Saturday, March 31, 2012

Israel Betrayed by Best Friend Evah?

Mike L.

There is an awful lot of buzz lately that the Obama administration has no intention of keeping any commitments that it has made toward Israel in regard the possibility of Iranian nukes.

For example, in Commentary, Jonathan Tobin writes:

But though Obama’s Jewish charm offensive may still be in full swing, government insiders are apparently working overtime to send Israel and the rest of the world the signal that the president’s political commitments ought not to be taken all that seriously.

That’s the upshot of a week of heavy duty leaking on the part of administration officials who are less than thrilled about the fact that the president has publicly enlisted them in an effort to stop Iran. Yesterday, there was the attempt by Washington to expose Israel’s secret alliance with Azerbaijan and thereby ensure that it would be broken off so as to render an attack on Iran more difficult. Today, the New York Times has another leaked story in which anonymous government figures state their concern the president’s public rhetoric on Iran has boxed them into a spot that neither he nor they want to be in.

Barack Obama tells the world that he "has Israel's back" and that he doesn't bluff. The more likely truth is that he is undermining Israel's ability to defend itself and that he is, in fact, bluffing. Does anyone honestly think that if push comes to shove this feckless administration will actually prevent the Iranians from attaining nuclear weaponry? I sincerely doubt it.

The president of the United States is telling Jewish people that we must give over Jewish self-defense to his offices. He is essentially telling us that we should forget about the notion of Jewish self-defense and let him take care of that. In this way he wants us to throw one of the very central reasons for the existence of Israel into the garbage... and he doesn't bluff.

...the administration has no intention of ever actually going to the mat with Iran in spite of all the tough talk that comes out of the president’s mouth when addressing pro-Israel audiences. Some of the anonymous sources for the Times story are worried about the tough talk taking on a life of its own and overwhelming their proposed diplomatic plans on Iran. But the underlying assumption of these leaks is that the real truth about the president’s plans was revealed in his “hot mic” moment with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when he spoke of having more “flexibility” after his “last election,” not his speech to AIPAC.

This president is clearly not to be trusted with Israeli security and is doing everything that he can do to undermine Israel's efforts to protect its own people.

...sooner or later, President Obama will have to choose between actually taking action on Iran and breaking his promise to ensure that Iran never goes nuclear. His staffers just hope that moment comes after November when, they presume, he can safely break his word.

A vote for Barack Obama this November is a vote against the future well-being of the Jewish people. The reason for this is because a vote for Obama is a vote to hand off Jewish self-defense to a non-Jew who has shown distinct hostility toward the Jewish state.

We don't need Barack Obama to cover our backs.

We need to cover our own.


Oh, and just in case anyone decides to intentionally misunderstand the point, I am not calling on Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. My argument is that Israel needs to see to Israeli security. If Israel can defuse Iranian nuclear intentions in alternative ways, such as the Suxnet virus, I am all in favor.

But Israel must take care of Israel.

That's the point.

Friday, March 30, 2012

"Global March to Jerusalem" Fizzles

Mike L.

A series of rallies across the Arab world that were meant to draw two million participants for a so-called “Global March to Jerusalem,” and which had Israeli authorities heavily deployed at potential border hotspots, fizzled on Friday to localized demonstrations in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

While Israel’s northern and eastern borders remained unthreatened, and the rallies in neighboring countries were largely peaceful, there was violence at the Jordan event: Local media reported that four American ultra-Orthodox rabbis from the extreme anti-Zionist Neturei Karta movement were beaten and verbally abused by local participants at the start of the event. They were rescued by other participants. Neturei Karta members also joined a rally in Lebanon

The gatherings — of thousands of Arabs and international solidarity activists marking “Land Day” — were kept in check by police forces in Jordan and by the army in Lebanon.

Even the anti-Semitic anti-Zionists on Daily Kos do not care about this.

The point of these kinds of events, such as the flotilla nonsense from over a year ago, is to provoke the Jewish state into a response and then to scream bloody murder about how mean the Israelis are and then get western "progressive" counterparts to do likewise.

This time, though, it doesn't seem to have worked.

Is it possible that "progressives" are awakening to the transparent nonsense that are efforts to delegitimize Israel? I wouldn't count on it, but I suppose that it is possible.

I certainly hope so.

Obama's Department of State is No Friend to Israel

Mike L.

Q: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the department about the travel of your boss. Is it the State Department's position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first media note was issued in error, without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that undersecretary, acting undersecretary for -- our -- Kathy Stevens will be travelling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it's a permanent-status issue. It's got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.

Q: Is it the view of the -- of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy -- the location of the U.S. embassy?

MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.

Q: Does that -- does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It's got to be resolved through negotiations.

Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?

MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue --

Q: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: -- and I have nothing further to say on it.

Q: You've spoken to the issue --


Q: -- but (haven't answered ?) the question. And I think there's a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying -- and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.

MS. NULAND: That is our --

Q: What is the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. That's all I have to say on this issue.

Q: What is the capital of Israel according --

MS. NULAND: Our embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.

Q: So does that mean you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.

Parents Celebrate Children's Death

Mike L.

Yet somehow, among "progressives," if I say, "Hey. Look. That woman is celebrating the impending death of her kid in an effort to kill my fellow Jews" this makes me a racist.

How's that for a sick game that "progressives" play against Jews?

They do not mind the Jihadis, but if I do it makes me the bad guy.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

What is the matter with Western pride?


At FrontPageMagazine is an article entitled, Western Survival Depends on Western Pride, by David J. Rusin.

Rusin implores that Westerners take care to protect and promote our core values. Not only have they improved humanity by their theory and practice, but they serve as our best weapon to defend ourselves and help the liberals and democrats living under illiberal systems.

It is absurd, yet necessary, to note that reading or citing FrontPage does NOT make one a (fill in blank). Actually, diverse sources help in the liberal search to understand the issues. Far too many ideologues from both sides adopt an echo chamber approach that requires conformity and examines sources as more determinative than the substance offered. I think that such an approach helps explain why there is so much demonization and corresponding inability both to hear what others actually say or to acknowledge one's own errors.

Rusin says:
Warraq declares that if their system is to endure, Westerners must acknowledge that “the great ideas of the West — rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy — are superior to any others devised by humankind.” Likewise, it is critical to compare Western ideals to those of the Islamists, which are antithetical to liberty and increasingly threaten it.

Many Progressives these days fail to adequately see that the very Western system they oppose, through Israel and the USA, is the one that in reality affords them the opportunities and freedoms that are limited or nonexistent elsewhere. What do they offer as a replacement to the Western model? A dream? Imagine their situations if they were in Egypt, Iran, China, if they opposed the state or system similarly.

Daniel Greenfield put the matter into perspective in the context of his article discussing the crisis of Jewish Leftists, when he said:
When Peter Beinart praises the Muslim Brotherhood as non-violent, does he imagine that when Qaradawi praises Hitler for doing Allah’s work and calls for Jewish genocide that the Brotherhood cleric means every Jew but Beinart?

I think this applies to these Progressives by analogy. When it's all said and done, they are also seen as the enemy by those who wish to impose their ideology over us all. Yet, they assert that to stand for Western values, under attack, is somehow to hate, when it is actually confronting a hatred and intolerance that no one should have to endure in a peaceful world that cares for human dignity.

(Crossposted at oldschooltwentysix)

The Crisis of "Progressive" Zionism

Mike L.

In a very short period of time writers are spilling a gazillion pixels on Peter Beinart's new book, The Crisis of Zionism. Most pro-Jewish / pro-Israel writers panned the book and some, such as Daniel Greenfield in FrontPage Magazine and Sol Stern in Commentary, suggest that there is no crisis of Zionism, but only a crisis in "progressive" Zionism.

