'Palestinian' Racism - Canadian MP: Mahmoud Abbas Purveys Anti-Jewish Incitement

Canadian MP: Mahmoud Abbas Purveys Anti-Jewish Incitement Israel - ...He also met with PA officials and told them that "hate breeds hate." Saying that Hamas, with "their charter with its genocidal objective, anti-Semitic ...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127280

Technorati - 'palestinian' terrorism 'palestinians' Israel IDF 'palestinian' Apartheid Zionism Anti Israel bigotry Islamic Apartheid War on terror Terror victims 'palestinian' propaganda jihad Genocide bombing Anti Israel bias Arab racism Jews IDF Anti Israel racism Islamofacsism Conflict Israel "Palestine" "Palestinians" Israelis Civilwar Arabs MuslimsJihad Terrorism Fatah non-Muslims Christians Hamas Gaza Terrorism Islamofascism Jerusalem Muslims

Textbook Terrorism: Islamofascism

Textbook Terrorism:

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 7/24/2008

Islamofascism: A new study confirms our “ally” Saudi Arabia is still poisoning young Muslim minds with anti-Western textbooks. So? Its hate-filled graduates are enrolling at our colleges.

…despite promised reforms, the kingdom still teaches students to “hate the infidels.” The texts assert that it’s “permissible” for a Muslim to kill an “apostate,” an “adulterer,” a “homosexual,” as well as non-Muslims practicing “polytheism,” or Christianity. The violent ideology is introduced in a religion textbook in the first grade and reinforced and developed in following years of the public education system, culminating in the 12th grade…including to 19 academies founded by the Saudi ministry and chaired by local Saudi ambassadors in or near major foreign cities. Quotes from the latest textbooks Riyadh is propagating include:

• “The Jews and Christians are enemies of the believers.”

• “Only through force and victory over the enemies is there security and repose.

• ”The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.” The Saudi ministry has not removed these messages from its school texts…

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=301792048827503 …

Tags: Apes and Pigs, bigotry, hatred, Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, Muslims, non-Muslims, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, textbooks

Anti-Semitic Hate Speech in the Name of Islam

Anti-Semitic Hate Speech in the Name of Islam Sowing the seeds of hate: The Hamas satellite station Al-Aqsa recently used a Mickey Mouse clone to teach Muslim children — in Gaza and Europe — to hate Jews… May 9, 2007 … A Jihadist Mickey Mouse shows children how to hold an AK-47. …. ‘Wipe Out the Jews’

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553724,00.html

Tags: antisemitism, Hatred, islam, Islamic fascism, Islamofascism, Israel Jews, Muslims, Religion "palestinians",

THE EVIL NAZI "LEGACY" IN MODERN GERMAN MEDIA

THE EVIL NAZI "LEGACY" IN MODERN GERMAN MEDIA

(A. writes in)

January 13, 2008


German TV's ZDF's Criminals are portrayed by certain ethnic.


I have been following it for years.

It is quite routine by TV program the ZDF to have the "bad" guy as of a certain ethnic origin, last [example] show (Saturday night Jan. 12, 2008) was about Russian mafia, immigrants in Germany, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming Russian mafia is non Jewish, the ZDF had to name the "real bad powerful man behind the scene' in no other name than "Lehman".

It is not the first time that the ZDF shows about Russian immigrants' fringy part in crimes, it systematically shows how complicated the net of multiple sex & murder leads to one person who is of one certain origin - which is of course never true, the heads of the Russian mafia are by in large "white" , "Aryan" Russians.


The implications are clear to pinpoint no one but one group, thus quell the quench of its hatred [still] deep rooted in its populous.

In fact I have been following for quite sometimes, the real obnoxious "evil" guy is often portrayed not by anyone of the (roughly) 80 Million "white" blond haired blue eyed Germans who make up most of its population, but by a dark skin, dark hair person, feeding well to the "Aryan" & blond delusional supremacy upon all "other" races, creeds.

History Upside Down The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression

History Upside Down The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression

DAVID MEIR-LEVI

Overview
Reviews
Excerpt

[Dec. 18, 2007]

In the United Nations, on university campuses, and among a growing number of our most prestigious Western newspapers, the historical record has been rewritten so thoroughly that Israel is seen as the worst of the oppressive Western occupiers of the Third World. So successful has this campaign been that Palestinian spinmeisters and their apologists have effectively declared that the Israelis, a people living in the shadow of the Holocaust, are themselves “Nazis.” How could this happen? How did unacceptable anti-Semitism morph into justifiable anti-Zionism, and odious Jew-hatred turn into a politically correct Israel-hatred?

In History Upside Down historian David Meir-Levi traces the ideological DNA behind Palestinian Nationalism and its ludicrous “alternative” histories, revealing how Nazi Fascism gave the Arab world’s amorphous hatred of the Jews an intellectual structure and how Soviet communism masked its genocidal intentions with the mantle of national liberation.

Meir-Levi then explodes the cornerstone myths that this movement created – myths that rationalize and celebrate decades of unremitting terror and genocidal ambitions, in effect turning the history of the Middle East upside down and inside out, making the victim the aggressor and the aggressor the victim.

History Upside-Down is the first wave in a counterattack against this Arab war on history. It rejects the idea that the basic situation in the Middle Easthas changed since the United Nations first established the Jewish state and the Palestinian state that would have stood alongside it. Sadly, argues Meir-Levi, the issue in the Middle East is today what it has been since the Muslim invasion in the seventh century: the Arabs’ hatred of the Jews.

