I was surprised and delighted to find that David Horowitz managed to do what no one else could ever do - get every major Islamic and Arab association and every personal opinion of every Muslim as well as anyone even remotely progressive on the same page as each other - united against "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week," united against his Judeo-Supremacist hate campaign.
David Horowitz has moved the boundary of rational discourse on Islam and Arabic politics so far to the right that previously unacceptable Islamophobia and Arabophobia became acceptable or even moderate positions in American public discourse. Juan Cole has identified Horowitz as a pioneer of the "google-smear" method of discrediting a political opponent where lies "can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information."
I have to disagree with the mainstream Muslim organizations that "dawah" or "explaining Islam" is the best method of counter-attack against the liar pundits who are using Muslims as scapegoats to distract from the wars the neo-conservatives are forcing America to wage, pay for and die for. For every lying sentence someone like Dershowitz or Horowitz might say, it would take an hour to unravel all the falsehoods and racist misconceptions. This is the neo-con method of argumentation. They are not trying to understand Muslims or help Muslims, they are trying to defeat Muslims politically and socially. It is therefore necessary to use normal political debate tactics to gain the upper hand. There is no evidence that dawah will likely solve the problem of the David Horowitz's of the world. They have more money and more media connections and they can do what they want. A more useful approach is to work on discrediting them by talking about THEM. Not by insisting we don't support terrorists. They are trying to wedge you into a corner and force you to say that you support Israel's right to murder Palestinians and take their property and sell it for subsidized rates to American Jews at discounts funded by our tax dollars.
The important thing to point out is that pro-Israel fanatics are disloyal to America and that they are traitors. David Horowitz in his FrontPage newsletter openly supported putting Prof. Sami Al-Arian in prison on secret evidence (read: no charges) and he wants all Muslims deported. He also wants Muslims to be imprisoned. He uses the very 1980's topic of "female circumcision" as a debate tactic when the real question is why are innocent women giving birth to babies on floors covered in shit and why are they being raped and sodomized by US soldiers in Guantanamo? Whose idea was that?
David Horowitz, like most pro-Israel Jews in America, wanted very much for the US to invade Iraq and imprison its population and murder the children. He is also strongly supportive of bombing Iran for no good reason except for his seething hatred against the United States. The neo-cons want to end the era of the American Constitution. David Horowitz supports trials without evidence, without charges, Muslims being locked up for life and tortured like Jose Padilla, who was given so much LSD he lost his mind and was unable to speak for himself at his own trial.
David Horowitz is part of a network of well-funded Jewish think tanks whose goal is to enslave the American population so that we will eternally subsidize the Israeli economy, send our children to die fighting Israel's enemies both real and imagined, and to give up our sovereignty.
I think it's really great that the Muslims and Arabs have united against David Horowitz's hate campaign. But what people still don't understand is that the anti-Islam speech is just a circus show. What this clown is advocating is the end of the United States Constitution. The end of civil liberties. The end of human rights. He advocates everything that Israel stands for. He wills the destruction of the American economy and our very moral fabric. Look at what frontpagemag.com wrote about Prof. Sami-Al Arian, about mosques around the country. He wants every person who is loyal to the ideals of the United States to rot in prison.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
After forgiveness, celebration in Roxbury
Boston--June 9--The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) decided to settle
with the David Project, with both parties agreeing to drop all
lawsuits including the suit filed by James Policastro to attempt to
get the Roxbury mosque torn down. No future litigation can be brought
against the mosque.
Interfaith director Jessica Masse said, "The ISB has made its point,
which was never about monetary gain, and was always about standing up for the right of its community to worship freely. We will now focus on strengthening our ties with the broader community, and in particular, the interfaith community."
Masse thanked the interfaith community for having the courage to the
stand with the ISB when no one else would.
ISB Director, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban stated, "We have achieved
multiple victories in court… The decisions of the Massachusetts judges
who issued rulings in these cases affirming our rights should be read
by all citizens. But now we want to move forward."
The ISB held a press conference on Wednesday, May 30 at the mosque
site in Roxbury and on June 9 held a "Faith and Unity March" and
"Minaret Capping Festival" attended by over 2000 visitors, including
James Policastro!
Policastro said it was a beautiful ceremony, reported the Boston Globe.
A copper cap, affixed with an American flag, was lifted by crane and
attached by workmen to the top of the minaret in front of the crowd as a symbol for the Muslim community's addition to the American melting pot.
