Posted tagged ‘Antisemitism’

Hmm, Where Could All This Hatred Be Coming From?

March 20, 2016

Hmm, Where Could All This Hatred Be Coming From? Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, March 20, 2016

(Haven’t they blamed Trump yet? — DM)

♦ As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them.

♦ As many on the so-called left have earlier shown, their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct.

♦ “Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.” — Mehdi Hassan, The New Statesman.

♦ Is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two other “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?

Not a month goes by in Britain without some left-wing proponent of anti-Jewish racism exposing themselves. Last month it was the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) that was found to be harbouring anti-Semites among its members. In recent weeks there have been a number of adult members of the Labour party who have been readmitted to the party or promoted within it while holding extreme anti-Jewish views.

The most recent case revolves around one Vicki Kirby, a Labour parliamentary candidate before the last general election, when she was suspended from the party for tweeting about Jews having “big noses,” Adolf Hitler being the “Zionist god” and other ramblings. Naturally, Ms. Kirby’s suspension has since been lifted. As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is very hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them. Last week it came to public attention that Ms. Kirby had now become the vice-chair of her local party chapter.

The story was broken on right-of-centre websites, which ordinarily means that left-of-centre activists dismiss them as “smears.” But these stories are now coming in so thick and fast that an increasing number of people on the left are starting to admit they might have a problem. At least they are choosing to throw the more minor anti-Semites under the bus while preserving those at the top of their ranks. Had the charges aimed at Ms. Kirby been aimed at Mr Corbyn, we would still be being told that these were “rumours,” “innuendo” and the like.

Nevertheless, some Corbyn loyalists have decided that Ms. Kirby may indeed be a bit much, and realized that it is probably time to address the problem. Unfortunately, having failed to recognize the virus earlier, the remedies these people are now suggesting for cure are predictably wrong-headed.

Take for example the Guardian-published Corbyn activist, Owen Jones. Last week, ignoring his own history of stirring up lies against the Jewish state, he responded to his party’s latest embarrassment by arguing that Labour’s rules should be changed so that “anyone found guilty of anti-Semitism — or any other form of racism — is expelled from the party.” He went on to say that, “Their readmission should only happen when they have demonstrably been shown to have been re-educated.” There is the start of the problem. As so often with those on the Corbyn-ite wing of politics, the answer to problems of the heart or mind is “re-education.” The only problem — as the left many have earlier shown in a range of twentieth-century initiatives ranging from Stalin to Mao — is that their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct. As Jones goes on to show, this is rarely the case.

For his second prevarication for dealing with Labour’s anti-Semitism problem, Jones wrote that the party should:

“… set up two commissions: one on antisemitism, the other on anti-Muslim prejudice, respectively headed by a leading Jewish and a Muslim figure. Both forms of bigotry are on the rise in Britain, and both exist within progressive circles and the Labour party. The commissions could issue a series of recommendations, both for dealing with it when it arises within Labour, and also in wider society.”

As everyone involved in politics knows, there are two ways truly to ignore a problem: the first is just to ignore it; the second is to “set up a commission.”

But there are several perhaps unwittingly interesting things about this flaccid suggestion. The first is the reflexive and unthinking demonstration among many these days that they cannot possibly deal with anti-Semitism unless they also throw Muslims into the mix. To deal with anti-Semitism on its own might throw up too many problems and raise too many communal problems.

But let us say that two such commissions were set up. And let us pretend for a moment that they were indeed headed by people who were not merely “leading” but also honest figures.

The head of the commission to look into anti-Semitic prejudice, might find a number of startling things. He or she might find, for instance, that the dominant strand of anti-Semitism in British life in 2016 comes not from Ms. Kirby’s ilk, but from the British Muslim community. The commission head would not have to go far to learn this. One only has to pick up a copy of the British left’s in-house magazine, The New Statesman, and read an article from just three years ago by the British-born Al-Jazeera broadcaster, Mehdi Hassan. In an unusually honest piece entitled, “The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected the British Muslim community,” the author explains that:

“Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.”

So as Hassan has reminded us, the sorry truth is that if a commission into anti-Semitism were set up, it would have to finger the majority of British Muslims as at least a very large part of the problem.

Meanwhile, let us say that the second commission were set up — the one that gives cover to the anti-Semitism commission which is looking at “anti-Muslim” feeling. This commission might come to an equally problematic conclusion. This commission might conclude, for instance, that to the extent that any “anti-Muslim” feeling might be said to exist in the UK, it comes from a number of factors quite separate from innate and unalterable prejudice in the hearts of the British people. It might come, for instance, from a dislike of suicide-bombings, assassinations, beheadings and other varieties of terrorism carried out while discussing the greatness of Allah. Although most British people will remain perfectly capable of understanding the difference between the actions of the extremists and the behaviour of the vast majority of British Muslims, they may be concerned about the amount of deflection and denial that they see even from leaders of very mainstream Muslim organizations. Indeed, is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might not also be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?

