Author: [author]
Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE53S8IM20090429?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved an expansion of federal "hate crime" laws -- an effort that former Republican President George W. Bush had opposed.
On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.
The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin. The bill would lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.
House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer urged passage of the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
"Hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric," Hoyer said.
Bush had helped stop such a bill in the last Congress, arguing existing state and federal laws were adequate. But President Barack Obama asked Congress to send it to him to sign into law.
"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," Obama said in a statement before the vote.
Conviction of a hate crime carries stepped up punishment, above and beyond that meted out for the attack. The bill would allow the federal government to help state and local authorities investigate hate crimes.
Representative Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, helped lead the charge against the bill, arguing it was misdirected and discriminatory.
"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted," Smith said. "Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system -- 'equal justice for all.'"
"Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim," Smith said. "It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime."
Earlier this year, Congress passed two other major bills derailed during the Bush administration.
One, vetoed by Bush, would have expanded a federal health insurance program for children. The other, blocked by Bush's fellow Republicans in the Senate, would have reversed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to make it easier to sue for discrimination in the workplace.
With Democrats having won the White House and expanded their control of Congress in the 2008 election, both measures were among the party's top 2009 legislative priorities. And they became among the first bills Obama signed into law.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
US under Jews: Hate Crimes Bill passes Senate
Source: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/17/1006603/senate-passes-hate-crimes-bill
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Senate approved legislation that would expand federal involvement in investigating hate crimes.
By a 63-28 vote Thursday, the measure was attached to the defense authorization bill, considered "must-pass" legislation by the Senate. Five Republicans joined every Democrat present to vote in favor.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act would permit greater federal involvement in investigating hate crimes and expand the federal definition of such crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Supporters say the legislation would allow federal authorities to pursue hate-crimes cases when local authorities are either unable or unwilling to do so.
The House passed a similar bill in April, and President Obama has said he would sign the legislation. The bill has passed both houses of Congress previously, but has not survived the conference committee process.
A number of Jewish groups, headed by the Anti-Defamation League, have been working for a decade to enact the measure.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Senate approved legislation that would expand federal involvement in investigating hate crimes.
By a 63-28 vote Thursday, the measure was attached to the defense authorization bill, considered "must-pass" legislation by the Senate. Five Republicans joined every Democrat present to vote in favor.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act would permit greater federal involvement in investigating hate crimes and expand the federal definition of such crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Supporters say the legislation would allow federal authorities to pursue hate-crimes cases when local authorities are either unable or unwilling to do so.
The House passed a similar bill in April, and President Obama has said he would sign the legislation. The bill has passed both houses of Congress previously, but has not survived the conference committee process.
A number of Jewish groups, headed by the Anti-Defamation League, have been working for a decade to enact the measure.
What AJC, the leading jewish organization in US, thinks of Jews marrying other ethnic groups
Author: American Jewish Congress
Source: http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.841657/k.5C30/Jewish_Continuity_and_Intermarriage.htm
American Jewry is experiencing two narratives. Jews enjoy greater opportunities than ever before to lead a creative Jewish life, and many are doing so to degrees never imagined by their parents and grandparents. Conversely, a larger number are choosing to withdraw from Jewish communal life.
Human relations efforts to strengthen ties between Jews and others make sense only within the context of a critical mass of Jews interested in leading a creative Jewish life. Combating anti-Semitism presupposes the importance of having Jews in the world. In other words, defense of Jewish rights against external foes should run in tandem with the defense of Jewish teachings and Jewish creative vitality against the internal dangers of indifference to the Jewish enterprise and erosion of Jewish commitment. The Contemporary Jewish Life Department was established by AJC in 1964 specifically as a vehicle to combat assimilation and to underscore the identity of AJC as a Jewish organization.
The goal of continuity efforts should be development of knowledgeable Jews who can make informed choices about the nature of their commitment to Judaism and the Jewish people. Our goal should be to ensure that the choices Jews make are informed choices rather than out of ignorance. More knowledgeable Jews are, in all likelihood, going to choose to be more committed Jews. Studies repeatedly indicate the high correlation between intensive Jewish education and Jewish continuity.
The Jewish community must develop a multi-track approach to strengthen Jewish identity and positive Jewish experience in both in-marriages and mixed-marriages. We must reach-in and reach out. AJC studies as well as other studies show that the rapidly rising number of intermarriages represents a serious risk to the vitality of the Jewish community, Jewish continuity, and identity. The challenge for the Jewish community is to offer positive communal and personal connection to intermarrieds while at the same time to develop and encourage programs that lead to Jews marrying other Jews. Conversion to Judaism remains the single best outcome to a mixed-marriage. However, the community ought to maintain open doors to all Jews, those seeking to be Jews, and those who wish to raise their children as Jews.
Source: http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.841657/k.5C30/Jewish_Continuity_and_Intermarriage.htm
American Jewry is experiencing two narratives. Jews enjoy greater opportunities than ever before to lead a creative Jewish life, and many are doing so to degrees never imagined by their parents and grandparents. Conversely, a larger number are choosing to withdraw from Jewish communal life.
Human relations efforts to strengthen ties between Jews and others make sense only within the context of a critical mass of Jews interested in leading a creative Jewish life. Combating anti-Semitism presupposes the importance of having Jews in the world. In other words, defense of Jewish rights against external foes should run in tandem with the defense of Jewish teachings and Jewish creative vitality against the internal dangers of indifference to the Jewish enterprise and erosion of Jewish commitment. The Contemporary Jewish Life Department was established by AJC in 1964 specifically as a vehicle to combat assimilation and to underscore the identity of AJC as a Jewish organization.
The goal of continuity efforts should be development of knowledgeable Jews who can make informed choices about the nature of their commitment to Judaism and the Jewish people. Our goal should be to ensure that the choices Jews make are informed choices rather than out of ignorance. More knowledgeable Jews are, in all likelihood, going to choose to be more committed Jews. Studies repeatedly indicate the high correlation between intensive Jewish education and Jewish continuity.
The Jewish community must develop a multi-track approach to strengthen Jewish identity and positive Jewish experience in both in-marriages and mixed-marriages. We must reach-in and reach out. AJC studies as well as other studies show that the rapidly rising number of intermarriages represents a serious risk to the vitality of the Jewish community, Jewish continuity, and identity. The challenge for the Jewish community is to offer positive communal and personal connection to intermarrieds while at the same time to develop and encourage programs that lead to Jews marrying other Jews. Conversion to Judaism remains the single best outcome to a mixed-marriage. However, the community ought to maintain open doors to all Jews, those seeking to be Jews, and those who wish to raise their children as Jews.
Britain under Jews: UK court sentences two men for mocking Holocaust online
Author: Michael Freund
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443788062&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443788062&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
A court in the northern English city of Leeds sentenced two men to prison on Friday after they were convicted of multiple counts of possession, publication and distribution of racially incendiary materials.
Simon Sheppard, 52, was sentenced to four years and 10 months in prison, while Stephen Whittle, 42, was handed a term of two years and four months, in connection with what Judge Rodney Grant described as "unpleasant and very serious" charges.
The two had published articles and other material mocking the Holocaust and referring to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland as a "holiday camp" for Jews. They also disseminated racist leaflets against blacks and other minority groups, and published the material on Web sites run by Sheppard.
This is the first time that suspects in the United Kingdom have been convicted and sentenced to prison for inciting racial hatred on the Internet.
The investigation of Sheppard and White was launched back in 2004, after they reportedly dropped off a copy of a comic book called Tales of the Holohoax at a synagogue in the city of Blackpool.
Last July, the two skipped bail and went to the United States, where they attempted to seek asylum before being deported back to England in June.
Addressing the two men in court, Grant said, "Such offenses as these have, by their very nature, the potential to cause grave social harm, particularly in a society such as ours which has, for a number of years now, been multi-racial."
The judge added that "these are serious offenses."
"I can say without any hesitation that I have rarely seen, or had to read or consider, material which is so abusive and insulting... toward racial groups within our own society," he said.
Britain Under Jews: People sentenced to prison for "antisemitic" blog
Author: Michael Freud
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443788062&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443788062&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
A court in the northern English city of Leeds sentenced two men to prison on Friday after they were convicted of multiple counts of possession, publication and distribution of racially incendiary materials.
Simon Sheppard, 52, was sentenced to four years and 10 months in prison, while Stephen Whittle, 42, was handed a term of two years and four months, in connection with what Judge Rodney Grant described as "unpleasant and very serious" charges.
The two had published articles and other material mocking the Holocaust and referring to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland as a "holiday camp" for Jews. They also disseminated racist leaflets against blacks and other minority groups, and published the material on Web sites run by Sheppard.
This is the first time that suspects in the United Kingdom have been convicted and sentenced to prison for inciting racial hatred on the Internet.
RELATED
ADL: Anti-Semitism rising in Hungary
Murder case underscores French fears of anti-Semitism
Group plans Hungarian memorial
The investigation of Sheppard and White was launched back in 2004, after they reportedly dropped off a copy of a comic book called Tales of the Holohoax at a synagogue in the city of Blackpool.
Last July, the two skipped bail and went to the United States, where they attempted to seek asylum before being deported back to England in June.
Addressing the two men in court, Grant said, "Such offenses as these have, by their very nature, the potential to cause grave social harm, particularly in a society such as ours which has, for a number of years now, been multi-racial."
The judge added that "these are serious offenses."
"I can say without any hesitation that I have rarely seen, or had to read or consider, material which is so abusive and insulting... toward racial groups within our own society," he said.
