Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Jews’

Antisemitism in France At Crisis Level -Govt. Won't Prosecute Offending Muslims

Five years ago, Linda moved from Paris to Canada and then to the Israeli port city of Ashdod. Only a week ago, she, her husband and their two sons faced a hail of rockets from the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, Linda, who doesn’t want to be identified by her last name, is delighted to be living in France no longer. “It’s much safer here than in France,” she says.

“Anti-Semitism has become unbearable there,” she says. “Children are harassed on their way to school just because they’re Jews.” She adds that she was also the victim of such harassment in the middle of the Champs-Élysées in Paris. “I was wearing a necklace with a Star of David attached to it,” she recalls. “Someone barged into me. I said to him: ‘You ought to excuse yourself!’ All he said was that he didn’t apologize to Jews.” -Spiegelonline
It was eight years ago when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon got into a bit of a row with the government of France. He told a meeting of the American Jewish Association in Jerusalem that Jews around the world should relocate to Israel as early as possible. But for those living in France, he added, moving was a “must” because of rising violence against Jews there. France’s foreign ministry said it had asked Israel for an explanation of the “unacceptable comments”.

Despite the French government taking offense to Sharon’s remarks, the fact remains that France was then, and is now one of the most Anti-Semitic countries in the world and the former PM was entirely correct in his assessment.

According to the annual report published by the Protection Service of the Jewish community, 2011 was a bad year; 2012 will be worse and the rise can be traced to “political correctness.
Since the killing of three children and a rabbi in the courtyard of a school in Toulouse on March 19 by Mohamed Merah, the number of attacks against Jews has exponentiated.

The vicious assault of three young Jews in Lyon on June 2 by a gang of ten men armed with hammers and iron bars was only the most visible and most obvious act among more than 150 other acts of the same kind in less than three months.

Since then, in just two weeks, dozens of new attacks have occurred. In one of them, an eighty-three year old woman was beaten, raped and left for dead in a Marseilles stairwell.

Most of the victims do not even go to the police: they know only too well that their complaint is likely to be dismissed. The police have orders: the risk of riots is in the mind of all those in authority. These orders are not transmitted in writing, of course ; their existence emerges when the police, angered by the role they are asked to play, organize protests. They are even more angry when they do their job and make arrests, only to see those arrested released by the judge even when the evidence provided is overwhelming. Judges also appear to have orders, also not transmitted in written form: some organize protests, others silently comply.

Those who were arrested may then seek revenge against those who complained — who will be protected by nobody.

The situation has evolved as successive governments have accepted the existence and growth of no-go zones which are now effectively out of control.
The real issue is the same liberal political correctness that motivated Eric Holder to drop the charges against the New Black Panthers.
Most of the Anti-Semitic acts in France are waged by their growing Muslim community, but as the authorities see it, Muslims are victims of racism, so they cannot be racist. Any violence against Jews is not Antisemitism, but acting out the victimization they received from French society
As the mainstream media are also silent, Muslim anti-Semites feel free to act. And the more time passes, the more they feel free to act. When crimes are not followed by repercussions, criminals acquire a giddy sense of impunity.

Almost no one dare associate the words “Muslim” and “anti-Semite” in France anymore, and those who still do are immediately accused of “Islamophobia” and charged. A law that bears the name of a communist politician — the “Gayssot law” — states that any criticism of a religion is a form of discrimination, and criticism of Islam is generally considered to be much worse than discrimination against anything else.

When Muslim anti-Semites, knowing the demonization of Israel that reigns in the country, say they hate Jews because of what Israeli Jews do to “Palestinians,” many journalists and “intellectuals” consider that excuse a mitigating circumstance, without even bothering to consider what the Palestinian leadership does to Palestinians — such as stealing the funds sent to the Palestinian people by gullible Americans and Europeans, throwing Palestinian journalists and any other outspoken citizen in jail wholesale, teaching toddlers to be terrorists, and effectively rejecting all rule of law. And this is the leadership that would like its own state?

