Tuesday, March 19, 2013

"The Jewish People Live" provokes violence by the "Non-Violent" left-wing

Mike L. 

Am Yisrael Chai 
The anti-Israel movement in a snapshot: A young woman who was writing a message of peace for Israel was physically and verbally assaulted, and thrown out of a public park, by people who claim to be, and are referred to by the mass media, as "peaceful," "non-violent," "free speech" activists.

Am Yisrael Chai written under Freedom to Speak, led to 3/13/13 assault on an Israeli woman in Oakland.

The problem is not that most progressives despise Israelis or Jews or Zionists.  They don't.  The problem is that they accept anti-Semitic anti-Zionists as part of their larger coalition and have come to believe that the Jewish victims in the Middle East are the victimizers, while their Arab-Muslim oppressors are, in fact, the victims of the Jewish minority.

This scene happened in Oakland, which is where I live.  And I understand, of course, that the "Occupy" people do not represent the left as a whole.  They represent the far left.  What we see in the video clip above is a Jewish Israeli being attacked by Gabrielle Silverman, an American Jewish progressive activist.

Now, tell me, how sad is that?

But this did not happen in a right-wing venue.  It happened in a left-wing venue.  And it wasn't just a matter of a hard-left Jewish activist, but of her non-Jewish friends pushing out a young Israeli woman and her companion.

The last time that I went to an anti-war rally in San Francisco I saw a Swastika entwined in a Star of David, which represents one of those moments, a landmark, that has driven me out of the left, entirely.

I find it interesting that Silverman said this afterwards:
I want to say that I don’t like or respect the right wing, but I would never disturb one of your memorial spaces.
There is nothing to suggest that the young Israeli girl that she attacked was "right-wing" beyond the fact that she was pro-Israel and pro-Jewish.  That's it.  Nonetheless, it is becoming a matter of "religious faith," so to speak, that standing up for the human rights of the Jewish people is now considered "right-wing" or "conservative."

Would anyone ever think that about a Latina who stands up for Latin Americans?

Would anyone ever think that about a Black woman who stood up against Jim Crow?

The Jewish people in the Middle East are not oppressing the Palestinian-Arabs.  On the contrary.  It is the vast Arab majority which continues to lay siege to the Jewish minority in that part of the world out of an exceedingly violent form of religious bigotry, yet the progressive-left, including much of progressive-left Jewry, interprets Jewish self-defense as a form of aggression.

Think about what happened last year.  All year long Hamas rocketeers bombarded southern Israel, making that part of the country virtually unlivable, and no one in the international community cared.  In November Arabs shot hundreds of rockets into Israel and only when Israelis finally responded in defense of themselves did the progressive-left stand up to denounce the Jewish State.

The right did not do that.  It was the left.

So, why in this world would any self-respecting Jewish person continue to support a political movement that holds us in violent contempt?

Political sands are shifting and it is time for us to move on.  We can still hold to our highest ideals, but we should not do it under the banner of a regressive and racist political movement that is increasingly supportive of anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.


Because the Day of the Dhimmi is Done.

That's why.

It's time to have a little self-respect.


  1. I read right after this happened that the woman with the chalk was a recent member of the IDF.

    In any event, people on the left certainly need to see that there is a significantly larger part of the group that sympathizes with the Palestinians than in other political groups. It follows that among them are elements that hate Israel and practice antisemitism, who hate America as well.

    What a great video to show just how hateful are some that tell us they wish to create a better planet.

  2. This is why you have to bring Nazi flags and stand amongst the Pro Arab crowd, chanting "Death to the Jews". 95% of the time they will join in or at least not drive you off. The only difference between the two groups, the Hamas lovers and the Nazis is one of honesty.

    1. Trudy, please do not take this the wrong way, but you are the ballsiest woman that I know.

      And, yet, the pooch is still cute.

      Write something good for the front page, OK?

      Stand the hell up... but be grammatical.

    2. No, Trudy. We don't need to do that. Ours is the side of truth and history and we don't need to resort to the other side's tactics to make our point.

    3. It's not a tactic it's the truth. I have far less truck with Nazis who say they are Nazis than I do with 'radicals' who are but don't admit it. Case in point. EoZ just a little while ago posted up a piece that shows "The Jewish Forward" a newspaper I've alluded to once or twice, decided to run what can only be described as The Hamas Haggadah.


      This is not merely some old hippies deciding to be obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious. This is something that could have been churned out by the ISM (Int'l Solidarity Movement). These are the words they use. They take the words of the Haggadah and mutate it into a crime by all Jews against the world.