While it may be true that there is no crisis in Zionism, it most certainly is true that "progressive Zionism," whatever that is exactly, is in crisis. The reason for this is because progressives, themselves, are forcing Jews to choose between progressivism and supporting the Jewish state. Because anti-Semitic anti-Zionists constantly demonize Israel as a racist, fascist, imperialist, colonialist, apartheid, settler, racist state, much of this nonsense (the so-called "Palestinian narrative") has rubbed off on well-meaning liberal Jews like, presumably, Peter Beinart.

Many of these "progressive Zionists" operate within an imaginative construct, a morality play, comprised of "good" indigenous Palestinians, who want nothing more than to tend their sacred olive groves in peace, and "evil" militarist, right-wing, Likudniks who are slowly strangling the Jewish state with their racist policies and war-like intransigence.  It is the movie Avatar come to life.  This fantasy that "progressive Zionists" have conjured places them in the very center of a tension between their progressive ideals and the need for defending the Jewish state from its relentless detractors.

In this way "progressive Zionists" end up supporting a political movement that is directly at odds to the well-being of the Jewish state. The worldwide movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel is a progressive-left movement and "progressive Zionists" support progressivism. This leaves them in the untenable position of supporting the very political movement which seeks to undermine Israel... even as they advocate for Israel. It is for this reason that "progressive Zionists" are engaged in a non-stop battle to the death with their fellow progressives.

Jews are told, essentially, that we have a moral imperative to support the progressive movement (if not the Democratic Party) even as that movement and party is far, far less supportive of the Jewish state, and therefore far, far less supportive of Jewish well-being, than is the conservative-right and the Republican party. Conservative Jews do not have any crisis of "conservative Zionism" because conservatives as a group tend to be highly supportive of Israel. It is only on the Left that we see Zionists under daily attack in venues like Daily Kos, and throughout the progressive-left political blogosphere, by their fellow ideologues.

While "progressive Zionists" are perpetually lambasted by other progressives they, themselves, perpetually lambaste their fellows Jews on the Right who they blame for undermining Israel as a democratic state. Instead of acknowledging that the problem is not with Israel, but with the progressive movement, itself, they attack Israel for not being progressive enough. If only Israel would do this, that, or the other, then their would be peace. If only Israel would have a civil war against Jews who live in Judea and Samaria then non-Jewish progressives would like Israel and therefore also like "progressive Zionists." Israel is a terrible inconvenience to these people because it makes them look bad in the eyes of their fellow progressives.

Every time Israelis defend themselves "progressive Zionists" get kicked in the head by their fellow progressives who view them as scum, supporting the unsupportable, justifying the unjustifiable, the Jewish state of Israel. Every checkpoint in Judea and Samaria is a standing rebuke to their progressive idealism and is thus seen as a rebuke to the morality of Israel, itself.

This is why "progressive Zionism" is in crisis. On a daily basis they must juggle their progressivism with their Zionism and it is not a match made in heaven. If they would kindly recognize that the real problem is not with Israel, nor with Jews who wish to live on the west bank of the Jordan River, but with the progressive acceptance of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of their larger coalition, then they could relieve themselves of this crisis and would not need to constantly defend themselves from these alleged allies, these false friends.

Israel, itself, is doing very nicely. In fact, considering the constant harrasment of the Jewish state by hostile Arabs decade after decade, Israel is doing terrific. But just as historically the problem was never with the Jews, but with the anti-Semites who foment genocidal hatred toward us, so the problem today is not with the Jewish state so much as it is with the progressives who have turned Israel into the "Jew among nations."

It is the progressive movement, itself, which is the problem.

Monday, March 26, 2012

He Sent The Footage To Al Jazeera TV

'French gunman sent footage to Al Jazeera TV' By REUTERS 03/26/2012 22:26 French police source says TV network received computer memory drive containing a montage of footage...Video footage filmed by the French gunman Mohamed Merah during his bloody shooting spree has been sent to the Al Jazeera television network in Paris, a police source said on Monday.
Al Jazeera received a computer memory drive containing a montage of footage accompanied by Islamist war songs, and sent the package on to police on Monday, the source close to the investigation told Reuters.
You know, this story just gets sicker and sicker.



Ruh-roh! Caught on an open mic again, Obama has some explaining to do.

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Republicans are running with it:

A senior Republican aide told the Free Beacon that Obama’s comments were distressing.

“If there was any doubt how dangerous Barack Obama would be for America’s security in a second term, the president put all uncertainty to rest today,” said the source, who closely tracks foreign policy matters. “The president just told us that he is itching to hand over America’s most secret missile defense data to a country that is arming Syria and fueling Iran’s Bushehr reactor—and he would do it today but for his re-election concerns. With no political constraints in a second term, who knows what Obama will do.”

The adviser also said Obama’s remarks should cause concern among pro-Israel forces in America.

“If this is what the president’s promising the Russians on missile defense, God only knows what he’s promising Arab leaders about Israel,” noted the souce. “If you think Barack Obama was bad for Israel in term one, put your seatbelt on and get ready for term two.”

Poland is rattled:

Obama's Hint To Medvedev Rattles Poland

Obama's Republican rivals aren't the only ones alarmed by his hot mic suggestion that missile defense — implicitly, defending Eastern Europe from Russia — could be softened after his re-election. The headline in the largest Polish tabloid, Fakt: “Were they trading Poland? Puzzling Obama talk with Medvedev about the missile shield.

Poor hapless Obama.

Why There Will Never Be Peace


There are many reasons to suspect there will never be peace between Israel and the Arab world. Consider the history to date of various negotiations and rejected offers. Consider the overwhelming antisemitism and hatred. Now there's another reason. What the Arab world wants is the destruction of the state of Israel. Surely that is what this means.

Ma'an reports:

Organizations supporting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are calling on the Arab League to include refugee rights in the agenda of Thursday's Arab League summit.

The petition to Secretary-General of the Arab League Nabil al-Arabi and other heads of state warns "the area will not have peace and quiet unless the Palestinian refugees’ right of return is implemented."

It is signed by 111 non governmental organizations supporting Palestinians in Lebanon.

"This issue threatens seven million Palestinian refugees and their right to go back to their homes from which they were uprooted forcefully in 1948," says a copy of the communique seen by Ma'an.

"It also has risks for Arab countries hosting Palestinian refugee populations due to immigration and residency issues," it continues.

The communication stresses that no Arab or Palestinian negotiator has the right to negotiate away refugees’ right of return.

As Elder of Ziyon suggests:

 These NGOs, many of which are probably no more than a post office box but some of whom probably include organizations like Norwegian People's Aid and Badil, are telling the world that there will be no peace without "return". They know that "return" means no more Israel, so they are really saying there will be no peace as long as Israel continues to exist.

To underscore the point that these NGOs are more interested in destroying Israel than in helping Palestinian Arabs, they explicitly say that they are against naturalization of Palestinian Arabs in their host countries. Anyone who cares about Palestinian Arabs would hold the opposite position and would do everything they could to ensure that Palestinians who desire to become citizens have that right. Their refusal to do so reveals their ugly goal.

Beyond that, they say that even if the issue is solved in peace negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbors, they will never accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel.

Action Alert: Join San Francisco Voice for Israel on March 30

(Posted by Dusty at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.)

From our friends at San Francisco Voice for Israel, the Bay Area Chapter of Stand With Us

If I forget thee, oh Jerusalem....