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/history/


Technorati - 'palestinian' terrorism 'palestinians' Israel IDF 'palestinian' Apartheid Zionism Anti Israel bigotry Islamic Apartheid War on terror Terror victims 'palestinian' propaganda jihad Genocide bombing Anti Israel bias Arab racism Jews IDF Anti Israel racism Islamofacsism Conflict Israel "Palestine" "Palestinians" Israelis Civilwar Arabs MuslimsJihad Terrorism Fatah non-Muslims Christians Hamas Gaza Terrorism Islamofascism Jerusalem Muslims

Islamization, Londonistan // Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn

Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn
Melanie Phillips

A new manifestation of the oldest hatred demonizes the Jewish state.

In August 2006, as the war in Lebanon raged, a gang of teenage girls confronted 12-year-old Jasmine Kranat and a friend on a London bus. “Are you Jewish?” they demanded. They didn’t hurt the friend, who was wearing a crucifix. But they subjected Jasmine, a Jew, to a brutal beating—stomping on her head and chest, fracturing her eye socket, and knocking her unconscious.

According to the Community Security Trust, the defense organization of Britain’s 300,000-strong Jewish community, last year saw nearly 600 anti-Semitic assaults, incidents of vandalism, cases of abuse, and threats against Jewish individuals and institutions—double the 2001 number. According to the police, Jews are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than are Muslims. Every synagogue service and Jewish communal event now requires guards on the lookout for violence from both neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. Orthodox Jews have become particular targets; some have begun wearing baseball caps instead of skullcaps and concealing their Star of David jewelry.

Anti-Semitism is rife within Britain’s Muslim community. Islamic bookshops sell copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the notorious czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; as an undercover TV documentary revealed in January, imams routinely preach anti-Jewish sermons. Opinion polls show that nearly two-fifths of Britain’s Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; that more than half believe that British Jews have “too much influence over the direction of UK foreign policy”; and that no fewer than 46 percent think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”

But anti-Semitism has also become respectable in mainstream British society. “Anti-Jewish themes and remarks are gaining acceptability in some quarters in public and private discourse in Britain and there is a danger that this trend will become more and more mainstream,” reported a Parliamentary inquiry last year. “It is this phenomenon that has contributed to an atmosphere where Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to abuse and attack than at any other time for a generation or longer.”

At the heart of this ugly development is a new variety of anti-Semitism, aimed primarily not at the Jewish religion, and not at a purported Jewish race, but at the Jewish state. Zionism is now a dirty word in Britain, and opposition to Israel has become a fig leaf for a resurgence of the oldest hatred.

Anti-Semitism has continually changed its shape over the centuries. In the Greco-Roman world, it expressed itself in cultural hostility, resentment of the Jews’ economic power, and disdain for the separate lives that Jews led as the result of their religious practices, such as dietary laws and refusal to marry outside the faith.

Adding fuel to these pagan prejudices, Christian theology accused Jews of deicide and held them responsible for all time for killing Christ, a position that effectively associated them with the devil and, crucially, laid the blame for their suffering on their own shoulders. Later, medieval Christianity attempted to usurp the Jewish heritage through “replacement theology,” which claimed that Christians inherited all the promises that God had made to the Jews, who were to be eliminated through either conversion or death. These ideas underlay medieval Europe’s regular anti-Jewish pogroms, which consisted of massacres, forced conversions, and torchings of synagogues.

Theological anti-Semitism’s themes reemerged in the next mutation: racial anti-Semitism. This ideology held that, on account of their genetic inheritance, Jews were the enemies of humanity—a demonic conspiracy whose malign influence could be countered only by removing them from the face of the earth. Nazi Germany tried to do just that, killing 6 million Jews between 1933 and 1945.

And now, in Britain and elsewhere, anti-Semitism has mutated again, its target shifting from culture to creed to race to nation. What anti-Semitism once did to Jews as people, it now does to Jews as a people. First it wanted the Jewish religion, and then the Jews themselves, to disappear; now it wants the Jewish state to disappear. For the presentation of Israel in British public discourse does not consist of mere criticism. It has become a torrent of libels, distortions, and obsessional vilification, representing Israel not as a country under exterminatory attack by the Arabs for the 60 years of its existence but as a regional bully persecuting innocent Palestinians who want only a homeland.

Language straight out of the lexicon of medieval and Nazi Jew-hatred has become commonplace in acceptable British discourse, particularly in the media. Indeed, the most striking evidence that hatred of Israel is the latest mutation of anti-Semitism is that it resurrects the libel of the world Jewish conspiracy, a defining anti-Semitic motif that went underground after the Holocaust.

Take the much-abused term “neoconservatives,” which has become code for the Jews who have supposedly suborned America in Israel’s interests. In the Guardian, Geoffrey Wheatcroft lamented the fact that Conservative Party leader David Cameron had fallen under the spell of neoconservatives’ “ardent support for the Iraq war, for the US and for Israel,” and urged Cameron to ensure that British foreign policy was no longer based on the interest of “another country”—Israel. In the Times, Simon Jenkins supported the notion that “a small group of neo-conservatives contrived to take the greatest nation on Earth to war and kill thousands of people” and that these “traitors to the American conservative tradition,” whose “first commitment was to the defence of Israel,” had achieved a “seizure of Washington (and London) after 9/11.” According to this familiar thesis, the Jews covertly exercise their extraordinary power to advance their own interests and harm the rest of mankind.

The New Statesman took a more straightforward approach in 2002, printing an investigation into the power of the “Zionist” lobby in Britain, which it dubbed the “Kosher Conspiracy” and illustrated on its cover with a gold Star of David piercing the Union Jack. The image conveyed at a glance the message that rich Jews were stabbing British interests through the national heart.