When Jewish schools had to be protected before the killings in Toulouse, those killings showed that security measures in place were not sufficient. Jewish shops and restaurants receive daily threats. Every week, windows are smashed or covered with insulting graffiti. Jewish radio stations dare not display their name on their studio doors. Jewish kids are spat upon in the streets.

French Jews feel very isolated and very vulnerable. They now know that simple things can be dangerous: wearing a skullcap in the street, going to the synagogue alone, placing a mezuzah on a door frame.

400,000 Jews live in France today, and the number is decreasing. Two thousand Jews leave the country every year; those who do not leave now know they have no future in France.
With newly elected Socialist President and legislature the political correctness about Muslim Antisemitism in France will remain the official policy of the French authorities. Accompanying that policy of political correctness will be a continued rise in violence against Jews in France. Ariel Sharon’s warning remains correct. French Jews should get out while they can.

Hemorrhage of Hatred

By Caroline B. Glick

Hatred of Jews is the central animating feature of the political and strategic reality of the Middle East. It is hatred of Jews that dictates the legal regimes, foreign policies, military aspirations, cultural mores, educational themes and even public health policies of our neighbors from Ramallah to Teheran.
Despite the centrality of Jew hatred in all aspects of public life in the Arab and Muslim world, our neighbors’ unrelenting and irrational abhorrence for Israel and the Jewish people remains a dirty secret that you aren’t supposed to mention in polite company. From Washington to Brussels, talk of the policy implications of Arab and Muslim Jew hatred is prohibited.
Omar Abu-Sneina, a convicted terrorist murderer is one of the thousand Palestinian terrorists that Israel released from prison in order to secure the release of Israeli hostage IDF Sgt. Gilad Schalit. Originally from Hebron, Abu-Sneina was released to Hamas-controlled Gaza. This week the IDF announced that since his release Abu-Sneina has returned to the terror business. The Israel Security Agency intercepted a memory card he sent his family in Hebron with instructions for how his fellow terrorists should go about kidnapping and holding IDF soldiers hostage. The instructions demonstrate how for Abu-Sneina, Israelis don’t even deserve to be treated like animals.
Among other things, he discussed how to hide a hostage. As he put it, “Avoid hiding [the captive soldier] in desolate places, tunnels or forests, unless the aforementioned [captive] is a corpse or a severed head. If the aforementioned is a live human, that must be visited at least once a week and provided with food and drink, it is best to hide him in a house, an agricultural farm, a workplace, etc.”
Abu-Sneina’s coldblooded cruelty and rejection of the inherent value of the lives of Israelis is not simply a function of the fact that he is a terrorist. It is a reflection of the values of Palestinian society. Those values are continuously expressed and reinforced by Fatah and Hamas controlled media outlets, cultural and educational institutions and religious authorities. The ubiquitousness of Jew hatred in the daily lives of Palestinians is so overwhelming it is difficult to imagine any facet of Palestinian life that isn’t inundated by it.
Take grammar lessons. According to a translation provided by Palestinian Media Watch, the Palestinian Authority’s Arabic language matriculation examinations for high school students include questions such as, “Punctuate the underlined phrase: Do not view the occupier as human.” And “Punctuate the underlined phrase: We shall die in order that our land may live.”

This week a Palestinian court sentenced Muhammad Abu Shahala to death for selling a home in Hebron near the Cave of the Patriarchs to Jews. Shahala was arrested shortly after several Jewish families moved into the house last month. He was reportedly tortured and quickly tried and sentenced to die by a PA court.

The PA was established in May 1994. The first law it adopted defined selling land to Jews a capital offense. Shortly thereafter scores of Arab land sellers began turning up dead in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in both judicial and extrajudicial killings.
Leaders of the Jewish community of Hebron wrote a letter to international leaders this week asking them to intervene with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and demand that he cancel Shahala’s sentence. They addressed the letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the Director General of the International Red Cross Yves Daccord as well as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres. In it they wrote, “It is appalling to think that property sales should be defined as a ‘capital crime’ punishable by death. The very fact that such a ‘law’ exists within the framework of the PA legal system points to a barbaric and perverse type of justice, reminiscent of practices implemented during the dark ages.”

