J£w$ Got Mon€¥ #JewsGotMoney

(simply) ...A non-Jewish documentary director Sasha Andreas produced a movie titled Jews Got Money?, dedicated to these other Jews - the ones who didn't get any money. (Read this article) about the movie. Did you know that one in five Jewish persons in New York lives in poverty? If you didn't, you are not alone: the common stereotype all around the world is that "Jews got money." This is exactly the cliché that our upcoming documentary by the same title hopes to debunk.

How Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez is Using Anti-Semitism to Maintain His Power—Against a Challenger Who Isn’t Even Jewish

Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles delivers a speech in Caracas on June 10, 2012 (Leo Ramirez/AFP/Getty Images) The Dispossessed (Tablet/By Matthew Fishbane) Hugo Chávez is ramping up his assault on Venezuela’s upper class, and now a rare Jewish paradise is squarely in his sights. Can it be salvaged? Four days ago, Henrique Capriles, the youthful governor of Miranda state in Venezuela, launched his campaign to rid the country of Hugo Chávez at the presidential election scheduled for October this year. Joined by thousands of supporters, the newly minted candidate led a six-mile procession through the capital city, Caracas. Their final destination was the office of the national election board, where Capriles formally registered his candidacy. The march showcased Capriles, whose Jewish origins have been mercilessly attacked by the Chavistas, as the anti-Chávez—not just figuratively, but literally as well. By marching for a long distance over a short space of time, Capriles wanted his fellow Venezuelans to see him as the picture of health, in marked contrast to the ailing Chávez. For more than a year now, Chávez’s physical condition has been subjected to the sort of rolling speculation typically reserved for dictators. Until Saturday, Chávez had released virtually no information about the terminal cancer he is widely believed to be suffering from. Then, one day before the Capriles march, he summoned journalists to his presidential palace to tell them, “I feel very good.” The following day, Chávez held a buoyant election rally of his own.
The rally didn’t disguise the fact that Chávez, who is currently serving his third term as president, has never looked so vulnerable. His failing health is only part of the story; in the six years that have passed since the last election, the country has become mired in poverty, violent crime, and corruption. Fired by the high price of oil, Venezuela’s principle export, Chávez lavished cash on social spending, while the underlying economy suffered from inflation and capital flight. These days, Venezuela looks less like a socialist version of Singapore and more like the Latin American equivalent of Zimbabwe. According to Sammy Eppel, the head of the Human Rights Commission of the Venezuelan Bna’i Brith and a frequent commentator on Venezuelan affairs, not even the 8 million beneficiaries of Chávez’s grandiose social justice programs, who combined make up nearly half of the electorate, can be relied upon to cast their votes for the commandante. Capriles, a moderate leftist who leads a coalition of 30 opposition parties, plans to capitalize on this uncertainty.
Yet in a country like Venezuela, where infrequent elections are the only glimmer of democratic hope in the face of a regime that has acquired the core features of a dictatorship, no opposition candidate can be considered a shoo-in. Most polls show Chávez comfortably in front; nonetheless, the regime has several options up its sleeve in the event of a Capriles victory.
There is the prospect of Chavismo without Chávez, whereby a handpicked successor continues the path of the revolution; Chávez’s daughter and brother are spoken of as possible candidates, as is current Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro. There is the constantly swirling talk of a military coup, a measure that the country’s generals, who are immersed in drug trafficking worth hundreds of millions of dollars, might decide is a preferable alternative to being arrested and imprisoned by a democratic government. In addition, Chávez could follow the example of his close ally Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and simply steal the election. “We do not have an electoral arbiter,” I was told by Diego Arria, a leading opposition figure and former Venezuelan U.N. ambassador. “We have what I call the ‘Ministry of Elections of Mr. Chávez.’ And they will do whatever they have to in order to prevent a defeat.”
Lastly, and arguably most importantly, Chávez can marshal his extraordinary media and propaganda resources to pound away at Capriles’ reputation. Central to that effort is the demonization of Capriles as an agent of capitalism, gringoism, imperialism, and—critically—a concoction of conspiratorial tropes that point to the greatest lurking danger of all: “Zionism,” which for many is interchangeable with “Judaism.” As a recent headline in the weekly pro-Chávez rag Kikiriki so elegantly put it, “We are fucked if the Jews come to power.”
***
Henrique Capriles may be a devout Catholic, but he comes from Jewish stock. His mother’s family, the Radonskis, were Jewish émigrés from Poland; his great-grandparents were exterminated in the Treblinka concentration camp; and his grandmother spent nearly two years in the beleaguered Warsaw Ghetto. His father, meanwhile, is descended from the long-established Sephardic community on the Caribbean island of Curaçao. Although Capriles has expressed pride in his background, his family never considered themselves part of Venezuela’s diminutive Jewish community. For the purposes of the regime’s propaganda operation, that brooks no difference.
“The best opposition candidate for Chávez is Capriles,” said Sammy Eppel. “Any other candidate, like Diego Arria, would be different—they couldn’t call him a Zionist. But Capriles fits the bill perfectly.” Eppel points out that the cartoons lampooning Capriles in the Chávez-controlled press invariably feature him wearing a Star of David. And because Capriles is unmarried, the Chavistas can’t resist a homophobic swipe either; in many of these same cartoons, he wears a pair of pink shorts.
“There is no anti-Semitic tradition in Venezuelan culture,” asserts Daniel Duquenal, one of the few dissident bloggers in Venezuela. “But Chávez has been systematically developing anti-Semitism in Venezuela.” All of which is eerily reminiscent of “anti-Semitism without Jews,” a phenomenon that emerged in the eastern bloc and in certain Arab countries following the Second World War. Absent a numerically significant Jewish community, anti-Semitism becomes a largely ideological weapon, designed to stoke fears of shadowy outside forces hatching conspiracies.
What, if any, are the potential gains of such a strategy for Chávez? Diego Arria is adamant that while the regime is unambiguously anti-Semitic, its deployment of anti-Semitic discourse will yield few concrete advantages. “Capriles says, ‘I am a mariano, a follower of the Virgin Mary,’ ” says Arria, who attended school with Capriles’ father. “People in Venezuela do not see him as a Jew. I don’t believe that an anti-Semitic campaign will have much impact on the Venezuelan population.”
Contrastingly, Duquenal argues that the value of anti-Semitism lies outside the domestic arena, pointing to Chávez’s geopolitical calculations. Chávez has actively promoted a close commercial and political relationship with the mullahs in Iran. He has established himself as a loyal ally of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad going so far as to dispatch 300,000 tons of diesel, which arrived on a Venezuelan freighter, La Negra Hipolita, two days before the gruesome massacre in the town of Houla. Last week, Chávez ended another long period out of public view by publicly welcoming a delegation from Belarus sent by that country’s dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, who plans to visit Caracas personally in a few weeks from now.
“Anti-Semitism has been created artificially because Chávez wants to align himself with radical regimes against the United States,” Duquenal said. “That’s the only logical explanation I can find for why Chavismo has deliberately decided to become an anti-Semitic political movement.” Continue reading: ‘The Jewish Problem’ Both Duquenal and Sammy Eppel point to the enduring influence over Chávez of Norberto Ceresole, the late Argentinian fascist intellectual with whom he struck up a friendship. “Ceresole was like the parrot on Chávez’s shoulder,” Eppel says. “He wanted bring the far left and the far right together, and he persuaded Chávez that he was the man to do that.” Once Chávez, following Ceresole, aligned the dregs of fascism with those of communism, anti-Semitism became the ideological glue binding the Chavismo model of government, in which the relationship between the leader and his people is central, unencumbered by pesky interferences like an independent judiciary. It is no accident, Eppel believes, that the first chapter of a book by Ceresole extolling this model was titled “The Jewish Problem.”
Occasionally, the vulgar rhetoric of Venezuelan anti-Semitism has strayed into physical attacks. In January 2009, an armed gang stormed the Tiferet Israel synagogue in Caracas, spraying choice slogans like “Damned Israel, Death!” on its walls. This particular theme echoed a speech that Chávez delivered in China in 2006, in which he claimed that Israel had “done something similar to what Hitler did, possibly worse, against half the world.”
In a monograph published in April, “Chávez, The Left and The Jews,” the academics Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sanchez contend that in Chávez’s Venezuela, “politics and political life represent a kind of hand-to-hand combat between the ‘people,’ united by ‘love,’ and its enemies, united by hatred—the ‘ire’ that Ceresole imputes to the Jews.” Such cloyingly emotional, anti-rational politics are the perfect breeding ground for the fantasies about Jewish power that Chávez has actively promoted and that will doubtless be wheeled out against Capriles as the election approaches.
***
For Venezuela’s remaining Jews, these anti-Semitic fantasies underline their own harsh reality. Diego Arria describes the community as having been “decimated”; under Chávez, its numbers have declined from a height of 30,000 to just 9,000. Moreover, the Chavista bureaucracy seemingly delights in placing obstacles in the community’s way. Just before Passover this year, the interior ministry announced that extra sanitary permits would be needed if the importation of matzo, the unleavened bread consumed during the festival, was to be approved. And when the Jewish community needs to make official representations, its leaders are directed to the Foreign Ministry—proof, Sammy Eppel asserts, that the regime fundamentally regards Jews as aliens, not Venezuelan citizens.
All the indicators are that Venezuelan Jews will continue to leave the country, heading for more benign destinations like Colombia, Mexico, and Miami. “They are an integrated Latin community, so they go where there is a Latin culture,” says Eppel. “This isn’t a Polish shtetl.” It is possible that a Capriles victory will stem the tide of emigration, but even then, the years of destruction wrought by Chávez will remain a powerful push factor for Jews and non-Jews alike.
***