The British media accuse Israel of a host of crimes. The Guardian published a two-day special report painting Israel as an apartheid state, ignoring the fact that Israeli Arabs have full civil rights. Another Guardian article, by Patrick Seale, portrayed Israel’s incursions into Gaza as a “destructive rampage.” Dismissing or ignoring the rocket attacks, hostage-taking, and terrorism that those incursions were trying to stop, Seale concluded instead that Israel “deliberately inflicts inhumane hardships on the Palestinians in order to radicalise them and drive the moderates from the scene.” When the National Union of Journalists, joining a number of other academic and professional groups, voted last April to boycott Israeli goods—a move that it has since reversed—one of its members, freelancer Pamela Hardyment, described Israel as “a wonderful Nazi-like killing machine backed by the world’s richest Jews.” Then she referred to the “so-called Holocaust” and concluded: “Shame on all Jews, may your lives be cursed.”

The British media uncritically regurgitate Palestinian propaganda even when it is demonstrably false. In April 2002, many outlets labeled Israel’s assault on the refugee camp in Jenin a “massacre” with thousands dead; in fact, some 52 Palestinian men had died (of whom the great majority were terrorists), along with 23 Israeli soldiers. In last year’s Lebanon war, the media propagated manifestly false Hezbollah claims of Israeli massacres that later proved to have been staged.

During the same war, the Guardian published a cartoon depicting a huge fist, armed with brass knuckles shaped like Stars of David, hammering a bloody child while a wasp representing Hezbollah buzzed around ineffectually. The image suggested that Israel was a gigantic oppressor, slaughtering children in brutal overreaction to Hezbollah, a minor irritant. It was reminiscent of an earlier cartoon in the Independent that showed a monstrous Ariel Sharon biting the head off a Palestinian baby, which won first prize in the British Political Cartoon Society’s annual competition for 2003. By showing Jews killing children, both cartoons employed the imagery of the blood libel—the medieval European calumny that sparked many massacres of Jews by claiming that they murdered Gentile children and used their blood for religious rituals.

The BBC, despite its claims of fairness and honesty, is just as marked by hatred of Israel, and much more influential. It reported the Lebanon war by focusing almost entirely on the Israeli assault upon Lebanon, with scarcely a nod at the Hezbollah rocket barrage against Israel. Its reporters blame Israel even for Palestinians’ killing of other Palestinians. Last December, in a briefing for other BBC staff, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen wrote of the incipient Palestinian civil war in Gaza: “The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel’s military activities, land expropriation and settlement building—and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government.”

Some media websites publish readers’ anti-Semitic comments. On the Guardian’s Comment Is Free blog—which does try to remove some of the more offensive remarks—one reader wrote: “Because of their religious teachings whenever Jews have had power they have used it to persecute non-Jews—from the extermination of Amalek to the killing of Christian converts, to the oppression of medieval peasantry in Poland to the Palestinians today.” A message board on BBC Radio Five Live’s website published a reader’s remark that “Zionism is a racist ideology where jews [sic] are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud.” Though the site reserves the right not to post messages that are “racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable,” it refused to remove that posting, which apparently “did not contravene the house rules.”

Another force propagating the new anti-Semitism is the institution at the heart of the old theological version: the Church, which has reverted to blaming Jews for their own suffering and accusing them once again of a diabolical conspiracy against the innocent. Although Britain is in many ways a postreligious society, it still sees the churches as custodians of high-minded conscience and truth. And those churches are viscerally prejudiced against Israel.

The Church of England is especially unfriendly; one might say that it is the Guardian at prayer. In a lecture in 2001, the archbishop of Canterbury’s representative in the Middle East, Canon Andrew White, observed with concern that propaganda accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and of systematically “Judaising” Jerusalem had assumed great authority within the Church of England. The Church, he said, was undergoing not just a spell of Israel-hatred but also a revival of theological anti-Semitism.

One major influence here is radical Palestinian Christian theology, such as that of Canon Naim Ateek, which revives the imagery of Christ-killing in order to claim that the Palestinians are the rightful inheritors of God’s promise of the Land of Israel. Another is the prominent Reverend Stephen Sizer, who has said that Israel is fundamentally an apartheid state, that he hopes that it will be “brought to an end,” and that Christianity has inherited God’s promises to the Jews. Sizer agrees with another leading Anglican, Reverend Dr. John Stott, that the idea that Jews still have a special relationship with God is “biblically anathema.” And Colin Chapman’s book Whose Promised Land?—hugely influential within the Church—likewise says that God’s promises to the Jews now pertain to the Christians, adding that violence has always been implicit in Zionism and that Jewish self-determination is somehow racist.

Small wonder, then, that Christian aid societies regularly represent Israel as a malevolent occupying power, distorting Jews’ historical claims to the land and making scant reference to the sustained campaign of Arab terrorism against them. A 2005 report by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network—which underpinned a short-lived move to “divest” from companies supporting Israel—compared Israel’s security barrier with “the barbed-wire fence of the Buchenwald camp.” Jews were apparently like Nazis—and because of a measure aimed at preventing a second Jewish Holocaust. Last Christmas, several Anglican and Catholic churches replaced their traditional nativity tableaux with montages of Israel’s security barrier, carrying the unmistakable message that the Palestinians were the modern version of the suffering Christ being crucified all over again by the Jews. And earlier this year, the Catholic weekly The Tablet revealed that almost 80 percent of British Christians polled did not believe that Israel was fighting enemies that were pledged to destroy it.

