The L.A. Times features a 5-part debate on Hollywood's politics influence on society by David Ehrenstein, a Hollywood journalist, blogger, and author of "Open Secret: Gay Hollywood--1928-2000," and
Andrew Breitbart, co-author of "Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon -- The Case Against Celebrity;" a longtime editor at the Drudge Report, (he speaks neither on behalf of Drudge or his report), and co-creator of the Huffington Post. He also publishes the news aggregation site Breitbart.com, and the best-of news video and audio site Breitbart.tv.
Antiwar Season
This fall the movie industry is featuring a rash of high-profile antiwar films, from Brian DePalma, Paul Haggis, Robert Redford and others. What does that tell us about modern Hollywood politics?
Hollywood reporting for duty?
What duty, if any, does Hollywood have to the country? What role should it play in the national discourse?
What are Hollywood values?"
If it's all about free love and hating America, how come there aren't many openly gay stars or pro-jihadi movies? If it's all about the almighty dollar, how come Hollyweirdos disproportionately back the party that wants to tax them more? What, if anything, is the message Hollywood lefties are trying to get across?
Hollywood conservatives: in the closet?
Today, Andrew Breitbart and David Ehrenstein ponder the plight of Tinseltown conservatives. Yesterday, they attempted to define Hollywood values. Wednesday, they discussed the role filmmakers should and do play in the domestic political debate, and Monday, they examined the fall season of antiwar flicks. Tomorrow, they'll wrap up by figuring out whether Hollywood even matters anymore.
Tinseltown's last hurrah
Does Hollywood even matter, politically? Isn't technology (among many other things) eroding the System's sway and cultural relevance? Andrew Breitbart and David Ehrenstein conclude their debate on celebrity politics. Tday, Breitbart and Ehrenstein wonder whether Hollywood is relevant in American politics. Previously they debated whether Tinseltown conservatives are in the closet, attempted to define Hollywood values, discussed the role filmmakers should play in the domestic political debate and examined the fall season of antiwar flicks.
20070930
Islamic Ideologies, Not U.S. or Israeli Policies, Motivate Jihad
Raymond Ibrahim is editor and translator of "The Al Qaeda Reader." In his article, "The Two Faces of Al Qaeda," published in the Chronicle of Higher Education Review, he debunks the West's unwillingness to confront the truth of Islam as interpretable as condoning violence against the non-believers to get Islam to dominate the world.
"It soon became clear why these particular documents (which I discovered and translated into English in The Al Qaeda Reader) had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."
Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot. Soon after 9/11, an influential group of Saudis wrote an open letter to the United States saying, "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity." Bin Laden wrote in response:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.
Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad."
In an article titled "I was a fanatic ... I know their thinking" published by the Daily Mail soon after the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, helps explain the Islamist dichotomy between the propaganda of reciprocity and the theology of eternal hostility toward the infidel: "When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network ... I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and 7/7 was Western foreign policy."
One is reminded of the captured video showing bin Laden laughing and gesticulating soon after the 9/11 strikes, boasting that many of the hijackers weren't even aware that they were on a suicide mission. Butt continues:
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. ... As with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today program, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
Whatever position one takes as to why Al Qaeda has declared war on America, one thing is clear: We must begin to come to terms with all of Al Qaeda's rhetoric, not just what is aimed specifically at Western readers. We must particularly come to better appreciate the theological aspects that underpin radical Islam. As Butt puts it:
My reply is simply this: Whatever one's position in regard to the "war on terror," understanding the ideas of our enemy is both a practical necessity in wartime and a fundamental liberal value. It is my hope that both sides in this bitter debate will profit from a deeper acquaintance with these works. In any case, it simply will not do to dismiss Al Qaeda as an irrational movement without ideas.
Raymond Ibrahim is editor and translator of The Al Qaeda Reader, recently published by Broadway Books. All translations in this article are from the book. Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch believes that everyone involved with fighting-terror should read this book for greater understanding.
"It soon became clear why these particular documents (which I discovered and translated into English in The Al Qaeda Reader) had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."
Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot. Soon after 9/11, an influential group of Saudis wrote an open letter to the United States saying, "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity." Bin Laden wrote in response:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.
Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad."
In an article titled "I was a fanatic ... I know their thinking" published by the Daily Mail soon after the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, helps explain the Islamist dichotomy between the propaganda of reciprocity and the theology of eternal hostility toward the infidel: "When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network ... I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and 7/7 was Western foreign policy."
One is reminded of the captured video showing bin Laden laughing and gesticulating soon after the 9/11 strikes, boasting that many of the hijackers weren't even aware that they were on a suicide mission. Butt continues:
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. ... As with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today program, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
Whatever position one takes as to why Al Qaeda has declared war on America, one thing is clear: We must begin to come to terms with all of Al Qaeda's rhetoric, not just what is aimed specifically at Western readers. We must particularly come to better appreciate the theological aspects that underpin radical Islam. As Butt puts it:
The main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever — and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.When news of The Al Qaeda Reader leaked to the press in 2005, some on the left questioned whether the book would be a pseudoscholarly attempt to demonize Muslims. Others on the right worried that unfiltered exposure to the radical beliefs and propaganda of bin Laden and his cohorts might unintentionally lead to more converts or sympathizers.
My reply is simply this: Whatever one's position in regard to the "war on terror," understanding the ideas of our enemy is both a practical necessity in wartime and a fundamental liberal value. It is my hope that both sides in this bitter debate will profit from a deeper acquaintance with these works. In any case, it simply will not do to dismiss Al Qaeda as an irrational movement without ideas.
Raymond Ibrahim is editor and translator of The Al Qaeda Reader, recently published by Broadway Books. All translations in this article are from the book. Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch believes that everyone involved with fighting-terror should read this book for greater understanding.
20070926
To Defeat the Juggernaut of Imperialist Islamofascism, Should Washington Embrace Petro-Islamists Dismantling the Land of the God of Israel?
Would weakening American support for Israel end the global Jihad?In the Jerusalem Post, CEO of private intelligence supplier, Stratfor, Dr. George Friedman, takes on the myths by Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt about ending Jihad by weakening America's support for Israel.