Friday March 30 4-6 pm
Israeli consulate
456 Montgomery St
San Francisco

Join Standwithus/San Francisco Voice for Israel as we counter a protest in front of the Israeli Consulate. Local extremist groups including Al Awda and International ANSWER have called for a protest in solidarity with the Global March to Jerusalem, the latest high profile publicity stunt that seeks to storm Israel’s borders on March 30, 2012. The march has been orchestrated by leaders of the Muslim brotherhood, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the members of the Fringe Left, who deny the Jewish peoples' historical, cultural and religious ties to our holiest city, and have demanded the end of the so-called "Judaization of Jerusalem". Just last month local organizers invited notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon to the Bay area as a fundraiser for the Global march to Jerusalem. Atzmon has been widely condemned across the political spectrum for his racist views. Organizers have called for demonstrations at Israel’s consulates , declaring the "GMJ will siege Israel and its embassies over the world."

Please join us in front of the Consulate, 456 Montgomery St San Francisco this Friday, March 30 from 4- 6.

Stand with us
Stand For Peace
Stand with Israel

We encourage you to bring your own signs and flags to this action, but ask you not stoop to the opposition's level of hatred by holding signs that disparage Palestinians, Arabs, or Muslims (or any other ethnicity) as a group. It is very important that those who join us refrain from engaging in confrontations with the extremist groups organizing this event. Also we specifically dissociate ourselves from anyone delivering any hate speech or threats to those on the other side and we ask that those in attendance let us know of anyone violating these guidelines.

This Gentleman Has a Comment

Mike L.

Under a very good and concise article over at Y-Net by Asaf Romirowsky, entitled "Response to ‘Zionist BDS’", concerning the recent Peter Beinart nonsense, a commenter wrote the following:

They are not open minded

These Jewish haters of Israel, like Beinart, are anything but open-minded, Rather, they are empty headed and delusional. They are not decent enough to understand that the BDS campaign is not for peace. It is a front for the antisemites to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. With nonJewish Jews, no matter how many facts are apparent and available to them, they refuse to even acknowledge reality. For example, when one cites the refusal of Arafat to even make a counterproposal to Clinton and Barak's offer, it doesn't matter. When Oslo was breached by launching a murderous intifada that targeted innocent Israeli civilians, they don't hear. When they learn of the refusal of Abbas to even make a counter-offer to Olmert's peace plan, they rationalize that Olmert and Abbas were "too weak" for an agreement to be put in place. When the issue of Gaza is brought up, they excuse the rockets because Sharon never had the Palestinians sign on the dotted line that they would be peaceful. Some people cause great suffering by their misplaced good intentions.

Phil, USA (03.25.12)

With the sole exception of the notion of "nonJewish Jews," I could not agree more.

Good for you, Phil!

For those of you who do not obsess over the Arab-Israel conversation in the West, Peter Beinart is a former editor for The New Republic (much to Marty Peretz's sadness, I am sure) and has written a book that advocates boycotting Jews in Judea and Samaria, an area of land dubbed by Jordan "the West Bank."

The reason that Beinart advocates for a racist boycott against Jews who dare to live where Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama do not want them to live is because he seems to think that persecuting some Jews will be beneficial to the rest of us.

I think that he's a malicious moron, but that's just me.

This is a high-profile Jewish editor and analyst that has written horrendous nonsense that justifies Arab and "Palestinian" anti-Semitism... of course, progressive-left Jewish discourse on this subject is filled to overflowing with horrendous nonsense that justifies Arab and "Palestinian" anti-Semitism.

Beinart is merely riding a small wave and, little bastard that he is, he'll make a few bucks at the expense of Jewish well-being.

"It's Not Islamic Terrorism, Folks!"

Mike L.

My sincerest (and most profuse and prostrate) apologies to anyone who might be offended at the above cartoon.

Although radical Islam has genocidal intentions toward the Jewish people, any Jew who dares to point that out is clearly a racist.

A Tip 'O the Kippa to Zach, of Matt and Zach fame.

And, yes, check the date on the lower left of the toon.

Israel Thrives is Moving

In one week, on Monday April 2, Israel Thrives will no longer be at the current "Karmafishies" URL, but will be located at Please make note of this for the transition and if you own a blog that links to Israel Thrives please reassign the link to the new URL come Monday the second.


Sunday, March 25, 2012

Barry Rubin on the Jihadi Massacre in Toulouse

Mike L.

In a piece entitled, "France: Here Comes the Whitewash," Dr. Rubin writes:

A big story like the Toulouse attack can draw attention to a broader, dangerous political and social trend.

Or it can be treated as an isolated incident. Nothing to see here; move along; go back to sleep. Al-Qaida terrorists don't pull up in front of Jewish schools to murder teachers and students every day, right?

Part of the problem that the Jewish people have is the tendency among "progressive" Jews to downplay the significance of the Jihad on the world stage. If we cannot bring ourselves to genuinely recognize that there is a problem then we cannot even begin to discuss the problem. If we cannot discuss the problem then we cannot create strategies and tactics for dealing with it.

Phase one is to present any terrorist as a right-wing, neo-Nazi, or opponent of left-wing policies. If the terrorist is a Muslim, however, his own explanations—citing dominant interpretations of Islam and the goal of furthering an Islamist revolution—are ignored.

For reasons having much to do with what might be called the "multicultural imperative," the western press is largely unwilling to deal with the fact of radical Islam in a straightforward manner because they  do not wish to be smeared as "racist" or "Islamophobic" and therefore the tendency, in the aftermath of political slaughter, is to assume that the assailant is right-wing. The reason for this is because bigotry and hatred directed at "right-wingers" or "conservatives" is perfectly acceptable within progressive-left circles.

Instead, he or they are presented as confused, psychologically disturbed individuals; victims of discrimination; or, in short, anything other than ideologically motivated revolutionaries.

Indeed. The tendency, as we are seeing currently, is not to blame a growing international genocidal movement, a movement that calls quite specifically for the murder of Jews and "infidels," but to point the trembling finger of blame at the victims, themselves. The Jews are, and have been for a very, very long time now, the victims of Koranically-inspired Muslim race-hatred and when we are murdered because of that race-hatred we are then castigated by progressive-left journals for being the cause of the attacks against us and of being the victimizer rather than the victim.

In this way the progressive-left narrative of perpetual "Palestinian" victimhood becomes simultaneously a club to beat Jews with and a tool to reverse victim and victimizer. The Jews of the Middle East suffered 1,300 years of second and third class citizenship under the boot of Muslim imperialism, followed by 100 years of war against us immediately upon our release from the Sharia prison, yet among "progressives" we are something akin to Nazis oppressing the poor "indiginous" population.

This is not just a matter of misinformation. Such falsehoods encourage governments and institutions not to prepare, not to change their ways, not to learn from bloody experience, to continue denying the very existence of an antisemitic problem. And that means there will occasionally be more such tragedies but also hundreds of incitements to antisemitism, blood libels against Israel, assaults, threats, and other acts of anti-Jewish hatred that you will never hear about.

Hiding the truth only ensures that the problem grows and the tragedies are repeated. And unfortunately that is precisely what's happening.

How many times must radical Jihadis scream from the rooftops their desire to murder Jews before we acknowledge reality?

How many more little Jewish kids must be murdered by these people before we will stand up and demand that they stop teaching genocidal hatred toward us?

When will Jewish people, themselves, finally acknowledge that our problem is not with conservative or Evangelical Christians, but with a strain of Islam that is spreading throughout the Middle East under the so-called "Arab Spring"?

What will it take for diaspora Jews to yank their heads out of the sand?

What will it take?

Friday, March 23, 2012

Radical Islam Killed That Rabbi and Those Children

Mike L.