Like the media and the churches, Britain’s political and academic Left is making common cause with Islamist radicalism. The Islamists oppose the Left’s most deeply held causes, such as gay rights and equality for women. Yet leftists and Islamists now march together under such slogans as “We are all Hezbollah now” during rallies protesting the Lebanon war, and even “Death to the Jews” outside a debate over whether Manchester University’s Jewish Society should be banned.

In 2005, London’s far-left mayor, Ken Livingstone, illustrated this unholy alliance by publicly embracing Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the cleric who endorses suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq. In the same year, he asked a Jewish reporter who approached him after a party, “What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?” When the reporter said that he was Jewish and that the remark offended him, Livingstone likened him to a “concentration camp guard.” After a government panel found that Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute, the mayor challenged the finding in court, where a judge ruled that his remarks were not anti-Semitic. But the Community Security Trust found that a number of perpetrators of anti-Semitic attacks mentioned those comments. And John Mann, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, was in no doubt: “If you have people like the Mayor of London crossing the line . . . then it gives a message out to the rest of the community. That is why antisemitism is on the rise again—because it’s become acceptable.”

Livingstone is not the only leftist politician “crossing the line.” In 2003, Labour backbencher Tam Dalyell claimed that Tony Blair was “being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.” Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge, whose party honored her with a peerage after she sympathized with suicide bombers and compared Arabs in Gaza with Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, told her party conference in 2006: “The pro-Israel lobby has got its grips on the Western world. I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party.”

Even a distinguished general told me, without a shred of evidence, that Rupert Murdoch had ordered the Times, which he owns, to limit its opposition to the Iraq War “on the instruction of the Jewish lobby in America.” Furthermore, claimed the general, George Bush had invaded Iraq because “he had Ariel Sharon’s hand up his back.” Moreover, a number of institutions and professional groups have tried to launch boycotts of Israel: academics, journalists, architects, doctors, public-sector unions, and again the Church of England. Many of these have not succeeded, but they have served to remind the public that Israel is a pariah.

Given these views, widespread in the media and among political and intellectual elites, it’s no surprise that many Britons believe that global Islamic terrorism is the result of Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians—or that hatred of both the Jewish state and Jews in general has become increasingly acceptable among the population. As a woman said to me conversationally at dinner one evening: “I hate the Jews because of what they do to the Palestinians.” So acceptable has the new anti-Semitism become that many left-wing Jews promulgate the idea that Israel is a racist or apartheid state, demonize those Jews who seek to defend it against slander, and claim that because they are Jews themselves, their words cannot be anti-Semitic—despite the fact that throughout history there have been Jews who have turned on their coreligionists.

One of the most conspicuous features of British anti-Semitism is that the British deny its existence. The Parliamentary inquiry received only a muted response. Both Mann and Richard Littlejohn, a journalist whose TV program on the subject aired in July 2007, encountered people who, when discovering their concern about anti-Semitism, said: “Oh, I didn’t know you were Jewish.” But Mann and Littlejohn aren’t Jewish. As Littlejohn noted, the implication was that no non-Jew would ever identify anti-Semitism, and therefore that anti-Semitism was generally a figment of the Jewish imagination. When I proposed to write a book about it, I was turned down by every mainstream publishing house. “No British publisher will touch this,” one editorial director told me. “Claiming there is anti-Semitism in Britain is simply unsayable.”

Many Britons deny the resurgence of anti-Semitism because they think of it as prejudice toward Jews as people and believe that it died with Hitler. The argument that attitudes toward Israel may be anti-Semitic strikes them as absurd. But consider the characteristics of anti-Semitism. It applies to the Jews expectations applied to no other people; it libels, vilifies, demonizes, and dehumanizes them; it scapegoats them not merely for crimes that they have not committed, but for crimes of which they are the victims; it holds them responsible for all the ills of the world. These characteristics remain precisely the same in today’s hatred of the Jewish state. Israel is held to standards expected of no other nation; it is libeled and vilified; it is blamed both for crimes that it has not committed and for those of which it is the victim; and it is held responsible for all the world’s misfortunes—most recently, Islamic terrorism.

So the Israel boycotts that have broken out in Britain are intrinsically anti-Semitic. The boycotters do not seek to cut ties with any other country, however tyrannical or murderous. They blame no other country for populations that have been displaced through war or other upheavals. And they expect no other nation that has held off its mortal enemies to defer to those aggressors and accede to their demands.

Britons also tend to suspect that Jews use the charge of anti-Semitism to divert attention from Israel’s crimes. This is why, for so many in Britain, the suggestion that anti-Semitism is enjoying a renaissance seems not only false but sinister. Outraged to be accused of peddling bigotry, they begin to hate those who level that charge—who, they conclude, are part of a conspiracy against truth.

Thus Jews who seek to defend Israel find themselves in a trap. By complaining that attacks on Israel are anti-Semitic, they become examples of the supposed Jewish tendency to play the anti-Semitism card to suppress legitimate debate—and provoke yet more of the very prejudice that they are trying to combat. Such Jews find themselves in a situation that Kafka could have scripted. The Economist hosted a 2004 debate in London proposing that “the enemies of antisemitism are the new McCarthyites” because they were trying to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel. And at that debate, a former Conservative higher-education minister and a member of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding stated that any British Jew who supported Israel’s policies was guilty of “dual loyalty.” I myself, on the BBC’s Question Time in 2001, was accused of dual loyalty for the same reason.