Vatican replaces cardinal in Holocaust controversy
Author: Ariel David
The commission that had been in charge of the effort will now be under the authority of a powerful office seen as close to the pontiff, the Vatican said. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who had been leading the reconciliation, is stepping down after reaching the customary retirement age of 80, the Vatican said.
Hoyos had been head of the Pontifical "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, which was charged with healed the schism with the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X.
The effort to reconcile with the Society of St. Pius X will now be headed by Cardinal William Levada, the highest-ranking U.S. churchman in the Vatican hierarchy. Levada heads the Vatican's powerful orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict headed for decades before becoming pope in 2005.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Pius society in 1969 in opposition to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which included outreach to Judaism and other religions.
The Vatican in 1988 excommunicated four of its bishops after they were consecrated without papal consent by Lefebvre.
Shortly before the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson and the three other Society bishops was lifted in January, Williamson denied in an interview with Swedish TV that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He said about 200,000 or 300,000 were murdered and none were gassed.
Jews and Catholics around the world voiced outrage and Williamson later apologized for the "hurt" caused by his remarks but didn't recant them.
Hoyos said he and other officials knew nothing about Williamson's denial that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. Benedict made a rare acknowledgment of a Vatican mistake in March, saying in a letter to Catholic bishops worldwide that he was unaware of the bishop's positions when he lifted the excommunication.
The Vatican said Hoyos' tenure at the commission had run out and did not mention the controversy when announcing that Levada would now directly handle the reconciliation process.
The Vatican said Benedict had expressed thanks to Hoyos and said Levada's office would handle upcoming talks with the Society because it is most suited to resolve doctrinal differences.
On Wednesday, Benedict reiterated that until theological differences with the Society are resolved, the group has "no canonical status in the church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."
The Society has been defiant, with new priests being ordained last month in Switzerland and Germany. The Vatican had said any ordinations would be considered invalid.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_conservatives
Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday replaced the cardinal responsible for lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop as part of the Vatican's effort to reconcile with an ultraconservative group.
The commission that had been in charge of the effort will now be under the authority of a powerful office seen as close to the pontiff, the Vatican said. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who had been leading the reconciliation, is stepping down after reaching the customary retirement age of 80, the Vatican said.
Hoyos had been head of the Pontifical "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, which was charged with healed the schism with the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X.
The effort to reconcile with the Society of St. Pius X will now be headed by Cardinal William Levada, the highest-ranking U.S. churchman in the Vatican hierarchy. Levada heads the Vatican's powerful orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict headed for decades before becoming pope in 2005.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Pius society in 1969 in opposition to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which included outreach to Judaism and other religions.
The Vatican in 1988 excommunicated four of its bishops after they were consecrated without papal consent by Lefebvre.
Shortly before the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson and the three other Society bishops was lifted in January, Williamson denied in an interview with Swedish TV that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He said about 200,000 or 300,000 were murdered and none were gassed.
Jews and Catholics around the world voiced outrage and Williamson later apologized for the "hurt" caused by his remarks but didn't recant them.
Hoyos said he and other officials knew nothing about Williamson's denial that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. Benedict made a rare acknowledgment of a Vatican mistake in March, saying in a letter to Catholic bishops worldwide that he was unaware of the bishop's positions when he lifted the excommunication.
The Vatican said Hoyos' tenure at the commission had run out and did not mention the controversy when announcing that Levada would now directly handle the reconciliation process.
The Vatican said Benedict had expressed thanks to Hoyos and said Levada's office would handle upcoming talks with the Society because it is most suited to resolve doctrinal differences.
On Wednesday, Benedict reiterated that until theological differences with the Society are resolved, the group has "no canonical status in the church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."
The Society has been defiant, with new priests being ordained last month in Switzerland and Germany. The Vatican had said any ordinations would be considered invalid.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Ahmadinejad beyond the Zionist propaganda
Source: http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/ahmadinejad-beyond-the-zionist-propaganda/
Character assassination has always been Zionists’ first and last tool to blackmail or destroy political or social reputation of a person who has the good conscience to criticize Zionists for their crimes against Americans, Palestinians or the rest of the Muslim world – be it Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Dr. Finkelstein or Dr. Ahmadinejad. Zionists have more than 8,000 fellow Jews on their “Self-Hating Israel-Threatening” list.
“I can understand why a candidate for the highest office (in the US) would have to dissimulate or dissemble. You have to lie to get into office, that’s a given. However, once you get into office, you are either, fearless and true or you are a whore. And if you are fearless and true it will get you shot. That’s the Catch 22. Study your history and see if you can connect the dots on who got shot and why?” – Les Visible in Have Fun Bending Over for the Catch 22, October 22, 2008.
The ordinary in Islamic Iran – and they constitute the majority of population – considered Ahmadinejad to be one of their own. And he pretty much said what was on their minds. Ahmadinejad comes across to the average person in the Republic as honest, modest, and free of artificiality. His body is slim just like theirs; his face is not puffed up with the layers of affluence that come from being a “president”. One could easily confuse Ahmadinejad with any worker or craftsman in a field or in a shop.
The majority of people in Islamic Iran knows Ahmadinejad’s simple lifestyle well. He comes from a blacksmith family in the small town of Aradan – which has about forty families – a place so vague and remote that it barely appears on the map!
Like all country people, Ahmadinejad is very meek and “religious”. He is not known for being ostentations – he is not a man who likes to attract notice and impress others. And during the past four years when all his citizens were watching he was not contaminated by the disease of aristocracy and of the ruling class: vanity. On the people’s watch – during these past four years – he was working long hours (even his adversaries and political enemies confess) 16 to 18 hours a day. He was doing all this to improve the lot of the poor people; he wanted to improve their conditions. His aim was to alleviate their hardships and be their public servant. He raised the minimum wage as well as retirement pensions. Does it come as surprise to anyone that poor people all over the country would vote for him as president for the next four years? Is anyone surprised to see the elites, the upper classes of society, and the power-hungry annoyed by such a humble person and his populist policies?
Unlike his opponent (Mousavi) Ahmadinejad is more closer to Imam Khomeini’s foreign vision of folding back imperialism and zionism. He, like the Imam is not hesitant when it comes to full liberation from the evil schemes of imperialism and Zionism.
“During the first political generation of Islam after the Prophet (pbyh) – there were credentialed Muslims who believed in an Islamic government. Some of them spent their lives fighting for an Islamic government. But they differed on methods and priorities. Some of them wanted an “Arab First” government. Some of them wanted to be relieved of the “global burdens” of an Islamic government; others wanted to get on with life and improve their standard of living. And for 1400 year we have been suffering from that political deviation. President Ahmadinejad brings back to the Muslim voices that were crowded out by nationalism and class interests in the early generation of Islam. A vote for him is not simply a vote for the president of Iran, it’s a vote for Imam Hussein against Yazid, a vote for the Che Guevara against his executioners, a vote for Hugo Chavez against US imperialism, and a vote for the Palestinians against their Zionist murderers…..This should explain why the US was more interested in the elections in Iran than they were in their own. Ahmadinejad’s political enemies, as fervent as their Shi’i rituals are, were they to win would have in their own ways put us back on the slippery slope of the post-khilafah era,” – Abu Dharr, Crescent International, July 2009.
“The American media adheres to no standards and observes no limits in carrying out its function of manipulating public opinion in accordance with the objectives, domestic and foreign, of the American ruling elite. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the decay of American democracy and the “free press” in the United States than the manner in which it lines up behind phony “color revolutions” against regimes deemed inimical to US interests and ignores flagrantly antidemocratic measures by regimes backed by the CIA, the military and State Department,” – Barry Grey in Tehran and Tegucigalpa: A tale of two capitals.
Russian-Israeli writer, Israel Shamir, in his article Iran: All is Well that Ends Well wrote: Ahmadinejad is also popular all over the world as a symbol of the Third World rebellion, on a par with Castro and Chavez. He maintains good relationship with neighbouring Russia and China, even with the US-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad’s lightning visit to Yekaterinburg to the SCO conference in the midst of the upheaval has proved his statesmanship. In his well-received fiery speech he never referred to the crisis back home, and he was congratulated by his peers President Medvedev and President Hu Jintao for his electoral victory. His stalwart anti-Zionist stand endeared him to the Arab neighbours of Iran, even to the annoyance of Arab rulers. His weapons saved Lebanon in 2006 from being devoured by Israel. Sometimes he goes too far, but otherwise, how can he find out how far he can go?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (b. 1956) is an Iranian academic with PhD in transporation engineering – which he taught at Science and Technology University. He entered politics and was elected Mayor of Tehran in 2003. On June 24, 2005 he won the election of President of Islamic Republic of Iran on the platform of providing social justice and fight on corruption and poverty.
Like many other Zionist myths – the myth of Wipe Israel off the map attributed to Ahmadinejad – is also entertaining to people with rational thinking. Like the others, it should also be enjoyed without being joining Zionists in their self-denial that the only country which has been wiped off the map in the modern time – is 5,000-year-old Palestine.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Does Israel Really Have a Right to Exist?
Author: Susan Abulhawa
Source: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/does-israel-really-have-a-right-to-exist/
Source: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/does-israel-really-have-a-right-to-exist/
Following Netanyahu’s much anticipated policy speech, politicians and journalists, like mindless automatons, have set about repeating Israel’s tired mantra that Palestinians should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Never mind the fact that the PLO and Palestine Authority have obliged this ludicrous call, not once, but four times. And never mind that Israel has always denied Palestine’s right to exist, not only as a nation, but as individuals seeking a dignified life in our own homeland.