Perhaps after all it would be best if the Corbyn-ite element of the Labour party does not attempt this process of “re-education”? The path to wisdom must include some self-understanding. Yet the Labour party’s anti-Semitism problem comes from people who propel the very hatred they profess to despise. As such, they remain in no position to “re-educate” anyone, as they so stubbornly refuse to educate themselves.

Rabbis Boycotting Trump At AIPAC Aren’t Being Fair Or Following Jewish Law

March 20, 2016

Rabbis Boycotting Trump At AIPAC Aren’t Being Fair Or Following Jewish Law, The Jewish PressJeff Dunetz, March 20, 2016

Trump-Law

While these Rabbis are walking out on Donald Trump, there was never a boycott of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, Barack Obama, nor is there a plan to boycott Hillary Clinton despite her anti-Israel activism. Ms. Clinton is on the schedule to address AIPAC also.

********************

{Originally posted to the author’s website, The Lid}

He who answers a word before he understands-it is foolishness for him and an embarrassment-  Mishlei (Proverbs) Chapter 18: Verse 13

A Reform Rabbi from Florida by the name Jeffrey Salkin (of Temple Solel in Hollywood) is organizing a boycott of Donald Trump’s speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference Monday, and it’s not because of Trump’s statement about being neutral in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.

But, for many of the rabbis who will be attending AIPAC, Trump’s appearance poses political, moral, and even spiritual quandaries.

It is quite simple. Trump’s hateful rhetoric is abhorrent to a great many rabbis, for a variety of reasons. In particular, the Reform movement has eloquently spoken out on Trump.

(…) We have been urging rabbis to simply not attend the Trump speech — to let our absence be felt and noted.

Yes, AIPAC must be hospitable to Trump, but that does not mean that AIPAC participants are hospitable to the candidate’s ideas and candidacy.

While I understand the boycotting Rabbis distaste of Mr. Trump (just look at the hateful comments I get from Trump fans) and plan to vote against him in the New York State primary, the boycotters are not being fair to Donald Trump, nor are they observing Jewish law which demands people listen to all sides before making a judgment.

According to the Washington Post, “Those who have signed on so far primarily represent the Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism.” For those unfamiliar with the differences between Jewish movements, both the Reform and Conservative (where I worship) movements are very progressive. Sometimes putting their political beliefs in front of the needs of the Jewish people.  Or as I said when the leadership of the Conservative movement met with Barack Obama in the summer of 2012 and gave him an implied endorsement, they worship the golden calf of big government. Sometimes when hearing a liberal skewed sermon from the pulpit makes me feel very unwelcome at my own Shul.

Not Being Fair To Trump:

Why are they holding Donald Trump to a different standard than President Obama or Hillary Clinton?  During his seven plus years as president, Barack Obama has shown himself to be anti-Israel and even worse, anti-Semitic. For example during the push for the Iran deal the president had a phone call with “Jewish Leaders.”  In the 20-minute phone call Obama said over and over that opponents of the Iran deal come from the same “array of forces that got us into the Iraq war,” he said a “bunch of billionaires who happily finance super PACs” are “putting the squeeze on members of Congress.”

The message was clear to the Jewish participants, William Daroff Senior Vice President for Public Policy & Director of the Washington office of the very liberal, Jewish Federations of North America tweeted during the meeting “Jews are leading effort to kill #Irandeal. ‘Same people opposing the deal led us into Iraq war,’” and followed with “Canard: Jews got us into Iraq War.”

When Lee Rosenberg of AIPAC questioned the president’s statement comparing people who object to the Iran deal to those who supported the invasion of Iraq he pointed out that many anti-Semites falsely claim the Jews pushed Bush into invading Iraq. Obama explained that Netanyahu supported the Iraq invasion (true). But Bibi wasn’t the premier at the time he was a private citizen. The prime minister Ariel Sharon strongly urged Bush not to invade Iraq, arguing correctly that if Saddam were removed, “Iran, a far more dangerous player, will be rid of its principal enemy and free to pursue its ambitions of regional hegemony.”

If one looks at Hillary Clinton’s public history one finds a lifetime of anti-Israel positions. But wait some might say, Hillary was a big supporter of Israel when she was in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, she was. With the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009– except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has never been pro-Israel. And when she held the position of Secretary of State, she helped Barack Obama craft his anti-Israel positions.

While these Rabbis are walking out on Donald Trump, there was never a boycott of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, Barack Obama, nor is there a plan to boycott Hillary Clinton despite her anti-Israel activism. Ms. Clinton is on the schedule to address AIPAC also.

Not Following Jewish Teachings:

There is an old Yiddish expression, “It’s ‘shanda fur die goy.” It means making the Jews look stupid in front of the Gentiles. And in this case by not following Jewish teachings and not listening to Trump these Rabbis are embarrassing the Jewish people.