So called Israel Firster: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Smear

(cifwatch.com) Beginning in 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, approximately 2800 Americans fought in Spain on behalf of the Republican cause, in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and elsewhere. Most were members of the Communist Party or other leftist organizations. They served without the support of the U.S. government, were treated with suspicion after the war, and in some cases were even prosecuted by the Roosevelt Administration for recruiting volunteers into the Brigade. These volunteers into a foreign army are universally regarded with respect and even reverence by American liberals and the broader left. (image via alba-valb.org)(MORE)

Belgian Jews in Shock over Beating of 13-Year-old Girl

(Vlad Tepes) Five Muslim Moroccan girls in Belgium beat a 13-year-old classmate, called her a “dirty Jew” and told her to “return to your country.”
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 11/23/2011, 12:08 PM
Anti-Semitic graffiti in Europe

Israel news photo: Wikimedia Commons

Five Muslim Moroccan girls in Belgium beat a 13-year-old classmate, called her a “dirty Jew” and told her to “return to your country.”
The girl, Oceane Sluijzer, has filed a complaint with police after the anti-Semitic attack at a sports training center. The attackers were identified and questioned by police.
Jewish legislator Viviane Teitelbaum of Brussels denounced the “silence” of political leaders and most of media after this attack.
Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations of Belgium (CCOJB), the umbrella group of Jewish organizations in Belgium, expressed “shock” at the attack and asked that the investigation be conducted without delay. The Jewish group added it is considering filing a civil suit and said the Jewish community is “exasperated” by repeated attacks on Jews in Belgium, whose Jewish population is 40,000.
It also told the Belgian French community’s Education Minister he should “introduce appropriate educational programs in schools to prevent unjustified tensions between communities,” the European Jewish Press reported.
The Jewish Consistory, the representative body of Jewish religious congregations in the country, also appealed to authorities to take action.

Antisemitism at Occupy Wall Street

Washington Heights... yup sounds familiar. I think I know that guy

Interview with anti-Jewish protester

Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest Updated Here

...but my father really did... supposedly control Wall Street this year! ;^) Blame my father LOLZ!

this guy is another homosexual with issues against Jews. he says he is the Lotion Man on youtube. lotion man is jamaican slang, referral to a gay man, who uses lotion to lubricate his backside for anal sex purposes

(Israelly Cool) Someone needs to introduce this man to Lauren Booth.The funny thing is even though he says “Go back to Israel”, he will then claim we have no right to be there.

I like the gay Jew hater there better. His Youtube name was LotionMan (now deleted) and you can google what that means. Somehow it just made me happy that he was getting it where the sun don't shine by someone. I know sodomy isn't kosher unless you are Conservative or Reform, but what came to mind is this guy was getting his sexual jollies this way and I really don't even wish a Jew hater displeasure... though it is sad to say that I know NYC well and I grew up here and frankly what goes on at LGBT is pretty much what you are seeing. I hope I'm very offensive.