Does anyone find it interesting that Israel is the only country on the planet going around with this incessant insistence that everyone recognize her right to exist? Given that we Palestinians are the ones who have been dispossessed, occupied, and oppressed, one might expect that we should be the ones making such a demand. But t hat isn’t the case. Why? Because our right to exist as a nation is self-evident. We are the natives of that land! We know we have that right. The world knows it. That’s why Palestine doesn’t need Israel or any other country to recognize her right to exist. We are the rightful heirs to that land and this can be verified legally, historically, culturally, and even genetically. And as such, the only true legitimacy Israel will ever have must come from us abdicating our inheritance, our history, and our culture to Israel. That’s why Israel insists we declare she had a right to take everything we ever had — from home and property, cemeteries, churches and mosques, to culture and history and hope.
Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948. Those Palestinians and their descendants still languish in refugee camps. Israel attempted a similar scenario in 1967 when they conquered the remainder of Palestine, but Palestinians then couldn’t be dislodged from their homes as easily. This remains true, despite 40 years of Israel’s violent and oppressive military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Despite home demolitions, land confiscations, rapacious building of Jewish-only colonies, endless checkpoints, targeted assassinations, bombings of schools, hospitals, municipal buildings and malls, closures and denials; despite the massive human rights abuses, the imprisonment and torture of men women and children alike, the separation of families, the daily humiliations; despite the massive killings — Palestinians remain. We still resist. We still live, love, and have babies. As much as we can, we rebuild what Israel destroys. Such are rights!
Rights are inherent and inherently just, like the right to live with dignity and to be masters of one’s own fate. It is a human right not be persecuted and oppressed because you happen to belong to one religion and not another.
That Israelis simply take property belonging to Palestinians is not a right. That is theft. That Israel cut off the movement of food, medicine and other basic goods to the Gaza strip, causing massive malnutrition, economic collapse and misery because Palestinians elected particular leaders is not a right. That is an affront to humanity. That Israel rain death from the skies on an already battered and starved Gaza, murdering over 3000 human beings and maiming thousands more in a single month is not a right. It’s a war crime. That Israel has employed every imperialistic tactic to subjugate, humiliate, break, and expel an entire nation of principally unarmed civilians because of their religion is not a right. It is a moral obscenity. That every Jew from Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia be entitled to dual citizenship, one in their native country and one in Israel, while the rightful heirs to the land linger as refugees without citizenship anywhere is not a right. It is an outrage.
I’m sure my words will be twisted in some way to imply that I’m advocating pushing Israelis “into the sea” or some other asinine claim. So let me be explicit: We all have the right to exist, to live, to be masters of our own destiny. We all have the right not to be oppressed by others. Such rights are inherent to every individual living in that land: Jew, Muslim, or Christian. But Israelis do not have the right to create particular religious demographics by causing the demise of the natives. To be a Jewish [or Muslim or Christian] state, where privilege is accorded to those belonging to a particular religion at the expense of those who do not is not a right.
A nation that discriminates against and oppresses those who do not belong to a particular religious, racial, or ethnic group is not a light onto nations. It is a blight. And to recognize such racism as a human or national right goes against every tenet of international law. It defies the basic sense that the worth of a human being should not be measured by their religion, any more than it should be measured by the color of their skin or the language they speak.
How Israel's Propaganda Machine Works
Author: James Zogby
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/how-israels-propaganda-ma_b_156767.html
As in past Mideast conflicts, both the media story line and political commentary here in the U.S. has closely followed Israel's talking points on the war. This has been an essential component in Israel's early success and in its ability to prolong fighting without U.S. pushback. Because it recognizes the importance of the propaganda war, Israel fights on this front as vigorously and disproportionately as it engages on the battlefield.
Here's how they have done it:
1) Define the terms of debate, and you win the debate. Early on, the Israelis work to define the context, the starting point, and the story line that will shape understanding of the war. In this instance, for example, they succeeded by constant repetition, in establishing the notion that the starting point of the conflict was December 19th, the end of the six-month ceasefire (which Israel described as "unilaterally ended by Hamas"). In doing so, they ignored, of course, their own early November violations, and their failure to honor their commitment in the ceasefire to open Gaza's borders. They also ignored their having reduced Gaza into a dependency, a process which began long before and continued after their withdrawal in 2005. Because they know that most Americans do not closely follow the conflict and are inclined to believe, as the line goes, "what they hear over and over again," this tactic of preemptive definition and repetition succeeds.
2) Recognize that stereotypes work. Because, for generations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been defined with positive cultural images of Israel and negative stereotypes of Palestinians, Israel's propagandists have an advantage here that is easy to exploit. Because the story has long been seen as "Israeli humanity confronting the Palestinian problem," media coverage of any conflict begins with how "the problem" is affecting the Israeli people. As Golda Meir once put it, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children." And so, it was not surprising that, despite the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinians, media coverage attempted to "balance" the story, giving an extensive treatment, with photos, of anguished and fearful Israelis and the impact the war was having on them. Early on, when media treatment mattered most, Palestinians were reduced, as always, to mere numbers or objectified as "collateral damage."
3) Anticipate and count on your opponent's blunders. Hamas' stupidity played into Israel's strategy. From the outset, Israel could count on the fact that Hamas would launch rockets and issue the kind of threats that Israel could then parley into sympathy in the West. Knowing that these would most certainly come, and could be exploited, was an advantage in their propaganda war.
4) Be everywhere, and say the same thing -- and make sure your opponents remain as invisible as possible. Israel begins each war with a host of English-speaking spokespersons (many born in the West) available at any time for every media outlet (it's no accident, for example, that Israel has an "Arab" Consul General in Atlanta - that's where CNN is). The work of their propaganda operation, which spreads multiple spokespersons in venues across the United States with consistent talking points, guarantees success. At the same time, they are able to deny media access to Gaza, only allowing the Western reporters to operate near the war zone under IDF supervision, guaranteeing Israel the opportunity to shape every aspect of the story while removing the possibility of independent verification of the horror unfolding in Gaza.
5) Give no ground. Since half of the story will be determined by what political leaders say and do, the political apparatus in Washington is also pressed into service, ensuring that White House and Congressional leadership will "toe the line." Statements issued by Congress, therefore, reflect the talking points and, together, the Israeli spokespersons, the political commentators, and the Congressional statements serve as echoes of one another.
6) Deny, deny, deny. When events and reality break through, contradicting the Israeli-established narrative, creating stories that run counter to the imposed story line, the propaganda machine works overtime to deny, deny, deny (saying quite boldly, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"), and/or concoct a counter-narrative that shifts the blame ("We didn't do it, they made us"). In this instance, that means asserting that the death of Palestinian civilians is always the fault of someone else, or that reporters or their opponents are staging the photos of grief (as if to say, "Arabs don't really grieve like we do").
7) The last refuge.... When all else fails, point to a few examples of outrageous anti-Semitism, generalize them, suggesting that that is what motivates critics. It stings, and may be over-used, but it can silence or put critics on the defensive.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/how-israels-propaganda-ma_b_156767.html
As in past Mideast conflicts, both the media story line and political commentary here in the U.S. has closely followed Israel's talking points on the war. This has been an essential component in Israel's early success and in its ability to prolong fighting without U.S. pushback. Because it recognizes the importance of the propaganda war, Israel fights on this front as vigorously and disproportionately as it engages on the battlefield.
Here's how they have done it:
1) Define the terms of debate, and you win the debate. Early on, the Israelis work to define the context, the starting point, and the story line that will shape understanding of the war. In this instance, for example, they succeeded by constant repetition, in establishing the notion that the starting point of the conflict was December 19th, the end of the six-month ceasefire (which Israel described as "unilaterally ended by Hamas"). In doing so, they ignored, of course, their own early November violations, and their failure to honor their commitment in the ceasefire to open Gaza's borders. They also ignored their having reduced Gaza into a dependency, a process which began long before and continued after their withdrawal in 2005. Because they know that most Americans do not closely follow the conflict and are inclined to believe, as the line goes, "what they hear over and over again," this tactic of preemptive definition and repetition succeeds.
2) Recognize that stereotypes work. Because, for generations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been defined with positive cultural images of Israel and negative stereotypes of Palestinians, Israel's propagandists have an advantage here that is easy to exploit. Because the story has long been seen as "Israeli humanity confronting the Palestinian problem," media coverage of any conflict begins with how "the problem" is affecting the Israeli people. As Golda Meir once put it, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children." And so, it was not surprising that, despite the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinians, media coverage attempted to "balance" the story, giving an extensive treatment, with photos, of anguished and fearful Israelis and the impact the war was having on them. Early on, when media treatment mattered most, Palestinians were reduced, as always, to mere numbers or objectified as "collateral damage."
3) Anticipate and count on your opponent's blunders. Hamas' stupidity played into Israel's strategy. From the outset, Israel could count on the fact that Hamas would launch rockets and issue the kind of threats that Israel could then parley into sympathy in the West. Knowing that these would most certainly come, and could be exploited, was an advantage in their propaganda war.
4) Be everywhere, and say the same thing -- and make sure your opponents remain as invisible as possible. Israel begins each war with a host of English-speaking spokespersons (many born in the West) available at any time for every media outlet (it's no accident, for example, that Israel has an "Arab" Consul General in Atlanta - that's where CNN is). The work of their propaganda operation, which spreads multiple spokespersons in venues across the United States with consistent talking points, guarantees success. At the same time, they are able to deny media access to Gaza, only allowing the Western reporters to operate near the war zone under IDF supervision, guaranteeing Israel the opportunity to shape every aspect of the story while removing the possibility of independent verification of the horror unfolding in Gaza.
5) Give no ground. Since half of the story will be determined by what political leaders say and do, the political apparatus in Washington is also pressed into service, ensuring that White House and Congressional leadership will "toe the line." Statements issued by Congress, therefore, reflect the talking points and, together, the Israeli spokespersons, the political commentators, and the Congressional statements serve as echoes of one another.