(Cross-Posted at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers)

The humanitarian racists over at Daily Kos cannot bring themselves to face the obvious fact that the murderer in Toulouse was a Jihadi. Mohammed Merah was a self-identified member of al Qaeda and received "training" from that organization in Afghanistan. He was steeped in a political culture that is not at all uncommon in the mosques throughout Europe, as it is not uncommon in the mosques of the Middle East, wherein people are taught hatred for non-Muslims and genocidal incitement toward Jews and infidels.

The reason that I call the Daily Kos people "humanitarian racists" is because they hold such a low opinion of non-whites that they absolutely cannot bring themselves to ever hold them responsible for anything.  Anytime a Muslim or an Arab behaves in a brutal or violent fashion, they always blame Israel or the United States.

In one of the few "diaries" on the subject of the Toulouse Massacre over at Daily Kos, Ian Reifowitz writes the following:

To be clear, this is not about Israelis or Jews versus Palestinians or Muslims. "The Palestinians" didn't kill these people. Neither did "the Muslims." This is about hate. Hatred of France and its soldiers, and hatred of Jews. One person carried out this act, a person who was, according to what the French government has said, trained by an organization and a movement that distorts Islam. A movement that can today apparently reach anywhere and kill children. That's what chills me.

G-d forbid anyone should actually name the movement that can "apparently reach anywhere and kill children."

So, Mr. Reifowitz, can you tell us just what this movement is?

You say "the Muslims" did not kill that rabbi and those children. I agree. But is anyone arguing otherwise? Is there anyone, anywhere writing in anything that even approaches a responsible journal claiming "the Muslims" done it?

I do not think so.

One person carried out this act, a person who was, according to what the French government has said, trained by an organization and a movement...

Well, if the one person responsible for the actual murders was trained by a movement (and I would add, trained to hate by a movement), I would think that this movement also holds responsibility for the perfectly foreseeable results of its genocidal ideology.  Mr. Reigowitz, you know as well as I, or you should, that this "movement" you speak of has a name and a history and is, in fact, currently spreading like wild-fire throughout the Middle East under the misnomer "Arab Spring."

It is the very movement that Barack Obama has hailed as an Arab version of either the Revolution of '76 or the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s that is responsible for the construction of hatred toward Jews and infidels that led to the slaughter in Toulouse. Radical Islam, or political Islam, or whatever term one might wish to use, is a movement grounded in genocide. This should not be surprising given the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, who Obama actually visited with even before they came to power in Egypt, has a history that goes not only to a fundamentalist understanding of Islam, but to Nazi Germany, as well.

Of course, most "progressives" do not know this. The reason that they do not know this is because they do not read the history of radical Islam. The reason that they do not read the history of radical Islam is because that would actually require acknowledging that radical Islam exists. But they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this because then other "progressives" would wag their fingers and call them nasty names like "Islamophobe."

And, so, when a Jihadi murders Jewish children in France, western "progressives" trip all over themselves trying to protect the very movement that is behind those murders by blaming anything but the actual culprit. They blame the United States for "imperialism" and "colonialism," with the implication that if only the United States was not so mean then Muslim fanatics would have no reason to murder perfectly innocent little Jewish girls in Toulouse. They blame Israel for the "occupation" with the implication that if only Israel was not so mean to the Palestinian uber-victims then Muslim fanatics would have no reason to murder perfectly innocent little Jewish girls in Toulouse.

But the truth is that radical Islam killed that rabbi and those little girls.  A French Muslim murdered some French soldiers and a French rabbi and some French Jewish girls.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the United States, nor Israel, and everything to do with a political movement that continues to preach hatred.

Yet, if I say so, it makes me the racist in the minds of "progressives" who would not acknowledge the Jihad... if they were blindfolded... and on their knees... in a basement... in Karachi.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Daily Kossack Spreads the Contemporary Blood Libel

Mike L.

It is often said that Israel is "the Jew among nations."  Old-timey anti-Semitism, which frequently features the blood libel, is now expressed within more sophisticated circles as anti-Zionism... which frequently features the blood libel. (Shocking, I know.)

The classic blood libel, of course, was the accusation against Jews that we were killing delicious Christian babies to cook into our matzoh bread. The essence of the blood libel has nothing to do with matzoh, however, and everything to do with accusing Jewish people of a love for gratuitous violence. Its real purpose, though, is to justify and encourage the violence against us in response to the charge itself.

After all, if us nefarious Jews are cooking delicious Christian babies into our Passover matzoh, who could possibly blame anyone for whatever retaliation we might suffer? This is a dynamic that played itself out century after century after century, resulting in a European Jewish experience utterly replete with anti-Jewish pogroms and slaughters and expulsions, continuing to this very day as we just saw in the news out of France.

But now there is Israel. First there was the Holocaust and now there is Israel. After the Holocaust direct anti-Semitism fell out of fashion and therefore the anti-Semites simply transferred their expressions of hatred from the Jewish people to the Jewish state, including the blood libel, itself.

Israelis are not generally accused of cooking delicious Christian babies into their Passover matzoh, but they are regularly accused of loving war and brutality and murder, not to mention the killing of innocent Palestinians for the purpose of harvesting their organs for sale on the black market.

Today over at Daily Kos we have a "progressive"... who goes by the appropriate moniker of "Weasel"... telling the world the following in reference to a New York Times article:

This op-ed perfectly illustrates the self-described Israeli campaign of terrifying US decision-makers (and the populace at large). There is never any actual discussion of the NEED for an Israeli attack. No discussion of any possibility of success. Indeed, the attack itself is hardly mentioned, because the attack itself is immaterial. Hence, Israelis paint themselves as irrational actors. The only purpose of any attack would be to drag the US into a devastating war with Iran. Likewise, without any direct point to attack Iran, Israel would never actually mount such an irrational attack. The only point to this constant fear-mongering campaign is to terrify US leaders into mounting an attack for Israel, an attack that, as the op-ed itself describes, is filled with negative consequence that will rebound for generations.

It is very common on the progressive-left for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists (or Israel Haters) to perpetually describe Israeli intentions in the worst manner possible via suggesting that Israel wants nothing so much as murder and mayhem and the blood of non-Jews for no reason beyond their malicious enjoyment of killing people.

The writer above acknowledges zero legitimacy to any Israeli or Jewish fears concerning Holocaust Part Deux if Iran gets the bomb. This despite the fact that on a daily basis throughout the Middle East radical Jihadis scream for Jewish blood. This despite the fact that prominent Iranians have called for the destruction of the state of Israel. This despite the fact that Iran held a Holocaust Denial Conference not too long ago.

Yet for this Daily Kos writer the only real concern that Israel's leadership has is "to drag the US into a devastating war with Iran." Israeli security is irrelevant even as the bombs continue to drop on S'derot fired by the Iranian proxies of Hamas.

What this writer is doing is nothing less than the contemporary blood-libel. What he certainly is not doing is writing "criticism." Criticism is not the intentional spreading of hatred and that is what is happening on Daily Kos.

Day after day after day.

They spread hatred toward the Jewish state because, ultimately, progressive-left anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, of the kind that frequent places like Daily Kos, want to soften up Israel for its eventual dissolution as the nation-state of the Jewish people. And if, in the mean time, little Jewish kids are murdered by Jihadis filled with this kind of ideological incitement to hatred?... well?... we have it coming to us, now don't we?

Just like every single other generation of Jews for the last 2,000 years.

Writers Wanted for Front Page of Israel Thrives

Mike L.

I am always on the look-out for writers to contribute to the front page of this blog, so if you have some talent and favor the state of Israel, this place might be a good fit.

If interested contact me at Please include a writing sample or link to a writing sample.


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Murdered Jews in Toulouse


This is one of those very sad stories that just kind of leaves me slack-jawed.