Israel’s Supporters Must Learn from the Enemy

(Bill Levinson) We removed our post that compared Henry Ford’s proven job creation methods with Barack Obama’s proven job destruction methods because a couple of readers expressed outrage against Ford personally because of his involvement in anti-Semitic activities. We do not agree with these readers (as shown below) but we don’t want to put Ted in the position of circulating a piece to which people might take exception. This shows, however, that Euro-Americans in general and Jews in particular have failed to understand a simple point: a person we might find offensive or unsavory, or even an outright enemy, is often the best teacher. Our collective failure to learn this lesson puts Israel in particular and Civilization as a whole at considerable and even mortal risk. We will begin with a couple of extremely simple examples of this principle. The United Kingdom is famous for the 95th Rifles, a regiment immortalized by Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe series.The UK is also famous for its rocket artillery, as immortalized by “the rockets’ red glare” in our National Anthem. Neither rifle-armed skirmishers nor artillery rockets were however British inventions; both were examples of learning from the enemy.The War of Independence taught the British that a man in a bright red coat with a musket that could not hit reliably beyond 70 to 100 paces was an easy mark for a rifleman in dull-colored clothing who could melt into a forest after firing. They accordingly created an Experimental Corps of Riflemen (later the 95th Rifles) who wore dark green uniforms to blend in with foliage, much as their American opponents had blended in with their surroundings. The Congreve Rocket was meanwhile the result of the British being on the receiving end of Tipu Sultan’s rocket artillery during the Anglo-Mysore Wars.
We obviously do not agree with what Henry Ford published about Jews, or for that matter his support for Prohibition or his “sociology department” that intruded on his employees’ private lives. We did an Internet search on suspicion and found Henry Ford on a list of historical figures (along with Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, and George Washington) who were suspected of having Asperger’s Syndrome.
People with Asperger’s Syndrome are often described, as having social skills deficits, reluctance to listen, difficulty understanding social give and take, and other core characteristics, is typically quite misunderstood and/or misdiagnosed in our country today.
Other characteristics include a lack of empathy and a fascination with systems, i.e. “how things work.” The latter certainly describes Ford, noting his boyhood fascination with taking watches apart and even being able to put them back together. His production line was described as a giant clock, and it relied on workers as “components” who performed repetitive tasks to make the clock work. The system’s success paid the “components” high wages but it is quite likely that Ford viewed people as something like elements of a machine–hence his infamous Sociology Department–with roughly identical desires and motivations. If Ford did have Asperger’s, he could have understood intellectually that he needed to pay fair wages to gain his workers’ commitment but it is doubtful that he could really empathize with them on an emotional level. If true, this theory explains quite a bit. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (in which Ford is God, My Life and Work is the Bible, and people are manufactured to fit society’s needs) constitutes Fordism taken to the extreme.
In any event, The International Jew was not Henry Ford’s creation. It a translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that was given to Ford by the Tsarist Russian propagandist Boris Brasol. To put this in contemporary terms, Ford saw the equivalent of a sensationalistic Web site or E-mail, copied it to everybody on his mailing list, and pressed the “Send” key. His “Send” key unfortunately consisted of the Dearborn Independent, so what he circulated caused substantial harm to Jews and, in the end, Ford’s own reputation.
What then are the lessons to be learned from this experience? How many of us have, at one time or another, forwarded an E-mail or Web posting without investigating thoroughly? We have received them from highly intelligent and well educated friends only to find, after investigating, that the material was untrue. The National Jewish Democratic Council relied on somebody else’s blog posting or equivalent to publish a vicious falsehood about the Christian computer game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces.” None of this excuses Ford for his own failure to investigate Brasol’s material thoroughly but we must make sure we do not repeat the same mistakes.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument the absolute worst about Henry Ford. This does not change the fact that his methods created the American middle class along with the 40 hour work week, and made the United States the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth. Our thoughts must now move to application of this knowledge to our country’s current problem: an incompetent buffoon in the White House who has proven repeatedly that he knows nothing about how to create jobs or prosperity. (The same individual wishes to reward Palestinian terrorism with territorial concessions at Israel’s expense.) We should welcome assistance from any source that will help remove Obama from office next year and, even more importantly, create high wage jobs for the millions of American workers who need them!
Now let’s move on to a genuine Nazi who has plenty to teach us. Most people cannot get past their revulsion at Hitler’s statement, “If you win, you need not have to explain. If you lose, you should not be around to explain,” to internalize the truth of this observation. Hitler lost so he had to follow his own advice on April 30, 1945. His equally murderous and genocidal counterpart Josef Stalin was on the winning side so he never had to explain. Neither did Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot, for that matter. This applies directly to Israel versus its militant Islamic neighbors: “If you win, even if you have to kill several million Arab aggressors and inflict some collateral damage while you do it, you won’t have to explain. If you lose by playing nice and worrying about world opinion, you won’t be around to explain.”
We observe further than ancient Jewish history was not very “nice,” with the result that today’s Jews need not explain while the Canaanites and so on are not around to explain. Roman history was not very “nice” either but the sole consequence of Rome’s genocide of the Carthaginian people is that Southern Europe and even England speaks words with Latin instead of Phoenician roots. Modern Hungary and Mongolia have statues, currency, and/or postage with images of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, neither of whom were nice people but who did outstanding jobs for the Huns and the Mongols respectively. Ann Barnhardt elaborates further on the problems with being “nice.” (Christian-oriented material can be ignored without loss of continuity.)
This is not to say that Israel or any decent country should initiate aggression today even though history shows it can often get away with it. It does say that, if an aggressor attacks you, you must take him down in such a manner that he will never lift a hand to you again. Only in movies must the hero (or often a terrified female victim who turns the tables momentarily) let the downed serial killer or monster get up again, and that’s only because the movie can’t end at the 45 minute mark. If you put your attacker down for good, you don’t have to explain. If you let him get up again (in the absence of law enforcement personnel who can take him into custody), it is quite likely that you won’t be around to explain. Israel should have put its attackers down for good in 1967.
Most people and especially Jews are meanwhile reluctant to read Mein Kampf because of its content and authorship. This is EXACTLY why the Arabs, who love the book not merely for its anti-Semitic aspects but for its very practical content, are currently demonizing Jews in general and Israel in particular the way the Nazis demonized Jews during the 1930s.
Mein Kampf however goes beyond a discussion of how to use propaganda effectively; it shows explicitly that Hitler followed the advice to learn from the enemy, in this case the Triple Entente. The Entente and its American sympathizers demonized Germans the same way the Nazis later demonized Jews. The following could in fact be described as a blood libel of Germans, noting that it was proven that the Lusitania carried munitions and was therefore a legitimate military target.
Little Lost Children of the Lusitania (to view jpgs click here)
Main Kampf states explicitly that Germany failed to recognize the effectiveness of this kind of propaganda, and failed to reciprocate in kind: with visual images designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the man in the street and the man in the beer hall. If the Jews in Israel could bring themselves to read Mein Kampf, they would realize that Israel is repeating Imperial Germany’s mistakes to the letter while the enemies who want to destroy it are working straight from the Entente’s (and later the Nazis’) playbook.
Arab propaganda; could have been drawn by genuine Nazis
Our recommendation is and has always been retaliation in kind and with an enormity of compound interest, to dehumanize Israel’s enemies and militant “Islam” in general every bit as thoroughly as the Entente dehumanized the Central Powers. We should not hesitate to adapt propaganda images from the Second World War that were used to demonize Nazis and Japanese, along with similar material from the First World War and Spanish American War. As but one example:
The Palestinian Brute
Ethics and honor require only that the propaganda be truthful (and the militant Muslims have provided our side with an unlimited supply of truth), and that hatred and contempt be directed selectively against a specific behavioral choice (militant Islam) and never against an entire religious identity, race, or ethnicity.
George Santayana wrote that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Those who cannot or will not learn from the enemy, even an enemy as loathsome as Hitler, are likely to become history.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Agreed, but I disagree that Ford merely pressed the send button on facebook. Ford trolled the equivalent of internet forums for decades. He was more then just some guy who distributed Antisemitism. He was completely obsessed with it's philosophy. Asperger syndrome is more then just Rain Man. It is more then just being systematic. Asperger syndrome is a tendency to be obsessed with a system and in this case the system was hate. We still can learn a lot from the most despicable people. On my friendfeed account I follow many twitter accounts that have complete contempt for my being. Should they know that I follow them in this manner they would probably call me a stalker. In fact one person I followed who was a former teacher even put me on the news as such. The point being is these people I follow not because they are complete idiots...many of them are geniuses... and many of them probably hate me. One example of a complete genius who I have been following for years goes by the name of SeanMcBride (on both twitter and friendfeed). He is a complete tech genius, and a debater that leaves me in awe. His contempt for Israel (though he does not hate Jews), leaves many writing him off as a common thug. He is no such thing. His genius for systems has led him to believe in the fear of Zionism and Neo Cons. My guess is he is similar personality to Henry Ford and I can't tell you how informative his feed is. Both in Tech and Israel News (though in the latter it is our enemies spin). The point is that I am wise enough to follow those I don't like. The world is full of grey area. The beauty of open feeds on the internet is that we can peer into the minds of those who are our opposition because those who do not like us have huge egos and want to share their information without realizing how easy it is to subvert that information. I suppose I am guilty of doing the same and I have no doubt that my opinions will be used against me (actually they were used against me in court and my first amendment rights were taken away by the state of Washington). Point being however is that we must not write people off just because they are Nazis or Anti-Zionists. We must enjoy the work of Wagner or the malarkey of the children's book writer Roald Dahl. To reject those brilliant minds that reject us is futile. Sometimes there might even be brilliant Zionist writers who have flaws in other ways. I'd like to tell you who those people are, but it would hurt my own cause. A few people do come to mind however... I won't mention the name. I can tell you that I still have a deep respect for their mind... and I leave them the hell alone because on a social level they are nuts. The worst is when two very flawed Israel supporting geniuses start attacking each other... and then even go so far as to get people out on the internet to take one side or the other. Life is complex. I have no doubt that there will come a day when I might depend on the guy above I mentioned SeanMcBride (who is my enemy) to defend me from people who are supposed to be on my side. I am known to be an opponent of feminism... (though I am a descendant of Emma Lazarus), but when I was in jail I depended on my feminist mother to get me out (The female and probably feminist identifying Jewish judge just would not listen to me). Never write out your opponent... and never assume because a person supports Israel that they are to be trusted. BTW, the teacher I described above... she wasn't stupid either. Just crazy.