"Do Israeli interests diverge from US interests to the extent that the Israel lobby is taking US foreign policy in directions it wouldn't go otherwise, in directions that counter the US national interest? ...
It wasn't the (British vs German) lobbying interest (for the U.S. involvement on their side in WWII), massive though it was, but geopolitical necessity that drove US intervention.
Has the Israel lobby caused the United States to act in ways that contravene US interests? For example, by getting the United States to support Israel, did it turn the Arab world against the Americans? Did it support Israeli repression of Palestinians, and thereby generate an Islamist radicalism that led to 9/11? Did it manipulate US policy on Iraq so that the United States invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel? These allegations have all been made. If true, they are very serious charges. ...
Now we get to the heart of the matter. If the United States broke ties with Israel, would the US geopolitical position be improved? In other words, if it broke with Israel, would Iran or al Qaida come to view the United States in a different way? Critics of the Israel lobby argue that, except for US support for Israel, the United States would have better relations in the Muslim world, and would not be targeted by al Qaida or threatened by Iran. In other words, except for the Israel lobby's influence, the United States would be much more secure.
Al Qaida does not see Israel by itself as its central problem. Its goal is the resurrection of the caliphate -- and it sees US support for Muslim regimes as the central problem. If the United States abandoned Israel, al Qaida would still confront US support for countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. For al Qaida, Israel is an important issue, but for the United States to soothe al Qaeda, it would have to abandon not only Israel, but its non-Islamist allies in the Middle East.
Map of Islamist supremacist conflicts throughout the world (click to enlarge):
It has been said that the Israelis inspired the US invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel was pleased when, after 9/11, the United States saw itself as an anti-Islamist power. Let us remind our more creative readers, however, that benefiting from something does not mean you caused it. ...
Portraying the Israel lobby as super-powerful behooves two groups: Critics of US Middle Eastern policy and the Israel lobby itself. Critics get to say the US relationship with Israel is the result of manipulation and corruption. Thus, they get to avoid discussing the actual history of Israel, the United States and the Middle East. The lobby benefits from having robust power because one of its jobs is to raise funds -- and the image of a "killer" lobby opens a lot more pocketbooks than does the idea that both Israel and the United States are simply pursuing their geopolitical interests and that things would go on pretty much the same even without slick lobbying.
The great irony is that the critics of US policy and the Israel lobby both want to believe in the same myth -- that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians.
The British didn't get the United States into the world wars, and the Israelis aren't maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel.
Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, the Israel lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway. What happens next in Iraq is not up to the Israel lobby -- though it and the Saudi Embassy have a different story.
Missionary Agenda Debate Re-ignited as 6,000 Christians Pilgrimage to Israel
Parliamentarian Rabbi Benny Elon, (National Union-National Religious Party) who heads the Israel Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus (that works with Christian supporters of Israel) responds to the Cheif Rabbinate's discouraging of Jewish Israelis to participate in celebration of over 6,000 Christian pilgrims:"The International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem hosts the largest annual tourist event in Israel, the Feast of Tabernacles on the holiday of Sukkot. They have demonstrated almost three decades of faithful friendship to Israel without strings attached. They even require all Christians to sign a contract denouncing missionary activity before allowing them to participate as vendors at their events. We at the Knesset Christian Allies
Caucus as well, do not hide our refusal to cooperate with Christians active in missionary work amongst Jews. I am of course, aware of all the difficult baggage we carry from our shared past as Christians and Jews, from both our distant and more recent history. But we must recognize that our greatest threat is no longer coming from the Christian world but rather from radical Islam. Amalek has taken the form of incitement in mosques in Iran and Iraq. They have become the angry Muslim youth rioting in the streets of Damascus and Beirut screaming “death to the Jews”. Amalek is Ahmadinejad, who threatens to wipe Israel off the map. No one gave me permission to forgive the Christians for past aggressions on behalf of the people of Israel but we must recognize that they are our only allies in the struggle against radical Islam."
ICEJ Exec Director, Rev. Malcolm Hedding claims that their group is dedicated to helping, not converting Jews. From his Op/Ed published in YNet News, "Invited by the Bible - Christian pilgrims true friends of Israel, have no missionary aims":
"...We have defended Israel's cause abroad through our network of national branches and representatives in some 80 countries worldwide.
In times past, the great Sages of Israel read the Hebrew prophets and declared that when the Lord would begin to restore Zion, Gentiles would be involved as well. As the prophet Isaiah foretold:
“The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you... That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles, and their kings in procession... Also the sons of those who afflicted you shall come bowing to you, and all those who despised you shall fall prostrate at the soles of your feet; and they shall call you The City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel." Isaiah 60:10-14
We see ourselves as those friendly Gentiles promised in Scripture."
"...We have defended Israel's cause abroad through our network of national branches and representatives in some 80 countries worldwide.
In times past, the great Sages of Israel read the Hebrew prophets and declared that when the Lord would begin to restore Zion, Gentiles would be involved as well. As the prophet Isaiah foretold:
“The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you... That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles, and their kings in procession... Also the sons of those who afflicted you shall come bowing to you, and all those who despised you shall fall prostrate at the soles of your feet; and they shall call you The City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel." Isaiah 60:10-14
We see ourselves as those friendly Gentiles promised in Scripture."
But others view them differently. Israeli MK Ya'akov Margi (Shas Party; 
pictured) alleges in YNet "The missionary danger" 'Current-day missionaries use friendly tactics, but are just as dangerous as before' :
pictured) alleges in YNet "The missionary danger" 'Current-day missionaries use friendly tactics, but are just as dangerous as before' :"Based on accumulated data, we can clearly point to heightened missionary activity among communities of new immigrants (i.e., Russians), as well as submission to this activity. Many of the new immigrants arrive with a Jewish background that is not deep, do not understand Hebrew, miss home, and seek humane treatment. This, in addition to the difficult economic state faced by many of them, prepares the ground for missionary activity.