6) Deny, deny, deny. When events and reality break through, contradicting the Israeli-established narrative, creating stories that run counter to the imposed story line, the propaganda machine works overtime to deny, deny, deny (saying quite boldly, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"), and/or concoct a counter-narrative that shifts the blame ("We didn't do it, they made us"). In this instance, that means asserting that the death of Palestinian civilians is always the fault of someone else, or that reporters or their opponents are staging the photos of grief (as if to say, "Arabs don't really grieve like we do").
7) The last refuge.... When all else fails, point to a few examples of outrageous anti-Semitism, generalize them, suggesting that that is what motivates critics. It stings, and may be over-used, but it can silence or put critics on the defensive.
Jews honest about their Dominance and Exploitation of the Black Civil Rights Movement
Source: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/naacp.htm
Many observers argue that the presumed Jewish altruism and social activism in the American civil rights movement of the 1960's had baser motives.
[JEWISH TESTIMONIES]
Benjamin Ginsberg argues that the multicultural coalitions spearheaded by Jews in the civil rights era "was a political tactic" to "undermine the power" of those establishment social forces that hindered further Jewish socio-economic advancement. [GINSBERG, p. 125]
In 1975 Hasia Dinner wrote a PhD thesis about the way that "Jewish support for black causes was a way for Jews to broaden their own rights without becoming conspicuous by advocating their group interests." [FEINGOLD, p. 130] "Jewish leaders," wrote Diner, "representing different socio-economic classes, ideologies, and cultural experiences committed themselves to black betterment and gave time, money, and energy to black organizations. The spectrum was so wide and the involvement so extensive that one must conclude that these leaders acted out of peculiarly Jewish motives ... [My] book demonstrates that Jewish ends were secured by involvement with blacks." [DINER, p. xiv, xii]
Similarly, Jewish author Peter Novick notes the changing Jewish strategy in using massive Jewish attack against generic prejudice as a tool in fending off specific anti-Jewish hostility: "In recent decades, the leading Jewish organizations have invoked the Holocaust to argue that anti-Semitism is a distinctively virulent and murderous form of hatred. But in the first postwar decades their emphasis -- powerfully reinforced by contemporary scholarly opinion -- was on the common psychological roots of all forms of prejudice. Their research, educational, and political action programs consistently minimized diffrences between different targets of discrimination. If prejudice and discrimination were all of a piece, they reasoned that they could serve the cause of Jewish self-defense as well by attacking prejudice and discrimination against blacks as by tackling anti-Semitism directly." [NOVICK., P., 1999, p. 116]
"The Jewish struggle for equality and fair treatment," says Jonathan Kaufman, "was linked to the struggles of Blacks for greater opportunity. It was not a struggle of equals; Jews did not consider their plight equal to that of Blacks. But they recognized in the Black struggle for civil rights elements that could benefit them and conditions with which they sympathized." [MARTIN, p. 131] Hence, perhaps three-quarters of the funding for the three major civil rights organizations -- the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, The Congress of Racial Equality, and Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference is attributed to Jewish sponsorship. [MARTIN, p. 132]
"Any support of human rights in general by Jews," says Israel Shahak, "which does not include the support of human rights of non-Jews whose rights are being violated by [Israel] is deceitful ... [Jewish] support of Blacks in the South was motivated only by consideration of Jewish self-interest." [SHAHAK, p. 103]
"The major role [that Jews] once played in the civil rights movement," says Charles Liebman and Stephen Cohen, "[is a] myth ... [that] enhances the self-image of a Jew as a caring and sensitive minority selflessly contributing to improve the lot of other minorities." [LIEBMAN/COHEN, p. 17]
[JEWISH "CIVIL RIGHTS" ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNED FOR BLACKS]
[1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: NAACP]
For years W.E.B. DuBois was the only Black officer in the NAACP, which was largely directed, funded, and controlled in its early decades by Jews like Henry Moskowitz and Joel Spingarn. [ARSON, p. 140] (In 1913 Spingarn announced a yearly award named after himself, the "Spingarn Medal," for the "highest and noblest achievement of an American Negro." [DINER, p. 138] ) In a later era, and another Black organization, the Southern Leadership Christian Conference, a Jew -- Stanley Levison -- even wrote Martin Luther King's speeches for him. [MARTIN, p. 132] Levison has been described as one of King's "closest personal advisers." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 66] This voice of "Christian Leadership," Levison, was also discovered by the FBI to have been a former Communist party member. [KAUFMAN, J., p. 66]
[2. CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY: CORE]
Another Jew, Marvin Rich, was the "chief fundraiser and key speech writer for the Congress of Racial Equality -- CORE", [GINZBURG, p. 145] and his position was later filled by another Jewish attorney, Alan Gartner. In the 1960s, "in CORE, younger and more militant members blocked efforts by [James] Farmer to name one of his Jewish advisers president of CORE, insisting the post be filled with a black." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 76] In the same era, the Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress, Will Maslow, was also a CORE national board member. (He resigned in outrage when one African-American CORE official, Clifford Brown, angrily declared that Hitler hadn't "killed enough" Jews). [UROFSKY, M., 1978, p. 327]
[3. NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE]
Another such Black civil rights group was the National Urban League, greatly funded by the Sears-Roebuck magnate, Julius Rosenwald. Edwin Seligman ("descended from one of the wealthiest and most prestigious Jewish families"), was the first chairman of the organization. Its first Executive Board included Abraham Lefkowitz and Felix Adler -- later joined by Seligman's brother George and Ella Sachs Plotz. In 1932, six Jews "served as officials" at the Urban League's Chicago branch. [DINER, p. 186] Following Jewish philanthropic donations, Salmon O. Levinson began directorship of the Abraham Lincoln Center (a social work center for Blacks and whites) in 1917. [DINER, p. 181] Jacob Billikopf, also Jewish, became chairman of Howard University, a Black college, in 1935. Fisk University also had influential Jewish board members. To this day, Rabbi David Saperstein serves as an NAACP board member.
[4. SNCC/SCLC]
"By the mid-1960s," says Jonathan Kaufman, "Jewish contributions made up three-quarters of the money raised by SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee], CORE, and SCLC. So important were contributions from Jews to SCLC, Jesse Jackson recalled later, that for a time King's advisers debated whether they should call the group simply the Southern Leadership Conference, eliminating the reference to 'Christian.' In phone conversations with King, Bayard Rustin, one of King's top advisers, would remind him to include references in his speeches to the 'Judeo-Christian tradition.'" [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 66] Jewish actor Theodore Bikel, a Zionist activist, was once "one of SNCC's most prominent supporters." [VOLKMAN, p. 215] Howard Zinn was also a Jewish SNCC "adviser." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 67] SNCC African-American leader Stokely Carmichael's "first demonstration was a pro-Israel rally held in front of the United Nations by the Young Socialist League." (He later became very vocally anti-Zionist). Another SNCC Black leader, Robert Moses, "had gone to the Jewish socialist camp, Camp Wo-Chi-Ca, as a child and befriended many Jews from radical and socialist homes." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 67]
[5. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER]
What about the Southern Poverty Law Center, famed fighter for the impoverished and African-American rights, especially in the South? It is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and in 1996 the local Montgomery Advertiser printed an embarrassing expose about the Center. The salary, noted the paper, for SPLC president and CEO (as well as SPLC co-founder) Joseph Levin was $137,798 a year. Not bad for a fighter on behalf of those mired in poverty. The Center's Legal Director, Richard Cohen, made $151,420. But that's not all. The Advertiser further noted that "One thing remains a constant at the nation's wealthiest civil rights charity, the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center: All the top-paid, top-level management jobs are held by whites." [RICHARDSON, S., 8-29, p. D7] [No notation of the percentage of Jews within this "white" nomenclature is noted] In SPLC's 25-year history "no black person has held a top-level management position, and only one black staffer has ever been among the top five paid positions." In SPLC's team of five lawyers, one was African-American. [RICHARDSON, S., 8-29-96, p. D7]
[JEWISH LEADERS]
1. SPLC
The next year, an editorial writer, Rose Sanders, expressed outrage in the same newspaper that the SPLC publicly condemned Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (a hero in large parts of the Black community) as a racist (n.a.: for criticizing Israel). She pointed out the hypocrisy of the charge, noting that "Joseph Levin says he is not a bigot, but how does he explain the bigotry evidenced by the employment practices at the Poverty Law Center? An example of the Center's racial prejudice is illustrated by its racial tolerance program. The program did not have a single black employee. No black person helped shape or design the program." [SANDERS, R., 9-22-97, p. 7A]
2. NAACP
The granddaddy of Black civil rights organizations, the NAACP, "took shape" at the estate ("Troutbeck") of Joel Spingarn who became its Board Chairman in 1915. He served in this position until 1929 when he became, instead, the president, til 1939. He was succeeded by his brother Arthur (for many years head of the NAACP's Legal Committee) till 1966, when another Jew, Kivie Kaplan, "a millionaire manufacturer of patent leather," [HILLEL/LEVINE, p. 127] took over. "By 1968," note Hillel Levine and Lawrence Harmon, "the perceived paternalistic leadership style of Kaplan and other prominent Jews in the civil rights movement was coming under increasingly sharp attack. Activists called for his resignation; Kaplan refused." [HILLEL/ HARMON, p. 127] Only with Kaplan's death in 1975 did the NAACP -- 64 years after its founding -- have the opportunity to elect its first Black president. [GOLDBERG, p. 24]
"Litigation," notes Hasia Diner, "was the Association's most potent weapon ... Many of those lawyers and legal advisors were Jews. In fact, Jews made their greatest impact on the Association in this area." [DINER, p. 128] Jewish lawyer Nathan Margold's 1929 "report became the bible of the NAACP's legal efforts." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 91] Jack Greenberg headed the 1960s-era NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In 1982, still at the helm, a Black student coalition at Harvard protested Jewish paternalism and the fact that a white Jew "was heading the country's premier black legal organization." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 119-121] Joel Spingarn, who served as both the NAACP Chairman of the Board and as a major in the U.S. Military Intelligence Department (MID) during World War I, was revealed in recent years by the Memphis Commercial Appeal to have "used his [NAACP] post to obtain critical information for MID." [MARTIN, p. 49] Another such "liberal" Jew on the NAACP membership rolls included Judge Julian Mack (of the U.S. Court of Appeals), the first President of the American Jewish Congress. Mack was also president of the Zionist Organization of America from 1918 to 1921. He and Louis Brandeis, notes Thomas Kolsky, "dominated American Zionism from 1914 to 1921 and also in the 1930s." [KOLSKY, T., p. 26]