Wikileaks: Israeli ambassador to Turkey called Erdogan AntiSemite Hate MaviMarmara

Israel's ambassador to Turkey Gabby Levy described Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a “fundamentalist” who hates the Jewish state on religious grounds (Hat Tip: Sparky the Wonder Dog via American Thinker). Levy's term in Turkey expires next week. The cable was written in October 2009, long before the Mavi Marmara incident. More on Erdogan's anti-Semitic background here. More on Erdogan's anti-Semitic mentor here. - Carl

How Four Influential Socialist Anti-Semites Shaped the Left

"How Four Influential Socialist Anti-Semites Shaped the Left" looks at the impact that the bigotry of Karl Marx, H.G. Wells and the man who coined the word "Socialism" had on the modern left today.  Here are some excerpts from Sultan Knish

Even as the Nazi Holocaust had begun, H.G. Wells wrote in The New World Order (1940);
“The hostile reaction to the cult of the Chosen People is spreading about the entire world to-day… there has never been such a world-wide—I will not use the word anti-Semitism because of the Arab—I will say anti-Judaism… it is becoming world-wide and simultaneous… Until they are prepared to assimilate and abandon the Chosen People idea altogether, their troubles are bound to intensify.”

Hyndman founded England’s first Socialist political party, the Social Democratic Federation. He also went on to found the National Socialist Party, which eventually became part of the Labor Party.
Hyndman and the SDF’s newspaper “Justice” carried on a relentless campaign of attacks against Jews. What is unique about Hyndman is that he employed those attacks only as a cover for a larger anti-war movement.

Leroux is credited with coining the term, ‘Socialism’. He also expressed the idea of commerce as an original Jewish sin in the clearest of terms. To Leroux, banking was the original sin of the Jews. And therefore commerce was the Jewish spirit.