Insofar as Britons are forced to acknowledge a rise in anti-Semitism, they assume that Jews have brought it on themselves because of Israel’s behavior. There is certainly a link: whenever Middle East violence surges, as in the 2006 Lebanon war or at the height of the second intifada, physical attacks on British Jews surge, too. Since violence in the Middle East invariably consists of attacks on Israel to which it is forced to respond, the appalling conclusion is that the more Jews are murdered in Israel, the more Jews are attacked in Britain.

Not all Britons who oppose Israel are anti-Semites, of course. Many are decent people who hate prejudice. Indeed, that is why they hate Israel—because they have been taught that it is like apartheid-era South Africa. Profoundly ignorant of the history of the Jewish people and of the Middle East, they have been indoctrinated with one of the Big Lies of human history. And it is because of their very high-mindedness that the better educated and more socially progressive they are, the more likely they are to spew Jew-hatred.

But why has this poison seeped into the British bloodstream? Why has the country that was once the cradle of the Enlightenment values of tolerance, objectivity, and reason departed so precipitately from its own tradition?

For one thing, Britain has always had an ambivalent relationship with the Jews. Medieval England actually led the European charge against them. The blood libel is thought to have originated in twelfth-century England; and in 1290, after numerous pogroms against its Jewish citizens, it expelled them altogether. It was not until 1656 that, for a variety of economic and religious reasons, Oliver Cromwell allowed Jews to return to England. Though they subsequently flourished there, a measure of social anti-Semitism persisted until the Holocaust.

Britain’s role in the creation of modern Israel is also a factor in British antagonism toward the Jewish state. In the early 1920s, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with the administration of Palestine, holding it responsible for “placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.” For almost three decades, the British tried to evade that obligation in order to appease the Arabs. The Jews of Palestine thus found themselves fighting the British as well as the Arabs, a fact that caused lasting resentment in Britain. Public opinion recalls with undimmed bitterness the Jewish terrorism of that period, such as the 1946 destruction of the British headquarters at Jerusalem’s King David hotel. Arabism is still the default position at the Foreign Office, where sympathetic diplomats are dubbed “the camel corps.”

But a subtler reason exists for Britain’s embrace of the new anti-Semitism. After the Second World War, the radical Left set out to destroy the fundamentals of Western morality, but its campaign played out very differently in America and Britain. In America, it resulted in the culture wars, with conservatives, many churches, and sensible liberals launching a vigorous counterattack in defense of Western moral values—and, as it happened, Israel.

Exhausted by two world wars, shattered by the loss of empire, and hollowed out by the failure of the Church of England or a substantial body of intellectuals and elites to hold the line, Britain was uniquely vulnerable to the predations of the Left. The institutions that underpinned truth and morality—the traditional family and an education system that transmitted the national culture—collapsed. Britain’s monolithic intelligentsia soon embraced postmodernism, multiculturalism, victim culture, and a morally inverted hegemony of ideas in which the values of marginalized or transgressive groups replaced the values of the purportedly racist, oppressive West.

Further, people across the political spectrum became increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behavior. This erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified. That attitude is, of course, inherently antagonistic to Israel, which was founded on the determination never to allow another genocide of Jews, to defend itself when attacked, and to destroy those who would destroy it. But for the Left, powerlessness is virtue; better for Jews to die than to kill, because only as dead victims can they be moral.

And this general endorsement of surrender feeds straight into a subterranean but potent resentment simmering in Europe. For over 60 years, a major tendency in European thought has sought to distance itself from moral responsibility for the Holocaust. The only way to do so, however, was somehow to blame the Jews for their own destruction; and that monstrous reasoning was inconceivable while the dominant narrative was of Jews as victims.

Now, however, the Palestinians have handed Europe a rival narrative. The misrepresentation of Israeli self-defense as belligerence, suggesting that Jews are not victims but aggressors, implicitly provides Europeans with the means to blame the destruction of European Jewry on its own misdeeds. As one influential left-wing editor said to me: “The Holocaust meant that for decades the Jews were untouchable. It’s such a relief that Israel means we don’t have to worry about that any more.”

It is no accident that Jews find themselves at the center of Britain’s modern convulsion. Today’s British prejudices rest on a repudiation of truth and a refusal to defend Western moral values. And it was the Jews who first gave the West those moral codes that underpin its civilization and that are now under siege.

If British politicians were to start speaking the truth about Israel’s history and defending Jews publicly, they might help stem the new anti-Semitism. Likewise, British Jews—who, unlike their American counterparts, are almost totally silent for fear of making things worse—need to put their heads above the parapet and start telling the truth about Israel. But for Jews who had allowed themselves to believe that they were truly at home in Britain, the new anti-Semitism is the end of an idyll.

Melanie Phillips, a British writer, is a commentator for the Daily Mail and the author of Londonistan. She blogs at www.melaniephillips.com.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anti-semitism.html

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Alaqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel US Security Jihad

War on Terror Iraq Iran Mosque Media bias West non Muslims Londonistan Eurabia UK Islamic Hatred Islamic Threat Jews Anti Semitism Islamists

CNN's Arab Propagandist Hala Gorani

CNN's Arab Propagandist Hala Gorani introduces us to a western-type Arab singer ‘Caramel’ as if that's a 'normal Arab today'.

11/2/07

The Arab Hala Gorani http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gorani.hala.html introduces us on http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/ywt/ to a western-type Arab singer ‘Caramel’ as if that's a 'normal Arab today'.

The Arab Hala Gorani has a long history on CNN to 'glorify Middle east cultures' on her show 'Inside the Middle east' http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/middle.east/, she's a master on picking & selecting the rare and never on the mainstream. In other words, not showing reality but being a propaganda tool for the Arab world, when no one speaks [really] for the west in that wild jungle of hatred.