With Jews holding the purse strings to many ostensibly Black organizations, in 1976 Black activist Julian Bond sought the directorship of the NAACP. Although critical of Israel, Bond found it necessary to sign a yearly "Black Americans in Support of Israel (BASIC)" statement "if he was to have any chance of winning the NAACP position, given the powerful influence of Jews within the organization." [GINZBURG, p. 169] In the early years of the NAACP, adds Hasia Diner, "heavy Jewish involvement may explain why the [NAACP] conference passed the 'Russian Resolution,' which protested the expulsion of Jews from the city of Kiev, Russia." [DINER, p. 136] Later, African Americans like William Pollard, Deputy Director of the NAACP, took "many trips" to Israel, although socialization to the Jewish/Israeli perspectives was not always completely successful. [STARR, J., 1990, p. 251]
Clues to the nature of Spingarn's NAACP may be gleaned from the following quotes from B. Joyce Ross, author of J.E. Spingarn and the Rise of the NAACP:
* "Spingarn's failure to relinquish the power he wielded in the NAACP comprised one of the greatest paradoxes of his career." [p. 69]
* "Spingarn's familiarity with New York's most reputable financial institutions and his expertise in the management of stocks and bonds enabled him to become one of the key formulators of the NAACP's financial policy." [p. 57] (He also had a "special influence" at publishers Harcourt, Brace and a "special relationship" at Alfred Knopf). [LEWIS, p. 562]
* 'The NAACP became a closed corporation ... [resulting in] a tremendous narrowing of the broad base of authority suggested by the Association's constitutional structure, with a concomitant tendency toward a self-perpetuating Board of Directors." [p. 52]
* "The central office's tight control of the branches meant essentially that a few New York administrators determined NAACP policy on a nationwide scale." [p. 58-59]
* "[W.E.B. Du Bois], the only Black executive officer [until 1916] contended that it was absolutely necessary that he have a large measure of autonomy lest the Association with its preponderance of white executives, should become a white dominated organization with Negroes as mere helpers ... From an administrative standpoint [Du Bois'] demand for autonomy was a potential threat to the organization's basic unity." [p. 61-62]
* Even though W. E. Du Bois, one of the foremost Black leaders of the day, received a full salary from the Association for his services, he frequently was obliged to solicit personal loans from Spingarn." [ p. 57] The early Black nationalist Marcus Garvey "stormed out of the NAACP's headquarters in 1917, 'dumbfounded' by the apparent domination of whites." These included Board Chairman Joel Spingarn, his brother Arthur who was pro bono counsel, Herbert Lehman of the Executive Committee, Arthur Sachs, Herbert Seligmann - director of public relations, and his secretary Martha Gruening. [LEWIS, p. 553] (A particularly curious instance occurred in 1962-63 when the labor union expert at the NAACP, a Jew named Herbert Hill, led an attack on the -- largely Jewish -- International Ladies Garment workers union, for racism ["discrimination."] [GLAZER/MOYNIHAN, p. 178]
Other NAACP activists included Felix Frankfurter ("an active Zionist who is credited with drafting the Balfour Declaration, the 1918 statement of the British government favoring the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine" and Herman Lehman who "was also a Zionist and lent a hand in the Palestine Economic Corporation. Among Louis Marshall's "primary activities" included "serving as president of the American Jewish Committee." Herman Moskowitz "worked ardently in the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish Social Service Association." [DINER, p. 123]
In later years Marcus Garvey ran into trouble with the law concerning his part-ownership of a steam line business. "I am being punished for the crime of the Jew Silverstone [an agent of the Black Star line]," he complained, "I was persecuted by Maxwell Mattuck, another Jew, and I am to be sentenced by Judge Julian Mack, the eminent jurist [and an NAACP board member]. Truly, I may say, 'I am going to Jericho and fell among thieves.'" [MAGIDA, p. 166]
"One is driven to the hypothesis," says Israel Shahak, "that quite a few of Martin Luther King's rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical reasons (wishing to win black support for American Jewry and for Israel) or were accomplished hypocrites." [SHAHAK, p. 26] "[Jewish] loyalists," declared Thelma Thomas Dalevy, president of the mostly Black Delta Sigma Theta sorority in 1979, "are not compatible with the struggle of black Americans for equal opportunity under the law. Indeed, we question whether their loyalties are first with the state of Israel or the United States." [STANFIELD, p. 1849]
Yet, "Jews cannot afford to engage in or tolerate political tactics or public rhetoric that seriously threatens to discredit blacks," observes Benjamin Ginzburg, "This is one of the major reasons that Jewish racism, often expressed privately, seldom manifests itself publicly. African-Americans are simply too important to the legitimacy of the American domestic state. If Jews engage in attacks on blacks or permit doubts to be raised about the merits of their political claims, then Jews are, in effect, undermining a major moral prop supporting the institutions from which they themselves derive enormous benefits and through which they exercise considerable power." [GINZBURG, p. 153]
Many observers argue that the presumed Jewish altruism and social activism in the American civil rights movement of the 1960's had baser motives.
[JEWISH TESTIMONIES]
Benjamin Ginsberg argues that the multicultural coalitions spearheaded by Jews in the civil rights era "was a political tactic" to "undermine the power" of those establishment social forces that hindered further Jewish socio-economic advancement. [GINSBERG, p. 125]
In 1975 Hasia Dinner wrote a PhD thesis about the way that "Jewish support for black causes was a way for Jews to broaden their own rights without becoming conspicuous by advocating their group interests." [FEINGOLD, p. 130] "Jewish leaders," wrote Diner, "representing different socio-economic classes, ideologies, and cultural experiences committed themselves to black betterment and gave time, money, and energy to black organizations. The spectrum was so wide and the involvement so extensive that one must conclude that these leaders acted out of peculiarly Jewish motives ... [My] book demonstrates that Jewish ends were secured by involvement with blacks." [DINER, p. xiv, xii]
Similarly, Jewish author Peter Novick notes the changing Jewish strategy in using massive Jewish attack against generic prejudice as a tool in fending off specific anti-Jewish hostility: "In recent decades, the leading Jewish organizations have invoked the Holocaust to argue that anti-Semitism is a distinctively virulent and murderous form of hatred. But in the first postwar decades their emphasis -- powerfully reinforced by contemporary scholarly opinion -- was on the common psychological roots of all forms of prejudice. Their research, educational, and political action programs consistently minimized diffrences between different targets of discrimination. If prejudice and discrimination were all of a piece, they reasoned that they could serve the cause of Jewish self-defense as well by attacking prejudice and discrimination against blacks as by tackling anti-Semitism directly." [NOVICK., P., 1999, p. 116]
"The Jewish struggle for equality and fair treatment," says Jonathan Kaufman, "was linked to the struggles of Blacks for greater opportunity. It was not a struggle of equals; Jews did not consider their plight equal to that of Blacks. But they recognized in the Black struggle for civil rights elements that could benefit them and conditions with which they sympathized." [MARTIN, p. 131] Hence, perhaps three-quarters of the funding for the three major civil rights organizations -- the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, The Congress of Racial Equality, and Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference is attributed to Jewish sponsorship. [MARTIN, p. 132]
"Any support of human rights in general by Jews," says Israel Shahak, "which does not include the support of human rights of non-Jews whose rights are being violated by [Israel] is deceitful ... [Jewish] support of Blacks in the South was motivated only by consideration of Jewish self-interest." [SHAHAK, p. 103]
"The major role [that Jews] once played in the civil rights movement," says Charles Liebman and Stephen Cohen, "[is a] myth ... [that] enhances the self-image of a Jew as a caring and sensitive minority selflessly contributing to improve the lot of other minorities." [LIEBMAN/COHEN, p. 17]
[JEWISH "CIVIL RIGHTS" ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNED FOR BLACKS]
[1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: NAACP]
For years W.E.B. DuBois was the only Black officer in the NAACP, which was largely directed, funded, and controlled in its early decades by Jews like Henry Moskowitz and Joel Spingarn. [ARSON, p. 140] (In 1913 Spingarn announced a yearly award named after himself, the "Spingarn Medal," for the "highest and noblest achievement of an American Negro." [DINER, p. 138] ) In a later era, and another Black organization, the Southern Leadership Christian Conference, a Jew -- Stanley Levison -- even wrote Martin Luther King's speeches for him. [MARTIN, p. 132] Levison has been described as one of King's "closest personal advisers." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 66] This voice of "Christian Leadership," Levison, was also discovered by the FBI to have been a former Communist party member. [KAUFMAN, J., p. 66]
[2. CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY: CORE]
Another Jew, Marvin Rich, was the "chief fundraiser and key speech writer for the Congress of Racial Equality -- CORE", [GINZBURG, p. 145] and his position was later filled by another Jewish attorney, Alan Gartner. In the 1960s, "in CORE, younger and more militant members blocked efforts by [James] Farmer to name one of his Jewish advisers president of CORE, insisting the post be filled with a black." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 76] In the same era, the Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress, Will Maslow, was also a CORE national board member. (He resigned in outrage when one African-American CORE official, Clifford Brown, angrily declared that Hitler hadn't "killed enough" Jews). [UROFSKY, M., 1978, p. 327]
[3. NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE]
Another such Black civil rights group was the National Urban League, greatly funded by the Sears-Roebuck magnate, Julius Rosenwald. Edwin Seligman ("descended from one of the wealthiest and most prestigious Jewish families"), was the first chairman of the organization. Its first Executive Board included Abraham Lefkowitz and Felix Adler -- later joined by Seligman's brother George and Ella Sachs Plotz. In 1932, six Jews "served as officials" at the Urban League's Chicago branch. [DINER, p. 186] Following Jewish philanthropic donations, Salmon O. Levinson began directorship of the Abraham Lincoln Center (a social work center for Blacks and whites) in 1917. [DINER, p. 181] Jacob Billikopf, also Jewish, became chairman of Howard University, a Black college, in 1935. Fisk University also had influential Jewish board members. To this day, Rabbi David Saperstein serves as an NAACP board member.