Fourier, the co-creator of French Socialism, would take this premise to its more explicit conclusion, writing; “Every government having regard to good morals ought to repress the Jews”.
Unlike Wells or Marx, Fourier and Leroux were not so much aspiring to a new order, as they were to a scientific application of an old order (this was more like Hitler's view of a return to a classical ideal past). A return to a pre-commercial civilization based on cooperation, rather than competition. This would be impossible if commerce were a natural human form of resource organization and distribution. So it was necessary to theorize that commerce was something alien. A creation of the Jews.

Marx depicted Jews as the anti-thesis of Socialism, a theme that he was to repeatedly revisit, and more poisonously in such essays as “The Russian Loan”, where he implicitly suggested that war would continue for as long as the Jews existed.

German Appeals Court Upholds Conviction for Holocaust Denial

image via The Truth Will Set You Free: U.S. citizen David Duke arrested in Czech Republic on accusation of Holocaust denial wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com

Anywhere in Germany you can not participate in this idea of Holocaust Denial. This means for example if the PM Abu Mazen AKA Abbas were to say in Germany what he says in Judea or Samaria that he would also be held accountable to this German court finding. The intention of the broadcast is irrelevant and the burden of distribution is on the actor. oh BTW Eugene Volokh thinks that this is a threat to Democracy. I wonder if the threat were at Libertarian bloggers if he would feel likewise. Yes... I know... the blogger Eugene is a Jew. A Dhimmi one that I sometimes agree with on other issues.
Deutsche Welle reports that the appeals court upheld the conviction, though lowered the fine (to $9,230) based on the defendant’s income: Williamson had been convicted for inciting hatred, an offense which, under German law, incorporates any claim that the Holocaust did not happen. Williamson was in Germany when he told an interviewer for a Swedish television channel that, although Jews were killed during the Holocaust, the accepted figure of between five and six million was inaccurate, and the Nazis did not use gas chambers. He was convicted in absentia, with a lawyer present on his behalf. Williamson’s lawyer argues that his client’s comments did not breach German law because they were never intended for broadcast in Germany. However, they sprawled globally over Internet video portals and were subsequently picked up by German national media. Judge Birgit Eisvogel ruled that Williamson should have been aware that any such television comments would inevitably find their way around the world, and thus to Germany, also noting Williamson’s own familiarity with the nature of the Internet: “We know that the accused is himself a blogger.”The bishop was at the time an excommunicated Catholic, from “the semi-independent hard-line Society of Saint Pius X,” though the excommunication was lifted in 2009. “Vatican officials say the Pope was unaware of Williamson’s comments when he made the decision.” via volokh.com

Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism is to close at the end of July, sparking fierce objection from community.

Public relations for third world dictators want feminism not G-d. 
They want to promote their tyranny to the ladies who they hurt. 
Academia is money well spent for a government that abuses it's uterus factory.  From the early thinkers in Greece it was always understood that the vast majority of the population is philosophically handicapped.  To reach this majority you sell the popular idea like a car salesman.  Telling women a backwards idea like feminism is the quick buck... the easy push.  It isn't that these guys actually believe in Gloria Steinem... it is that she is not a threat to them... in fact she has gone out on a limb for the Ivy League Profit donors and protected their abuse of women to make a swipe at America men.  This is Vanity Fair not Truth. Yale is PROFIT$ from public relations not learning

Leaders of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) at Yale University were notified last week that the center was to be closed at the end of July, sparking a fierce round of objections, suspicions and conjectures in the US Jewish community, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Yale Initiative is intended to research international origins and manifestations of anti-Semitism, as well as other forms of prejudice. As part of Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the initiative also disseminates its findings and research to contribute to policy discussions.

Jews decry Yale closing anti-Semitism study center


The program was the first US-based institute to research global anti-Semitism, ranging from anti-Israel and anti-Zionism manifestations thereof to other forms of hatred expressed against Jews.

“The short story is this initiative, directed by a non-faculty instructor, was found in its routine faculty review to not have met its academic expectations and has been canceled,” Thomas Mattia of Yale’s Office of Public Affairs told the Post. “This singular action should be viewed in the context of all the continuing work in Hebrew studies at Yale and the provost’s pledge to fund other studies in the area of anti-Semitism.”

Sources who preferred to remain anonymous, however, said the closing of the center resulted from the center’s politically incorrect activities – that is, taking Muslims to task for anti- Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiments.

Yale, sources conjectured, had been angling to mend fences with the Middle Eastern Muslim population, and the Yale Initiative was a thorn in the university’s side.

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the center’s closure was particularly disappointing in light of the recent upward trends in anti-Semitism around the world.

“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,” Foxman said in a statement. “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 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,” Foxman said.

Lobbying efforts are apparently under way to get Yale to reconsider its decision, sources said.

“We hope Yale will review this unfortunate decision so that YIISA’s critical work can continue,” American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris said.

“In our experience working with YIISA, AJC has been impressed by the level of scholarly discourse, the involvement of key faculty, and the initiative’s ability, through conferences and other programs, to bring a wide range of voices to the Yale campus.”

The Yale Initiative has been an important resource for understanding anti-Semitism, especially in its contemporary manifestations, Harris said.

“YIISA has made considerable contributions to the study of this immense contemporary challenge and lent Yale’s considerable reputation to an issue that remains quite serious,” he said. “If Yale now leaves the field, it will create a very regrettable void.”

Other activists working against anti-Semitism agreed.

“This is a big deal and a major travesty,” Ken Marcus, director of the Initiative to Combat Anti- Semitism and Anti-Israelism in America’s Educational Systems at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, told the Post. “YIISA was the most important university-based anti-Semitism research institution in North America. The decision to close it was clearly political, and it smells very bad. I hope it gets wide attention.” 

by JORDANA HORN via jpost.com

In the event, Yale's stated reasons for terminating YIISA omit any mention of the 2010 conference or its subject matter. The university's director of strategic communications, according to Abby Wisse Schachter who broke the story in the New York Post, asserted that the decision was made on the basis of YIISA's failure to "serve the research and teaching interests of some significant Yale faculty and . . . [to] be sustained by the creative energy of a critical mass of Yale faculty." Unspecified were the interests that were not being served or sustained, let alone the nature of the alleged failure.


To counter criticism of its action, Yale dribbled out a few additional statements. To Donald Green, the director of the institute where YIISA was housed, the problem lay both in YIISA's professional standards and in its non-popularity: "Little scholarly work appeared in top-tier journals in behavioral science, comparative politics, or history. Courses created in this area did not attract large numbers of students."