The Israeli government must boost enforcement and promote the bill I initiated, which would ban conversion efforts and set a jail term of one year for those who violate the law."
The Israeli government must boost enforcement and promote the bill I initiated, which would ban conversion efforts and set a jail term of one year for those who violate the law."
20070924
Iran's Psychological Warfare Exploiting Naive Media, Public
Iran President Ahmadinejad's appearance in New York is a textbook example of psychological warfare manipulation, in the class of Nazism's Goebbels or Communism's Stalin.In his Columbia University speech, Iran's president demonstrated textbook use of disinformation and confusion to advance his objective for global domination of political Islamism.
Iran's objective was to manipulate the mainstream media into giving him a forum to mollify public support against U.S. or Israeli military action against his threatening nuclear program. Also to advocate the idea that America (indeed, the U.N. global community) would have nothing to fear from Islamist (nuclear) terror if it would only weaken support for human-rights' oasis in that tyrannical region - Israel.
He mis-represented himself with a pious and democratic demeanor to intentionally obscure the American public's perception of his regime's true totalitarian (submission to the Islamic laws which his regime brutally enforces) and their apocalyptic nature (noted in his introductory, Mahdaviat preface and pre-war warning letters to America to convert to Islam).
He diverted questions intended to clarify Iran's fostering instability in the world by fomenting terror, and his goals to dominate the oil-producing Middle East by nuclear-militarizing (and spreading them against his Western enemies, e.g., through Syria) as his moral right in defense of 'avenging' the (predecessor of the) United Nations' legitimate re-establishing the sovereign refuge of Israel in the Jews' ancestral biblical homeland as dispossessing 'Palestinians.'
20070918
"The Israel Lobby" - Not Anti-Semitic?
Authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt spoke at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles on 18 September in promotion of their book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," in which they allege that American-Jewish interests influence American foreign policy detrimentally.
What I perceived there was an anti-Israel audience embracing academic legitimizing of their enmity and resentment. But what underlies the particular enmity towards the 'Israel lobby' rather than, say, the Oil lobby, in attempting to guide Washington into policies detrimental to American interests?
What I perceived there was an anti-Israel audience embracing academic legitimizing of their enmity and resentment. But what underlies the particular enmity towards the 'Israel lobby' rather than, say, the Oil lobby, in attempting to guide Washington into policies detrimental to American interests?
The Forward reports that in an indication of the strong interest the book is attracting in Europe, it is being translated into German, Dutch, Danish, French, Italian, Spanish and even Catalan. It is being translated into Arabic and will be published across the Arab world and in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world.
In the essay DEFINING ANTI-SEMITISM author Prof. Jeffery Herf explains the anti-semitic foundations of "The Israel Lobby."
"Jeffrey Goldberg's review of Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby is superb. Hopefully it will receive wide attention. I would add this historical note regarding the nature of anti-Semitism.
Goldberg writes: "But since many people in the West are queasy about attaching the label of anti-Semitism to almost anybody, regarding the charge of anti-Semitism as itself proof of prejudice, let me begin by describing bin Laden's view of history less inflammatorily--not as anti-Semitic, but as Judeocentric. He believes that Jews exercise disproportionate control over world affairs, and that world affairs may therefore be explained by reference to the Jews. A Judeocentric view of history is one that regards the Jews as the center of the story, and therefore the key to it. Judeocentrism is a single- cause theory of history, and as such it is, almost by definition, a conspiracy theory. Moreover, Judeocentrism comes in positive forms and negative forms. The positive form of Judeocentrism is philo-Semitism, the negative form is anti-Semitism."
In my book, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust I argued that the distinctive and defining feature of Nazism's radical anti-Semitism was precisely the idea that Jews were at the center of mid-20th century history, that they had started World War II, made possible the alliance between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, and conducted the war as one of extermination aimed at the German people. That is, what Goldberg calls a negative form of "Judeocentrism" was the core of the radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the mass murder of the Jews of Europe. Radical anti-Semitism was a conspiracy theory that first and foremost defined the Jews as a political actor. To be sure, racial biology played a role in the Nazi worldview, but the most dangerous aspect of Nazi anti-Semitism concerned what the Jews were alleged to have done, not what they looked like.
Goldberg is quite right that many people in the West are reluctant to attach the label of anti-Semitism to arguments. Yet this may also be due to a deficiency of historical knowledge about what radical anti-Semitism amounted to in the 20th century. The attribution to Jews of enormous power used for evil purposes, what Goldberg plausibly calls Judeocentrism stood--and stands--at the center of anti-Semitic arguments.
Goldberg is right to draw attention to the depressing decision of Farrar, Strauss and Giroux to publish the Walt/Mearsheimer book. Perhaps Goldberg's ironic suggestion that publishing the work will undermine such arguments is the case. But the book is there with the imprimatur of a prestigious press. The publication of this book should contribute to a diminution of that prestige. Perhaps the editors at one of our previously finest publishers are simply ignorant of the history and nature of anti-Semitism. Whatever the case may be, Goldberg's review deserves a wide reading and discussion. --Jeffrey Herf
How Israel Destroyed Nuclear Threat by the Axis of Evil
Video demonstration of how Israel discovered Syria's North Korean- supported, nuclear weapons facility; how Israel built the evidence to convince a reluctant Washington of the need to intervene; and how, upon the arrival of North Korean materiel and manpower to implement it, Israel executed a daring raid inside Syria to destroy the threat.
20070912
British Radical Hizb ut-Tahrir Whistleblower Video
Hizb ut-Tahrir self-exposed by whistleblowing former leader. Watch rare BBC "NewsNight" segment (22 min)exposing the revolutionary, murderous agenda of this Anglo-tolerated movement.
http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/ec94d3bd151de461?segment_begin=97.172&segment_end=103.331
http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/ec94d3bd151de461?segment_begin=97.172&segment_end=103.331
20070911
Israel Agrees to Destroy Jewish Towns, Starting in November
(Peace in our time? It looks to become a complicated New Year with the need for our voice. Please support Democracy Broadcasting's ability to continue generating enlightenment to the media and to viewers all over the world. May you be blessed for your generous donation through DemoCast.Org).