The first word of one of the holy Jewish prayers is Sh’ma, it means listen. Listening to people before judging them is an important Jewish teaching. Because of their political leanings one could reasonably suspect that these Rabbis have only seen the snippets of Trump speeches broadcast or printed by the mainstream media. If they haven looked at his entire speech, or all his speeches they aren’t listening. By boycotting him at AIPAC they are judging him by not giving him the opportunity to explain himself.

The verse from Proverbs posted above, “He who answers a word before he understands-it is foolishness for him and an embarrassment,” is trying to teach us to listen and understand someone before making a judgment.  Pirkei Avot 2:5 reads, “Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place.” As long as you have not reached his place, i.e. have a clear picture of his complete situation, and look at the broader picture you must give him the benefit of the doubt. Pirkei Avot is a book of the ethical teachings and maxims of the Rabbis written during the first two centuries CE.

Just like King Solomon (who wrote Proverbs), the ancient Rabbis taught us to understand someone before they judge that person.

In the book of D’varim (Deuteronomy) Chapter 1, Verse 16 Moses instructs the Jewish people in a similar way to Solomon and the ancient Rabbis, Judges have to hear all sides before they judge:

And I charged your judges at that time, saying: ‘Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteouslybetween a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

There again in that verse is the Hebrew word שָׁמֹעַ: sh’ma, which means listen. We must listen before judge

The first two examples above were written by man, King Solomon and the ancient Rabbis. On the other hand Jews believe that the entire Torah was written by God.  Therefore that verse in D’varim means the omnipotent one, who created the heaven and the earth, who teaches us right from wrong and gives each one of us the free will to decide our path wants us to listen before we judge.

I’m not suggesting that the Rabbis should support Trump (I don’t) or even vote Republican, what I am suggesting is that great human minds as well the word of God tells them they should sit and listen to Donald Trump, the same way they sat and listened to the anti-Semitic Barack Obama when he spoke to AIPAC, and like the will sit and listen to the anti-Israel Hillary Clinton when she addresses the very same AIPAC conference.

With the election less than eight months away they shouldn’t be divisive rather they should listen to all sides, listen to their hearts and pray. Perhaps with the prayer below:

Lord who grants salvation to kings and dominion to rulers, Whose kingdom is a kingdom spanning the entire universe and all eternities; Who places a road in the sea and a path in the mighty waters – may you bless the President, the Vice President, and all the constituted officers of government of this land. May they execute their responsibilities with intelligence, honor, compassion and love for the constitution wonderfully crafted by our founding fathers. May you grant the people of the United States the wisdom to select a leader who is wise and fair, and who will never make a decision without considering your teachings. May you always bless these United States and provide our leaders with the comprehension of your role in making this republic the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The Campaign to Toxify Donald Trump Among Jews

March 5, 2016

Blue State Blues: The Campaign to Toxify Donald Trump Among Jews

by Joel B. Pollak

4 Mar 2016

Source: The Campaign to Toxify Donald Trump Among Jews

 

Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he is not an antisemite. Yet there is a malicious campaign afoot to paint him as one.

Tablet Magazine, for example, has launched a “Trump Watch” series, complete with German Gothic script that is apparently meant to remind readers of antisemitic tabloids in Nazi Germany. Its mission: to show the “daily low-lights of Donald Trump’s attempt to use the dark forces of bigotry to become President.”

The inaugural post cites Louis Farrakhan’s praise for Trump for refusing money from Jews (as he has from virtually everyone, thus far).

The post goes further, and quotes Lloyd Grove’s absurd article at the Daily Beast, in which Breitbart is accused of inciting Twitter trolls to scare Federalist writer Bethany Shondark Mandel, who has never once been attacked by this website. Breitbart News has called on the Daily Beast to retract the article. (No one from Tablet contacted Breitbart News before regurgitating the article’s false innuendo, and wrongly associating Breitbart with bigotry.)

The next edition of Trump Watch links Trump with the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement — though it admits he has nothing to do with it. Actual quote: “Factually, of course, they’ve little in common. But facts don’t matter here because facts don’t always make sense.”

The following Trump Watch hits him for comments about the KKK, whom he had already disavowed. And the next takes up a letter signed by foreign policy experts opposed to Trump’s candidacy, and suggests “maybe something darker is taking place … Republicans with fundamentally authoritarian instincts are beginning to shoot glances at one another and to see their opportunity.”

None of the above is convincing, or even attempts to be. It is aimed at toxifying Trump among potential supporters in the Jewish community and beyond.

Never mind his daughter Ivanka’s Orthodox Jewish conversion, or Trump’s endorsement for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The man, and his supporters, must be demonized.

Take, for instance, Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), which did outstanding work in trying to stop the Iran deal. You might think Kristol and ECI would acknowledge Trump’s efforts to fight the deal, including his address to a large rally on Capitol Hill last fall.

Instead, ECI has waded into primary politics with a new ad this week claiming that Trump is dangerous for Israel because of his “disturbing affection for anti-American dictators.”