It may indeed be that course enrollments were low, but so are enrollments in any number of areas that universities deem worthy of study. In any case, such numbers are of little relevance to an entity like YIISA, which was by definition a research and not a teaching unit, and which held numerous events attracting public attention and open to the entire Yale community.


As far as publications are concerned, YIISA, just like similar centers and programs at Yale, published its own highly regarded monograph series that made its scholars' work freely available for download. Since when is the wide dissemination of scholarly products no longer an important academic goal? Nor is Yale known for applying the "top-tier" criterion across the board. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, for example, is a center-Left policy group currently directed by the former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo. It attracts wealthy and powerful speakers, some of whom are or may become Yale donors, and releases its reports and findings not in so-called "top-tier journals" but in various house-branded forms. It is hardly unique in this.


But the pious invocation of "top-tier" academic journals with their hoary review processes is itself specious. Offering a comparison with YIISA's record in this respect, Green touted the "extraordinary number" of articles in such journals produced by yet another Yale research "initiative." This is the Field Experiments Initiative, dedicated to "randomized studies of voter mobilization, peer counseling of homeless people, campaign activities in Africa, and the persuasiveness of televised campaign advertisements." The fact that the jargon-laden study of campaign advertisements yields more placements in academic journals than do analyses of anti-Semitism speaks dreary volumes about the gatekeepers of so much of contemporary scholarship, about the subjects they consider respectable, and about the standards of judgment they apply.


And here we return to the unspoken nub of the matter. At its 2010 conference, YIISA dared to tackle, openly, the single deadliest form of contemporary anti-Semitism, bringing together for this purpose a bevy of "top-tier" scholars from around the world. It was, clearly, the very holding of such an event that raised hackles from within and without. One response came from Maen Rashid Areikat, the Washington representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization: "It's shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views. . . . 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."

by Alex Joffe via JIDAILY

Scottish "cleansed the presence of Israeli books." like the Holocaust: Denying people the ability to read and think for themselves.

...They're claiming that they didn't ban Israeli books,
only books printed in Israel....

• Recently several districts in southwest Scotland have expanded the boycott on Israeli products, and are now barring stores from carrying English translations of Israeli books.  Shortly after Operation Cast Lead, the West Dunbartonshire Regional Council, located west of Glasgow, approved a bill that called to boycott goods produced in Israel.  After the raid on the Turkish Flotilla to Gaza, the boycott included "a ban on the purchase of English translations of Israeli books and the distribution of these books in public libraries throughout the council's jurisdiction."

The Scottish city of Dundee also joined the West Dunbartonshire by distributing "posters...calling on some 150,000 residents to refrain from buying Israeli goods." Israeli products will also have a special mark placed on them to make them more identifiable. No other country's books are being boycotted.
It is expected that "ten more Scottish councils may join the boycott."
As Giulio Meotti has written, "it is impossible to make an exhaustive list of the economic actions against Israel, with radical anti-Jewish venom spreading through the West" and as Caroline Glick has written, "what did [Israel ever] do to the Scots?"
The Scottish decision is the first time that a European region has actually "cleansed the presence of Israeli books."  It is reminiscent of all the evil associated with the Holocaust - from marking the books to denying people the ability to read and think for themselves.
Meotti, author of A New Shoah: the Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism poignantly calls for "European intellectuals to stand for truth because the worst of all anti-Jewish persecutions, that of Hitler, almost marked the end of European history.  Now it may happen again."
This despicable Scottish decision to ban Israeli books "is eerily reminiscent of darker times" and demonstrates how far "respectable antisemitism has come."  Anti-Zionism is the new name for antisemitism and "a place that boycotts books is not far from a place that burns them." 

via americanthinker.com

West Dunbartonshire Council utterly refutes recent media claims that it has ‘launched a boycott on Israeli books’.
The Council’s boycott does not in any way seek to censor or silence authors and commentators from Israel.
The Council’s boycott only relates to goods ‘made or grown’ in Israel. The vast majority of mainstream books by Israeli authors are published in the UK and are therefore not affected by this boycott. Only books that were printed in Israel and transported to the UK for distribution would be potentially boycotted.
In the two and a half years the boycott has been in place there has never been a case when the library service has been unable to purchase a book it wished to as a result of this boycott.
Contrary also to some media reports the boycott is not retrospective and absolutely no books have been or will be removed from our library shelves as a consequence of the motion.

Morons.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Reform rabbi dismantles Richard Falk

Both Falk and the Rabbi (who the Elder of Zion mostly agrees with, but not completely probably for the reason I am about to point out) have a problem with context. I notice poor understanding of context is a failure that those with bias often lack. The issue is not that the ancient Hebrews were at times an aggressive tribal military people, but rather that the context was that a force that defied modern physics was guiding them. This same force threw these Hebrews into a fiery crack in the earth for not obeying the Sabbath. If these Hebrews were terrified of this force, one could say they were weak, but they could hardly be chest thumping savages. They were the instrument of this force who told them to conquer and execute their enemies. One does not have to believe the story to accept the narrative of the bible within it's own context before passing judgment on all of modern Judaism. Falk jumps all over the place to appease his prejudicial community. I doubt Falk could give an objective analysis of any piece of literature.

A reform rabbi, 

Ira Youdovin, 

writes a thoughtful response 

that is too good 

to be relegated to an almost 

dead comment thread 

on a little-read blog. 

While I do not agree 

with everything in the comment, 

it shows quite well 

what a sick
self-hating quasi-Jew Falk is:

He's back and
Elder of Ziyon
is on the story:

I blogged about the execrable
Richard Falk's essay
about Jewish identity,
where he concluded
that Jews who care
about the welfare
of their fellow Jews
are pretty much
doomed to be racists,
last month.

Falk gets lots
of adoring comments 

on his blog, 

as well as some 

explicitly 

anti-semitic comments 

that he does not respond to.

Does anyone
Remember
Richard Falk?
The very same Richard Falk
who applauded the Iranian Revolution
in 1978. The Richard Falk
who encouraged Jimmy Carter
to embrace Ayatollah Khomeini
as a man of the people?