Israel National News' Hillel Fendel reports:
"The Palestinian Authority's Maan news agency has published a copy, in Hebrew, of PM Olmert's agreement to expel tens of thousands of Jews and replace them with a Palestinian state.
The report states that Israel has agreed to begin destroying Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria immediately following the US-sponsored international summit this coming November.
The PA claims that the document's eight points represent the principles of agreement between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, in anticipation of the upcoming Middle East summit.
The document begins by stating that Israel and the PA are to immediately enter a process "that will lead to the formation of two states, Israel and Palestine, side by side," and are "to reach understandings of the type detailed below." The eight points upon which Olmert and Abbas undertake to agree are the following:
1. Israel will end the occupation of the West Bank within an agreed-upon time period. The retreat and the evacuation of the settlements will occur gradually and in several stages. Each area that is evacuated will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, which will instill law and order there. The existence of a regime in Gaza that is willing to be part of the peace process will enable Israel to view Gaza and the West Bank as one political entity.
2. An unarmed Palestinian state will be established, whose permanent borders will be based on the pre-1967 borders. The precise border will reflect security, demographic and humanitarian needs. An exchange of territory will be enabled on a 1:1 basis, to preserve settlement blocs in Israeli hands and to guarantee Palestinian contiguity and economic development.
3. There will be two capitals in Jerusalem, that of Israel and that of Palestine, and they will be sovereign over the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, respectively. The two municipalities will cooperate for the enhancement of the quality of life of all the residents.
4. Special arrangements will be emplaced to preserve free access to all the holy sites of the various religions. A special administration will be established to maintain the two nations' bonds with the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem.
5. Palestine will be recognized as the national home of the Palestinian nation, and Israel will be recognized as the national home of the Jewish nation.
6. A fair and agreed solution will be found for the problem of the Palestinian refugees, with consideration and recognition of the suffering that was caused to them, and with the understanding that the implementation of national self-definition will be the main aspect of the solution.
7. The two sides will declare their willingness to end the conflict and to act to increase public support for the agreement as much as possible. The two sides will act with all their force, together and separately, against any manifestation of violence and terrorism that is directed from the area of either state to the other.
8. The two sides see this agreement as a significant manifestation of the principles of the Arab League's peace initiative, and call upon the members of the League to take operative steps to bring about its full implementation. Similarly, the sides call upon the entities represented in the Quartet and international community to guarantee and help, in various ways, to promote and actualize this agreement.
The agreement ends with this paragraph:
A document based on principles of the above type must be reached before the international summit in November, must be presented during the summit, and must be anchored in international decisions after it. Immediately following the summit, parallel with the negotiations for a detailed agreement, Israel will begin withdrawing its forces and evacuating settlements from areas in the West Bank. Completion of the various stages of evacuation will be done parallel to the completion of the negotiations.
Clauses 3 and 4 indicate that Israel has agreed to give up the Temple Mount, Judaism's most sacred spot in the world, and allow an "administration" to determine when Jews would be allowed to visit or pray there.
Clauses 1 and 2 do not take into account the tremendous amount of Arab-held weaponry already present in Judea and Samaria, nor the anti-Israel violence emanating from Gaza that increased dramatically upon Israel's withdrawal in 2005.
Clause 6 leaves open the possibility that "Right of Return" refugees would be allowed to live in Israel.
The immediate response of the Yesha Council (the body representing the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria) was this: "Only a government that acts so totally wantonly would be able to suggest such an agreement, precisely on the day that dozens of its soldiers are wounded from a rocket fired from area we gave over to the Palestinians. The Yesha Council calls upon all those to whom Israel's security and welfare are of top priority to object to this calamitous process of Olmert. The Knesset Members must thwart this program, which means the division of Jerusalem, as well as Kassam rocket launchers to the outskirts of Kfar Saba and Ben Gurion International Airport."
Israel National News' Hillel Fendel reports:
"The Palestinian Authority's Maan news agency has published a copy, in Hebrew, of PM Olmert's agreement to expel tens of thousands of Jews and replace them with a Palestinian state.
The report states that Israel has agreed to begin destroying Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria immediately following the US-sponsored international summit this coming November.
The PA claims that the document's eight points represent the principles of agreement between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, in anticipation of the upcoming Middle East summit.
The document begins by stating that Israel and the PA are to immediately enter a process "that will lead to the formation of two states, Israel and Palestine, side by side," and are "to reach understandings of the type detailed below." The eight points upon which Olmert and Abbas undertake to agree are the following:
1. Israel will end the occupation of the West Bank within an agreed-upon time period. The retreat and the evacuation of the settlements will occur gradually and in several stages. Each area that is evacuated will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, which will instill law and order there. The existence of a regime in Gaza that is willing to be part of the peace process will enable Israel to view Gaza and the West Bank as one political entity.
2. An unarmed Palestinian state will be established, whose permanent borders will be based on the pre-1967 borders. The precise border will reflect security, demographic and humanitarian needs. An exchange of territory will be enabled on a 1:1 basis, to preserve settlement blocs in Israeli hands and to guarantee Palestinian contiguity and economic development.
3. There will be two capitals in Jerusalem, that of Israel and that of Palestine, and they will be sovereign over the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, respectively. The two municipalities will cooperate for the enhancement of the quality of life of all the residents.
4. Special arrangements will be emplaced to preserve free access to all the holy sites of the various religions. A special administration will be established to maintain the two nations' bonds with the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem.
5. Palestine will be recognized as the national home of the Palestinian nation, and Israel will be recognized as the national home of the Jewish nation.
6. A fair and agreed solution will be found for the problem of the Palestinian refugees, with consideration and recognition of the suffering that was caused to them, and with the understanding that the implementation of national self-definition will be the main aspect of the solution.
7. The two sides will declare their willingness to end the conflict and to act to increase public support for the agreement as much as possible. The two sides will act with all their force, together and separately, against any manifestation of violence and terrorism that is directed from the area of either state to the other.