And earlier this week, Nefesh b’Nefesh, a non-profit organization that helps Jews who want to make aliyah (move to Israel), tweeted to Jewish Republicans who oppose Trump that “we’re here if you need us.” The tweet (for which the organization later apologized) was responding to an op-ed in the left-leaning Forward that claimed Jewish Republicans are worried about Trump because of his “nativist working class political movement,” adding that “the Jewish experience with overweening, oversensitive wannabe dictator-chieftains is not a good one.”

The article purported to speak for Jewish Republicans. But there are certainly some who support Trump as well.
There is much to criticize in Trump’s foreign policy, including on Israel. Trump arrived at a Republican Jewish Coalition candidate forum in December poorly prepared to answer policy questions on Israel, and was criticized for making Jewish jokes in a clumsy attempt to bond with the audience.

, his two main rivals, have slammed him repeatedly for saying he would be “neutral” in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Yes, they have misconstrued his remarks, suggesting that he would be neutral towards Israel in general, when he specifically blamed Palestinians for the impasse. But that’s just politics.There’s also an argument to be made, as Ben Shapiro does, that Trump could speak out more forcefully against antisemitism.

All of that is legitimate criticism. The attempt to turn Donald Trump into Hitler is not. It is a game of guilt-by-association, the same nonsense that was unleashed against Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008, when Democrats immediately tried to link her to Nazis.

Then-Rep. Robert Weller (D-FL) said:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

36%

’s decision to select a vice presidential running mate that endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in 2000 is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans. Pat Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer with a uniquely atrocious record on Israel, even going as far as to denounce bringing former Nazi soldiers to justice and praising Adolf Hitler for his “great courage.”

The smear campaign against Trump comes out of the same playbook. It is not simple fear of populist nationalism. It is being carried out by those who know, or are capable of deducing, that Trump is neither an antisemite nor trying to appeal to antisemites. It is a vendetta by political opponents who are determined to stop Trump and have chosen to use this noxious slander as their weapon.

As with false accusations of racism, it tends to desensitize people to the real thing.

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

February 5, 2016

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, February 5, 2016

♦ Facebook is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might decide is racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

♦ The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week came reports of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on social media.

♦ In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations and only violence is left.

♦ The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.

Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.

At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

1455

The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in ParisCologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.

As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.

The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.

By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.

The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.

In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

Germany Just Can’t Get It Right

January 11, 2016

Germany Just Can’t Get It Right, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, January 11, 2016

♦ How can you explain why Germany, which in the 20th century had such a gigantic anti-Semitism problem, would import so many people from those areas of the world which now have the same gigantic anti-Semitism problem?

♦ The police water cannons were not in evidence on New Year’s Eve to break up the migrant gangs committing violent crimes against women. Instead they were used to break up a lawful demonstration of people opposed to such violent attacks on women.

The late Robert Conquest once laid out a set of three political rules, the last of which read, “The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.” This rule comes in handy when trying to understand the otherwise clearly insane and suicidal policies of Chancellor Merkel’s government in Germany. These policies only make sense if the German government has in fact been taken over by a cabal of people intent not on holding Germany together but on pulling it entirely apart. Consider the evidence.

There can be few other explanations for why Chancellor Merkel’s government last year let in more than one million people (about 1.5% of the current German population) without having any idea of who they were, where they came from or what they think. No democratic leader could possibly push through such a startling measure. How else can you explain why a country that in the 20th century had such a gigantic anti-Semitism problem, would import so many people from those areas of the world which, in the 21st century, now have the same gigantic anti-Semitism problem?

A document that was leaked late last year from the German intelligence service warned that the country is “importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples…” How to explain a government and security service policy which allowed this to happen? Or a Chancellor who, when asked a very lightly critical question about all of this by a concerned German citizen, responded with a long disquisition that failed to answer even one part of the pertinent point?

More up-to-date, it is worth considering events since New Year’s Eve. As the world now knows, that was when around 100 women were subjected to rape, harassment and sexual molestation by a huge crowd of migrants in the centre of the city of Cologne. It has now emerged that the first response of the Cologne police to this major incident was to hold back information about the identity of the attackers. Whether the police thought they could get away with that or not, this lie has now poured fuel onto the flames of public anger by demonstrating that the police, like the government and much of the media, are intent on misinforming the public about what is going on in their country, rather than keeping them truthfully briefed about it.

The next German police response to suggest that they, too, must have been taken over by a cabal of their enemies — intent on whipping up rather than dampening public concern — came a week after this attempted cover-up. At protests this past weekend, the Cologne police wheeled out water-cannons to hose down protestors and disperse them. Of course, these water cannons were not in evidence on New Year’s Eve to break up the migrant gangs committing violent crimes against German women. Instead, they were used to break up a lawful demonstration of German people opposed to such violent attacks on women. Unless you take Conquest’s rule into account, there is no explanation for the deployment of water-cannon by the German police against people protesting the rapes, rather than deploying them against the rapists.