Despite his annoying habit of calling Israelis Nazis, I have never accused Prof. Falk of being a self-hating Jew. While his animus toward Israel is apparent, I have no way of determining if it stems from an animus toward Judaism and the Jewish tradition, which is the defining characteristic of a “self-hating Jew,” of from something else. But now that he has revealed his thoughts about Jewish identity, I may have to revise my assessment.
Prof. Falk’s problem is not only with Judaism. He disdains faith communities per se, defaming them as “tribes,” whose doctrine “unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions.” Had he been born an Episcopalian, he might be beating up on the Archbishop of Canterbury. But as his essay is entitled On Jewish Identity, we must explore the evidence he brings in applying these sweeping generalizations to Judaism.

Astonishingly for a scholar of Prof. Falk’s stature and reputation, he cites precious little evidence. He mentions the “often bloody exploits of the ancient Israelites.” But those atrocities occurred in the ancient middle east, where “bloody exploits” was standard operating procedure for almost everyone. This doesn’t excuse the atrocities reported in Scripture, but it does make them unexceptionable. Some balance is achieved through praise for the “moral clarity of Old Testament prophets,” and Rabbi Hillel’s version of the Golden Rule—a forerunner of Jesus’ more famous version. The historical screen then goes dark until we are propelled into Prof. Falk’s familiar riff on the evils of contemporary Israel.

In the process, he ignores a formative period of two millennia during which Judaism evolved from a temple-based sacrificial cult to a prayer and study-centered religion. If one wants to learn about Jewish identity, that’s where one has to look. But Prof. Falk doesn’t. Although I’m not an academician, I think that a student submitting a paper entitled “On Jewish Identity” with so little supporting material would, or should, receive a failing mark, even in this era of grade inflation.

My hunch is the omission of Jewish references stems from the inconvenient truth that Prof. Falk knows very little about his subject. Perhaps he doesn’t want to know. Even a cursory study of Jewish history discredits many of the sweeping generalizations he employs to dismiss and defame Jewish identity.
Exhibit A: Prof. Falk maintains that being committed to one faith precludes “being open and receptive to the insight and wisdom of other traditions.” In fact, Jewish history demonstrates precisely the opposite. Early biblical books, including Genesis, reflect the theology and symbolism of the Akkadians and other peoples of the ancient middle east. Later books, such as Ecclesiastes, are clearly influenced by Greek philosophy. The Mishna, which was completed around 225 CE, organizes biblical legislation into categories, a format learned from the Romans. Recent scholarship has discovered an on-going dialogue between the rabbis and church fathers covering several centuries. Both sides shared ideas which each adopted and built into its separate theology. Maimonides, perhaps the greatest of all rabbis, was an Aristotelian who sought to reconcile traditional Jewish teaching with wisdom he learned from Muslim scholars during the era of Convivencia in Medieval Spain. Reform Judaism is a product of the Enlightenment. Zionism was nurtured in the intellectual soil of Romanticism. Walk into many synagogues today and you’ll find classes and spiritual exercises in yoga, meditation and other practices taken from eastern religions. The list of things borrowed and things lent is endless.

Exhibit B: Prof. Falk dismisses as “benevolent and temporary” the Jewish self-understanding that being a Chosen People bestows no privileged status, but is a mandate to pursue social justice. The historical record refutes the “benevolent and temporary” caveat. Jews have always pursued social justice, following a commandment articulated in the Book of Deuteronomy. Here inAmerica, where Jews at long last have the opportunity to participate in the larger society as full citizens, we have been leaders and workers in the pursuit of equal rights and freedom for all. And Israel, despite its flaws, remains the one democracy in the Middle East, albeit an imperfect one.

To be sure, there are Jews in Israel, the United States and everywhere who are guilty as charged. They are especially visible in certain West Bank settlements where a desire to subjugate the Palestinians prevails. But they constitute a small minority. To extrapolate a community-wide character from their aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior is polemic, not scholarship.
A word must be said about Prof. Falk’s self-aggrandizement as one who has succeeded in putting his being human ahead of his being Jewish, so that unfettered by xenophobia, he is able to savor the rites, practices and wisdom of all religions. That’s gratifying, but during my forty years as a rabbi, which should make me a Super Xenophobe, I bet I’ve attended, witnessed and participated in more Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, et al worship services than Prof. Falk, along with a slew of interfaith worship experiences. I have marched, rallied and demonstrated alongside interfaith colleagues for a long list of causes. Several years ago, my partner and I joined with a group drawn from our synagogue and a local Methodist church to rebuild an African American church in rural Alabama that had been destroyed by arson. Contrary to what Prof. Falk believes possible, being a Jew enables me and many others to be better human beings. I can say the same thing about friends who are strongly committed members of other faith communities, but frequently enjoy one another’s rituals, practices and teachings.
Most disturbing is the flagrant disconnect between Prof. Falk’s claim to an “ecumenical and inclusive spiritual identity, and associated ethical and political commitments,” and his work for the United Nations. “Ecumenical” and “inclusive” strongly suggest a deep commitment to even-handedness in addressing ethical and political issues. But the mandate he accepted when becoming Special Rapporteur of the of outrageously misnamed United Nations Human Rights Council is to report only on perceived Israeli violations on the West Bank, while turning a blind eye on Palestinian suicide bombers and the like. That’s akin to refereeing a football game while calling penalties on one side only, especially when there’s no counterpart Rapporteur to monitor the Palestinians.

You read that correctly. In a conflict fraught with extraordinary complexities, where right and wrong exists on both sides, Prof. Falk choose to play an utterly one-sided, prejudicial and destructive role. On the one hand, he tars Judaism with the accusation that its doctrine “unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare.” And on the other, he is indifferent to radical Islam as it drives Hamas and HIzbollah. I can’t believe that he’s unaware of this cruel absurdity. Somehow, he manages to live with it, and also with the knowledge that the UN’s interest in him is enhanced by his being Jewish.

As one who has argued frequently and fervently that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism, I am appalled by the damage Prof. Falk’s essay does to my case by alleging that perceived Israeli injustices are a natural, even inevitable consequence of what he condemns as an age-old Jewish religious tradition and identity. It’s a straw man on both sides of the equation, but red meat for those who delight in believing the worst about Jews. It’s no accident that the piece has been reprinted by the Intifada-Voice of Palestine website, as well by an e-screed called Foreign Policy Journal whose publisher, Jeremy R. Hammond, recently wrote a piece entitled “The Myth of the United Nations’ Creation of Israel. “

One final thought. Did anyone blanch at Prof. Falk’s proclamation that he is a proud Jew? Huh? Proud of what? Proud of belonging to a “tribe whose religious doctrine gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions?”