In this age of “multiculturalism” that is nothing but a tool by Islamists, it’s not the time to lie and be a propaganda machine instead of showing what’s most important, what most Arab Muslims have by in large, intolerant mostly that is, from their burning venomous mainstream media to the ‘guy on the Arab street’, the dark cult of the ‘angry Arab’ from their native world onto Paris or Amsterdam or Sydney, etc. is being cheered and boosted by Arab journalists and leadership.

Until the Arab Muslim leadership & media will not change, this cult will only keep growing no matter what “excuse” they try so hard to sell us.

A suggestion to Her 'Inside the middle east', Like to select postivity in that world? start showing us [exactly] how many in that world like the west [no matter what 'policy' we take].

____________

This is another [from 2006] example of that Arab Hala Gorani

This is just such powerful proof of how lame the Media-Left have become. The CNN interview of Abdurahmen Jafar of the Muslim Council of Britain conducted by Hala Gorani is just too aggravating. Especially when the rotten twit compares the 12 cartoons to anti-Semitic cartoons during the Nazi era in Germany as an indication that Europe is now 60 years on "re-learning to hate". Yeah right - he might as well have said in the middle of the night, the sun is up, let's switch off the lights with Hala obligently replying "Your right, it's practically glaring in here. Someone switch the lights of pleeease". How can she let him get away wih this blatant distortion; as CNN's hostess of ‘Inside the Middle East’, a half-hour programme featuring stories on the "most important social and cultural issues in the region", surely she must be aware of the daily plethora of precisely such Nazi style hate cartoons published unabatedly THROUGHOUT the last 60 years.
http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/02/is_there_any_di.html

Or this one

CNN'S 'INSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST' PROGRAM IS DEFINITELY ONE-SIDED

September 10, 2005.
This weekend:

1) Hala Gorani featured the Christian minority in Gaza: there was not one mention of Arafat's persecution of Christians (which led to their enormous diminishing and becoming the tiny minority as such). However the transparent fear of the Arab-Christian priest interviewed, his reluctant & extra caution of words should be clear to everyone that Hamas' totalitarian cruelty (and it's 70% popularity among "moderates" there...) is all over the place.

2) Jim Bitterman reported on the 'situation' in France, and the effect post Gift-Of-Land in Gaza to the "Palestinians". We were expecting Mr. Jim Bitterman to be mentioning the obvious ONE SIDED violence from Arab Muslims on Jews, whether physical brutality on people passers by that happened to be Jews, or burning down Synagogues etc. instead he started off by being blurry and painting it inaccurately, as he said tension between Muslims and Jews..., AS IF Jews were --in some cases-- the attackers as well... Maybe it is that wrong notion that all sides are equally to blame, as that cliche of "extremists on both sides", (Let's face it, as on the Arab Muslim side, is there any organized murderers of civilians on the Israeli or any Jewish side?) is well entrenched in journalism today, either to appear as politically correct or to make the impression as being "objective".

We are very sorry that Mr. Bitterman is either naive in this area or feels that he has to "say" it, for such is the form-formula for journalism today.

http://www.think-israel.org/sep05bloged.html#sep05.98

_______________

Do You think Hala Gorani from CNN is symphatizing with islamic terrorists since she is from Syria?
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070911105624AAX9yDh

I believe she is not appearing authentic but artificial and wrong.
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924222652AAWOE3d

CNN Uses Medal Ceremony to Take Shot at Surge... HALA GORANI: Should Americans expect a bloody summer because of this, a bloody summer for the troops in Iraq?
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13243

Technorati - Arab racism Arab supremacy Arabization Arabs slavery Freedom 911 Sudan Mauritania Chad Darfur Sudan genocide Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Anti west Anti American Terrorist oganization 'palestinian' terrorism Suicide bombing Saddam Hussein Torture chambers WTC bombing Homicide bombing London bombing Bali bombing Muslim clerics Mullahs Islamic Hitler jihad Sudan genocide Islamic slavery Arab slaver masters Genocide bombing Anti Israel bias Arab racism Anti Israel racism Islamofacsism Conflict Israel Islamic Jihad Hamas "palestinian" Animalism "palestinian" cruelty "palestinian" Savagery "Palestine" "Palestinians" Israelis Jewish refugees Victims of terror Moderates Islam Radical Islam Militants Arab occupation Arab Muslims Indoctrination Arab hatred Muslim hatred Nubians Kurds Berbers Marsh Arabs Maronites Assyrians Arabism Racism Anti Israel Racism Ahwazi Azeris Balochis "palestinian" Racism Rape Jihad Israeli Arabs Race Clashes Akhdam "Abid" "Zurka" "Arabic" Horsemen Arabism Hala Gorani CNN Non Arabs Angry Arab street Propaganda

Books advocating oppression of women, gays' execution in UK mosques linked to Saudi Arabian government

Books advocating oppression of women, gays' execution in UK mosques linked to Saudi Arabian government
DailyIndia ^ 10,30,07

Books advocating oppression of women, gays' execution found in British mosques

From our ANI Correspondent

London, Oct 30: Hate-filled books and pamphlets advocating oppression of women and execution of gays have been distributed in British mosques.

Such radical literature was found by researchers at a quarter of the 100 Islamic religious institutions they visited in the country. According to them, much of the literature is linked to agencies of the Saudi Arabian government.

The material found in the mosques urges Muslims to lead separate lives from 'non-believers' and makes repeated calls for gays to be killed. It outlines that women should be subjugated, and warned them not to pluck their eyebrows or wear perfume, the Daily Mail reported.