[4. SNCC/SCLC]
"By the mid-1960s," says Jonathan Kaufman, "Jewish contributions made up three-quarters of the money raised by SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee], CORE, and SCLC. So important were contributions from Jews to SCLC, Jesse Jackson recalled later, that for a time King's advisers debated whether they should call the group simply the Southern Leadership Conference, eliminating the reference to 'Christian.' In phone conversations with King, Bayard Rustin, one of King's top advisers, would remind him to include references in his speeches to the 'Judeo-Christian tradition.'" [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 66] Jewish actor Theodore Bikel, a Zionist activist, was once "one of SNCC's most prominent supporters." [VOLKMAN, p. 215] Howard Zinn was also a Jewish SNCC "adviser." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 67] SNCC African-American leader Stokely Carmichael's "first demonstration was a pro-Israel rally held in front of the United Nations by the Young Socialist League." (He later became very vocally anti-Zionist). Another SNCC Black leader, Robert Moses, "had gone to the Jewish socialist camp, Camp Wo-Chi-Ca, as a child and befriended many Jews from radical and socialist homes." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 67]
[5. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER]
What about the Southern Poverty Law Center, famed fighter for the impoverished and African-American rights, especially in the South? It is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and in 1996 the local Montgomery Advertiser printed an embarrassing expose about the Center. The salary, noted the paper, for SPLC president and CEO (as well as SPLC co-founder) Joseph Levin was $137,798 a year. Not bad for a fighter on behalf of those mired in poverty. The Center's Legal Director, Richard Cohen, made $151,420. But that's not all. The Advertiser further noted that "One thing remains a constant at the nation's wealthiest civil rights charity, the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center: All the top-paid, top-level management jobs are held by whites." [RICHARDSON, S., 8-29, p. D7] [No notation of the percentage of Jews within this "white" nomenclature is noted] In SPLC's 25-year history "no black person has held a top-level management position, and only one black staffer has ever been among the top five paid positions." In SPLC's team of five lawyers, one was African-American. [RICHARDSON, S., 8-29-96, p. D7]
[JEWISH LEADERS]
1. SPLC
The next year, an editorial writer, Rose Sanders, expressed outrage in the same newspaper that the SPLC publicly condemned Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (a hero in large parts of the Black community) as a racist (n.a.: for criticizing Israel). She pointed out the hypocrisy of the charge, noting that "Joseph Levin says he is not a bigot, but how does he explain the bigotry evidenced by the employment practices at the Poverty Law Center? An example of the Center's racial prejudice is illustrated by its racial tolerance program. The program did not have a single black employee. No black person helped shape or design the program." [SANDERS, R., 9-22-97, p. 7A]
2. NAACP
The granddaddy of Black civil rights organizations, the NAACP, "took shape" at the estate ("Troutbeck") of Joel Spingarn who became its Board Chairman in 1915. He served in this position until 1929 when he became, instead, the president, til 1939. He was succeeded by his brother Arthur (for many years head of the NAACP's Legal Committee) till 1966, when another Jew, Kivie Kaplan, "a millionaire manufacturer of patent leather," [HILLEL/LEVINE, p. 127] took over. "By 1968," note Hillel Levine and Lawrence Harmon, "the perceived paternalistic leadership style of Kaplan and other prominent Jews in the civil rights movement was coming under increasingly sharp attack. Activists called for his resignation; Kaplan refused." [HILLEL/ HARMON, p. 127] Only with Kaplan's death in 1975 did the NAACP -- 64 years after its founding -- have the opportunity to elect its first Black president. [GOLDBERG, p. 24]
"Litigation," notes Hasia Diner, "was the Association's most potent weapon ... Many of those lawyers and legal advisors were Jews. In fact, Jews made their greatest impact on the Association in this area." [DINER, p. 128] Jewish lawyer Nathan Margold's 1929 "report became the bible of the NAACP's legal efforts." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 91] Jack Greenberg headed the 1960s-era NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In 1982, still at the helm, a Black student coalition at Harvard protested Jewish paternalism and the fact that a white Jew "was heading the country's premier black legal organization." [KAUFMAN, J., 1988, p. 119-121] Joel Spingarn, who served as both the NAACP Chairman of the Board and as a major in the U.S. Military Intelligence Department (MID) during World War I, was revealed in recent years by the Memphis Commercial Appeal to have "used his [NAACP] post to obtain critical information for MID." [MARTIN, p. 49] Another such "liberal" Jew on the NAACP membership rolls included Judge Julian Mack (of the U.S. Court of Appeals), the first President of the American Jewish Congress. Mack was also president of the Zionist Organization of America from 1918 to 1921. He and Louis Brandeis, notes Thomas Kolsky, "dominated American Zionism from 1914 to 1921 and also in the 1930s." [KOLSKY, T., p. 26]
With Jews holding the purse strings to many ostensibly Black organizations, in 1976 Black activist Julian Bond sought the directorship of the NAACP. Although critical of Israel, Bond found it necessary to sign a yearly "Black Americans in Support of Israel (BASIC)" statement "if he was to have any chance of winning the NAACP position, given the powerful influence of Jews within the organization." [GINZBURG, p. 169] In the early years of the NAACP, adds Hasia Diner, "heavy Jewish involvement may explain why the [NAACP] conference passed the 'Russian Resolution,' which protested the expulsion of Jews from the city of Kiev, Russia." [DINER, p. 136] Later, African Americans like William Pollard, Deputy Director of the NAACP, took "many trips" to Israel, although socialization to the Jewish/Israeli perspectives was not always completely successful. [STARR, J., 1990, p. 251]
Clues to the nature of Spingarn's NAACP may be gleaned from the following quotes from B. Joyce Ross, author of J.E. Spingarn and the Rise of the NAACP:
* "Spingarn's failure to relinquish the power he wielded in the NAACP comprised one of the greatest paradoxes of his career." [p. 69]
* "Spingarn's familiarity with New York's most reputable financial institutions and his expertise in the management of stocks and bonds enabled him to become one of the key formulators of the NAACP's financial policy." [p. 57] (He also had a "special influence" at publishers Harcourt, Brace and a "special relationship" at Alfred Knopf). [LEWIS, p. 562]
* 'The NAACP became a closed corporation ... [resulting in] a tremendous narrowing of the broad base of authority suggested by the Association's constitutional structure, with a concomitant tendency toward a self-perpetuating Board of Directors." [p. 52]
* "The central office's tight control of the branches meant essentially that a few New York administrators determined NAACP policy on a nationwide scale." [p. 58-59]
* "[W.E.B. Du Bois], the only Black executive officer [until 1916] contended that it was absolutely necessary that he have a large measure of autonomy lest the Association with its preponderance of white executives, should become a white dominated organization with Negroes as mere helpers ... From an administrative standpoint [Du Bois'] demand for autonomy was a potential threat to the organization's basic unity." [p. 61-62]
* Even though W. E. Du Bois, one of the foremost Black leaders of the day, received a full salary from the Association for his services, he frequently was obliged to solicit personal loans from Spingarn." [ p. 57] The early Black nationalist Marcus Garvey "stormed out of the NAACP's headquarters in 1917, 'dumbfounded' by the apparent domination of whites." These included Board Chairman Joel Spingarn, his brother Arthur who was pro bono counsel, Herbert Lehman of the Executive Committee, Arthur Sachs, Herbert Seligmann - director of public relations, and his secretary Martha Gruening. [LEWIS, p. 553] (A particularly curious instance occurred in 1962-63 when the labor union expert at the NAACP, a Jew named Herbert Hill, led an attack on the -- largely Jewish -- International Ladies Garment workers union, for racism ["discrimination."] [GLAZER/MOYNIHAN, p. 178]
Other NAACP activists included Felix Frankfurter ("an active Zionist who is credited with drafting the Balfour Declaration, the 1918 statement of the British government favoring the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine" and Herman Lehman who "was also a Zionist and lent a hand in the Palestine Economic Corporation. Among Louis Marshall's "primary activities" included "serving as president of the American Jewish Committee." Herman Moskowitz "worked ardently in the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish Social Service Association." [DINER, p. 123]
In later years Marcus Garvey ran into trouble with the law concerning his part-ownership of a steam line business. "I am being punished for the crime of the Jew Silverstone [an agent of the Black Star line]," he complained, "I was persecuted by Maxwell Mattuck, another Jew, and I am to be sentenced by Judge Julian Mack, the eminent jurist [and an NAACP board member]. Truly, I may say, 'I am going to Jericho and fell among thieves.'" [MAGIDA, p. 166]
"One is driven to the hypothesis," says Israel Shahak, "that quite a few of Martin Luther King's rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical reasons (wishing to win black support for American Jewry and for Israel) or were accomplished hypocrites." [SHAHAK, p. 26] "[Jewish] loyalists," declared Thelma Thomas Dalevy, president of the mostly Black Delta Sigma Theta sorority in 1979, "are not compatible with the struggle of black Americans for equal opportunity under the law. Indeed, we question whether their loyalties are first with the state of Israel or the United States." [STANFIELD, p. 1849]
Yet, "Jews cannot afford to engage in or tolerate political tactics or public rhetoric that seriously threatens to discredit blacks," observes Benjamin Ginzburg, "This is one of the major reasons that Jewish racism, often expressed privately, seldom manifests itself publicly. African-Americans are simply too important to the legitimacy of the American domestic state. If Jews engage in attacks on blacks or permit doubts to be raised about the merits of their political claims, then Jews are, in effect, undermining a major moral prop supporting the institutions from which they themselves derive enormous benefits and through which they exercise considerable power." [GINZBURG, p. 153]
Top 5 Lies about Israel's Assault on Gaza
Author: Jeremy R. Hammond, editor of Foreign Policy Journal
Source: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m50330&hd=&size=1&l=e
Lie #1: Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.
Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.
Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.
Other of Israel’s bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.
Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.
Lie #2: Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.
Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a "special security zone" within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.
Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.
Israel’s violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response to the Israeli attacks.
Israel's actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.
Lie #3: Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.
There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as "human shields" in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.
Lie #4: Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.
The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel's actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel's crimes.
Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.
Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas' past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas' Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.
Lie #5: Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.
Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.
Source: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m50330&hd=&size=1&l=e
Lie #1: Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.
Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.
Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.
Other of Israel’s bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.
Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.
Lie #2: Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.
Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a "special security zone" within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.
Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.
Israel’s violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response to the Israeli attacks.
Israel's actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.
Lie #3: Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.
There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as "human shields" in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.
Lie #4: Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.
The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel's actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel's crimes.
Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.
Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas' past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas' Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.
Lie #5: Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.
Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.
Pope Benedict should affirmatively declare Holocaust denial to be heresy
Author: Menachem Rosensaft
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304741650&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304741650&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Pope Benedict hopes that the memory of the Holocaust "will prompt humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the hearts of men." But statements condemning Holocaust denial and reaffirming ecumenical sentiments toward the Jewish people are not enough. Pope Benedict should affirmatively declare Holocaust denial to be heresy, and the Vatican should undertake a comprehensive program of Holocaust education.
Students at Roman Catholic schools, universities and seminaries throughout the world must be taught not only that the Holocaust occurred, but that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism helped make it possible. They must be taught that while Bishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, later Pope John XXIII, helped rescue Jews from the Nazis, and that Archbishop Jules-Géraud Saliège of Toulouse, France, spoke out publicly on their behalf, Pope Pius XII remained silent, as did most Catholic cardinals, bishops and priests. They must be taught that thousands upon thousands of baptized Christians actively participated in the mass murder of European Jewry, and that hundreds of thousands looked on or looked away.
They must be taught that the Franciscan priest Miroslav Filipovic, known as "Fra Sotona" ("Brother Satan"), was a brutal commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia, run by the collaborationist Ustasha regime, and that the Archbishop of Sarajevo, Ivan Saric, enthusiastically supported and advocated the persecution and murder of Jews. They must be taught that many of the French policemen of the collaborationist Vichy regime who rounded up French Jews and helped send them to their death at Auschwitz regularly attended mass on Sundays. They must be taught that the Vatican never excommunicated Adolf Hitler or other baptized Nazi leaders, and that after World War II, Bishop Alois Hudal was instrumental in spiriting Nazi war criminals to safety in Latin America.
While the Vatican's relations with the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter, its attitude, and Pope Benedict XVI's attitude, toward Holocaust denial and Holocaust deniers affects us all. My five-and-a-half-year-old brother, my mother's son, was murdered in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. For the sake of continued Jewish-Catholic relations, all Catholics, indeed all Christians, must be taught that my brother's brutal death and the deaths of more than 1 million Jewish children who perished in the Holocaust is at least as real as the death of a Jew named Jesus in Jerusalem almost 2,000 years ago.
Jewish Debating Techniques
Source: http://worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com/2008/05/jewish-debating-techniques-1.html
Oftentimes a lot of what we read enters the back of our minds at a subconscious level and it lies there, latent and gently percolating away until such time as an outside event prompts our conscious recollection of it. Such it was for Phaedrus with an old Patrick Grimm essay entitled 'The Taboo as Proof' (herewith today re-published below.)Taboos are very useful for putting sensitive subjects beyond debate, as Patrick himself pointed out. The one thing the Jews fear above all else is an even-handed and totally open investigation into their long and checkered history, for the ugliness thereby revealed would be simply beyond the belief of all bar the most heavily initiated of persons. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Jews have developed a series of techniques for stifling debate on such issues and avoiding having to address these sensitive matters AT ALL. This article is about one such technique and its most eloquent exponent, the 'British Jew' Alan Coren, who not-so-sadly died last year.
Those of us who espouse views which are generally taken to be outside the current spectrum of "acceptable opinion" by the popular media will - if we are lucky enough to get a platform in the first place - often find ourselves taken to task in the presence of a Jew by a hostile interviewer who falsely purports to be impartial. Many, many years ago, such encounters were the norm and indeed unfettered, free and open debate was quite properly regarded as the only viable route to establishing the real, underlying truth. But that was some decades ago when the Jewish stranglehold over 'permissible utterances' was very much weaker. I refer of course to those increasingly distant days prior to the advent of political-correctness.
Now, if one has something dreadful to hide for which one can offer no valid excuse, it doesn't benefit one to debate one's beliefs in the media spotlight, for fear of being caught short of an appropriate response to an unwelcome or unexpected question or accusation. The Jew, uniquely, has developed the perfect technique in such awkward situations: 'the disgusted walk-out.'
This 'storm of self-righteous indignation" method offers a number of benefits for any Jewish interviewee who's been caught off-guard on a sensitive issue. Namely:
1. It lends him elevated 'moral authority' - he appears to occupy the high moral ground by virtue of storming off in feigned disgust with his nose in the air, rather than 'lowering himself' to bandy words with those of seemingly fixed opinions hostile to Judaism.
2. It avoids him having to answer any awkward questions concerning his people and their 'interesting history' (such as the Holocaust period or the genocide in Palestine) that his interlocutor might confront him about from out of the blue with hard, indisputable evidence.
3. It creates in the audience a sense of sympathy and respect for the Jew, who though clearly so grievously insulted, exercised immense dignity and self-control by simply walking out, rather than punching his opponent on the nose.
4. Most importantly of course, it enables the Jew to yet again escape scott-free without ever having to address a single allegation made against him, his race, and/or their complex and deeply troubling history.
The Jewish Grand Master of the self-righteous storm-out was a 'British' radio and TV personality by the name of Alan Coren who enjoyed a long and active career in 'journalism' and broadcasting in the US and Britain before finally settling down at the BBC in London (at the license payers' expense, of course). Coren's parents came to Britain between the two World Wars and (like so many other Jewish immigrant families) changed their original name, COHEN, to something less obviously Jewish; in this case, "Coren" - not very imaginative but it nevertheless did the trick. Anyway, Coren's specialty was storming out in self-righteous indignation the moment anyone raised any uncomfortable facts concerning the Tribe of Satan.
Coren/Cohen had it down to a very fine art and really should have been a character actor. The moment anyone ventured into any area that was REMOTELY critical of the Jews or Israel, Coren would assume a deathly grave expression, solemnly gather his papers together, tear-off his microphone and earpiece with well-practiced theatricality, and simply walk out without a word, shaking his head in disgust. Seemingly no one ever worked out that the move was simply a ruse to avoid having to address the issue raised. The Jew Cohen would subsequently enjoy sympathy heaped upon him by empathetic viewers for his noble refusal to get down and dirty with 'racists and anti-Semites.'
So, gentile reader, please remember that Jews who walk out of interviews aren't really offended at all. They simply cannot justify themselves or their kind; they have no answers that the rest of us would deem acceptable. And they KNOW it!
Oftentimes a lot of what we read enters the back of our minds at a subconscious level and it lies there, latent and gently percolating away until such time as an outside event prompts our conscious recollection of it. Such it was for Phaedrus with an old Patrick Grimm essay entitled 'The Taboo as Proof' (herewith today re-published below.)Taboos are very useful for putting sensitive subjects beyond debate, as Patrick himself pointed out. The one thing the Jews fear above all else is an even-handed and totally open investigation into their long and checkered history, for the ugliness thereby revealed would be simply beyond the belief of all bar the most heavily initiated of persons. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Jews have developed a series of techniques for stifling debate on such issues and avoiding having to address these sensitive matters AT ALL. This article is about one such technique and its most eloquent exponent, the 'British Jew' Alan Coren, who not-so-sadly died last year.
Those of us who espouse views which are generally taken to be outside the current spectrum of "acceptable opinion" by the popular media will - if we are lucky enough to get a platform in the first place - often find ourselves taken to task in the presence of a Jew by a hostile interviewer who falsely purports to be impartial. Many, many years ago, such encounters were the norm and indeed unfettered, free and open debate was quite properly regarded as the only viable route to establishing the real, underlying truth. But that was some decades ago when the Jewish stranglehold over 'permissible utterances' was very much weaker. I refer of course to those increasingly distant days prior to the advent of political-correctness.