My question as a rabbi is not whether anybody else believes him, but whether he, himself, does. A little soul searching might help him appreciate the toxicity of the things he says about Jewish identity. These insights, in turn, might help him to recognize and understand the prejudice that fuels the toxicity of what he says about Israel.

Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Santa Barbara, CA

Falk gives his typical evasive response:

Dear Rabbi Ira Youdovin:
As you are probably aware, we have common friends here in Santa Barbara, making me particularly sad that you chose to insult me so intensely and unfairly. To begin with I have never equated Israelis with Nazis, and find the accusation odious. Further, I never purported to be doing more than express my sense of my own identity as a Jew in response to allegations that I was self-hating. Further still, I received several communications from rabbis that were much kinder than yours, and even supportive of what I was trying to express. And finally, on the substance of the Israel/Palestine conflict my effort and UN mandate is not to be ‘balanced’ but to be truthful; given the structure of the occupation this is what I have tried to do. Even Richard Goldstone, with lifetime Zionist credentials, fared no better than I have when he entered the no man’s land of responsible criticism of the Israeli occupation policies.
Again, I am disappointed that you did not see fit to attempt even a civil discourse on these matters of obviously deep personal concern to you.

I'll ignore most of Falk's whining but will answer his laughable assertion that I highlighted above. Here is what Falk wrote in 2007:

[I]t is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust.’ ...
Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.

Falk defended the comparison in this BBC interview the following year.
As far as his assertion that he is simply trying to be "truthful" in reporting on human rights violations, he requested that the UNHRC ignore any Palestinian Arab violations of their own people's human rights.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com (I forgot to mention) h/t Zion Talk Racy

CiF’s Kieron Monks supports terrorism

Kieron Monks is a reporter and editor for Palestine Monitor.  He’s written pieces in the publication accusing “Zionist lobbies” of “smearing” such heroic figures as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein, it should be noted, asserts that the Holocaust has been exaggerated and exploited by Jews to justify Israeli human rights violations and crimes against humanity, and supported Hezbollah’s “armed resistance against the Israeli Army in Lebanon.” In the same essay, Monks accuses the Jewish people of having transitioned from “oppressed” to “oppressor”, and – even more shamefully – accuses Jewish groups of desperately ”digging deeper for evidence of their victim-hood.”
In another piece for Palestine Monitor, entitled “Human Currency”, in 2009, he argues that Palestinians should not negotiate with Israel, and that force is the only thing which Israelis understand.
So, with such a prolific anti-Israel pedigree, and palpable hostility towards the Jewish community, I wasn’t surprised to see that Comment is Free recently published his essay, on Nov. 19, Palestine aid models must change.
It was these five words in the following passage that initially got my attention:

“The impact of foreign interests can be clearly seen in PA budgets that allocate 10 times more money to security – suppressing resistance to the occupation – than to agriculture, which could be the backbone of the Palestinian economy.”

This passage really caught my eye.  With language, context is everything, but, given his past commentary, its seems clear that it should be read as criticism of the Palestinian security forces attempts to combat extremism, violence, and terrorism against Israelis – a minimal requirement for coexistence in the region.  The words “resistance to the occupation” often are a thinly veiled euphemism for the right to “armed resistance.”
Another passage in his essay lends support to my conclusions.  He says:

Individual NGOs have attempted to assert their independence from donors. Many reject USAID funding due to its political demands, which preclude assistance for projects that could benefit people with affiliations to undesirable political groups. The Dalia Association has introduced a “Village Decides” scheme, focused on institution building, which empowers local communities to invest funding as they see fit, without conditions.

Of course, Monks fails to inform his readers what he means by “undesirable political groups.”  He’s referring to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) guidelines requiring NGOs receiving funds to pledge “not to promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state, nor … make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.”
In the mind of Kieron Monks, requirements that NGOs – who ostensibly are trying to promote peace and human rights in the region – shouldn’t promote terrorism or anti-Semitism are, naturally, a betrayal of the revolution.
Monks – who fetsishizes violent resistance by the most reactionary political movements, and peddles hateful narratives about Jews, yet still styles himself a brave progressive voice – is the perfect embodiment of the Guardian’s consistent betrayal of true liberal values.
There was a time when liberal papers (like the Guardian) were at the forefront in the fight against anti-Semitism.  There was a time when such papers could be relied upon to be in fierce opposition to totalitarianism and unwavering in their defense of democracies  - and never mistook the former for the latter. And, there was a time when liberal papers would see through the thin veneer of folks such as Kieron Monks and see him as the reactionary that he is.
I long for the return of that kind of  crusading and fearless liberal voice in the UK.

via cifwatch.com

the real sign that things are turning in Israel's favor is that the creativity and innovative thinking of their enemy is gone. At least back in the day they were inventing so called "facts on the ground". Listening to this guy you would think he was plagiarizing a dead man named Edward Said. These academics don't have anything new to add or any intellectual discourse to travel.

there was a poll recently taken in the Arab world about their thoughts about Palestinians. the poll showed sincere disinterest. I don't believe the Arabs have stopped their bigotry and violence towards Jews... it is certainly still there... but I also think there is a certain quality of boredom because their leadership is just not creative enough to convince their population to care. The flotilla was dangerous because it did create a victimization narrative... but it was easily exposed.

this character in the Arab media is exactly why Bibi should ignore Obama. We have the upper hand. It isn't that people are siding with us... but rather the Islamic world is so corrupt, chaotic and killing themselves... that they just don't have the interest to actually attack Israel... at least the common man on the street.

As for Hezbollah and the unpopular now Hamas.... these armies can be dealt with if Israel wants to. Sadly the Jews have never been the type to go for the knockout punch. Right now Israel's largest threat is from within. There are too many Jews who are brainwashed by Obama... but the actual man on the street Arab threat can be dealt with if Israel has the Chutzpah

sadly if Bibi deals with Obama this situation could change... and in a year the entire Arab Moral could change as well when in 1 year, 1 month and 1 week Obama will allow the UN to create a country breaking the laws of the mandate of Palestine which says no outside power can decide borders within the are without the consensus of the people within the land.

one of the reasons Obama is making this honey pot trap is because it is a hail Mary pass. I hope Bibi is wise enough to see it for it is and build homes as much as he can

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous