germans in interest, as their more violent, abusive style, with exaggerated claims … appeals to the Persian public.”^[8] Bullard had identified one reason for Radio Zeesen’s success. The programs were rabble-rousing rather than factual. Their aim was not to inform, but to incite antisemitism and to boast of German successes. They were targeted at a mass audience rather than intellectuals. Thus, the United Nations was dubbed the “United Jewish Nations,” and the Jordanian king, Emir Abdullah, was mocked as “Rabbi Abdullah” for wanting to negotiate with the Zionists.

The programmes were, however, produced professionally. Inflammatory harangues were skilfully interspersed with Koranic citations and musical interludes adapted to local tastes. In addition, the reception of Radio Zeesen was better than that of any other station broadcasting, since its Berlin transmitter had been upgraded for the 1936 Olympics. Last but not least, in the person of Bahram Sharokh, Radio Zeesen had a first-rate presenter with a good voice and excellent diction at its disposal. A 1941 survey of German propaganda achievements in Iran boasted that “Sharokh [was] always praised as a brilliant speaker and was more popular than even others, including the enemy ones.”^[9]

- - snip - -

It was understood that German-style antisemitism would have little resonance in Iran. “The broad masses lack a feeling for the race idea,” explained the propaganda expert of the German embassy in Tehran. He therefore laid “all the emphasis on the religious motif in our propaganda in the Islamic world. This is the only way to win over the Orientals.”^[12] But how exactly could Nazi Germany, of all countries, conduct a religious propaganda campaign? Ettel had an idea.

“The way to directly connect up with Shi’ite ideas is through the treatment of the Jewish question, which the Muhammedan perceives in religious terms and which, precisely for this reason, makes him susceptible to National Socialism on religious grounds.” Just as hatred of Jews would provide the point of entry into the Shi’ite faith, so religion would serve as the natural medium for the propagation of Jew-hatred. “A way to foster this (anti-Jewish) development would be to highlight Muhammad’s struggle against the Jews in ancient times and that of the Führer in modern times,” Ettel recommended to the Foreign Office. “Additionally, by identifying the British with the Jews, an exceptionally effective anti-English propaganda campaign can be conducted among the Shi’ite people.”

Ettel even picked out the appropriate Koranic passages: firstly, sura 5, verse 82: “Truly you will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans”; and, secondly, the final sentence of chapter 2 of Mein Kampf: “In resisting the Jew, I do the work of the Lord.” “By successfully bringing the country’s clergy under the sway of German propaganda, we can win over broad layers of the popular masses,” Ettel wrote in February 1941.^[13]

Ettel’s proposal demonstrates that the Nazis sought to use religion to create an implacable hostility to the Jews. The first step was to awaken religious anti-Judaism, using references to Muhammad and the Koran. Thus, they built on the foundations of a centuries-old Muslim anti-Judaism while at the same time radicalizing it. One way of doing that was to depict Britain as being under Jewish control. Britain was in any case detested by the majority of the Iranian people. They were well-disposed, however, towards the US, as Ettel bitterly complained.

Thus, from late summer 1942 onwards, Radio Zeesen’s antisemitism was mixed with a special type of anti-Americanism as well. For example, Radio Zeesen emphasised “that the Jewish power policy in the Middle East is being implemented by the Americans.” This linkage is “regularly employed to reinforce our anti-American propaganda in Iran.”

- - snip - -

Among the regular listeners to this material was a man of whom the world was later to hear much more: Ruhollah Khomeini . . .

Here is Kuntzel's conclusion:

"It is not the technology that makes the Iranian nuclear programme so dangerous, but the ideological context within which it arises. For the first time since the splitting of the atom, we find the destructive force of the bomb linked to the fury of a holy anti-Jewish war.

“Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it”, suggested Tawfik Hamid, a former member of Jamaa Islamiya, an Islamic terrorist group led by Dr. Aiman Al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command of Al-Qaeda.^[23] Today, this challenge applies not only to Iran, where hundreds of thousands of opponents of Ahmadinejad want to know what went wrong with Khomeinism and why. The impact of Radio Zeesen also ought to be discussed also in the Western world, where still too many pundits are wrongly trying to scapegoat Israel for the old and new antisemitism of the Iranian regime."