A French Jihadi murdered a rabbi, two of his children, and another child in a Jewish school in the beautiful city of Toulouse.

What can one say about this?

It's worth noting that upon initial reports the media leaped to the conclusion that the perpetrator was a hard-line, right-wing, neo-Nazi, skin-head type. This has turned out not to be true. Mohamed Merah is a violent radical Islamist who killed cops and killed Jews because his political movement whipped up ideological hatred within his heart.

I am not entirely certain how the American right is going to react to this story, but there will be elements on the left that will blame either Israel or both Israel and the United States for these hideous and brutal murders.  Some will claim, or suggest, or otherwise imply, that the devil made him do it.  They will talk about colonialism and imperialism and occupation and "apartheid walls" and on and on and on and, thereby, justifying the unjustifiable.

Of the various forms of bigotry common on the progressive-left, among the worst is the condescension toward Arabs and Muslims.  I find it absolutely grotesque.  If you read the left press it is painfully clear that they tend not to believe that people of color have agency or are in any way responsible for themselves.  Whenever an Arab or Muslim makes news for doing "bad," the tendency on the left is to blame ourselves or the Jewish state or both.

What they will avoid talking about, however, is the radical Jihad as a movement that spreads hatred throughout much of the Muslim world toward non-Muslims and most particularly toward Jews.

Of that you can be certain.

Spreading Peace Across Cyberspace - The Israel Loves Iran Campaign


With perennial saber rattling on both sides, the animosity between Iran and Israel rarely leaves the front pages of the world’s newspapers. Iran dislikes Israel, and likewise, Israelis don’t like Iranians, right? Well actually, despite the heated exchanges by the countries’ leaders and a history of hostility between the two nations, not every Israeli is anti-Iran, and vice-versa. Recently, what started as a Facebook page initiated by an Israeli couple wanting to spread messages of peace and love, has now turned into a internet phenomenon, with messages of friendship being exchanged by both Israeli and Iranian internet users.

While many people use the internet as a tool for social networking, shopping and looking for services such as income protection insurance, it can also be a force for good. Ronny Edry and his wife Michal Tamir started Israelovesiran to let the people of Iran know that despite what the politicians say in the heated exchanges of international diplomacy, the people of Israel don’t necessarily dislike the people of Iran.

“We love you. We mean you no harm ... On the contrary, we want to meet, have some coffee and talk about sports,” the couple wrote on their Facebook page, sparking a huge amount of similar comments from both Iranian and Israeli internet users. While the couple doubt politicians from either nation will take much notice of their campaign, they say it demonstrates that the people have plenty in common with each other.

Israel Iran Relations

Israel and Iran did once have a much more cordial relationship. From the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 up until Iranian revolution of 1979, both nations maintained close ties. It was only when the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with whom Israel had relatively warm relations, did the relationship between the two nations cool, with Khomeini declaring Israel an "enemy of Islam."

After the Iranian revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, things got progressively worse between the two countries. All official relations between Israel and Iran ceased and Iranian foreign policy became particularly anti-Zionist, culminating with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2000 saying: “Palestine belongs to Palestinians,” and that Israel was a: "cancerous tumor" that should be removed from the region. A sentiment shared by current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who remarked that Israel should be: "Wiped off the map.”

Recent Saber Rattling

Israel can hardly claim to be innocent in all this saber rattling, either. While obviously provoked by remarks such as those made by Ahmadinejad, and the instance of to procure nuclear technology, Israeli politicians have repeatedly made statements regarding Iran that do little to help. Warning that unilateral military action would not be ruled out if the international community failed to act and with Vice Premier Shimon Peres saying: "The president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," will do nothing but inflame tensions. Furthermore, this year saw a war simulation conducted by both Israeli and US forces, aimed at predicting what would happen if coalition forces were to attack Iran, which was a move widely regarded as provocative to those outside the region.

Peace Initiative

It was against this background of animosity that graphic designer Ronny Edry decided to set up his Facebook page. On it, he said that while he and his wife weren’t official representatives of Israel, they felt like their voice was important. He wrote: "To all the fathers, mothers, children, brothers and sisters, for there to be a war between us, first we must be afraid of each other, we must hate."

Initially his page received criticism from people suggesting he was betraying his nation, but messages of support soon flooded in, with Israelis as well as Iranians sharing and liking his page hundreds of times, whilst adding their own messages of peace and love.

Such was the popularity of the Facebook page, Ronny Edry and his wife Michal have now set up a dedicated website: that urges readers to send in their thoughts, pictures and messages of peace, which the couple post online. So far, the website has attracted thousands of messages of support, not just from Israelis but also from Iranians too. While many posters from Iran prefer to keep their identify secret for fear of reprisals, their messages of peace provide much needed friendliness between two nations that are going through such uncertain times.

Daily Kos Comment of the Day: Progressive-Left Hatred Edition


using Israel as a tool of cosmic manifest destiny. (2+ / 0-)

Whereby the Rapture Righties get to go to heaven, and any Jews who don't convert get cast into the pit of fire.

"Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

by G2geek on Tue Mar 20, 2012 at 09:32:51 PM PDT

These kinds of comments, which are very common on the progressive-left, represent nothing so much as pure unadulterated bigotry and hatred toward Evangelical Christians.

The shear hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. The progressive-left tells itself that it is "anti-racist" yet I have never seen a political movement that demonizes and defames so many different people and such large swaths of the American public.

The comment above is pure bigotry and hatred.


Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Obama Adviser Criticizes Assad for not "Resisting" Israel Harder


Barack Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

So, this woman is an adviser in the administration and she believes that Syrian dictator Assad cannot deliver the necessary "resistance" to the Jewish state?... as if war with Israel is a good thing?

Oh, yes, Barack Obama is Israel's BFF, for certain.

Does the Right Hate Israel as Much as the Left?


One of my tendencies on this blog is to focus on progressive-left anti-Semitic anti-Zionism because it has made a home for itself within progressive left venues, just the kind of venues that I used to frequent.

My major concern, which I often repeat, is not that "progressives" as a group are anti-Semitic, but that they don't get it, they don't care, and they very much want you to shut the fuck up.

My evidence for asserting that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism has made a home for itself within progressive-left venues is primarily large, well-attended progressive-left venues such as Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian. I tend to focus heavily on Daily Kos because I was a member there and because, since it has around 300,000 registered users, it represents one home for mainstream Democrats. People seeking to downplay progressive-left anti-Semitic anti-Zionism will sometimes tell me that Daily Kos is merely "fringe," but taken together with the HuffPost and the Guardian and Yale and Harvard and UPENN and many, many other universities and Israel hating NGOs, not to mention certain European governments, it is obvious that my assertion is correct.

The progressive-left is the contemporary home for anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.

I sometimes am told, however, that this is not just a "progressive" problem, but a problem on the right, as well. While it is true that the hard fringy right does contain neo-Nazis and skinheads, conservatives, since William F. Buckley, have done a good job in marginalizing such groups. While the progressive-left has embraced their anti-Semitic racists... horrendously enough in the name of "human rights"... the conservative-right has distanced themselves from their own.

This is my assertion. It is either correct or it is incorrect.

If it is incorrect I would expect that someone would be able to point to any number of mainstream, well-attended conservative journals or blogs wherein anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is a regular feature as we see on the more or less mainstream "progressive" journals listed above. That being the case I am hoping that if it is true that this problem is as much on the right as it is on the left, then someone should be able to provide some significant evidence to that effect.

Show me a large circulation, mainstream journal on the right that features the kind of Israel hatred and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism that we see on a daily basis on the left.

If I am wrong, then show me.