Then there is the “too late” response. This is the declaration by officials, after the rapes have taken place and once the government realizes that it has to say something, that the German authorities will not tolerate and do not want people in their country who do not hold contemporary, enlightened European views on women. As at least 75% of the migrants who arrived in Europe last year were young men from the Middle East and Africa, it might be noted that this point could have been more constructive had it been made somewhat earlier. But, as those people are now here in such vast numbers, a government intent on causing as much societal damage as possible would, of course, allow them in and then complain about something that they will now be able to do nothing about. All such “hardball” pronouncements by German politicians can now be seen for the puff-balls they really are.

1360 (1)German Chancellor Angela Merkel doubled down on her open-door asylum policy in a November 13, 2015 television interview, saying: “The Chancellor has the situation under control. I have my vision. I will fight for it.” Mere insanity, incompetence or duplicity could not possibly explain the behaviour of a German government so obviously dedicated to its own pathetic end.

The conundrum for the rest of Europe now is what to do with the unwelcome knowledge of what is really going on. The realization that the most powerful and significant political and economic country in Europe has clearly been taken over by a cabal of its own enemies, intent on destroying the German nation rather than on protecting its citizens, will strike different Europeans in different ways.

From the British point of view, one striking opportunity to respond will be presented in the referendum over Britain’s membership (or not) in the European Union, slated to take place at some point next year. That Union – which has dissolved the continent’s external and internal borders as a central pillar of its policy — may now be seen by British voters for what it is. And so perhaps the best explanation of the behaviour of the German government is that it has been taken over some time ago by British Euro-sceptics, intent on finally bringing the EU to this dismal end. That is clearly the most likely explanation. Mere insanity, incompetence or duplicity could not possibly explain the behaviour of a German government so obviously dedicated to its own pathetic end.

Anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate crimes: Different Strokes

December 31, 2015

Anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate crimes: Different Strokes, American ThinkerCarol Brown, December 31, 2015

The Christmas Day firebombing of a Houston mosque got plenty of attention. Perhaps because of all the pressure, a perp was rapidly arrested, and to the embarrassment of all those Islamophobia mongers, turned out to be a faithfull attendee, 5 times a day, seven days a week. CAIR was quick to cry “bias”:

Mustafaa Carroll, who is the executive director for the Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called on law enforcement to investigate, citing a recent spike in vandalism to mosques that have prompted hate crime investigations.

“We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire,” he said in a statement.

To the north and west of Texas, in the state of Nevada, some stupid prankster left a strip of bacon draped over the handles of a mosque located outside of Las Vegas. Not only is it being treated as a possible hate crime, but the FBI is offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of the man seen on surveillance video placing the bacon on the door handles.

Wow.

And to think that about a year ago when multiple swastikas appeared scattered throughout my neighborhood, I was told by law enforcement that it was probably just a bunch of kids acting up. The message was loud and clear: the police didn’t take it very seriously and, indeed, it took several weeks before the swastikas were removed.

Obnoxious prank involving food that is forbidden under Islamic law on the door to a mosque = hate crime that warrants an FBI reward vs. swastikas, which are a symbol of genocide against Jews = childish prank.

OK. Got it.

Of note, the majority of hate crimes based on religion are against Jews. But what’s typically covered in the media are hate crimes (including those that are fabricated, such as here, here, and here) against Muslims. And ironically, it’s worth noting that as religiosity rises in Islamic communities, so does anti-Semitism. As a result, as the Muslim population in America rises, so too will anti-Semitism (as we see occurring in Europe).

But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the mainstream media to cover that story.

Hat tip: Jihad Watch, Your Houston News, Atlas Shrugs, Las Vegas Review Journal, Algemeiner

Cartoon of the day

December 3, 2015

H/t The Jewish Press

oppression

The best way to remember the Holocaust is by bringing Muslims to kill American Jews

November 20, 2015

The best way to remember the Holocaust is by bringing Muslims to kill American Jews, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 20, 2015

godblesshitler_1

Telling Americans they’re supposed to “atone” for the Holocaust by helping Muslims harass and murder Jews is as backward as trying to apologize for slavery with more slavery.

************************

The dumbest “refugees” meme the left has rolled out to date are the comparisons between the Holocaust refugee policies of FDR that kept out Jews and political leaders today who want to take genuine Christian and Yazidi refugees instead of fake economic Muslim migrants who pose serious terrorism threats.

Living in New York City, I’ve lost count of the number of Muslim terror plots against synagogues since 9/11.  The previous Paris attack by Muslims targeted a Jewish supermarket. (Or as Obama put it, “random folks in a deli.”)

Sure it’s #NotAllMuslims. It’s just enough of them that this behavior repeats itself time and time again. Until you end up with European cities like Malmo where there are so many Muslims that the Jews have to flee.

Because Muslims don’t like non-Muslims and really don’t like Jews.