Read it all here. This history is why the term "Islamofascism" is correct as an objective description of radical, antisemitic, political Islam. There is much in Islam's past history that is anti-Jewish going all the way back to the early days of the Prophet. But in the 20th century a dangerous mutation occurred as traditional Islamic-Jewish rivalry fused with the virus of modern, antisemitism of European origin.

For the American administration naively to address Islam as the religion of peace and to treat Islamic terrorism as the work of individual crackpots here and there is just inadequate as a response. It makes Neville Chamberlain's response to Hitler look strong and uncompromising - and the analogy is exquisitely appropriate.

Is Worldwide Anti-Semitism as Bad Today as it Was in the 1930s?

The growing anti-Zionist, anti-Israel rage is fueling the ancient plague of Jew hatred that is the disease of the human spirit which refuses to be stamped out.

In the 1930s people were convinced that Jewish bankers pulled the strings and manipulated the world for their own financial gain. The Left contended that powerful Jews and Capitalists conspired against the masses. Today the powerful state of Israel has taken the place of the powerful Jewish bankers in the fetid imagination of the Jew haters. This way of thinking allows them to claim not to hate individual Jews per se, but only to be concerned about the Bankers/Zionists who have money, power and influence. Basically, anti-Semites resent Jews having any power whatsoever and think that, if they are allowed to live, it should be in ghettos and with severe restrictions that keep them down. So it seems justified to them to resent it when Jews get uppity and dare to fight back against prejudice, hate and marginalization.

Today, the world-wide campaign conducted by the Left and Islam against the State of Israel is so successful that the media is biased, the European Union is almost completely anti-Israel and even Great Britain, which once, when Christianity was more influential in that country, was Israel's greatest friend, has now turned against Israel.

Here is a typical news story from Reuters headlined: "Israeli air strike kills two Hamas men in Gaza." I want to make some comments in [square brackets in red.]

[First, we cannot let the title go by without comment. Notice that they are "Hamas men" not "terrorists" or "extremists" or "child killers" - all of which would be more accuarate as we shall see.]

An Israeli air strike killed two militants from the Islamist group Hamas in the southern Gaza Strip on Friday as a fresh spike in cross-border violence continued for a second day. [And notice that the story leads with Israel's action as if it were not a response to an extreme provocation. The story does not say Israel's action was unprovoked; it doesn't have to when it can subtly imply this by the way it sets up the narrative.]

A Palestinian group said it fired two rockets into Israel around dawn and Israeli shelling also wounded two Hamas militants on a patrol.

The Israeli military said it had "identified two terrorist squads from Hamas" and had hit them from the ground and air.

Two years of low-level skirmishing on the border escalated suddenly last month when the Islamist Hamas group which rules Gaza fired a barrage of rockets at Israel, triggering a surge of fighting which killed 16 Palestinians. [Note the moral equivalence implied by the term "skirmishing." A more accurate way of describing it would be two years of Hamas attacks on Israel and Israeli attempts to prevent further attacks.]

Analysts in Gaza said Hamas wanted to bolster its claim to leadership of the divided Palestinian national movement and divert attention from popular demands -- fueled by the 'Arab Spring' -- for an end to the split with its Fatah rivals.

But it had miscalculated Israel's response. [Again, without saying so explicitly, the subtle implication is that Israel's response was extreme or overdone. "Who could have expected such a harsh response?" is the implication.]

That spurt of violence subsided, but fighting flared again on Thursday when Hamas gunmen fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus, wounding two. [At last, halfway into the story we come to the real source of Israel's response. These murderous, evil, inhuman, thugs deliberately targeted a school bus. This is a war crime; it should be condemned as such by the UN, the EU, the US and the entire world. It should prompt international outrage and serious retaliation against Hamas - boycotts, loss of aid, etc. But the silence is deafening. Only Israel cares. Only Israel responds to protect innocent school children. After all, they are just Jews.] Israel retaliated with planes and armored forces, killing five Palestinians. [How could they be so restrained? This type of crime deserves a much more serious response.]