8. The two sides see this agreement as a significant manifestation of the principles of the Arab League's peace initiative, and call upon the members of the League to take operative steps to bring about its full implementation. Similarly, the sides call upon the entities represented in the Quartet and international community to guarantee and help, in various ways, to promote and actualize this agreement.
The agreement ends with this paragraph:
A document based on principles of the above type must be reached before the international summit in November, must be presented during the summit, and must be anchored in international decisions after it. Immediately following the summit, parallel with the negotiations for a detailed agreement, Israel will begin withdrawing its forces and evacuating settlements from areas in the West Bank. Completion of the various stages of evacuation will be done parallel to the completion of the negotiations.
Clauses 3 and 4 indicate that Israel has agreed to give up the Temple Mount, Judaism's most sacred spot in the world, and allow an "administration" to determine when Jews would be allowed to visit or pray there.
Clauses 1 and 2 do not take into account the tremendous amount of Arab-held weaponry already present in Judea and Samaria, nor the anti-Israel violence emanating from Gaza that increased dramatically upon Israel's withdrawal in 2005.
Clause 6 leaves open the possibility that "Right of Return" refugees would be allowed to live in Israel.
The immediate response of the Yesha Council (the body representing the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria) was this: "Only a government that acts so totally wantonly would be able to suggest such an agreement, precisely on the day that dozens of its soldiers are wounded from a rocket fired from area we gave over to the Palestinians. The Yesha Council calls upon all those to whom Israel's security and welfare are of top priority to object to this calamitous process of Olmert. The Knesset Members must thwart this program, which means the division of Jerusalem, as well as Kassam rocket launchers to the outskirts of Kfar Saba and Ben Gurion International Airport."
Story of the Week: Fascistic Cops Brutalize Opponents of Jihad at Brussels 9/11 Rally
Dhimmi Watch posts: Diana West scores the brutal breakup of the 9/11 demonstration in Brussels. Many have worried that Europe will have to turn to fascism again to resist Islamization; but now it looks as if Europe is turning to fascism again to enforce Islamization.
"Brussels and 9/11," by Diana West in the Washington Times:
The story of the week wasn't Gen. David Petraeus' testimony on Iraq, although it dominated the headlines. The story of the week wasn't the sixth return of September 11 since the jihad atrocity of 2001, although it inspired many public statements and ceremonies. The week's biggest story garnered little press and few comments. But, in a significant way, this overlooked story — an outrageous display of police force in Brussels on September 11, 2007 — symbolizes the missing link in our flawed comprehension of both Iraq and September 11.
There, in the so-called capital of Europe, 200 people marked the day with a protest against the Islamization of Europe — a civilizational shift which, as Europe increasingly accommodates Shariah (Islamic law), is shockingly advanced. Indeed, Bernard Lewis has already predicted Europe will become Islamic by century's end. Absent a reversal of Islamization (which remains possible) I'm guessing sooner than that.
(Courtesy Alex 9824 via YouTube / EuroJihad.Org/.
The assembly, sponsored by Stop the Islamization of Europe, was wholly peaceful — at least until Belgian police showed up. With a chopper above, water cannon nearby, they didn't break heads, exactly — nothing so kind as that. In a photo that should be titled The New Face of Fascism (brusselsjournal.com http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2441), we see black-clad Belgian policemen brutalizing a man in a light-colored suit and tie. His hands are cuffed behind his back, his right elbow is clasped in what is known as an arm-bar hold, and he is also being subjected to a genital hold — a vicious grip that, a retired cop friend of mine tells me, would get any American policeman thrown off the force.
9/11 Israel Hosts Global Counter-Terror Conference at The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya
Watch videos of top, annual, counter-terror conference featuring many global experts on global jihad, including American speakers, such as Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson.
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day1.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day2.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day3.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day4.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day1.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day2.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day3.html
http://www.pictureit.co.il/live/day4.html
20070910
Uncanny fates await mercenary opponents of Israel
This sixth 9/11 anniversary a day prior to the 'week of judgment and atonement' on the Hebrew calendar, reminds us of the ramifications of prominent western leaders selling-out their integrity to the Arab enemies of Israel.
The Mohammed al-Dura fauxtography case is being exposed as a conspiracy by France2 TV against truth (and Israel).
Arab-donation recipients, Former Pres. Jimmy Carter and Professors Mearsheimer & Walt have both come out with distorting, defamatory best-selling books against Israel and its Jewish supporters.
Washington Post journalist, Glenn Kessler's book reveals U.S. Secy of State Condoleeza Rice's having intimidated Israel's Ariel Sharon Administration to unilaterally surrender Jewish presence in Gaza - in an attempt to 'promote peace' by appeasing the Arab world. Lessons to be considered in planning November's 'Peace Conference.'
This pop song, "There's a Judgment and There's a Judge" by Ariel Zilber points-out the uncanny fates which have befallen Israel's leaders who surrendered Jewish Gaza to Israel's enemies as an example of the metaphysical ramifications of acting against the G-d of Israel's essence in this world.
"There's a judgment and there's a judge, and the account will come;
The one who banished without mercy, in Gaza and in Samaria.
They were there in order to provide security to us all
And now, they are wandering around, wounded, without a place to dwell.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, they will carry the responsibility.
One is a judge, and a general, one is a simple soldier.
There's a payment for the flattery, for the stupidity, for the arrogance.
There's a judgment and there's a judge and there's no mistake in here.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, my brother, but there's no despair.
In Amona all the youngsters of the bloc were gathered
They didn't think at all about escaping from the very one derogatory soldier
And I internalized that there's a chance that the youth is decisive.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, ask anyone in the street
Where's the father, where's the son, think about it, think
And sages have already told and it was also written in the books
The pitied one will only be the one who left the sin.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, listen soldier, policeman
And all the ones who gives the land of the nation to the enemy
All of the land of Israel isn't mine nor yours
The one who buy land and sky is beautify himself in it (not clear).
There's a judgment and there's a judge and there's the one who warned
The same prophet who shines for us for years already
And declared that he will fight, will collect the price by himself
From the one who will talk with them (enemies) even about one grain (of the country).