{In the mean time I will not hold my breath.}

Monday, March 19, 2012

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

A little self-indulgence.

Barry Rubin Dismantles Barack Obama


The Obama administration has been a disaster for the state of Israel, yet Obama has the temerity to ask the following question:

…Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept….Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?

Here is Professor Rubin's response:

The answer: you were forced to do so by circumstances beyond your will. Congress; American public opinion; the behavior of Arab regimes (refusing to cooperate on peacemaking), and Iran (refusing to cooperate on anything). They rejected your concessions; they refused to use you as their instrument.

In the meantime, your policy has been disastrous for Israeli security by encouraging what would inevitably be revolutionary Islamist takeovers in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya; your refusal to support moderate opposition forces in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey; your cozying up to Turkey despite that regime’s open hatred for Israel; your long delays on dealing with Iran; and lots more.

But if you have appeared to support Israel’s security—aside from just continuing existing military aid—it has been in spite of your best efforts to damage it.

For example, you withdrew the Bush Administration commitment on letting Israel keep settlement blocs after a deal with the Palestinians but wasforced by circumstances to reverse yourself when the Palestinians gave you nothing. You agreed to an Israeli freeze on construction that didn’t include Jerusalem, broke that commitment, but then had to drop it because the Palestinians gave you nothing. You tried to press Israel into major concessions toward the Palestinians and then gave up once again because the Palestinians gave you nothing.

In other words, external factors ultimately determined your behavior by giving you no alternative:

First, the Arab states, Iran, and the Palestinians refused to go along with your plans. If Syria had made a few small gestures, if Iran had sought an advantageous deal on their nuclear program, or if the Palestinian Authority had eagerly demands a peace treaty with Israel you would have done everything possible to give them lavish concessions and to press Israel into risky arrangements. As Egypt becomes increasingly anti-American and extremist you will have to change your policy toward that country, too.

Yet each time, without exception, Israel’s enemies let you down. Iran will continue to do so.

Second, Israel’s government has maneuvered brilliantly though never elegantly or on the basis of a detailed blueprint. Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and President Shimon Peres remained calm, avoided confrontation with the White House, and employed precisely the right mix of soothing words while doing what needed to be done. At the end of this three-year-long process, Israel had given up nothing material–not a single actual concession–while facing the least friendly American president in a half-century.

And you can add the continued support for Israel by Congress and the American people, which Obama has had to take into account.

It is close to inevitable that the time will come when Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons. The assessments of Israel and U.S. intelligence as to the precise day will be within a few months of each other.

That situation will trigger an Israeli attack. And Obama, however reluctantly, will have painted himself into a corner.

I am more and more convinced that the Obama administration will not prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry and this guy in Salon is spouting "progressive" anti-Israel triumphalism by crowing how Obama lied to Israel and to the Jews in his AIPAC speech.

President Obama just gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a serious whupping. In the process, he greatly reduced the risk of a catastrophic war, made his saber-rattling Republican opponents look like idiots, and seriously weakened the powerful Israel lobby. And he did it all while pledging undying support for Israel.

Rubin's response:

The implication here is that Obama promised to combat Iran but won’t actually ever have to do anything about it. This smug triumphalism assumes that Israel was going to attack Iran within a few weeks—an idea no knowledgeable person in Israel takes seriously—but Obama stopped it through the “brilliant” strategy of lying his head off. Obama supposedly made his Republican opponents who advocated war look like idiots by promising that he would go to war in the future.

In this kind of thinking, the future never arrives and words will always remain just words. Presumably, when Iran gets nuclear weapons Obama would just giggle, say he didn’t mean it, do nothing, and stop Israel from doing anything to defend itself. All the actual threats and crises that would emerge matter not at all and Israel will just stand by passively while this happens.

Indeed, the big argument of such Obama supporters is profoundly disgusting: that a promise to help save an ally from annihilation—and not just to Israel but to all of its remaining allies in the region—is a pledge that the chief executive should have no intention of keeping.

Hah, hah, hah! Wow, did he fool those idiots who thought the word of an American president could be trusted!

How can any Jew trust an American president that validates Arab racism against us by insisting that Jewish people should not build housing for themselves in Judea?

What kind of ghetto Jews go along with this?

Hat Tip to Israpundit


Because this is, indeed, an oldie but a goodie.

As far as I am concerned nobody gets to tell Jews where we may, or may not, build housing in the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem.

Not even the president of the United States.

4 Dead in Shooting at Jewish School in France


Gunman opens fire outside Toulouse school before fleeing scene on scooter; teacher and two of his children among dead.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Jewish Demonization of Jews Who Live on the "West Bank"


One of the saddest aspects of pro-Israel advocacy among Jewish "progressives" is in the demonization of Jewish people who live on the ancient Jewish land recently dubbed by Jordan "the West Bank." That small area of land, directly adjacent to the state of Israel and known until quite recently as Judea and Samaria has been home to Jewish people for something like four thousand years.

For as long as there has been the Jewish people, so we have lived on that land. I understand, of course, that well-meaning liberals, such as myself, would prefer to see the Jewish state of Israel living in peace next to a Palestinian state that would mainly comprise that land. I have no problem with that. If the Jewish people are so gracious that we wish to share Jewish land with the Palestinian Arabs in order to bring about a harmonious two state solution, then I am all in favor. I want the two-state solution. The problem is, of course, that traditional Arab anti-Semitism insists that any future state of Palestine must be Judenrein and that the Palestinian leadership cannot negotiate an end to hostilities with Israel until the Jews stop building housing for themselves in Judea.

The fundamental basis of Arab grievances in this regard is purely racist. In fact, the fundamental basis of the entire conflict is Koranic hatred for the Jewish people within the Islamic scheme of things. This is why Mahmoud Abbas will not negotiate an end to hostilities with the Jewish people of the Middle East. The very idea of Jewish sovereignty on land that was once ruled over by the Umma is anathema to much of the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Sadly enough, Barack Obama and much of the Jewish left validates Arab race hatred toward Jews by essentially agreeing with Mahmoud Abbas that Jewish people must not build housing for themselves on historically Jewish land. Consequently those who do so, such as the Fogel family that was slaughtered by Jihadis last year, including the chopping off of the head of a three month old baby girl, are regularly defamed by other Jews.

As the pro-Israel Italian journalist, Giulio Meotti, writes in a piece about the Fogels entitled "Remembering the Massacre":

These citizens have been called “leeches,” “snakes,” “vicious,” “primitives,” “medieval,” “obscurantists,” “corrupt” and “parasites.” They are the target for the arrows of Israel haters, both domestic and foreign.

The media paint them as being separate from Klal Yisrael. Their villages are branded “illegal” and in the end they find that they themselves have become “illegal beings.” Pariahs. Vilified as a needless burdens on the defense budget. They have been chosen as Israel’s scapegoats, the ever-guilty, the Jewish state’s Jews.

If I could go back in time to the 1970s, I would advise the Israeli government not to encourage building in Judea and Samaria because doing so will give the local Arab leadership an excuse not to negotiate an end to hostilities. But it is too late now. There are something like 400,000 to 500,000 Jewish people living in Judea and Samaria and short of a civil war, or the actual declaration of a Palestinian state, those people are not going anywhere. Thus, the perpetual whining about their presence is entirely counterproductive. What the Israeli government needs to do is simply declare their final borders, borders that would incorporate most of those Jews into Israel, and be done with it.

Israel should be the first country on the planet to welcome the state of Palestine to the family of nations and thus declare the conflict over with. What we should not be doing, as the Obama administration and its supporters have done, is demonize Jews who live beyond the "green line" because this does nothing but validate Arab racism against us, which leads to the kind of Jihadi violence that we saw leveled at the Fogel family.  It justifies a continuation of racist Arab violence against those of us who choose to live there.