They went on to make the reasonable comparison between the PA’s law prohibiting land sales to Jews to Nazi Germany’s Nuremburg laws that constrained and finally outlawed trade between Jews and Germans. The letter concluded with the question, “Is the Palestinian Authority a reincarnation of the Third Reich?”
The Palestinians of course are far from unique in their obsession with hating Jews. Their hemorrhage of hatred, their obsessive need to reject any move towards peaceful coexistence with Israel, or what the renowned late Palestinian poet Yousuf Al Khatib referred to picturesquely as “the Jewish filth of Europe” is matched in every Arab land. And of course, it is the primary obsession of the Iranian regime.

The parallels between Nazi laws and the laws of the PA and the Arab states that outlaw all cooperation with Israel and make such cooperation a capital offense are obvious and straightforward. Yet generally speaking, anyone who points out this fact is automatically dismissed as an alarmist or an extremist. Given the PA’s relative military weakness when compared with Israel and the Arab world’s current lack of interest in waging active war against Israel, noting their inarguable ideological affinity with the Nazis is considered socially and even intellectually unacceptable. The fact that they lack the ability to implement their ideology renders it improper to mention it.

The social prohibition on drawing parallels between the threats facing Israel today and those that faced the Jewish people seventy years ago is not limited to the discourse on Arab world’s conflict with Israel. It extends as well to polite society’s discourse on Iran’s nuclear program, which the Iranian regime has made clear repeatedly is aimed at destroying Israel.
In his address to the nation at the annual Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at Yad Vashem on Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took aim at that taboo when he attacked those who accuse him of belittling the Holocaust by comparing the annihilation of European Jewry to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Netanyahu said, “I know there are also those who believe that the unique evil of the Holocaust should never be invoked in discussing other threats facing the Jewish people. To do so, they argue, is to belittle the Holocaust and to offend its victims.
“I totally disagree. On the contrary. To cower from speaking the uncomfortable truth — that today like then, there are those who want to destroy millions of Jewish people — that is to belittle the Holocaust, that is to offend its victims and that is to ignore the lessons.

“Not only does the Prime Minister of Israel have the right, when speaking of these existential dangers, to invoke the memory of a third of our nation which was annihilated. It is his duty.”
Netanyahu is right, of course. Unfortunately for Israel, raising the Holocaust in the context of a discussion about contemporary threats to the Jewish people is the rhetorical equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb. Just as no one is allowed to use a nuclear bomb, no one is allowed to mention the Holocaust. And that means that there is ultimately no way to speak about the violent hatred that animates our enemies in every aspect of their policy making. From the seemingly anodyne issue of property sales to the existential issue of nuclear weapons programs, the Jew hatred that lies at the foundation of their actions is out of bounds for discussion.

Actually, the situation is both better and worse than that. Netanyahu’s rhetorical boldness in drawing the parallel between Iran and the Nazis is arguably the only reason that the EU and the Obama administration have taken any actions against Iran. No, as their feckless negotiations with the mullahs, their foot dragging in implementing economic sanctions, and their outspoken opposition to military action against Iran make clear, they do not really mind the prospect of Iran acquiring the ability to wipe out the Jewish state. But the only reason they have adopted sanctions at all is because Netanyahu’s Holocaust rhetoric made them fear that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear installations if they didn’t.

On the other hand, when it comes to their direct dealings with Jew haters, Westerners not only fail to confront them about their prejudice. They enable it. For instance, at a townhall meeting during her visit to Tunisia last month, Hillary Clinton was asked how US leaders can be trusted when during elections, “most of the candidates from both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support.”

Rather than reject the anti-Jewish premise of the question — that Jews exert inordinate control over US politics or that there is something wrong with candidates expressing support for Israel — Clinton treated the question as legitimate.
Clinton said, “A lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention.”