Hamas took responsibility for the bus attack, [They are proud of it! And they obviously, with good reason, expect no significant repercussions internationally.] and an Israeli analyst said it was plainly smarting from recent setbacks, including an April 2 Israel airstrike that killed three Gazans, and which it had vowed to avenge.

But firing a long-range anti-tank weapon at a clearly marked yellow school bus may have been a further miscalculation. [A "miscalculation"? This is the best Reuters can do? A "miscalculation"?]

"Red lines were crossed," Tal Russo, head of Southern Command, said on Israeli army radio. [The only moral language in this article comes in quotes of Israelis.]

The United Nations and European Union on Friday voiced concern over the rising tensions and called on the sides to show restraint and bring an end to the latest round of fighting. [Here is the pernicious "moral equivalence" again. The murderer slashing the victim's throat and the policeman's attempt to arrest the criminal are both morally equivalent. That is how they see it. Killing terrorist murders and shooting a missile at a school bus - exactly the same thing. So both sides need to be addressed in exactly the same way.]

NO "CALM" YET

Minister of Home Front Defense Matan Vilnai said Israel was locked in a "war of attrition" with Hamas.

"We are taking the proper steps, defensively and offensively. Yesterday, without a doubt, there was a serious deviation with the missile fire on the (school) bus," Vilnai told Army Radio.

He declined to say if operations were ceasing.

Gaza militants on Thursday fired 45 rockets and mortars into Israel. Israeli forces struck targets throughout the densely populated territory, including Hamas positions, smuggling tunnels along the border with Egypt and Gaza's derelict airport.

Five Palestinians were killed and 30 others were injured.

Hamas has again said it was interested in restoring "calm" to the front and was trying to get smaller militant groups to halt attacks. [And Reuters just takes Hamas' word for it? School bus attackers are agents of restraint? It is Hamas the peace-loving freedom fighters try to calm down the wild, extremists in the IDF, I guess.] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would take all necessary action to protect its citizens, but that he hoped the "situation will be contained."

During Thursday's barrage, Israel used for the first time its short-range Iron Dome interceptor. Its missiles destroyed in mid-flight a rocket heading for the city of Ashkelon.

Vilnai said Israel will consider deploying further Iron Dome systems near Gaza to join the two that are currently stationed there, but hinted at budgetary restraints.

Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 from forces loyal to Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The two wings of the Palestinian national movement remain enemies.

(Reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi and Ari Rabinovitch; editing by Douglas Hamilton and Paul Taylor)

This article is typical. Such articles appear in the world press every day. And that is the measure of how biased the media is against Israel. The fact that these kind of articles, which portray Israel as being as guilty as Hamas, are common reveals the bias.

By the way, the idea that the "occupied territories" are the reason for the conflict is obviously untrue. All these rockets being fired into Israel now are coming from the Gaza Strip. Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and then unilaterally withdrew from it. So problem solved, right? Wrong. The issue is not the "occupied territories" but rather the existence of Israel. Nothing will satisfy the Islamofascists other than the destruction of Israel and, preferably, the genocide of all Jews.

And even, they will not be happy. They will simply turn all the resources, funding, weapons, fanaticism and energy into the Jihad against the West. Europe will be the next battleground. For the Islamofascists, Spain is as much part of the territory of Islam as Israel is. And Iran will soon have nuclear tipped missiles that can reach European capitals.

As always, Jews are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to human rights. Fighting anti-Semitism is the right thing to do in any case, but it is also in today's world a matter of enlightened self-interest for Westerners. Unfortunately, in order to act according to enlightened self-interest one first has to be enlightened. So until the West wakes up from its dark, nihilistic dreaming, it will continue to slide toward destruction. History repeats itself and the consequences for Europe and the world will be as horrifying as those of the early 1940s.

The Leader of the Free World

Given the glaring vacuum of leadership from the current occupant of the White House, it could be argued that the de facto leader of the free world today is the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanayhu.

