Monday, October 17, 2016

Raw Deal 9 - UNESCO, Hillary, and Students Chanting for Intifada

Michael Lumish

Heya guys,

This is Michael Lumish talking with ya this beautiful Monday morning, October 17, 2016, high atop my perch here in the Oakland hills looking out upon a world gone absolutely bonkers.

As you know, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization obliterated over 3,500 years of Jewish history on Jewish land in order to appease the OIC, that is, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation with its 57 member states in the United Nations.

Shocking, I know.

We have an historical and hysterical campaign for the presidency in the United States wherein for the first time ever in American history, and perhaps in world history, will a candidate for the executive be declared unfit for office due to alleged sexism.

From a cultural historical perspective that is pretty remarkable.

And we have universities around the country, such as San Francisco State, in which students learn that Israel is evil and Jews who don’t despise the Jewish state are very much encouraged to despise themselves on moral grounds… on grounds of “social justice.”

The UNESCO vote was, of course, heinous, but it must be understood that it represents a way in which the United Nations courts the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Delegitimizing Israel serves the anti-Zionist cause and what better way to delegitimize than by simply erasing millennia of Jewish history on the very land where Jewish people come from?

Poof!  They simply declare Jewish history null and void in order to give Mahmoud Abbas an orgasm.

The theft of Jewish history, and the erasure of Jewish history, while replacing it with the ahistorical Palestinian Narrative, is a primary tactic of the Arabs in the Qur’anically-based Long Arab War against the Jews of the Middle East.

Just think Anne Frank in a keffiyah to get my meaning.

The difference, however, is that instead of this form of delegitimization coming just from the Arabs it also comes, sometimes in dramatic forms like this recent vote, from the very organization that claims to stand for peace and universal human rights within world opinion, which is the UN.

If they cannot defeat the Jews militarily then, much like termites, they seek to slowly chew away at the very foundation of the cause for Jewish freedom by whipping up hatred toward Jews, thereby promoting violence against us while eroding our morale… our very will to survive as a people.

As for the coming election, it is notable for at least two reasons. The first is that Trump will get dumped as a sexist. When was the last time that anyone in the secular West ever lost a national election due to charges of sexism? The only one that comes to my mind is former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who definitely riled up Italian women, but I do not know what electoral price he paid, if any.

The second reason this election is historically notable is because it represents the most extreme case in modern American history of media bias dominating an election and pre-determining its outcome.

Leaving aside the issue of Mr. Trump’s alleged demonic nature, there is no question but that the standard media is using the sexism charge as a club in a way that they never did with Bill Clinton, who was not exactly Mr. Clean Marine, himself.

What this means is that over the next decade we will see the country further divided. If Obama divided the United States over issues of race (and he did) then Hillary, working from the same Democratic Party playbook, will do likewise over issues of sexism.

The rich irony in this is that American feminism is actually long dead, having hung itself by an Arab keffiyah. The last gasp of American feminism was when they stood up against the Taliban in the 1990s. Since that time, the American feminist establishment – according to people like feminist professor Phyllis Chesler and former National Organization for Women director, Tammy Bruce – has shoved women to the back of a bus driven by Arab men.

Finally, as for the universities, we have got to make it clear to the administrators that when students call for Intifada that they are calling for the murder of the Jewish people in the Middle East.

When they call to bring the Intifada home to the United States, they are, in fact, calling for the murder of American Jews.

I’ve been banging this drum hard because it is damn important. My guess is that when most western university administrators here the chanting of “Intifada! Intifada! Long live the intifada!” what runs through their minds is not children with kitchen knives stabbing random Jews in Jerusalem at the behest of their culture, if not their parents, but earnest, socially-conscious, Berkeley students, circa 1969.

Well, here’s a newsflash. It’s not the same thing!

60s radicals in the United States never targeted a single specific ethnicity for death.

Even the most radical members of the Weather Underground – when they weren’t inadvertently blowing themselves up - never suggested that evil imperialist white people be shot dead at random.

It’s frankly amazing that student groups like GUPS or Students for Justice in Palestine can literally call for the murder of random Jewish people and that’s just fine.

What they can’t do, however, at least not at San Francisco State is enjoy a cigarette while doing so. That might get you a ticket or however they enforce the no smoking policy on campus.

Calling for the murder of people is just fine, but a cigarette before lunch?

Now that is over the line.


  1. You must have been reading my mind. And, yes, I expect a Hillary presidency to do for relations between the sexes what Obama did for race relations. And we both know who the objects of derision will be, don't we? A list of code words will be offered, and speech further restricted. And for people worried about right-wing this and right-wing that, this type thing will indeed enhance its standing with many ordinary people who otherwise, in a more stable environment, wouldn't go there.

    1. Obama didn't create racial divisions, he exposed them. But that's not the real point of your post. What you want is a president who will say that the Palestinians are a fake ethnicity with a terrible government which should be overthrown and that Israel should run the entire historic Israel. Okay, but nobody will ever say that nor will anybody ever put that policy in place. That is why nobody can name a better friend to Israel than Bill or Hillary Clinton. Daniel Pipes isn't running for president, couldn't get elected if he did and, by the way, is supporting Hillary.

    2. Is that response addressed to me?
      If so, then:
      "Obama didn't create racial divisions, he exposed them."
      There is some truth to the second part of that slogan. I don't agree with the first part.
      Frankly, I don't care who Daniel Pipes votes for. That's his business. I never vote for anyone simply because so and so is voting for them, although I might be interested in someone's reasoning. My bet is that Daniel Pipes' support for Hillary isn't quite as ecstatic as yours.

      I just want politicians and others to stop lying, and screwing Israel because it's the path of least resistance, e.g., the UNESCO embarrassment, the State Departments prejudicial and off base pronouncements, the "those Israelis are just stubborn racists/Bibi doesn't want peace" memes, etc. And yes, I want the Palestinian cause exposed. And I don't want Jewish rights abrogated on all the phony boloney pretexts to which Israel and, by extension, Jews are being subjected to around the world and from the current occupant of the Oval Office. Lying for peace won't bring peace.

    3. The other comment was eaten.

      Racial division is as old ad mankind. Some people heal them. Some exacerbate them. Obama has done the latter. Clinton uses them for political gain. She does not really care, but is not honest enough to tell the truth. This schtick about her is a charade.

      Her aides debated if Israel would be palatable to Democrats. Trump would be a far better friend because his constituency is not anti-Israel, and Clinton's is and it's growing.

      Clinton's global approach, like Obama's, is not democratic and reliant of a mind set that Israel is an oppressor. How anyone could say that Clinton is the best Israel can expect from America is a strange notion.

  2. I would agree that it's time to take seriously and effort to sully the reputations of these groups and the cause they champion. There exists a wealth of material to paint them for what they are.