Now, if one has something dreadful to hide for which one can offer no valid excuse, it doesn't benefit one to debate one's beliefs in the media spotlight, for fear of being caught short of an appropriate response to an unwelcome or unexpected question or accusation. The Jew, uniquely, has developed the perfect technique in such awkward situations: 'the disgusted walk-out.'
This 'storm of self-righteous indignation" method offers a number of benefits for any Jewish interviewee who's been caught off-guard on a sensitive issue. Namely:
1. It lends him elevated 'moral authority' - he appears to occupy the high moral ground by virtue of storming off in feigned disgust with his nose in the air, rather than 'lowering himself' to bandy words with those of seemingly fixed opinions hostile to Judaism.
2. It avoids him having to answer any awkward questions concerning his people and their 'interesting history' (such as the Holocaust period or the genocide in Palestine) that his interlocutor might confront him about from out of the blue with hard, indisputable evidence.
3. It creates in the audience a sense of sympathy and respect for the Jew, who though clearly so grievously insulted, exercised immense dignity and self-control by simply walking out, rather than punching his opponent on the nose.
4. Most importantly of course, it enables the Jew to yet again escape scott-free without ever having to address a single allegation made against him, his race, and/or their complex and deeply troubling history.
The Jewish Grand Master of the self-righteous storm-out was a 'British' radio and TV personality by the name of Alan Coren who enjoyed a long and active career in 'journalism' and broadcasting in the US and Britain before finally settling down at the BBC in London (at the license payers' expense, of course). Coren's parents came to Britain between the two World Wars and (like so many other Jewish immigrant families) changed their original name, COHEN, to something less obviously Jewish; in this case, "Coren" - not very imaginative but it nevertheless did the trick. Anyway, Coren's specialty was storming out in self-righteous indignation the moment anyone raised any uncomfortable facts concerning the Tribe of Satan.
Coren/Cohen had it down to a very fine art and really should have been a character actor. The moment anyone ventured into any area that was REMOTELY critical of the Jews or Israel, Coren would assume a deathly grave expression, solemnly gather his papers together, tear-off his microphone and earpiece with well-practiced theatricality, and simply walk out without a word, shaking his head in disgust. Seemingly no one ever worked out that the move was simply a ruse to avoid having to address the issue raised. The Jew Cohen would subsequently enjoy sympathy heaped upon him by empathetic viewers for his noble refusal to get down and dirty with 'racists and anti-Semites.'
So, gentile reader, please remember that Jews who walk out of interviews aren't really offended at all. They simply cannot justify themselves or their kind; they have no answers that the rest of us would deem acceptable. And they KNOW it!
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discusses Holocaust
COMMENT
Mahmoud is one of the handful of people I've seen which exhibits unmistakable signs of virtue: he is truthful, but he remains entirely composed before his ungodly enemies, who are non-stop spreading ridiculous hate propaganda behind his back to demoralize Iranian people, deprecate its elected leader and foster discontent from within. No doubt none of those who hate him have the moral backbone to stand up against him in a civilized debate: Jews are too much accustomed to have give orders to be able to debate any more. As a matter of fact, Mahmoud has asked the "Noble Negro" president Obama, operated by "advisors" David Axelrod and Emmanuel Rahm (both avowed enemies of America and ardent Jewish supporters of Israel), for an open honest debate on Middle Eastern problems. As for the Anglo-American interviewer, he should better investigate what has happened to his own ethnic group once Jews have seized power... Are White Americans better or worse than they were 60 years ago? Is the very survival of demoralized, demonized, prosecuted and despised builders of American society even feasible?
Ahmadinejad has always expressed admiration for our civilization and a genuine feeling of friendship, whereas Jews, who ave never expressed anything but hatred and a concerted drive to turn our societies into multicultural dumpsters...
Iran Elections Scandal: Who killed Neda Aqa-Soltan
Author: PRESS TV
Source: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=99527§ionid=351020101
Source: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=99527§ionid=351020101
Iran's Police Chief says the mysterious death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, who became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran, was a 'prearranged scenario'.
Neda, 26, was shot dead on June 20 in an alley away from the scene of clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Tehran.
She immediately became an international icon after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.
Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident --which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets--, was in fact a 'premeditated act of murder'.
The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda's life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.
Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. "He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad."
Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda's death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol--a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.
The man who drove Neda to hospital said in an interview that her death looked 'highly suspicious', as there were no security forces or Basij members nearby.
The Iranian government is making every effort to identify the culprit behind Neda's death with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanding a thorough investigation into the incident.
"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran's internal affairs) for their political misuse," said Ahmadinejad in a letter to Iran's Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi.
Neda, 26, was shot dead on June 20 in an alley away from the scene of clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Tehran.
She immediately became an international icon after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.
Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident --which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets--, was in fact a 'premeditated act of murder'.
The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda's life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.
Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. "He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad."
Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda's death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol--a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.
The man who drove Neda to hospital said in an interview that her death looked 'highly suspicious', as there were no security forces or Basij members nearby.
The Iranian government is making every effort to identify the culprit behind Neda's death with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanding a thorough investigation into the incident.
"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran's internal affairs) for their political misuse," said Ahmadinejad in a letter to Iran's Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi.
Israeli Minister Ariel Attias: Arabs shouldn't live with Jews
Author: Jerusalem Post
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443708151&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443708151&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Jews and Israeli-Arabs should not live next to one another, Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Attias said on Thursday.
He warned of the "expansion of a population that doesn't love the State of Israel, to say the least."
Speaking at the Israel Bar Association headquarters in Tel Aviv, the Shas legislator said Israel was in danger of "losing the Galilee" if the Israeli-Arab population continued to "spread" in the North, and mentioned in particular the Wadi Ara area, where he asserted that Harish, a haredi community planned to be built there, was a "mission of national importance" that could help "stop the expansion."
"Arabs don't have where to live, so they buy apartments in places with a Jewish nature, which causes unwanted friction," Attias said.
"We can all be bleeding-hearts," said the minister, "but I think it is unsuitable [for Jews and Arabs] to live together."
Attias used the Jewish-Arab clashes last year in Acre to explain his argument. "The mayor of Acre [Shimon Lankry] met with me yesterday for three hours, and asked how to save the city. He told me to bring a whole lot of haredim to save it," Attias said.
The minister quoted Lankry as saying, "I will even lose my political power."
"He told me that Arabs living in Jews' buildings chase them away," Attias added.
Mayors in the North "are asking me to salvage the Galilee, because this mixture is not feasible for coexistence over time," Attias said.
He said that he would push forward the long-planned Harish project in order to "save" the Wadi Ara area - which has seen "illegal Arab expansion" - by populating the region with haredim, "who are the only ones willing to live there."
MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) lashed out at Attias, saying that "relating to Israel's Arab citizens as something threatening and foreign, coming from a minister in a government that should be distributing resources [equally], borders on violating the law against incitement to racism."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermines Israel as a state for the Jewish people
Author: BBC
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099757.stm
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099757.stm
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced he will back a Palestinian state - but only if it is completely demilitarised. He said a Palestinian state must have no army, no control of its air space and no way of smuggling in weapons. In a landmark speech, weeks after the US president urged him to agree a two-state plan, he said the Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian leaders reacted angrily, accusing him of sabotaging peace plans.Settlers 'not enemies'The White House said President Barack Obama welcomed Mr Netanyahu's "endorsement" of a two-state solution as an "important step forward". The BBC's Paul Wood says Mr Netanyahu broke ground by accepting the principle of a demilitarised Palestinian state, albeit with conditions. But our correspondent says the question is whether the White House regards this as sufficient to make up for the lack of movement on the issue of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. In his keynote Mid-East speech in Cairo on 4 June Mr Obama stressed that he wanted all settlement activity to stop. But in his speech at Bar-Ilan university Mr Netanyahu said settlers were not "enemies of peace" and did not move from his position of backing "natural growth" in existing settlements.Thorny issuesThe Israeli leader offered to talk to the Palestinians immediately and with "no preconditions". "We want to live with you in peace as good neighbours," he said. Mr Netanyahu also said he was willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut in pursuit of a Middle East peace deal. He went on to tackle the major stumbling blocks in negotiations with Palestinians over the years.Not least was the issue of Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced from their homes in what is now Israel in 1948 and 1949. The Palestinians say they and their millions of descendants have the right to return to Israel - which would mean an end to its Jewish majority - but Israel has consistently rebuffed that demand. Mr Netanyahu stuck to a similar line, saying: "The Palestinian refugee problem must be resolved outside the borders of the state of Israel. "Any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermines Israel as a state for the Jewish people."Another key issue the two sides have failed to agree on is the status of Jerusalem. Mr Netanyahu insisted the city must be the "united capital of Israel", although Palestinians want it divided to allow them to locate the capital of a future state there.Racist and extremistAgreeing the principle of a Palestinian state, he said Israel would "be prepared for a true peace agreement [and] to reach a solution of a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state". But only if "we receive this guarantee for demilitarisation and the security arrangements required by Israel, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the nation of the Jewish people". Correspondents say even with the provisos Mr Netanyahu has added, his comments on a Palestinian state are sure to anger many in his own coalition. Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Israeli leader's speech "torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region". Another Abbas aide, Yasser Abed Rabbo, told the AFP news agency that recognition of Israel's Jewish character was a demand for Palestinians "to become part of the global Zionist movement". The militant Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, said the speech reflected Mr Netanyahu's "racist and extremist ideology".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)