I highly recommend against.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Gallup: Republicans Prefer Israel Much More Than Do Democrats


A new Gallup poll shows that the Republican party is far more in sympathy with the Jewish state than is the Democratic party.

According to the polling data a whopping 78 percent of Republicans sympathize with Israelis over Palestinians, while only about 50 percent of Democrats do so.

This is, of course, fully consistent with polling data in recent years which clearly demonstrates Republican friendship toward Israel and Democratic ambivalence toward that country.

Make of it what you will, but it is a fact.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Brief Notes: “Nazis”? Really? You Call Them “Nazis”?


You’re goddamn right, I call them Nazis.

What is a “Nazi,” anyways? On the one hand, of course, a “Nazi” is someone who belonged to the National Socialist German Workers' Party during the early-middle twentieth century. Were I writing a formal piece of history, I would not use that word to refer to anyone else other than a member of that particular club. But this is not academic work.

These are musings. This is thinking aloud.

And the truth, of course, is that for a Jewish person a “Nazi” is someone who fulfills the same historical role that the German Nazis did. That is, a “Nazi” is someone who repeats the kind of anti-Semitic themes (or memes, as we like to say these days) that traditionally lead to anti-Jewish violence or anti-Jewish pogroms or anti-Jewish boycotts or outright genocide against the Jewish people. This what a “Nazi” really is and the progressive movement… the allegedly “anti-racist” political movement in the west which is, in fact, the foremost racist political movement in the west… is absolutely chock-a-bloc full of Nazis.

Those of us who are paying attention see the contemporary iteration of Nazi ideology throughout the universities, on the progressive-left political blogs and the progressive-left political journals, roaming the halls of the United Nations, and through the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that tend to specialize in spreading hatred toward the Jewish people via spreading hatred toward the Jewish state.

So, yes, they are Nazis.

I don't like it any better than you do.

Daily Kos Nazis Push Anti-Semitic ZOG Theory (Updated)


In a post entitled "Israeli Lobby is in Danger of Proving Conspiracy Theorists Right" Kossack Nazi dirk41 suggests that the "Israeli lobby" actually does control the US government and is seeking to push the United States into war with Iran.

In the summer of last year Bibi Netanyahu humiliated our President in the oval office, which was summarily followed by U.S. Congressmen giving Bibi 29 standing ovations (lest a congressman be caught by a political opponent of giving an insufficient amount of adoration to the Israeli Prime Minister).

And now it seems the Israeli lobby is using this influence to push us into a war with Iran. Laura Friedman of Peter Beinart's brand new blog, Zion Square, points out that Walt and Mearsheimer's theories could be aptly applied to the Iran debate:

The Nazi strain in the progressive-left, much like the Nazi strain in 1930s Germany, loves to tell the world that some nefarious Jewish influences are behind the scenes, pulling the strings, forcing the various governments to do this or that bloody action that is against the will of the people or benefit to the people.

It's the same old accusation that we got from the actual Nazis and that we get on a daily basis from much of the Muslim world and that we got throughout Eastern Europe before the pogroms of an earlier day. The ultimate message conveyed is that the Jews are evil warmongers who must be stopped at all costs.

They have absolutely no sympathy for the Jews under siege in the Middle East and honestly believe that the tiny Jewish nation is a behemoth that controls the US government. This kind of talk ultimately is genocidal as we have seen consistently throughout Jewish history.

It ever only leads to one thing: violence against us.

Sometimes the violence is relatively mild, as in individual attacks against individual Jews, but sometimes the violence is not relatively mild. In either case it always starts with Nazis telling one another how the Jews or the "Jewish lobby" or the Zionists or the "Israeli lobby" or AIPAC, or whatever euphemism seems most appropriate at the moment, control things to the detriment of the non-Jewish population.

People need to be reminded, I think, of the banal nature of "evil." It's all so casual. So natural. Just regular folk chatting up the nefarious nature of Jews in this way or that.

And that is precisely what we see coming out of the progressive movement. Apologists like to claim that it's only a few fringe characters on places like Daily Kos, but I believe that they are whistling past the graveyard.  A few fringe characters on places like Daily Kos do not make decisions for Harvard or Yale or the University of Pennsylvania.


In the comments:

What's old is new. (0+ / 0-)

I hate to say this but this story of a small group of Jews getting an empire to do something it doesn't want to do is the crucifixion story all over again. Pilate had 100% control over Judea, he could execute anyone he saw fit. Yet somehow even though he thought Jesus was innocent, a crowd of Jews living under military occupation with no real power made Pilate execute him. This old story of the inflated power of Jews within a society never seems to go away. Though you'd think a group that controls the media could tamp this down. : )

by RobbyMcP on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 10:25:27 AM PDT

Is this meant as snark?

I certainly hope so.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Egypt Threatens Israel


Egypt's parliament wants Israel's ambassador out

"Revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity (Israel), which we consider to be the number one enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation," said the (Egyptian parliamentary) report. "It will deal with that entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government is hereby called upon to review all its relations and accords with that enemy."

There are about 81 million Egyptians and about 7.5 million Israelis.

This story is a few days old, but weren't we told by the Obama administration that the "Arab Spring" was the blossoming of democracy in the Middle East?

Did not this president sing the praises of these riots throughout the Arab world as something akin to the Revolution of 1776 and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s?

Yes, he did.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia...

This president needs to eat these words.

How is it that Barack Obama applauded the overthrow of Mubarak, yet remained silent during the secular democratic uprisings in Iran?

How is it that the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East is applauded by the American president, despite the genocidal nature of this movement?

Something does not compute here.

How do you explain it?

It makes no sense to me.

Conference: Jews and the Left



The Institute for Jewish Research (YIVO), New York City

CONFERENCE | Co-sponsored by the American Jewish Historical Society, The Atran Foundation, The David Berg Foundation, and Dr. Joseph K. McLaughlin

Since the nineteenth century, Jews have played prominent roles in a variety of leftist political movements. At the same time, associations between Jews and communism have been a frequent leitmotif of antisemitic thinking. While the political Left often spoke out against antisemitism and promised Jews tolerance and an end to distinctions between Jews and non-Jews, specific, prominent, leftists espoused antisemitic ideas. In addition, Jews cultivated their own, uniquely Jewish, socialist parties and ideologies. In recent years, the relationship between Jews and the Left has been further complicated by left-wing opposition to the State of Israel and debates about the extent to which this opposition bleeds into outright antisemitism. YIVO, in association with AJHS, will bring together historians, political scientists, philosophers, and journalists from Europe, Israel, and America to discuss some of the important topics pertaining to the relationship between Jews and the Left.

This should prove very interesting.

{Cross-Posted at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Abuse and Intolerance practiced by a "Progressive" Blogger

by oldschooltwentysix

I usually refrain from things like this, but today I decided it was better to address what I see as a matter of intolerance and hypocrisy.

Sometimes I like to comment at a site called "The Progressive Zionist." (TPZ) One would imagine, with that moniker, it is a place where tolerance and respect for different opinions would prevail. After all, that is part of what "progressive" means to me.

Often, when I comment there, I am treated with great disrespect, told that I hate ALL Muslims, or that I am a Republican and should just admit it. My comments have been censored. Ironically, the last time I was called a Republican I had just made a comment that was to the ideological left of the position being proffered. No matter. Although I NEVER use profanity or initiate gratuitous and personal insults or attacks on integrity, I cannot report the same in return.