A report by the Policy Exchange think tank has accused the Saudis of having a 'powerful and malign' influence, adding that the material was found by Muslim research teams working in 2006 and 2007.

The contentious pamphlets were either written by the country's Wahhabite religious establishment, published by official or semi-official institutions or found in Saudi-funded or linked mosques, the report said.

The radical material was also found at the East London Mosque, which has been visited by Prince Charles, and is closely linked with the Muslim Council of Britain.

According to the Policy Exchange, hateful material was also found at the former Finsbury Park Mosque in North London - made infamous by hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza - and institutions in Wycombe, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Blackburn, Bradford, Rochdale and Oxford.

"It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques," said Anthony Browne, Policy Exchange's director.

"I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregation have found their way into the UK's mosques," he added.

The report 'The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain's mosques' was written by Denis MacEoin, an Islamic studies expert at Newcastle University.

"What is more worrying is that these are among the best-funded and most dynamic institutions in Muslim Britain - some of which are held up as mainstream bodies... Many of the institutions have been endowed with official recognition," he added.

Almost half of the literature is written in English, suggesting it is targeted at younger British Muslims who do not speak Arabic or Urdu, said the report, adding that many of the publications encourage British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims.

The material included extracts from the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

The literature found in the East London Mosque said the punishment for sodomy is to be 'killed'.

"Or, to be burnt or to be stoned. Or, to be thrown from the highest point (mountain, tower, lofty building etc), then to follow it with stoning," it added.

Other pamphlets call for those who change their religion to be killed.

Another adds: "Whoever takes part in stoning a married adulterer is rewarded for that and it is not fitting for anyone to abstain from it if a ruling of stoning is issued."

However, Dr MacEoin said the literature did not usually go as far as encouraging violence, but it created an environment in which 'those who do encourage and conduct violence can move'.

"Mosques are non-hierarchical institutions, and the degree to which their managements are responsible for the presence of the booklets and pamphlets identified in this report must be considered on a mosque-by-mosque basis," he added.

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/186989.php/Books-advocating-oppression-of-women-gays-execution-found-in-British-mosques

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Alaqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel US Security Jihad War on Terror Iraq Iran Mosque Media bias West Londonistan British Islamic schools UK Madrassas Madrassas Non Muslims

The Islamic Mein Kampf

From: http://jeremayakovka.typepad.com/jeremayakovka/2007/01/my_kampf_the_is.html

My Kampf: The Islamic Mein Kampf and A Mea Culpa

* Update (2/18) * Welcome Israpundit readers! Thanks, Ted, for the mention. Your feedback on this, or any "Second Thoughts" post, is welcome.

Arriving in this morning's email from my friend, David Horowitz, was this ten-minute audiovisual primer on the Iranian and Palestinian Holocaust threat, The Islamic Mein Kampf.



I watched it. The didactic advantage of The Islamic Mein Kampf is that it boils down into words and images the precise, deadly, and implacable intentions of radical Islam -- issuing primarily from Iran and Palestine -- vis-à-vis Israel and the United States.

Simply put: They will come for you. They will come for you. They will come for you.
.
This generation, it won't be a knock on the door or a round up at the train station. Instead it'll be a dirty nuke or a poisoned water supply or more hijacked airplanes or missiles over Tel Aviv.Learn more about The Terrorism Awareness Project..
* * *

It's been a long intellectual road over the past ten years, and doing my part to inform people about The Islamic Mein Kampf is the latest step in what hopefully will be a long road to come -- a long road in a different direction. Here are a few words that begin to tell how I got from there to here.

Through the 1990s I dragged with me the remnants of the radical fantasies I'd imbibed while suckling, as a political babe, on the sour milk of Marxism. I actually used to believe that the imposition of a "Palestine" over all the territory of what's now Israel and Judea and Samaria was not only possible but the most humane and egalitarian resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I projected my own, American creeds of fairness and republican egalitarianism onto Arabs (without ever travelling in Arab lands or undertaking to learn, seriously, its history and culture). I studied the die-hard American apologists for anti-Zionism of the 1980s and 1990s, Paul Findley and Noam Chomsky -- and of course Edward Said.

In addition I read very closely Jean Genet (left), the most celebrated French partisan of Arab "resistance" to Israel (and also a partisan of black American "resistance" to "Amerika"). In his last productive writing period he attempted to elevate the PLO to the status of ancient Greek warriors. I translated into English "Violence and Brutality," Genet's passionate but intellectually indefensible 1977 essay in which he gave his poetic blessing to terrorism. Not stopping there, I took this sentiment to its logical extreme by writing poetry modeled after Genet's -- and also East German Heiner Müller's (above, right) -- fascination with the subject, poetry that effectively endorsed the left-wing, pro-PLO terrorism of that era.

That was my "revolutionary" intellectual project: 1) enlist my native American progressive populism to building an intellectual bridge between European terrorism of the 1970s and Palestinian terrorism of the 1990s; and thus 2) making and penetrating a breach in liberal Western letters and forcing the reading public to accomodate itself to this new radical reality. I flattered myself that I would be the avant-garde in print while groups like Hamas would be the avant-garde on the ground.

How did I accommodate myself to the murder of Israeli innocents, you might ask? Simple. I would just mull an occasional phrase from Genet, Violence alone can put an end to the brutality of man.... or from Müller, When she walks through your bedrooms carrying butcher knives, you'll know the truth.... Like some little intellectual lozenge, it would reduce the irritation. For a little while.

.
* * *

So, what happened? Well, I didn't exactly "go native"; I didn't, for example, join the International Solidarity Movement or start a family with a Palestinian woman (although the opportunities presented themselves). More modestly, I became conversant in a fair amount of Arab literature and film. I subscribed to Al-Jadid magazine. I bought and read the Koran. More practically, I became acquainted with certain Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists here in America.