Clinton even congratulated her anti-Jewish questioner saying, “I think it’s a fair question because I � sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans.”
Similarly, a report on the behind the scenes goings on at last weekend’s nuclear negotiations with Iran published by Al-Monitor described the friendly discussion that took place at a dinner Friday night between EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili. According to a European diplomat, the conversation was aimed at breaking the ice. And it included a discussion of “political party funding in the US.”

It is hard to imagine that such a discussion involved anything other than a group tongue clucking session directed against the inordinate impact of “Jewish money” on US electoral politics. That is, it is all but impossible to imagine that the discussion involved anything other than Ashton attempting to build a rapport with her Iranian counterpart based on shared hatred or contempt for Jews.

The fact that the West refuses to consider the policy implications of the most powerful force in Arab and Iranian policymaking and political life does not mean that Israeli policy makers should necessarily expand their discussion of the topic — although it would probably not hurt for them to do so. What it means is that the general policy debate in the West about the nature of Middle Eastern politics is completely divorced from reality.

Because the Americans and the Europeans refuse to acknowledge the elephant of Jew hatred in the middle of the room, they cannot be trusted to make reasoned or rational policy decisions. And since they cannot be trusted to act rationally, Israel cannot rely on the Americans or the Europeans as allies or partners when it confronts threats from its Jew obsessed neighbors.

Aaron Zelman: Great Jewish-American Fought Against Gun Control, of Blessed Memory


By Debbie Schlussel

Most informed politically conservative Jews in America–especially those who cherish the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as I do–know the name, Aaron Zelman.  This great American and proud Jew was the founder of and single-handedly ran the JPFO–Jews for the Preservation  of Firearms Ownership.  Sadly, he died, last week, at age 64.  His funeral was Friday. Zelman was the epitome of modern-day American patriot. Zelman was an especially important person for me because he echoed what my late Holocaust survivor grandfather, Isaac Engel, always said and always taught me:  the importance of the Second Amendment and of the Jewish defense and exercise thereof.  Like all other Jews in Nazi Europe, my grandfather and his family were not allowed to own guns.  It eased the way for Nazis to arrest so many of them and ship them off to the death camps.  When my grandfather came to America, he said the real “Never Again” and always owned guns.  In fact, because it was so hard to acquire a license to conceal and carry a gun to his business, back in those days, my grandfather was always packing one of his guns illegally to, from, and at his business right near Detroit.  That he had one on him saved his life on so many occasions.  Both he and my late father were members of/donors to JPFO.

Aaron Zelman didn’t make a lot of money running JPFO, unlike so many who run conservative non-profits, today, and make millions doing nothing but self-promotion and hype.  But he did it out of principle.  And his one-man operation had tens of thousands of members.

And Aaron Zelman was a prolific researcher and author, writing several books, fiction novels and non-fiction treatises, kids’ books, and guides, including “Consumer’s Guide to Handguns: Tough, Unbiased Test Reports Show You Which Guns Are Reliable and Your Best Values ,” “Death by “Gun Control”: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,” “The Mitzvah,” “Gun Control -: Gateway to Tyranny: The Nazi Weapons Law 18 March 1938,” “RebelFire: Out of the Gray Zone,” “Hope: A Novel About Freedom and What Could Be . . .,” “Gran’pa Jack asks, Is America becoming a police state?,” ““Gun Control” Kills Kids! (“Grandpa Jack”),” and “Innocents Betrayed by Aaron Zelman (a DVD he produced).”

Writes reader Lawrence:

He is the author of “Death by Gun Control” and a great American that will be sorely missed.

One of his great quotes, “”If every German Jew and anti-Nazi had possessed a Mauser rifle, twenty rounds and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic.” — Aaron Zelman, 1995.

He was truly a great man, and one hell of a fighter for American liberty. I shall miss him terribly.

Yes, he was one of the many unsung American Jews who fight for American liberty and stand up for Jews like me who don’t buy into the liberal crap. Read more about Aaron Zelman from one of his co-authors, Claire Wolfe of Backwoods Home Magazine.