      No I'm sorry but Nazis are Nazis and it is incumbent on us to call them out on that. I couldn't care less if they're ethnically Jewish female anarchist coeds. And I care even less if they're outraged by it. It's not relevant. They are dangerous and they feel entitled to BE dangerous and the only just response to brown shirts is 'street action' because people like this never de-escalate until you make them.

    4. A fair fight is one that I win and everyone else is bleeding or has surrendered or retreated. I believe we are engaged in a war.

    5. In war you can only kill those that actively participate in hostilities. Where do you draw the line?

    6. Where do you draw the line?

      From an ethical standpoint you never kill unless you need to do so in order to save either oneself or one's family or one's friends or one's people.

      The question that is more interesting to me is what is the meaning of "Nazi."

      Any professional historian would only use that word to refer to the German National Socialists from the 1920s through the early 1940s.

      But, I have to say, as a Jew concerned about never-ending hostility toward the Jewish people, it makes perfect sense to use that word toward people who create hatred toward us in the manner that the Nazis did.

      No I'm sorry but Nazis are Nazis and it is incumbent on us to call them out on that.

      Although I would never bring a Nazi flag to any kind of rally, I could not agree with that statement more.

      Trudy is correct.

      Political Islam is a form of contemporary Muslim "Nazism" and those who support it are engaged in the same project.

      This is a difficult fact, but it is a fact that we must face.

  3. If she does indeed consider herself 'non-violent,' perhaps it's in a sort of post-structuralist sense. as in the violent acts she commits aren't really acts of violence as long as they're being done to The Bad Guy, or to stop The Bad Thing, etc etc.

    Ah, but yeah. The "free speech for me and if you dare to think differently than I do I'll kick your ass" mentality is a rather interesting one, isn't it?

    1. This occurs on many levels, the cowardly need to censor speech one does not like, often because of what it reveals about the censor.

      In Islam, any criticism is considered slander. That seems akin to the mentality behind the censorship. There is a sincere belief that it is the right thing to do, in the name of virtue one becomes authorized to employ a double standard that shows who the extremists actually are.

    2. One of the real eye-openers for me personally was when they called the violent Jihadis aboard the Mavi Marmara "peace activists."

      For me it was an epiphany, a moment of awakening.

  4. Totally o/t, but yeah. How have I not heard of this before?

    "Base ball" by 1864 rules! I am definitely going to attend more than a few of their games this year. Though it appears they've gone 4-41 (not a typo) over their first couple years. So I don't think many wins are in store...

  5. And this, too -

    "There is nothing to suggest that the young Israeli girl that she attacked was "right-wing" beyond the fact that she was pro-Israel and pro-Jewish. That's it. Nonetheless, it is becoming a matter of "religious faith," so to speak, that standing up for the human rights of the Jewish people is now considered "right-wing" or "conservative.""

    I am, of course, quite familiar with this tactic, though I do not fully understand the point of it. I have apparently just recently become a conservative Republican in the fevered minds of a few former associates, though if I have become such a thing it would certainly be news to me. Not that there's anything wrong with being one, it's just that I'm not.

    But hey, if someone's entire value system and way of life is threatened when people on their side of the political aisle begin to think differently than they do, and childish name-calling makes them feel better about themselves, then have at it. Why not?

    It's still not a tactic I really understand the point of, though. I mean, it's as if against all logic I went on a crusade to claim that Mike does not in fact live in Oakland, but rather in Oklahoma City. What's the point? What does it accomplish?

    1. I tell ya, man, it has to be tough being progressive and pro-Israel these days.

      It makes you the odd man out.

      If you were to go down the list of issues and tick them off one by one, you would fine me firmly on the left. I'm a liberal and have always been.

      But, given current realities, I have learned to stand aside from partisan politics.

      The left, as a movement, is morally dead because they refuse to stand up for their own essential values. If they won't stand up for universal human rights... if they won't stand up for women in the Arab Middle East or Gay people or Jews... then they have no standing.

      I'm telling ya, there was an unspoken, unacknowledged contest between the multicultural ideal and the ideal of universal human rights for the possession of the progressive-left soul and the multicultural ideal won out.

      It then immediately strangled its weaker brother.

      And that makes me an orphan, I suppose.

    2. And for all the bleating some do about 'lunatic' this, and 'fringe' the other, it's interesting to note how similar their favorite tactic is to those used by the very same people they accuse others of being 'just like.' Projection is an interesting phenomenon, indeed...