Researchers found that the percentage expressing “favorable views” about Jews was uniformly low: Egypt, 2 percent; Jordan, 2 percent; Pakistan, 2 percent; Lebanon, 3 percent; Palestine, 4 percent; Turkey, 4 percent.

And yes, Muslims in the West also hate Jews.

Belgium: 68 percent of Muslims harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, compared to 21 percent overall;
Spain: 62 percent, compared to 29 percent overall;
Germany: 56 percent, compared to 16 percent overall;
Italy: 56 percent, compared to 29 percent overall;
United Kingdom: 54 percent, compared to 12 percent overall;
France: 49 percent, compared to 17 percent overall.

Theologically, Islam is violently anti-Semitic. Mohammed’s final command was the ethnic cleansing of Jews. The shout Allahu Akbar originated from one of his massacres of Jews.

It’s that simple. Muslims hate Jews. Bringing more Muslims to America makes the country more anti-Semitic. It promotes violence against Jews and harassment of Jews.

be-prepared-for-the-real-holocaust-sign

The numbers are in[NOTE: clicking on the link returns “blank.” — DM)

In France, 73 percent of Jews surveyed said that they had witnessed or experienced anti-Semitism from someone with “Muslim extremist views.”

Why do liberals want to bring this same horrible reality to America?

Telling Americans they’re supposed to “atone” for the Holocaust by helping Muslims harass and murder Jews is as backward as trying to apologize for slavery with more slavery.

The worst possible way to respond to the Holocaust is by promoting the Muslim persecution of Jews in America.

If we want to take the kinds of refugees who are like the Jews in WW2, we should take stateless persecuted minorities, Christians and Yazidis.

Syrian Muslims are not stateless and they are not a minority. They are a supremacist group whose own intolerance of religious differences tore Syria apart. If we bring that intolerance to America, we will all suffer.

mufti-and-hitler

Syrian Muslim migrants are already attacking Syrian Christian refugees in Europe.

Said went across Turkey on foot. He never thought that his problems would only be starting once he made it to Germany.

“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards have arrested my brother in a house church. I fled the Iranian secret police, because I thought in Germany I can finally freely live by my religion,” says Said. “But in the home for asylum seekers, I can’t even openly admit that I am a Christian.”

Mainly Syrian refugees, mostly devout Sunni Muslims, live in the home. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say, I’m a, kuffar ‘, an unbeliever. They spit at me,” says Said. “They treat me like an animal. And threaten to kill me.”

Why do liberals want to bring this to America? If they don’t care about Syrian Christian refugees, what about gay Syrian refugees?

Rami Ktifan made a snap decision to come out. A fellow Syrian had spotted a rainbow flag lying near the 23-year-old university student’s belongings inside a packed refugee center. The curious man, Ktifan recalled, picked it up before casually asking, “What is this?”

“I decided to tell the truth, that it is the flag for gay people like me,” Ktifan said. “I thought, I am in Europe now. In Germany, I should not have to hide anymore.”

What followed over the next several weeks, though, was abuse — both verbal and physical — from other refugees, including an attempt to burn Ktifan’s feet in the middle of the night.

Bringing these people to America is like bringing Nazis here during the Holocaust to attack minorities here. It’s just evil and wrong.

muslim_antisemitism

Op-Ed: The US president’s migrant darlings

November 19, 2015

Op-Ed: The US president’s migrant darlings, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, November 19, 2015

(Please see also, Attkisson: Obama won’t read intelligence on groups he doesn’t consider terrorists. — DM)

There is no accounting for the suicidal stupidity that afflicts our leaders whose enlightenment is bringing us all down together in one heap. Obama did nothing for Christians who were being beheaded by ISIS but he is all in for Muslims. People are starting to ask whose side is he on? Does he care about us, or does he care mostly about them?

**************************

Incoming migrants mean incoming anti-Semites, but Obama’s migrant darlings imperil all Americans.

The man on CNN (or maybe Fox?) says that we should welcome Obama’s 10,000 Syrian migrants. They’re harmless.

After all, there’ve been no signs of terrorism from the thousands, Syrians and otherwise, who have already encamped within the United States over the years, meaning that aside from the Fort Hood slaughter, the Boston Marathon massacre and other such displays of affection – heck, what’s the problem?

The problem is — what do we mean by terrorism?

Islamic terrorism (just about the only flavor we’ve got nowadays) does not always go boom, as it did in Paris and as it does so often in Israel.

Every time a Jewish kid or speaker gets bullied on campus by Islamic delinquents who’ve infiltrated our schools – that’s terrorism.

I hate to be so blunt about this, but 10,000 new Islamic Syrian migrants automatically means 10,000 new anti-Semites. You read it here first. Nobody else says this because saying something so brutally obvious is politically incorrect and impolite. But that’s the math.

On what day did the plight of the hordes come before the safety of dutiful tax-paying citizens? Hollande is still inviting them in, 30,000 over the next two years, and when it happens again he’ll wonder again why…and why French Jews are packing fast for Israel.