Here is his great speech at the United Nations on Sept. 24, 2009 after the sickening spectacle of Iran's president spewing anti-Semitic rants in the tradition of Hitler and Amalek the previous day. He addresses the issue of the reality of the Holocaust and the threat to the world from Iran. He argues that the real clash is not between faiths, but between civilization and barbarism.

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, I recommend you watch the first part. The full transcript is here.









And here is Netanayhu as a 28 year old student in the US, where he graduated from MIT. He went under the name of Nitay for security reasons. His brother Yonaton, a commando, had recently been killed in the Israeli rescue mission in Entebbe. In this clip, the 28 year old Netanayhu gives a tremendous account of history and clear-sighted political analysis. He is a voice of truth.



Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East with full human rights for its citizens. It is a beacon of civilization and liberty that must not be allowed to be extinguished. Netanyahu is right that the consequences of such a horrible thing would be of great danger and harm for all of Western civilization and not for Israel or Jews only.

If only the United States has a president with moral clarity, a grasp of history and a passionate commitment to liberty, justice and the defense of all that is good in our cultural traditions.

Liberal Media Successfully Resurrects European Anti-Semitism

Daniel Halper in The Weekly Standard points us to a shocking story in the Jerusalem Post describing a recent study done in Europe by a think-tank associated with Germany's Social Democratic Party. The story is entitled: "47% of Germans Think Israel is Exterminating Palestinians" and the summary says: "Study shows a strong presence of “anti-Semitism that is linked with Israel and is hidden behind criticism of Israel" in Europe."

Here are some excerpts:

"Dr. Beate Küpper, a researcher from the University of Bielefeld who co-authored the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s study along with her colleagues Andreas Zick and Andreas Hoevermann, told The Jerusalem Post on Monday that the study showed a strong presence of “anti-Semitism that is linked with Israel and is hidden behind criticism of Israel, and is not neutral.” . . .

She termed the outbreak of Jew-hatred in Germany “remarkable” because there were widespread Holocaust remembrance and education events in Germany.

The study – “Intolerance, Prejudice, Discrimination: A European Report” –questioned roughly 1,000 people in each of the selected EU countries. . . .

Asked to respond to the statement that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” 47.7 percent of the study’s participants in Germany expressed agreement – the highest number in Western Europe.

The statement is a typical question used to probe attitudes about equating Israel with the Nazi campaign to exterminate European Jewry.

The US State Department defines the comparison as an expression of modern anti- Semitism, as does the European Union. . .

The statement “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews” met with 35.6% affirmation in Germany, while 35.9% of British respondents were in agreement. In the Netherlands, 41.1% favored the assertion, as did 55.2% in Poland, 45.6% in Hungary and 48.8% in Portugal. France declined to participate.

The researchers also asked whether “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era.”

Almost half the Germans questioned responded in the affirmative; the country’s 48.9% result was the highest among the Western European countries. The Netherlands provided the lowest percentage, with 17.2% affirming that Jews were trying to exploit the Nazi era. The number for Poland was 72.2%, and Hungary reached 68.1%. France reached 32.3%, England 21.8%, Portugal 52.2% and Italy 40.2%."

Read it all here.

I noticed this story after writing my last post, but this is clearly the toxic result of the widespread, growing, and extreme bias against Israel displayed by the liberal media over the past number of years. They should be proud of their work: they have revived what WW II stamped out. European anti-Semitism rises again as a result of stoking the ancient prejudice and hatred of Jews under the guise of being anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and pro-Arab. The Left should be pleased with the preparatory work it is doing to get Europe ready to acquiesce to its coming Islamic masters. The transition should be seamless and painless.

The Liberal Media Averts Its Face From a Story That Does Not Fit Its Narrative

The horrifyingly evil murder of a Jewish family in Itamar has been all but ignored by the liberal media. Claire Berlinski, however, went there and reports:

We went yesterday to Itamar, the West Bank settlement where Udi and Ruth Fogel, and their children--Yoav, age 11, Elad, age 4, and Hadas, their 3-month-old daughter--were murdered. A detail that wasn't widely reported, or reported anywhere that I've seen, is that their newborn baby was decapitated. . .