By coincidence (and later by cultivation) I became chummy with relatives of a former director of the Arab Film Festival, and frequently attended AFF programs. Through a mutual friend I met (and briefly worked for) the radical National Lawyers' Guild and American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee activist Nancy Hormachea. In her practice she often represents asylum seekers fleeing persecution in Iran and Pakistan, although in her political activism she's a staunch opponent of Israeli policies towards Palestinians. By coincidence I was a classmate of Fadia Issam Rafeedie, the author of "An 'Apologia of Radicalism'" who turned her 2000 UC Berkeley valedictorian speech into a most egregious breach of academic decorum when she served as the figurehead of a mass protest, speaking "from her heart" in defiance against the commencement speaker, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
.

In case you're wondering, there aren't any terribly racy tales of idealism and disillusionment to confess. I think I grew weary, then wary, then scared. I grew weary of hearing simplistic comparisons of the Israeli occupation to Nazism. Can't you do any better than that? I thought, eventually thinking, You know, you need to do better than that.... I grew wary when one of my Arab buddies "apologized" to me in the aftermath of a Hamas suicide (homicide) bombing. Do I really represent Jewry and Israel? For starters, I never, ever claimed to.... Does he represent Hamas(!)? He never claimed to, but -- beyond this being an obvious instance of a young man's conceit -- it seemed to reveal a continuity of opinion among Arabs. It seemed to reveal that possibly there was a divide (or at minimum, some vital difference) between me and them that I ought to not gloss over ... that I ought to work harder at figuring out ... that he also ought to work harder at figuring out....

Something else that added to my wariness was my attendance at a handful of sessions of a Jewish-Palestinian "dialogue group" that met in the Berkeley Hills. A derivative format of the feminist "consciousness-raising" group of the 1970s (which, as Andrea Dworkin states unapologetically in Heartbreak, was itself inspired by Communist China's Cultural Revolution) this "dialogue group" was overwhelmingly attended by Jews who endlessly professed their good intentions towards Palestinians. Typically a woman would make a somewhat strident speech about men being to blame for the escalation of violence (which, though partly true, is not the whole truth). One time a native-born Israeli woman tried to put into words her dread that Israel would no longer exist. One of the very few Palestinian attendees would affirm the need to understand how hard life under occupation was, and then make a pitch for the rest of us to purchase Palestinian olive oil. No one, however, (including me) dared ask perhaps the most pertinent question, How come so few Palestinians attended the "dialogue group"? The answer, as a Palestinian confidant told me, is that nearly all Palestinians she knew -- for the most part the secular Palestinian Left, the ostensible "partners in peace" -- nearly all of them despise such "dialogue groups." The "dialogue groups" don't accomplish anything. They're much ado about nothing. Or rather, they're very little ado about a whole hell of a lot.

What demonstrated definitively where my anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian sympathy was leading was a telephone conversation I had with Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh (right). Shortly after he founded Al-Awda, "The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition," I contacted him to suggest offering some outside support to his effort to secure for the surviving Palestinian refugees of 1948 and all their living descendants the right to patriate within the State of Israel. After confiding to Qumsiyeh my idealistic hope for a "secular, democratic Palestine" he in turn confided that indeed this one-state, not a two-state, solution was his ultimate aim. Here was a meeting of minds I had long hoped for, but it also served as a real (albeit puny) "little drummer girl" moment. There, clear as a bell, was the looking glass. However, I decided not to go through it, and shied away from any further involvement or contact with Al-Awda.

* * *

Most of what I just described happened before 9/11.

Precisely how that day added to the mix I'm not going to get into in this post. By way of beginning to build an intellectual bridge, however, from Palestinian terrorism of the 1990s to neoconservative counter-jihadism of the 21st Century, here are select readings that have made a difference.

In alphabetical order (and, for that matter, in no particular political order):

Berlinski, Claire. Menace In Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too.
Berman, Paul. Terror and Liberalism.
Hanson, Victor. An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism.
Hitchens, Christopher. Love, Poverty, and War.
Horowitz, David. Unholy Alliance.
Nafisi, Azar. Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Rashid, Ahmed. Taliban.
Scheuer, Mark. Imperial Hubris.
Steyn, Mark. America Alone.
Wright, Lawrence. The Looming Tower.

.
* * *
.
So here we are.

If you're already informed on the Iranian and Palestinian threat, then most of what's presented in The Islamic Mein Kampf will already be familiar. No sweat. Please then just take a minute and forward The Islamic Mein Kampf to all your contacts.

And if you believe that Iran, Palestine, and Islamic war against the West are not real, imminent threats, then I hope you watch The Islamic Mein Kampf. Watch it, consider it, and pursue its implications to their logical and moral ends. May it bring you into a Vast, Classically Liberal Consensus -- which, by dispensing once and for all with left-wing apologies for terrorist tactics and terrorist ideologies -- is the only way the West will ever thwart Palestinian and, as Alexandra reminds, Iranian genocidal designs.When Ronald Reagan quipped, "We begin bombing in five minutes," he was joking. Ahmedinejad, Nasrallah, Haniyeh -- they're not joking..
* * *Related: David Gartenstein-Ross's interview today in FrontPage Magazine, "My Year Inside Radical Islam."

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Alaqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel US Security Iraq Iran Jihad Mosque Jews Islamic MeinKampf Antisemitism Hitler Nazis Mufti Racism Ahmadinejad Islamic Mein Kampf Hezbullah West