Ditto Merkel, who started it all – and we shall see what her politeness soon brings to Germany and throughout rape-capital Europe.

There is no accounting for the suicidal stupidity that afflicts our leaders whose enlightenment is bringing us all down together in one heap. Obama did nothing for Christians who were being beheaded by ISIS but he is all in for Muslims. People are starting to ask whose side is he on? Does he care about us, or does he care mostly about them?

He has it that we must be true to our values. That’s who we are, he says. We are also dead ducks.

His lame response to Paris — you expected Churchill? You were expecting “we shall fight on the beaches?”

Instead, a confederacy of nomad towel-heads has the entire Western World in fear and trembling.

Our politicians. Our leaders. Their choices are failing us. Their stupid mistakes are killing us.

On stupidity, can anyone beat John Kerry? This fool, just yesterday he explained that the Paris bloodbath was inexcusable.

But of the Charlie Hebdo butchery – well, of that, he, John Kerry can find justification, “rationale.”

That was real blood, John. Not ketchup. Married into the Heinz fortune, he can’t be that stupid.

Defeat ISIS with this leadership?

As if once we bomb them to smithereens we can go back to worrying about the Kardashians again.

Sorry, not so simple. The pestilence we face may live next door without an ISIS shingle or dashboard ID. We don’t know what they’re thinking. Sometimes we do. Last week here in Manhattan a Pakistani cabbie beat up a passenger for being Jewish. That too is ISIS and that too is terrorism.

As I’ve said before, people who don’t know Sinatra are taking over the town…town by town…and as a majority of governors say no to the migrants, de Blasio has already raised his hand to bring in more. He wants the 10,000, or as many as Obama is willing to ship and import of these “widows and orphans,” to quote the president.

The facts and the pictures show otherwise. Most are big strong able-bodied men who ran from the fight – deserters.

I’ve been saying this clearly in my columns and in this book, and finally even uber-leftist Chris Matthews agrees that Obama has it wrong.

Our Liberal Leftists, leaders and followers, are not merely an inconvenient irritation. They are imperiling our kids and our grandkids.

European Jewry’s bleak future

November 19, 2015

European Jewry’s bleak future, Israel Hayom, Isi Leibler, November 19, 2015

(Please see also, Who needs facts? We have Israel as a scapegoat. — DM)

In the midst of this turbulent, massive migration and ongoing fears of new terror attacks, the future for European Jews appears bleaker than ever.

The majority of Europeans believe Israel represents a greater threat to global security than do Iran and North Korea. Most are convinced that Israelis have genocidal intentions in relation to the Arabs, make no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and Jewish victims of terrorism, and frequently condemn Israelis for defending themselves against knife-wielding religious fanatics who are convinced that they will achieve paradise if they die in the course of murdering Jews.

**********************

That a massacre of at least 129 civilians in Paris, in the heart of Europe, could be engineered by half a dozen militarily trained killers is an indicator of what we can expect in the future unless ruthless measures are taken to confront the terrorists in their home base and reverse the tide. This will require more than bombing sorties, including the deployment of ground forces that U.S. President Barack Obama still bitterly resists.

Let us not understate the challenge. We face a brutal no-holds-barred conflict of civilizations in which evil forces motivated by a death cult would take us back to the Dark Ages. The barbarians have already penetrated our gates and we have witnessed another preview of the frightening horrors that human beings have the capacity of inflicting upon themselves.

What is amazing is that, even after this last manifestation, many European leaders remain in denial and fail to recognize that we are not confronted by mindless nihilistic terrorists but by fanatically inspired Islamic extremists committed to the destruction of Western civilization and democracy. The threat emanates from the broad stream of Islamic fundamentalism and cannot be restricted to Sunnis or Shiites despite the fact that they kill one another.

The reality is that Shiites no less than Sunnis are totally opposed to democracy and freedom of expression and seek to impose Shariah law.

Whether this flows from al-Qaida, Islamic State, the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, Hamas, or even the Palestinian Authority, which condemns murders in Paris but blesses the shedding of Jewish blood, they all share an underlying hatred of Western civilization, Christianity, and Judaism.

Our first major confrontation with Islamic terrorism beyond the Middle East was the 9/11 World Trade Center atrocity. But since the targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden, there has been a determined effort to convince us that the threat of Islamic extremism has essentially been vanquished. The United States made concerted efforts to woo and at times even counterproductively groveled to appease Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime.

It was Obama who insisted on erasing any reference to “Islamic terror” or any possible nexus between fundamentalist Islam and terrorism. This, despite the fact that aside from a few individual white supremacist outbursts, every case of organized terrorism was inspired by Islamic religious frenzy. The organization currently occupying the spotlight is Islamic State, made up of Sunnis, but the Shiite Hezbollah, like the Sunni Hamas, are birds of the same feather.