One very quick point I'll make is that this was clearly not a family above all of "settlers"--some alien species that exists primarily as a political bargaining point--but of human beings. In the home next door to the one that was invaded, kids' clothing was hanging on the line next to a child's bicycle. You simply cannot look at that and think, "This story is above all about land and politics." This story is above all about murder. They were children and they were murdered. Two more children were orphaned. The children were targeted deliberately. This was a premeditated murder--not a crime of passion or self-defense--and it was a psychotically savage crime. Anyone who in any way tries to rationalize or minimize this or to suggest that this is a fitting punishment for anything needs to go out and look at a three-month-old baby and ask himself what it would take to climb over a fence, climb in a window, and cut off that child's head. If that act seems an "understandable" reaction to a political grievance to him, I don't think we can have much of a conversation."

Sadly, I think she is right. One can't have a conversation with savages who decapitate your babies when they get a chance and then celebrate in the streets. Israel is increasingly isolated and increasingly dependent on its army alone for its survival. We pray that no major crisis/war occurs until this anti-Israel president has been removed from office by the democratic process.

Mark Steyn has a reflection on this tragedy bitterly entitled: "Dead Jews is No News." He writes:

On Friday night, twelve-year old Tamar Fogel came home to find both her parents, Ruth and Udi Fogel, two brothers Yoav (11) and Elad (four), and her three-month old sister Hadas murdered in their beds. They had had their throats cut and been stabbed through the heart.

That’s not shocking: There is no shortage of young Muslim men who would enjoy slitting the throat of a three-month old baby, and then head home dreaming of the town square or soccer tournament to be named in their honor.

Back in Gaza, the citizenry celebrated the news by cheering and passing out sweets.

That’s not shocking, either: In the broader Palestinian death cult, there are untold legions who, while disinclined to murder Jews themselves, are content to revel in the glorious victory of others.

And out in the wider world there was a marked reluctance to cover the story.

The Western media has covered itself with shame once again. Its selective moral outrage grows less believable with every incident like this. The real motivations behind the de-legitimization of Israel are every bit as ugly as this atrocity. In fact, they are identical.

Where is Arab Genocide Week on Canadian Campuses?

The formidable Rex Murphy has a nice column in the National Post on the shameful travesty known as "Israeli Apartheid Week" entitled: "Where's the Gadaffi Apartheid Week?" The outrage is suspiciously selective, isn't it?

IAW -as, alas, most know -is the annual festival of scorn and propaganda against the world's only Jewish state, an annual attempt to depict Israel as being in the same moral sewer as South Africa in the days of apartheid.

IAW tries to do much with big words like apartheid and genocide and racism, where they really do not apply at all. Israel is not perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinians. Nor is Israel a racist state. . . .

Did I miss Saudi Arabian Gender Apartheid Week? Or let's take another example: This very week in Libya, there is a zealous tyrant turning fire on his own people. Is there, or has there ever been, a Gadaffi Apartheid Week or its equivalent anywhere?

Even as injustices multiply against Christians in various Middle East countries, as Egypt roils with sectarian outrage, why is there not the same righteous fury that grips all the groups who annually appoint themselves scourges of the "Zionist entity" against the perpetrators of those depravities? Their moralism is so singular.

Read the rest here. But what I want to know is where is "Arab Genocide Week?"

Rick Moran has a post describing an all-too-common tragedy in the Middle East here. Terrorists broke into a Jewish home in a settlement in the West Bank and murdered 3 children including an infant and their parents. They are baby-killers. And the reaction of the Arab population? From American Thinker:

Meanwhile, YNet reports the reaction of Palestinian residents of Rafah:

Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.

Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy "is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank."

These are the barbarians the Israelis are up against. Yet Western Leftists and their Muslim allies call Israel the apartheid state. The truth is that the Arabs are doing their best to drive Jews out of their countries and out of the Middle East altogether. If any group is committed to anything in any way similar to what South Africa practiced, it is the Arabs. Only they are worse; they won't be satisfied with apartheid, they want genocide.