There's a judgment and there's a judge and there are terrific examples
Arik, Omri, Tzachi, Basi, Katzav and Chaluts
There are more in the list, to those who will come next they still have a choice
If they will stop from making fun of the land of Israel.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, 2 years for the banish
The son has been convicted, and also the father already isn't worth a penny
There's one who doesn't forget and he doesn't forgive on that
The one who destroyed such a flourishing region won't escape."
(Conversely, donations to support DemoCast.Org's mission will merit multiplied blessings)!
The Mohammed al-Dura fauxtography case is being exposed as a conspiracy by France2 TV against truth (and Israel).
Arab-donation recipients, Former Pres. Jimmy Carter and Professors Mearsheimer & Walt have both come out with distorting, defamatory best-selling books against Israel and its Jewish supporters.
Washington Post journalist, Glenn Kessler's book reveals U.S. Secy of State Condoleeza Rice's having intimidated Israel's Ariel Sharon Administration to unilaterally surrender Jewish presence in Gaza - in an attempt to 'promote peace' by appeasing the Arab world. Lessons to be considered in planning November's 'Peace Conference.'
This pop song, "There's a Judgment and There's a Judge" by Ariel Zilber points-out the uncanny fates which have befallen Israel's leaders who surrendered Jewish Gaza to Israel's enemies as an example of the metaphysical ramifications of acting against the G-d of Israel's essence in this world.
"There's a judgment and there's a judge, and the account will come;
The one who banished without mercy, in Gaza and in Samaria.
They were there in order to provide security to us all
And now, they are wandering around, wounded, without a place to dwell.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, they will carry the responsibility.
One is a judge, and a general, one is a simple soldier.
There's a payment for the flattery, for the stupidity, for the arrogance.
There's a judgment and there's a judge and there's no mistake in here.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, my brother, but there's no despair.
In Amona all the youngsters of the bloc were gathered
They didn't think at all about escaping from the very one derogatory soldier
And I internalized that there's a chance that the youth is decisive.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, ask anyone in the street
Where's the father, where's the son, think about it, think
And sages have already told and it was also written in the books
The pitied one will only be the one who left the sin.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, listen soldier, policeman
And all the ones who gives the land of the nation to the enemy
All of the land of Israel isn't mine nor yours
The one who buy land and sky is beautify himself in it (not clear).
There's a judgment and there's a judge and there's the one who warned
The same prophet who shines for us for years already
And declared that he will fight, will collect the price by himself
From the one who will talk with them (enemies) even about one grain (of the country).
There's a judgment and there's a judge and there are terrific examples
Arik, Omri, Tzachi, Basi, Katzav and Chaluts
There are more in the list, to those who will come next they still have a choice
If they will stop from making fun of the land of Israel.
There's a judgment and there's a judge, 2 years for the banish
The son has been convicted, and also the father already isn't worth a penny
There's one who doesn't forget and he doesn't forgive on that
The one who destroyed such a flourishing region won't escape."
(Conversely, donations to support DemoCast.Org's mission will merit multiplied blessings)!
Overlooking Jihadism's Roots in Nazi, Jew-Hate Ideology
Matthias Küntzel, published in the 9/11 anniversary issue of the Weekly Standard, is a Hamburg-based political scientist and a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This essay includes material from his forthcoming book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press, November 2007). This article was translated from German by Colin Meade.
"Sixty years later, it so happens, the assault on the World Trade Center was coordinated from Germany. Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian who piloted the plane that struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center; Marwan al--Shehhi, from the United Arab Emirates, who steered the plane into the South Tower; Ziad Jarrah, from Lebanon, who crashed United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania; and their friends Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni, and the Moroccan student Mounir al-Motassedeq had formed an al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, where they held regular "Koran circle" meetings with sympathizers.
What ideas propelled Atta and the others to act? Witnesses provided part of the answer at the world's first 9/11-related trial, the prosecution of al-Motassedeq, which took place in Hamburg between October 2002 and February 2003. One participant in the Koran circle meetings, Shahid Nickels, said Atta's Weltanschauung was based on a "National Socialist way of thinking." Atta was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination and considered New York City the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy No. 1. Fellow students who lived in Motassedeq's dormitory testified that he shared these views and waxed enthusiastic about a forthcoming "big action." One student quoted Motassedeq as saying, "The Jews will burn and in the end we will dance on their graves."
Amazingly, neither the American media nor the international press took much notice of this testimony, largely refusing to report on Mohammed Atta's and Motassedeq's explicit Jew-hatred
Moreover, this Jew-hatred was no quirk of the Hamburg cell. Osama bin Laden himself declared in 1998, "The enmity between us and the Jews goes back far in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between us is inevitable. . . . The Hour of Resurrection shall not come before Muslims fight Jews."
Even the 9/11 Commission Report, the summation produced by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States in July 2004, falls short in this regard. Its chapter on "Bin Laden's worldview" makes no mention of his hatred of Jews. This silence is all the more surprising in that the commission quotes documents in which bin Laden unambiguously expresses his hatred of Jews. For example, in the "Letter to the American People" of November 2002, which the report repeatedly cites, bin Laden warns:
"The Jews have taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense." Osama goes on: "Your law is the law of rich and wealthy people. . . . Behind them stand the Jews who control your policies, media and economy." Yet the report's authors inexplicably fail to see the significance of these words and the ideology behind them. The report also ignores the history of Islamism. It accords the entire pre-1945 period just five lines. Yet it is precisely this period that fostered the personal contacts and ideological affinities between early Islamism and late Nazism--the linkage between Jew-hatred and jihad. "
20070905
Islamic Aggression Overtaking Liberal, Western Europe
Deutsche Welle TV (courtesy the Brussels Journal and Hot Air via Jihad Watch) reports on revelations of the radical colonizing of Europe revealed by young, Flemish journalist Hind Fraihi in her book, "Undercover in Little Morocco."
"Many police officers are afraid that the State no longer wields authority here -- at least not the sole authority. They know that Islamists view Brussels' Molenbeek area as subject only to Muslim law."