Despite the murderous cries of “Allahu akbar” by the killers, the French government and the media are even now still burying their heads in the sand when it comes to identifying the enemy. The term “Islamic terrorism” has simply been deleted from the political lexicon.

Until political correctness is set aside and there is a recognition that we face a worldwide threat to our existence and quality of life emanating from organized Islamic extremists, we will not be able to rally and unite to crush these elements.

The Islamic extremists understand that with minimal effort, they can orchestrate attacks in leading Western cities at marginal cost. As was evidenced now in Paris and earlier in Mumbai, half a dozen suicidal armed fanatics planted or resident in communities are able to inflict immense damage.

The situation in Europe is catastrophic. Most countries, in particular France, now host large Muslim communities, a substantial proportion of which are radicalized, antidemocratic and sympathetic to terrorist acts. Independent opinion polls show that the law-abiding moderate Muslims are in a minority and intimidated. What is frightening is the emergence of highly educated, homegrown second-generation European-born Muslims brainwashed in their local communities into becoming fanatical Islamists. A significant number volunteered for military service in Syria and returned to their homelands committed to becoming martyrs at a later stage.

The last straw is the massive flow of “refugees” which threatens to completely change the demography of Europe. Unable to integrate its existing Muslim minorities, there is little doubt that the new flow, which inevitably includes large numbers of xenophobic antidemocratic and pathologically anti-Semitic radicals, will only strengthen the existing extremist Islamic elements. These “refugees” undoubtedly also incorporate considerable numbers of jihadists, who will act immediately or remain sleepers until such time as a new terrorist operation is initiated.

In the midst of this turbulent, massive migration and ongoing fears of new terror attacks, the future for European Jews appears bleaker than ever.

Jews in most of Europe were already considered pariahs for many years. Today, the level of anti-Israelism has reached record levels. The majority of Europeans believe Israel represents a greater threat to global security than do Iran and North Korea. Most are convinced that Israelis have genocidal intentions in relation to the Arabs, make no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and Jewish victims of terrorism, and frequently condemn Israelis for defending themselves against knife-wielding religious fanatics who are convinced that they will achieve paradise if they die in the course of murdering Jews.

While millions of Syrians have been displaced and butchered, European leaders seem more concerned about labeling products produced by Israelis over the Green Line than identifying terrorists. Ironically, the EU does not consider the “political wing” of Hezbollah to be a terrorist body. There remains a refusal to recognize that the frenzied killers of Israeli Jews and the Islamic State terrorists who murdered civilians in Paris are all components of the same global Islamic terrorist enterprise.

Despite the greater concern about Islamic terrorism in the wake of the shocking attacks in Paris, even now it is highly unlikely that the negative French attitudes toward Israel, designed to appease the Arabs, will be diminished.

Although many Western parliamentarians and heads of state pay lip service to the contrary, popular anti-Semitism appears to be washing over the continent like a tsunami, with increasing incitement and violence in most European cities.

On top of this, long-standing quiescent Muslim minorities are being radicalized by terrorists incubated in their midst. This will be intensified by support from European Muslims returning home from Syria and Iraq promoting their jihadi world outlook.

These negative trends are being dramatically reinforced by what may represent the greatest migratory movement of the century. After Islam failed for centuries to conquer Europe militarily, if the flood of “refugees” is not stemmed, it may yet triumph by demographic means.

In a democracy, politicians ultimately tend to respond to public opinion. In this climate of snowballing anti-Semitic Muslim voters, combined with increasing popular and leftist anti-Semitism, the political future for Jews is bleak.

What makes it worse is that in virtually all European countries the major beneficiaries of these upheavals will be radical right-wing political parties, some of which are still in the process of purging themselves from anti-Semitic relics of the past, while others, particularly in Greece and Hungary, are outright neo-Nazi parties.

Under these circumstances, from every conceivable vantage point, European Jews can expect more difficult times. Their pariah-like existence will sink to lower depths and their security will inevitably be further undermined.

For those who seek to maintain Jewish continuity, Europe is beginning to look like a cemetery. Jewish communities will undoubtedly linger on the continent. But what sort of life will these Jewish enclaves endure with such anti-Semitism, violence, and feral hostility to Israel? Can Jewish values and pride be instilled among young Jewish people in such a climate?

Many Jews have been contemplating leaving for many years. Events in Paris over the last year and the massive wave of Muslim migration, including jihadist and anti-Semitic elements, only reinforce these legitimate fears. Every committed Jew should now be contemplating aliyah. Those unable to uproot themselves for economic or social reasons should at least encourage their children to move to Israel.

Yes, there is terrorism in Israel. But Jews can feel infinitely safer here than in European countries. In Israel, they will unite with their kinsmen and participate in their own Jewish homeland in which their own army, rather than foreign forces, will defend them against anti-Semites and jihadists.

This is surely a final wake-up call for European Jewry to consider making aliyah and participating in this great Jewish enterprise.