 

UC Davis Quickly Eliminates Unconstitutional Definition of Discrimination

The University of California-Davis will be correcting its unconstitutionally discriminatory definition of discrimination to ensure that all students are protected under its policies. The official word came last night in a letter from Assistant Vice-Chancellor Rahim Reed to ADF Allied Attorney Tim Swickard, one of nearly 2000 allied attorneys across the country that give their time to defend religious liberty alongside us at ADF. UC Davis had defined “religious/spiritual discrimination as:

Religious/Spiritual Discrimination – The loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion. In the United States, this is institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian.

Thus, under the UC Davis definition discrimination against Christians was not “religious discrimination.” Reed’s letter identifies the UC Davis document as merely “aspirational,” an odd half-defense of this policy to which no university should “aspire” (except perhaps the aspiration to dominance of Christianity on campuses – I’d be for that).

Universities (or government generally) should not be in the business of identifying Christians as unworthy of the same protections that they provide to other faiths. We are very happy to see that UC Davis has removed the problematic definition from its website and has pledged to eliminate or amend it appropriately. This is good news. Universities can be ideological and recalcitrant on issues like this – even when they’re clearly wrong – and so it is no small thing that UC Davis moved so quickly to resolve this problem.

But ultimately this issue isn’t about the specific definition of “religious discrimination” at UC Davis. As ludicrous as the definition was, it doesn’t establish that UC Davis is the worst campus for free speech or religious liberty in America. There are plenty of outstanding candidates for that honor. UC Davis simply reduced to writing what seems to be the de facto approach on many campuses where Christian students often face treatment from student governments, faculty, or the administration that students of other faiths never seem to face.

Perhaps I’m wrong. But I somehow doubt that Jonathan Lopez would have been told to “Ask God What Your Grade Is” in response to a speech class assignment where he shared his views about marriage if he had discussed those views from a Muslim perspective. I do not believe that Julea Ward would have faced a theological grilling (including efforts by administration officials to persuade her that she was theologically incorrect) and ultimately expulsion over her decision to refer two individuals seeking same sex relationship counseling due to her values conflict if her values were informed by a faith other than Christianity. And I don’t believe that UC Hastings College of the Law would have ever derecognized a Muslim student group unless it would promise to allow Christians and Jews to become its leaders (and in Alpha Delta Chi v. Reed we have proof that the policy was applied to Christians and not to other religious groups). Christians on many campuses around the country live with the sense that the protections and sensitivities that are granted to other religious faiths do not extend to them.

The issue here isn’t the text of UC Davis’s “religious discrimination” definition, but the culture on campuses that would ever allow such a definition to get through multiple levels of scrutiny and end up on a website of a university department specifically responsible for ensuring that the campus is inclusive of all faiths. And that culture is one that is not unique to UC Davis. Kudos for the policy change. Now let’s get to the root of the problem.

The Jewish People vs George Soros

George Soros says he has no guilt about collaborating with Nazis during World War II

What a disgusting piece of excrement this guy is. Yes, the leader of the progressive movement, the creator of such “watchdog” sites as MoveOn, and Media Matters has no guilt about collaborating with the Nazis who murdered 440,000 Hungarian Jews during World War II. According to the Ottawa Sun, George Soros as a teenager (then a Jew himself) collaborated with the Nazis. According to the article Soros worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis responsible for rounding up Jews every day for the trains. Soros’s father named Theodore bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George Soros live with him. The younger Soros then helped the agriculture ministry official confiscate property from the Jews. What Soros basically did was collaborate with the Nazis and turned on other Jews to spare himself. Sounds like your prototypical progressive to me. It also shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that Soros recently “donated” $100 million to “Human Rights Watch” which is known for it’s anti-Israel bias. Does Soros regret any of his past? Does he feel any guilt? Nope!

Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.

“No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”

SEO Powered By SEOPressor