"Many police officers are afraid that the State no longer wields authority here -- at least not the sole authority. They know that Islamists view Brussels' Molenbeek area as subject only to Muslim law."
20070904
Palestinians caught red-handed destroying Second Temple remains; Removing evidence of pre-Moslem, Jewish ancestral homeland
World Net Daily's Aaron Klein reveals one of the most remarkably under-reported atrocities of this summer:To eliminate proofs of the Jewish presence which pre-date the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif), Palestinian Waqf administrators are systematically destroying archeological evidence from King Herod's Second Jewish Temple buried alongside the Western Wall.
"Islamic authorities using heavy machinery to dig on the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – have been caught red-handed destroying Temple-era antiquities and what's believed to be a section of an outer wall of the Second Jewish Temple. WND today obtained a photograph of a massive trench the Waqf, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount, have been blasting around the periphery of the holy site purportedly to replace 40-year-old electrical cables for mosques on the Mount. The Waqf has steadfastly denied they found or destroyed any Jewish antiquities during their dig.
In view in the picture, which was obtained in conjunction with Israel's Temple Institute, are concrete slabs broken by Waqf bulldozers and what appears to be a chopped up carved stone from Jewish Temple-era antiquity.
Ms. Eilat Mazar, considered one of the most prominent Temple Mount archaeologists, analyzed the photo and told WND the damaged stone displays elements of the second Temple era and might be part of a Jewish Temple wall Israeli archeologists charge the Waqf found and has been attempting to destroy. If authenticated, the wall would be one of the most important Temple Mount archaeological discoveries in recent history. "It certainly looks like Second Temple antiquity and could very well be part of a Second Temple courtyard wall," Mazer said. She said in order to certify the stone in the photo, she would need to personally inspect it.
But Israel is blocking leading archaeologists from surveying massive damage Islamic authorities are accused of causing to what may be the outer wall of the Second Jewish Temple.
Archeologists say Islamic custodians of Temple Mount are destroying what could be part of a wall from the Second Jewish Temple (Courtesy TempleInstitute.Org)
Earlier this month, after bulldozers pulverized a trench 1,300 feet long and five feet deep, the Muslim diggers came across a wall Israeli archaeologists believe may be remains of an area of the Second Jewish Temple known as the woman's courtyard.
The Antiquities Authority has not halted the dig and has not inspected the site. The Waqf has continued using bulldozers to blast away at the trench containing the wall. The Antiquities Authority did not return repeated requests for comment.
Leading Temple Mount archaeologists, including Mazar and Gavriel Barkai, petitioned the Israeli government to immediately halt the dig and allow experts to inspect the emerging wall.
But Mazar and other archaeologists say they are being blocked by the Israeli government. "The Antiquities Authority tells us to coordinate with the police. The police send us back to the Antiquities Authority," said Mazar, a senior fellow at Israel's Shalem Center and member of the Public Committee for Prevention of the Destruction of Antiquities on Temple Mount.
Mazar also is a discoverer and the lead archaeologist of a dig of Israel's City of David, believed to be the palace of the biblical King David, the second leader of a united Kingdom of Israel, who ruled from around 1005 to 965 B.C.
"It's crucial this wall is inspected. The Temple Mount ground level is only slightly above the original Temple Mount platform, meaning anything found is likely from the Temple itself," the archaeologist said.
Fed up, Mazar and other top archaeologists last week ascended the Mount to hold a news conference and inspect the site without government permission, but they were blocked from the trench by the Israeli police.
"It is unconscionable that the Israeli government is permitting the Waqf to use heavy equipment to chop away at the most important archeological site in the country without supervision," Mazar told WND.
"The Israeli government is actively blocking us from inspecting the site and what may be a monumental find and is doing nothing while the Waqf destroys artifacts at Judaism's holiest site," she said.
Rabbi Chaim Rechman, director of the international department at Israel's Temple Institute, was among those on the Mount last week with Mazar. He told WND he attempted to take pictures of the damage the bulldozers are allegedly wrecking on the wall, but his digital camera was confiscated by Israeli police at the direction of Waqf officials.
"If Israel was building a shopping mall and they found what may be an ancient Buddhist structure, the government would stop the construction and have archaeologists go over the area with a fine tooth comb. Here, the holiest site in Judaism is being damaged, a Temple wall was found, and Israel is actively blocking experts from inspecting the site while allowing the destruction to continue," Rechman said.
Rechman charged the Waqf was "trying to erase Jewish vestiges from the Temple Mount."
Update: Jews urging Christians to save Jewish Temple
Archaeologists kept out as Israel allows Muslims to pulverize antiquities at Judaism's holiest site.
They appeal to Christians to press Israeli government through all channels available.
Obsessive anti-Israelism IS racism (and why it's incumbent upon the Media which fomented it to now stem-the-tide to save their societies from it).
British Parliamentarian, Denis MacShane writes in the Washington Post, The New Anti-Semitism:
"Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.
More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation, even contempt.
Europe is reawakening its old demons, but today there is a difference. The old anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into something more dangerous. Anti-Semitism today is officially sanctioned state ideology and is being turned into a mobilizing and organizing force to recruit thousands in a new crusade -- the word is chosen deliberately -- to eradicate Jewishness from the region whence it came and to weaken and undermine all the humanist values of rule of law, tolerance and respect for core rights such as free expression that Jews have fought for over time.
Today there is still denial about the universal ideology of the new anti-Semitism. It has power and reach, and it enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its right to exist.
We are at the beginning of a long intellectual and ideological struggle. It is not about Jews or Israel. It is about everything democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, no matter one's religion or political beliefs. The new anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity. The Jew-haters must not pass.
The Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, published journalist Anshel Pfeffer's exploration into the reasoning of Mr. Robin Shepherd, a senior research-fellow at the Chatham House think-tank in London in "The Objective Anti-Semites."
"Mr. Shepherd has no significant connection to the Jewish people, and his visit to Israel last week was only his second. But he still believes his decision to spend a year researching the new European anti-Semitism is perfectly relevant for any serious observer of international affairs. When asked about his interest in the subject, he first answers on a philosophical level by quoting the polemicist Christopher Hitchens, who has said that "only a moral cretin thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews."
He then offers an academic explanation: "The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the key issues in international relations, and there are very few people in this field without a position on it." His last work was on the wave of anti-Americanism sweeping Europe, and this led him to believe that a new form of anti-Semitism was also at the root of the increasingly critical attitude toward Israel there. (...)
"A much bigger problem is the objective anti-Semitism, the hatred of the State of Israel," he says. "Since Israel is a Jewish state, and if you use false analogies between Israel and Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, you are comparing them with Jews and you are therefore engaged in anti-Semitism."
That doesn't mean that everyone who uses the comparison is an actual anti-Semite, says Shepherd. "That depends on how central [this comparison] is for you. When it becomes an obsession and this is one of the things you find increasingly in Europe - then at this point it becomes a new form of anti-Semitism."
This is Shepherd's answer to the standard response by Israel's detractors in the West, that "not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism."
"Of course one can criticize Israel, but there is a litmus test, and that is when the critics begin using constant key references to South Africa and the Nazis, using terms such as 'bantustans.' None of these people, of course, will admit to being racist, but this kind of anti-Semitisim is a much more sophisticated form of racism, and the kind of hate-filled rhetoric and imagery are on the same moral level as racism, so gross and distorted that they are defaming an entire people, since Israel is an essentially Jewish project."
To explain this distinction, he cites Zimbabwe as an example. "A lot of people will defend themselves by saying that their motivation is the cause of the Palestinians. Well, if you wanted to express your disapproval of Robert Mugabe's regime by highlighting his violation of human rights and the way he's destroying the country, then you could say your motivation is human rights, but if you expressed your objection with a cartoon of Mugabe as a gorilla jumping up and down on blood-soaked bananas, that kind of imagery of black people is pure racist. But it's the kind of imagery being used against Israel."
Mr. Pfeffer also relates Mr. Shepherd's explanations for anti-Israelism/anti-Semitism among the media and the far-left, even among Jews themselves. Referring to Noam Chomsky, Shepherd explains, "He is not a self-hating Jew, but his political standing in the left is more important for him than his Jewish identity. That's why the extreme Jewish critics of Israel almost always come from the far left - for them, politics is the most important part of their identity. It might be personally painful for them, but the ideological left is a secular religion, more than any other political group, and for them this religion comes before being Jewish,"
A must-read.
"Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.
More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation, even contempt.
Europe is reawakening its old demons, but today there is a difference. The old anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into something more dangerous. Anti-Semitism today is officially sanctioned state ideology and is being turned into a mobilizing and organizing force to recruit thousands in a new crusade -- the word is chosen deliberately -- to eradicate Jewishness from the region whence it came and to weaken and undermine all the humanist values of rule of law, tolerance and respect for core rights such as free expression that Jews have fought for over time.
Today there is still denial about the universal ideology of the new anti-Semitism. It has power and reach, and it enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its right to exist.
We are at the beginning of a long intellectual and ideological struggle. It is not about Jews or Israel. It is about everything democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, no matter one's religion or political beliefs. The new anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity. The Jew-haters must not pass.
The Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, published journalist Anshel Pfeffer's exploration into the reasoning of Mr. Robin Shepherd, a senior research-fellow at the Chatham House think-tank in London in "The Objective Anti-Semites."
"Mr. Shepherd has no significant connection to the Jewish people, and his visit to Israel last week was only his second. But he still believes his decision to spend a year researching the new European anti-Semitism is perfectly relevant for any serious observer of international affairs. When asked about his interest in the subject, he first answers on a philosophical level by quoting the polemicist Christopher Hitchens, who has said that "only a moral cretin thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews."
He then offers an academic explanation: "The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the key issues in international relations, and there are very few people in this field without a position on it." His last work was on the wave of anti-Americanism sweeping Europe, and this led him to believe that a new form of anti-Semitism was also at the root of the increasingly critical attitude toward Israel there. (...)
"A much bigger problem is the objective anti-Semitism, the hatred of the State of Israel," he says. "Since Israel is a Jewish state, and if you use false analogies between Israel and Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, you are comparing them with Jews and you are therefore engaged in anti-Semitism."
That doesn't mean that everyone who uses the comparison is an actual anti-Semite, says Shepherd. "That depends on how central [this comparison] is for you. When it becomes an obsession and this is one of the things you find increasingly in Europe - then at this point it becomes a new form of anti-Semitism."
This is Shepherd's answer to the standard response by Israel's detractors in the West, that "not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism."
"Of course one can criticize Israel, but there is a litmus test, and that is when the critics begin using constant key references to South Africa and the Nazis, using terms such as 'bantustans.' None of these people, of course, will admit to being racist, but this kind of anti-Semitisim is a much more sophisticated form of racism, and the kind of hate-filled rhetoric and imagery are on the same moral level as racism, so gross and distorted that they are defaming an entire people, since Israel is an essentially Jewish project."
To explain this distinction, he cites Zimbabwe as an example. "A lot of people will defend themselves by saying that their motivation is the cause of the Palestinians. Well, if you wanted to express your disapproval of Robert Mugabe's regime by highlighting his violation of human rights and the way he's destroying the country, then you could say your motivation is human rights, but if you expressed your objection with a cartoon of Mugabe as a gorilla jumping up and down on blood-soaked bananas, that kind of imagery of black people is pure racist. But it's the kind of imagery being used against Israel."
Mr. Pfeffer also relates Mr. Shepherd's explanations for anti-Israelism/anti-Semitism among the media and the far-left, even among Jews themselves. Referring to Noam Chomsky, Shepherd explains, "He is not a self-hating Jew, but his political standing in the left is more important for him than his Jewish identity. That's why the extreme Jewish critics of Israel almost always come from the far left - for them, politics is the most important part of their identity. It might be personally painful for them, but the ideological left is a secular religion, more than any other political group, and for them this religion comes before being Jewish,"
A must-read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)