Many at TPZ, in my experience, love to invoke name calling as a means of discourse, even as they pretend to occupy the high, honest, intelligent road. Although the site says it is "A haven for those seeking intelligent conversation on Zionism, Culture, Politics and Life" it is often just the opposite. Demonization is frequent. Censorship  Others are called deranged, dishonest. Take, for example, this comment directed at me and a blog where I contribute, "Israel Thrives," from about 10 days ago, by a fellow named livosh1:
Wow, volley. Just came to this now. I, for one, am very glad to have seen you give a dishonest right-wing troll all the respect he deserves. And count me in as one who favors taking whatever action is necessary to prevent hateful, lying, Republican bigots from vomiting all over your blog. As you said, they have their own hate site where they spew their vitriol; you should feel no obligation to tolerate such dishonesty and hatred here.

I can only speak for myself, but this seems like a hate filled comment, much more so than anything I write. It illustrates what I have noted above.

Today, a diary was written at TPZ about Gilad Atzmon, infamous to many for his antisemitic, anti-Zionist beliefs and writings. Yet to some anti-Israel Palestinians, like Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad, Omar Barghouti, and a host of prominent professors and activists, Atzmon is now considered to agree with the ideology of Zionism and Israel.

The diary I refer to is here. It was penned by a contributor named fizziks. He used this post by Elder of Ziyon as his source.

Elder of Ziyon's site is one of the best. The Elder exposes the anti-Israel mentality that predominates among far too many. He looks at Arab news media, much like MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch. He is also critical of many on the Left that comprise or enable the anti-Israel movement. He actually admires Robert Spencer and others that speak out against Jihad and Jew hatred. Comments at his site can be vicious, especially toward Progressives, and I have objected to some on occasion, as a Liberal. Fizziks, however, can source The Elder and receive glowing comments.

Of course, I know that fizziks is not a Muslim hater or Republican, even as he relies on The Elder. In jest, I "warned" fizziks in a comment that doing might risk him being called a hatemonger and Republican, while also addressing the content concerning Atzmon. I wanted to point out a clear example of a practice where TPZ treats some people differently than others, for basically offering the same kind of content. Such disparate conduct in other venues would be classified as discrimination.

Never one to pass up an opportunity, in steps the person of Volleyboy1, the main administrator of TPZ. What follows is his response to me, and my replies. I am sorry that my first comment has gone to the hereafter, censored by him, but I suggest that one can read what follows and come to his/her own conclusion as to what transpired.
volleyboy1 Mar 14, 2012 11:59 AM
Note to oldschool: You're post was delected because you are not welcome to come in here and simply start talking crap about what I may or may not think about this.
Unless you have something to say about the issue - please refrain from posting here. This is not high school and if your previous post is going to be how you want to do things then you are not welcome to post here.
Oh and if you come back with another "BUT I'M BIENG CENSORSED... " comment - that too will be deleted. There are other sites on the web in which to trash me or other Center / Center Left Zionists - but you sure as shit are not going to do it here.
oldschooltwentysix Mar 14, 2012 01:02 PM
I trashed no one, but merely pointed out the disparate treatment, that a contributor here can approvingly use a source that many here would be deem a hate site based on the content, while others who offer the same content are labeled haters.
I did speak to the issue as well, by offering more of what The Elder wrote and a remark about Atzmon.
If you want to practice discrimination, by treating like circumstances differently, you have that power, but I think you abuse it.
Perhaps if you did not take EVERYTHING so personal so as to make every grain of sand into a mountain, there would be more diversity and ability to discuss things. But it seems you only approve that which pleases or adores you.
You may not see yourself as a censor, but that is exactly what you are doing here, and I fail to see a good reason why. What is the problem with letting me make a point and adding to the conversation, which I did with a good-natured comment that seems to have struck a nerve by showing the disparity one encounters at your site. Or is it now above any reproach?
Why are you so oversensitive that you cannot see that my mild poking at people here that rush to label me and others was amply illustrated through the diary? After all, I am not the one that labels. Or must I now contribute anonymously to avoid the discriminatory treatment?
oldschooltwentysix Mar 14, 2012 01:14 PM
One more thing. Your first sentence really takes the cake. You were not the diarist and my now censored comment in no way at all simply started talking crap about what YOU may or may not think about this.
Are you REALLY of the view that YOU, as compared to issues presented, are so important to me? I suggest you look at what you wrote and how it sounds.
The irony that the diary created has played out to a tee.
If you had not made such a big deal about it, my comment would have come and passed. It is just my view, after all. But the fact that you censored what was a completely appropriate comment and opinion not only deprives others the chance to consider the opinion, but gives it a greater prominence because you seem to fear the message itself. And that says something important about tolerance and the respect for real discourse.

In an abusive act of censorship, these comments were scrubbed from the site, but before that happened, a note appeared that the last one above was removed by the moderator. In response, I wrote: 
oldschooltwentysix Mar 14, 2012 01:30 PM
It's too bad that I did not save the original comment. You leave the impression that it was improper and deserved to be censored, and tarnish me as a consequence. That is wrong, but no one will ever know. That is why you abuse your power. Yet you call this progressive? I will henceforth make copies of my comments.
The most surreal part is that you not only make it seem as if I wrote something directly to you, which is not at all the case, but that you make yourself so important. Honestly, I think you are the one with the obsession, so much so that you cannot tolerate disagreement from me, it seems, in any fashion, which says a lot about the values you instill at your site.
Carry on!!

Predictably, this was then scrubbed.

Interestingly, shortly after my remarks, I noticed the sourcing to Elder of Ziyon also vanished! It was replaced by one to the Electronic Intifada (probably obtained from The Elder). The title of the diary was also changed, from "Pal. Arab" to "Anti-Israel" activists, even though the letter was sent by, according the the new source, "Palestinian writers and activists," and described by The Elder as rabid Israel-haters whose "single-minded aim is to take away the Jewish right of self-determination."

I wonder if fizziks make these changes? Or is this just another example of a person who takes liberty to change the editorial content of a writer?

Yes, I suppose to some this is boring stuff. However, it shows that some who profess to stand for progressive values and open discussion will not hesitate to quash the slightest criticism. It serves as an example of the intolerance and abuse that can be found inside the "Progressive" world, especially from those that accuse the same negative conduct by others. It seems overly dogmatic and authoritarian to me, and I therefore felt it was worthwhile to show this episode in the light of day.

(Cross posted at oldschooltwentysix)

I'm a Hard-Line, Right-Wing Zionist from Hell!


Ever since I started criticizing (excoriating?) the progressive-left on matters related to Israel and the Jewish people, I have been told by any number of people that I am a "conservative." A couple of people have even claimed that I am a Republican, which to my mind is much like accusing Barack Obama of being a Muslim.

It's just absurd.

Therefore I decided to go back and take that political compass test that people were so fond of not long ago. You know what I am talking about. People would take that little test and it would place you on a quadrant between "Social Authoritarian v. Social Libertarian" and "Economic Left v. Economic Right." I've taken this test three times, now, and each time I end up right in the same place, somewhere between Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.

I must be a fucking saint, I tell you guys!

I thought surely that by now the dial would have significantly moved, but it hasn't.

No matter what I do, no matter what I say, and no matter how many times people accuse me of political orientations that I do not hold, that stooopid friggin' political compass test tells me that I am, in truth, a fucking hippie.

I do not know how accurate or meaningful this test is, but we almost all of us took it at one point or another and a lot of people would post their score on their sig line.

Mine, as of this moment, is -3.75 / -5.23, which absolutely makes me some sort of screaming, left-wing, OCCUPY EVERYTHING, asshole.

I think that I'm just going to run off and join the Taliban!

{I gotta say, I am laughing my ass off.}