Finally, Free Speech is Used to Condemn Anti-Semitism in Canada

Well, this is encouraging. Our political leaders are finally speaking out against the orgy of hate that takes place on Canadian university campuses every year under the banner of Israeli Apartheid Week. From the National Post:

There is a growing Canadian backlash against Israeli Apartheid Week, the on-campus campaign to delegitimize Israel.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued a strongly worded statement Friday, asking students to think twice before joining activities tied to the week, taking place across Canada and internationally this month.

The events, which seek to promote Palestinian human rights, are frequently “accompanied by anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and bullying,” Mr. Kenney said, and are at times planned and promoted with disregard for the safety of Jewish students, professors and others on campus.

“These activities can cultivate an atmosphere exactly the opposite of one that is open to the free exchange of ideas and the development of the mind with the aid of facts and logic,” he said. Repeatedly singling out and condemning Israel year after year creates a “hateful environment” that “offends not only our sense of fairness, but also our core Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

“Such scapegoating becomes yet another symptom of a worrying new acceptance of the vilification of Israel and of Jews around the world.”

At a Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Community fundraiser Thursday evening, Prime Minister Stephen Harper slammed anti-Semitism on Canadian campuses, saying the organized Israeli Apartheid Weeks had become increasingly sophisticated and “intellectually acceptable.”

“At one time, friends, we could’ve expected threatening behaviour toward Jewish students to be rejected in any form at institutions of higher learning,” he told a crowd gathered at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto. “Unfortunately, it is now often the behaviour of the anti-Israeli mob that is allowed to prevail.”

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who also spoke at the event, said it’s time activists stop comparing Israel to South Africa, where apartheid was in place for approximately 45 years and finally abolished in 1993. He, too, released an official statement Monday condemning the week as a “dangerous cocktail of ignorance and intolerance” that threatens “the mutual respect” of Canadian society.

Read the rest here.

Well said Prime Minister and kudos to Michael Ignatieff for standing up for the right and setting partisan politics aside for once.

Let them say what they want. And then shame them, refute them, disown them and make them responsible for their hateful, biased, prejudiced and ignorant talk. That is what free speech is for.

Melanie Phillips Explains Western Anti-Semitism

Melanie Phillips is interviewed on Israeli television and explains how Western intellectuals think and why anti-Israel sentiment is growing so rapidly. She hold Israel responsible for not combating the Arab lies and propaganda that are now shaping public discourse in the West. She is unsparing of the Israeli Left itself. She provides a very interesting perspective.



I thought her acid comments on the two-state solution beginning just after the 6 minutes, 30 seconds mark were outstanding. She is absolutely right and utterly realistic. The Arab world does not want a two state solution and that is the problem.

Is CAIR a "Moderate" Islamic Organization?

Is CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) a moderate Islamic group which should be allowed a place at the table and accorded respect as an organization that promotes mutual respect for religious differences and Western values?

Andy McCarthy, author of The Grand Jihad, says no. But many Left-wingers say yes. So which is it?

The Hill reports that CAIR is giving Helen Thomas a lifetime achievement award:

The longtime White House correspondent who resigned from Hearst newspapers in June in the wake of comments she made about Israel will receive a lifetime achievement award from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR is honoring Helen Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent and now 90 years old, at its Leadership Conference and 16th Annual Fundraising Banquet on Oct. 9 in Arlington, Va.

Speakers will also include Oxford Islamic studies scholar Tariq Ramadan.

Thomas started at the White House as a reporter during the Kennedy administration. In a video interview captured at a White House Jewish heritage event for RabbiLIVE.com that spread quickly across the Internet, Thomas advised Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else."

So here it the bottom line. Maybe Andrew McCarthy is crazy and wrong about the ties of CAIR and many other Muslim organizations in America to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas etc. But no one can deny that CAIR is giving an award to a vicious, life-long, anti-Semite.

So it seems obvious to me that, if McCarthy is wrong and CAIR is properly to be regarded as a "moderate" Islamic organization, then the definition of "moderate" must be "Anti-semitic." Now, if the meaning of moderate must be stretched to this extent - so that it includes honoring Anti-semitism, then I think we should all be opposed to this kind of "moderate Islam" just as strongly as we ought to oppose Islamic terrorists like Hamas and al-Qaeda.

But that, we must remember, was McCarthy's point in the first place. Game, set and match to McCarthy.

Ahmadaminejad's Anti-Semitic Slurs and Conspiracy Theories on Display at the UN

Once again, the UN was disgraced as a place of serious debate by the monstrous antics of the President of Iran. The Hill reports:

The U.S. delegation to the U.N. walked out of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech before the general assembly Thursday after the controversial leader said some believe Americans were behind the 9/11 terror attacks.

The Associated Press reported that Ahmadinejad claimed that some speculate that Americans organized the attack to ensure Israel's survival.

The U.S. delegation issued a statement in response, the AP reported.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable," they said.

Relations between Iran and the West have been tense for many years over the Middle Eastern country's nuclear ambitions and anti-American and -Israel statements made by its president.

Congress overwhelmingly passed a new set of sanctions against Iran in June that penalize companies that assist Iran with petroleum refining.

In 2005, Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

This Washington Post video shows the walk-out by the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and 27 European nations. It also shows a rally held outside the UN by Iranian exiles and Iranian Americans at which former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, calls for the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy.

Walking out is an empty gesture, however, in response to a fanatical regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons with which to pursue its genocidal ambitions and dreams of world conquest.

Did You Know That Only "Right-Wing Extremists" are Opposed to Anti-Semitism?

Watching Muslims learn the lingo of Western liberalism and then turn it against Western liberals in their quest to overthrow the West and establish Islamic Supremacist theocracies is to overdose on irony. For example, a conference recently wrapped up at Yale University on the recent rise of anti-semitism around the world. The conference highlighted Muslim involvement in rabid anti-semitism and so incurred the wrath of Muslim critics:

No sooner had a three-day conference on contemporary anti-Semitism at Yale University ended than voices of disapproval arose over a perceived bias and even latent racism of the event. Sponsored by the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA) and bringing together some 110 scholars to present papers relevant to the theme of "Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity," the conference had as its seemingly benign and productive objective a furtherance of the initiative's primary role of identifying and seeking to explain current manifestations of the world's oldest hatred.

The need for such a conference, though distressing, seems to be justified based on both anecdotal and statistic studies, including a 2009 report by the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University, which noted a doubling of anti-Semitic incidents from the prior year: 1,129 in 2009 compared to 559 in 2008. Equally troubling were the 2008 findings of the European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security Franco Frattini, which revealed that of the documented anti-Semitic incidents on the European continent, Muslims were responsible for fully half, a statistic made more alarming by the fact that European Muslims, based on being only 3%-4% of the population, committed 24 to 32.3 times the number of anti-Semitic incidents as European non-Muslims.

So where did these "voices of disapproval" come from? Well, surprise, surprise: it was Muslims accusing the scholars at the conference of "racism" because they documented the fact that Muslims are disproportionately guilt of anti-semitic acts.

None of this seemed to matter to critics of the Yale conference, who were incensed that many of the scholars who participated were "right-wing extremists" articulating "odious views" about the perpetrators of anti-Semitism, according to Maen Rashid Areikat, the U.S. representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. "As Palestinians, we strongly support principles of academic freedom and free speech," Mr. Areikat wrote, without a hint of irony, in an indignant open letter to Yale's president, Richard Levin. "[H]owever[,] racist propaganda masquerading as scholarship does not fall into this category."

So now if you criticize Islam for anti-semitism that makes you a "right-wing extremist" because of course only right-wing extremists would ever defend Israel or attack anti-semitism! Sure you support free speech and academic freedom. That must be why you are trying to shut down conferences that shine a light on your dirty little secrets: "academic freedom for me, but not for thee."

It grows increasingly difficult to tell the Western Leftists from the Muslim theocrats every day.