Imam Basyouny Nehala called the adhan from the minaret for the first time.
The 70,000-square-foot mosque, which has taken two decades to
complete, plans to open this Ramadan.
Muslim American Society Boston's executive director Bilal Kaleem
expressed his joy.
"The settlement was achieved a couple weeks ago," Kaleem said, "but it
didn't hit home until I saw the 5,000-pound cap of the minaret coming
down slowly with thousands of people praying and crying. It was
beautiful, emotional, and a time of great thankfulness."
Sufia Hassan, whose husband heads Masjid Alhamdulillah in Roxbury,
said their mosque was not originally built as a house of worship.
"This is the first built from the ground up," Hassan said
enthusiastically. "What's nice is that it will bring Muslims from this
country and other countries together."
The New England community has achieved a great milestone in their
dream to build the largest Islamic Center in Greater Boston.
with the David Project, with both parties agreeing to drop all
lawsuits including the suit filed by James Policastro to attempt to
get the Roxbury mosque torn down. No future litigation can be brought
against the mosque.
Interfaith director Jessica Masse said, "The ISB has made its point,
which was never about monetary gain, and was always about standing up for the right of its community to worship freely. We will now focus on strengthening our ties with the broader community, and in particular, the interfaith community."
Masse thanked the interfaith community for having the courage to the
stand with the ISB when no one else would.
ISB Director, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban stated, "We have achieved
multiple victories in court… The decisions of the Massachusetts judges
who issued rulings in these cases affirming our rights should be read
by all citizens. But now we want to move forward."
The ISB held a press conference on Wednesday, May 30 at the mosque
site in Roxbury and on June 9 held a "Faith and Unity March" and
"Minaret Capping Festival" attended by over 2000 visitors, including
James Policastro!
Policastro said it was a beautiful ceremony, reported the Boston Globe.
A copper cap, affixed with an American flag, was lifted by crane and
attached by workmen to the top of the minaret in front of the crowd as a symbol for the Muslim community's addition to the American melting pot.
Imam Basyouny Nehala called the adhan from the minaret for the first time.
The 70,000-square-foot mosque, which has taken two decades to
complete, plans to open this Ramadan.
Muslim American Society Boston's executive director Bilal Kaleem
expressed his joy.
"The settlement was achieved a couple weeks ago," Kaleem said, "but it
didn't hit home until I saw the 5,000-pound cap of the minaret coming
down slowly with thousands of people praying and crying. It was
beautiful, emotional, and a time of great thankfulness."
Sufia Hassan, whose husband heads Masjid Alhamdulillah in Roxbury,
said their mosque was not originally built as a house of worship.
"This is the first built from the ground up," Hassan said
enthusiastically. "What's nice is that it will bring Muslims from this
country and other countries together."
The New England community has achieved a great milestone in their
dream to build the largest Islamic Center in Greater Boston.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Boston Muslims Forgive Israel Advocates
“Muslims are very upset," said Mushtaque Mirza, who has lived in Boston for 30 years. “The mosque is always depicted as [supporting] terrorism."
The lawsuit against the City was dismissed in 2007, but irreparable damage had already been done. Donations slowed to a trickle, the mosque only half built.
When in 2005, mosque directors Dr. Yousef Abou Allaban and Ossama Kandil sued Fox News and the Boston Herald for defamation, analysis of discovery materials exposed a professionally coordinated network of pro-Israel organizations, mass media, Islamophobic academics, and real estate developers. The directors accused a growing list of defendants, including Steven Emerson, the David Project, and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (CPT), whose president is Dennis Hale, of "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion."
The Jewish community
Some Jewish groups kindly distanced themselves from this conspiracy to deprive Muslim Americans of their constitutional rights, which is a federal crime, but Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, whose stated mission includes minimizing the political influence of groups feared hostile to Israel, stated, "None of those organizations [who signed statements supporting the mosque] are members of the organizations of the JCRC. We don't consider them to be a part of the mainstream Jewish community."
Who is Charles Jacobs?
In 2006, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban, chairman of the board of the Islamic Society of Boston, addressed Charles Jacobs, president of the David Project, in an open letter that was quoted in the Boston Globe.
"We would like to know why you and others at the David Project appear to be so intent on inflaming relations between our communities," Abou-Allaban wrote. "Do you really hate us that much?"
Charles Jacobs, like Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle, earns his living through a speakers' bureau called Benador Associates, which specializes in pro-Israel campus events focusing on Islam and terrorism. Fareeha Iqbal, a student at MIT, attended one of his lectures.
"Dr. Jacobs’ talk expressed blatantly racist and anti-Islamic views. In fact, I have never seen Islamophobia exuded so blatantly at a public forum at MIT, nor such racist views aired at a panel discussion on human rights.”
A pioneer in the technological aspects of mass-marketing hate, CAMERA, which Jacobs co-founded in 1982 to enforce pro-Israel bias in the news, email blasts tailored “action alerts” to huge databases of specific target groups.
This Polish immigrant, armed with only a BA from Rutgers and a Masters in Education from Harvard has proven exceptionally effective in manipulating the US government and major American institutions into following policy blueprints created by his Israel advocacy organization, the David Project.
The David Project
The David Project is an affiliate member of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), a network of national Jewish organizations, founded in partnership with the Jewish student organization Hillel and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. (The three organizations share a building in Washington.) It is essentially an Islamophobia franchisor complete with manuals and training videos.
In October 2003, the David Project funded a film, produced by Ralph Avi Goldwasser, to slander professors Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi, and Georges Saliba of Columbia University's Department of Middle East studies. Joseph Massad became known as one of the most dangerous intellectuals on campus. Calls for the professor’s dismissal were issued by Congressman Weiner and by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, and the propaganda film was shown in Israel before a government minister at an anti-Semitism conference.
The David Project regularly places racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers on Harvard campus, but its first major accomplishment was blocking a $2 million donation from the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, for a chair in Islamic Studies at the Harvard Divinity School. The Project's 2003 smear campaign, coordinated with the ADL, sought to exclude Arabs and Muslims from developments at Harvard University.
Charles Jacobs smeared Shaykh Zaid’s donation to Harvard.
Anti-Sudan Campaigns
Jacobs' pro-Israel advocacy organization spearheaded the campaign to vilify the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and provided huge quantities of lurid, both popular and pseudo-academic material, in which Sudan is described as a "terrorist, genocidal" state engaged in a "holy war." Charles Jacobs’ carefully designed "PR puff pieces" about "slavery" in Sudan have managed to secure national media coverage.
While pro-Palestine activists have long struggled to halt public funding of Israel, the dishonest “Save Darfur!” campaign, put together by DP friends and trainees, is the quickest divestment success in history. Sudan divestment resolutions have become law in Iowa and are in the process of approval in 12 states. The JCRC coordinating with the David Project has further poisoned human rights discourse with this effort to turn Arab and African Americans against each other.
ISB Settles Lawsuit
The furor over the Roxbury mosque has exposed the ways Israel advocacy groups pollute discourse on US foreign and domestic policy, which have until now remained mostly invisible to American political scientists.
Two lawyers that were originally helping the David Project, Jonathon Leffel and Jacob Feinberg, apparently had a change of heart and handed over to the Islamic Society of Boston damning evidence against the David Project.
The ISB had always made clear that they would settle if the David Project stopped challenging their right to build the mosque. On May 29, 2007 the David Project offered to withdraw Policastro’s appeal, and on May 30, 2007, the Muslim American Society announced that Kandil and Abou Allaban agreed to dismiss their defamation lawsuits.
Every time Jacobs, Kaufman, or Goldwasser look out of the top floor window of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies in downtown Boston, they will see the dome and minaret despite their best efforts to prevent its completion.
Karin Friedemann is editor of World View News Service in Boston, focusing on the Islamic world. Please visit http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Evidence: Lawsuit aimed at racial intimidation of Muslim community
Court documents reveal that on May 28, 2004, David Project directors and several attorneys were developing strategies to cast doubt on the Roxbury Mosque's status as a non-profit organization.
One attorney suggested, "How about simply appealing the building permit and tying things up?"
The group decided to investigate several plans to halt construction, but on July 22, 2007 David Project director Anna Kolodner started panicking.
"The steel is going up on the Mosque," she wrote to the group. “We need to have a plaintiff. This is a priority. Please contact any individuals that would consider this role and let us know.”
Using the lawsuit, Kolodner demanded records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to use for negative publicity.
Realizing that few Americans could care less where the Islamic Society of Boston obtained their mortgage, real estate developer Steve Cohen discussed creating suspicion by using vague language to question the mosque’s non-criminal foreign “connections.”
"However, the First Amendment will bar any governmental action against the mosque based on these connections - not in the absence of incitement that might lead to ‘imminent action.’ So all we are left with is a public relations campaign.”
This admission betrays a premeditated decision to incite hate by using “terrorist” as an ethnic slur to manipulate public sentiment, while their plaintiff sued the city for selling to Muslims.
“The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections,” Cohen continued. “However, the pr campaign surrounding the suit can strike a different chord: i.e. that the city of Boston should not be subsidizing a mosque or any organization with terrorist connections.”
“We will be much more effective if we let others ask this question than if we do so ourselves," Cohen admitted. “The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections.”
On September 2, 2004, Anna Kolodner wrote, "Filing the lawsuit will serve to trip the switch on the larger agenda of exposing the radical fundamentalist underpinnings of the Mosque and its leaders…We need to develop a media campaign and identify who will be the public spokesperson for the group…We need an expert in power point to develop a presentation that can be used with the media, politicians, and community groups."
That power point expert would turn out to be the notorious Robert Spencer.
One attorney suggested, "How about simply appealing the building permit and tying things up?"
The group decided to investigate several plans to halt construction, but on July 22, 2007 David Project director Anna Kolodner started panicking.
"The steel is going up on the Mosque," she wrote to the group. “We need to have a plaintiff. This is a priority. Please contact any individuals that would consider this role and let us know.”
Using the lawsuit, Kolodner demanded records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to use for negative publicity.
Realizing that few Americans could care less where the Islamic Society of Boston obtained their mortgage, real estate developer Steve Cohen discussed creating suspicion by using vague language to question the mosque’s non-criminal foreign “connections.”
"However, the First Amendment will bar any governmental action against the mosque based on these connections - not in the absence of incitement that might lead to ‘imminent action.’ So all we are left with is a public relations campaign.”
This admission betrays a premeditated decision to incite hate by using “terrorist” as an ethnic slur to manipulate public sentiment, while their plaintiff sued the city for selling to Muslims.
“The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections,” Cohen continued. “However, the pr campaign surrounding the suit can strike a different chord: i.e. that the city of Boston should not be subsidizing a mosque or any organization with terrorist connections.”
“We will be much more effective if we let others ask this question than if we do so ourselves," Cohen admitted. “The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections.”
On September 2, 2004, Anna Kolodner wrote, "Filing the lawsuit will serve to trip the switch on the larger agenda of exposing the radical fundamentalist underpinnings of the Mosque and its leaders…We need to develop a media campaign and identify who will be the public spokesperson for the group…We need an expert in power point to develop a presentation that can be used with the media, politicians, and community groups."
That power point expert would turn out to be the notorious Robert Spencer.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Muslims involved in mosque plot
Muslims involved in mosque plot
Karin Friedemann
May 13, 2007
View the evidence for yourself at http://members.aol.com/tprovoni/DavidProject/FainburgDiscovery.pdf
Boston--May 12, 2007--New evidence has surfaced, which indicates efforts to enlist professional critics of Islam, including Muslim collaborators, in the conspiracy against the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). Attorney Jack Fainberg, who previously helped construct a legal case against their mosque, volunteered discovery materials to the ISB.A June 1, 2004 opposition email refers to an unnamed “pro-Jewish Muslim ally in Boston," who used Roxbury Community College connections to help conspirators investigate parking infractions the mosque might have committed inadvertently, that could be used in a legal attack.
Khaleel Mohammed, an academic who advocates “Islamic reform” to right wing audiences was also mentioned in the anti-mosque correspondence.An October 1993 Boston Herald article linked a quotation from Mohammed about mosque financing with two succeeding anonymous quotations so that he would appear to accuse the ISB of links to "fundamentalist Islamist politics." In discovery emails, Mohammed discusses with professional Israel advocates the allegedly “Wahhabi” content of library materials at the ISB. Mohammed was invited to comment about his involvement with the anti-mosque group.
“I am sad to find out that organizations are now using government funds to combat the building of mosques.” Mohammed began.“I have imparted no ‘secret’ information to anyone…I don't know any of the people in the Boston Mosque. I would at most say that if they are into radical Islam, I would be against their building a mosque.”Mohammed claimed that he verified “some translations [of statements by] someone on the mosque board” for a good friend at the Anti-Defamation League.According to the ISB, Islamic scholar Dr. Jamal Badawi claimed under oath that the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) misrepresented a political comment made in Arabic by ISB Board of Trustee member Dr. Walid Fitaihi.
In April 2007, Dr. Walid Fitaihi returned from Saudi Arabia to offer “an apology without condition” to Jewish leaders in Brookline, Massachusetts for his words, which “he recognized were offensive to Jews.” Fataihi was on a list of twenty Muslims compiled by the David Project, the ADL and Steve Emerson.Their broad and unsubstantiated allegations were summarized by Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in a power point presentation on February 3, 2005 at a synagogue in Massachusetts under the title “The Boston Mosque: Do Tolerance and Diversity go both ways?”
Original emails: http://members.aol.com/tprovoni/DavidProject/FainburgDiscovery.pdf
Karin Friedemann
May 13, 2007
View the evidence for yourself at http://members.aol.com/tprovoni/DavidProject/FainburgDiscovery.pdf
Boston--May 12, 2007--New evidence has surfaced, which indicates efforts to enlist professional critics of Islam, including Muslim collaborators, in the conspiracy against the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). Attorney Jack Fainberg, who previously helped construct a legal case against their mosque, volunteered discovery materials to the ISB.A June 1, 2004 opposition email refers to an unnamed “pro-Jewish Muslim ally in Boston," who used Roxbury Community College connections to help conspirators investigate parking infractions the mosque might have committed inadvertently, that could be used in a legal attack.
Khaleel Mohammed, an academic who advocates “Islamic reform” to right wing audiences was also mentioned in the anti-mosque correspondence.An October 1993 Boston Herald article linked a quotation from Mohammed about mosque financing with two succeeding anonymous quotations so that he would appear to accuse the ISB of links to "fundamentalist Islamist politics." In discovery emails, Mohammed discusses with professional Israel advocates the allegedly “Wahhabi” content of library materials at the ISB. Mohammed was invited to comment about his involvement with the anti-mosque group.
“I am sad to find out that organizations are now using government funds to combat the building of mosques.” Mohammed began.“I have imparted no ‘secret’ information to anyone…I don't know any of the people in the Boston Mosque. I would at most say that if they are into radical Islam, I would be against their building a mosque.”Mohammed claimed that he verified “some translations [of statements by] someone on the mosque board” for a good friend at the Anti-Defamation League.According to the ISB, Islamic scholar Dr. Jamal Badawi claimed under oath that the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) misrepresented a political comment made in Arabic by ISB Board of Trustee member Dr. Walid Fitaihi.
In April 2007, Dr. Walid Fitaihi returned from Saudi Arabia to offer “an apology without condition” to Jewish leaders in Brookline, Massachusetts for his words, which “he recognized were offensive to Jews.” Fataihi was on a list of twenty Muslims compiled by the David Project, the ADL and Steve Emerson.Their broad and unsubstantiated allegations were summarized by Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in a power point presentation on February 3, 2005 at a synagogue in Massachusetts under the title “The Boston Mosque: Do Tolerance and Diversity go both ways?”
Original emails: http://members.aol.com/tprovoni/DavidProject/FainburgDiscovery.pdf
Monday, May 07, 2007
Damning Evidence Against Boston Israel Advocates
Islamic Society of Boston releases Opposition Emails:
Damning Evidence against The David Project
Summary: The David Project conspired with real estate agents, lawyers and politicians to organize a campaign to deny the Boston Muslim community their 1st amendment rights to worship freely.
World View News Service
May 7, 2007
Read the original emails at: http://tinyurl.com/23adhf
This week, Jessica Masse, interfaith coordinator of the Islamic Society of Boston, publicly released recent discovery materials obtained as part of the ISB's conspiracy lawsuit, which reveal that an Israel advocacy organization, which specializes in creating malicious anti-Arab, anti-African and Islamophobic propaganda, met with real estate investors, attorneys, and Republican activists at their office at 210 South Street in Boston to discuss an action plan "to present a legal challenge" to the Roxbury Mosque project.
On May 28, 2004, Anna Kolodner, executive director of the David Project, sent an email congratulating the group for their successful meeting.
"Discussion of issues and individuals involved in the Mosque led to some preliminary steps as we continue to gather information and develop an action plan."
Three days later, Kolodner circulated an idea.
"Given that they may not have parking, Josh [Katzen] suggested we might thwart them through the building permit process for the intended parking."
Joshua Katzen is a member of the team of aggressive real estate developers that wanted to unravel the land deal between the City of Boston and the ISB. Another anti-ISB activist, Jonathan Leffell, who develops property in the Boston area, is chairman of the New England "Friends of the Israel Defense Forces" while William Sapers, who instigated the anti-Mosque campaign and who owns an insurance agency in Cambridge, has invested in real estate under the corporate name Hemisphere Inc. Sapers is a director of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, which is an umbrella organization for mainstream Jewish communal organizations in Greater Boston. Steve Cohen, owner of CEA Group, another Boston area real estate agency, took the operational lead in the conspiracy against the ISB.
Steve Cohen suggested to Anna Kolodner that the group recruit a Jewish law student from Harvard to assist their attorneys, Evan Slavitt, who is also a Massachusetts Republican Party leader, and Jack Fainberg, who is a business litigator.
Other participants in this on-going private discussion were Avi Goldwasser, a hi-tech financier and movie producer, who makes malicious anti-Arab propaganda movies like "Columbia Unbecoming," Larry DiCara, who is a Republican politician, and Harvard undergrad Mickey Segal, who is a David Project intern, and Monty Gold, who is Anna Kolodner's husband. Steve Cohen, who is originally from New York, also consulted with Rabbi Melman, a New York-based Israel advocate, who opposes ceding an inch of land to the Palestinians.
Initial attempts to whip up public sentiment against the Muslim community received lukewarm reactions. Reporter Jonathan Wells had complained that he was "pissed that none of the other local media had picked up his story."
"Filing the lawsuit would be the initial lead/newsworthy component of the media angles," Anna Kolodner advised him. This would give the David Project a soapbox.
Anna Kolodner put David Project co-founder Charles Jacobs in charge of "enlisting support of the Black Church community in the suit as a possible plaintiff," but commendably, no one in the Black community would participate in their racist plot.
The David Project had to make do with an Italian American who lives in Mission Hill, nowhere near the Roxbury Mosque.
Policastro's suit was dismissed in 2007 by a judge as being "without merit," but the conspirators were not worried about winning the frivolous lawsuit. It had been a ploy to create negative publicity. Real estate investor Steve Cohen gloated over "the fact that a governmental action was taken in Boston may make this mosque more vulnerable to legal, political or media attack."
In this same email, entitled "Conversation with Jon Wells," Cohen mentioned reporter Jonathan Well's divorce and estrangement from his children like a weakness to exploit.
"After I come up with something to report, he and I will have lunch," Cohen bragged.
He also reported more of what he had learned from Wells.
"[T]he ADL is much more concerned and knowledgeable about this matter than their public statements would indicate. But, being associated with various ecumenical [read: interfaith] efforts, they are reluctant to be the lightning rod on this issue. Jon speculates that they would welcome the assistance and initiative of a bunch of independent guys (like us) who are not afraid of getting some bad press."
Steve Cohen described how he had specifically instructed the Fox TV news reporter Jonathan Wells to use language associating the mosque with terrorism.
According to his May 20, 2004 email, Cohen wanted to seek out information about the ISB's source of donations in the Middle East. Depending on the country of origin, the group would create a sensational news story saying the mosque was financed either by "the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia or by the Moslem Brotherhood," which, they would fraudulently claim "advocate the violent victory of Islam over the west [sic]."
Cohen went on about his conversation with Wells. "We both agreed that it would be very powerful if it could be proven that this is the source of the funding for the Mosque."
Cohen repeatedly contacted the executive producer of the Investigative Reporting unit at Fox25 News in Boston to pressure him and in one conversation instructed Jonathan Wells how to use the Freedom of Information act to obtain records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority about the City's sale of land to the Muslim community.
Cohen further explained his strategy to Anna Kolodner of the David Project:
"Aside from our 1st Amendment claims and the various other strategies to attack the mosque, ultimately our interest is based on the premise that some of the senior people in the ISB are supporters of terrorism and sworn enemies of America and Jews, and that the construction of the mosque may be funded by Wahhabis… If we are going to convince others to support our cause, especially in the media, we will need reasonably well-supported allegations."
The David Project collaborated with
Robert Leikind, the executive director of the ADL;
Steve Emerson, an infamous Islamophobe, who founded the Investigative Project,
Rita Katz, a discredited former FBI informant, who co-founded of the SITE Institute; and
Ilana Freedman, a Republican politician, who is a managing partner of Gerard Group of "counter-terrorism experts" in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts,
to create a "comprehensive document regarding the individuals/organizations/history etc. of the Mosque, which will be the backbone of the media campaign."
This fabrication, labeled "Mosque Characters.doc," lists over twenty Muslim leaders including Dr. Yusef al-Qaradawi, Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, and various ISB directors with bogus and bizarre links to "the Moslem Brotherhood," Hamas, Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba.
The email discussion shows that the conspirators wanted to enlist Jeff Jacoby in the anti-ISB campaign. Ever since Jacoby first wrote about the Roxbury Mosque in a January 1, 2006 op-ed column, the Globe has been the chief media source of charges, insinuations and accusatory questions directed at the ISB both in the news pages and in Jeff Jacoby's op-ed columns. The news articles often look like minor variants of David Project talking points or press releases while Jacoby's writing follows the recommendations that Charles Jacobs published on the David Project website in an essay entitled "Questions as Weapons" and January 12, 2007.
This David Project document shows how to use irrelevant and false accusations as an Israel advocacy technique based in the demonization of Arabs and Muslims. Following this principle Jacoby repeats the same charges and insinuating questions in his syndicated column no matter how many times the ISB provides refutations or explanations. The ISB has offered to meet with him and has sent him documentation, which he ignores. In a debate the David Project technique is unethical, and its use by Jacoby in lieu of serious journalism is disgraceful.
In 2004, the David Project, a 501c3 charitable organization, appears to have received half a million dollars in tax-payer funded government grants while at the same time planning this amazingly well organized campaign to deny the Boston Muslim community their 1st amendment rights to worship freely, according to ISB interfaith director Jessica Masse.
Damning Evidence against The David Project
Summary: The David Project conspired with real estate agents, lawyers and politicians to organize a campaign to deny the Boston Muslim community their 1st amendment rights to worship freely.
World View News Service
May 7, 2007
Read the original emails at: http://tinyurl.com/23adhf
This week, Jessica Masse, interfaith coordinator of the Islamic Society of Boston, publicly released recent discovery materials obtained as part of the ISB's conspiracy lawsuit, which reveal that an Israel advocacy organization, which specializes in creating malicious anti-Arab, anti-African and Islamophobic propaganda, met with real estate investors, attorneys, and Republican activists at their office at 210 South Street in Boston to discuss an action plan "to present a legal challenge" to the Roxbury Mosque project.
On May 28, 2004, Anna Kolodner, executive director of the David Project, sent an email congratulating the group for their successful meeting.
"Discussion of issues and individuals involved in the Mosque led to some preliminary steps as we continue to gather information and develop an action plan."
Three days later, Kolodner circulated an idea.
"Given that they may not have parking, Josh [Katzen] suggested we might thwart them through the building permit process for the intended parking."
Joshua Katzen is a member of the team of aggressive real estate developers that wanted to unravel the land deal between the City of Boston and the ISB. Another anti-ISB activist, Jonathan Leffell, who develops property in the Boston area, is chairman of the New England "Friends of the Israel Defense Forces" while William Sapers, who instigated the anti-Mosque campaign and who owns an insurance agency in Cambridge, has invested in real estate under the corporate name Hemisphere Inc. Sapers is a director of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, which is an umbrella organization for mainstream Jewish communal organizations in Greater Boston. Steve Cohen, owner of CEA Group, another Boston area real estate agency, took the operational lead in the conspiracy against the ISB.
Steve Cohen suggested to Anna Kolodner that the group recruit a Jewish law student from Harvard to assist their attorneys, Evan Slavitt, who is also a Massachusetts Republican Party leader, and Jack Fainberg, who is a business litigator.
Other participants in this on-going private discussion were Avi Goldwasser, a hi-tech financier and movie producer, who makes malicious anti-Arab propaganda movies like "Columbia Unbecoming," Larry DiCara, who is a Republican politician, and Harvard undergrad Mickey Segal, who is a David Project intern, and Monty Gold, who is Anna Kolodner's husband. Steve Cohen, who is originally from New York, also consulted with Rabbi Melman, a New York-based Israel advocate, who opposes ceding an inch of land to the Palestinians.
Initial attempts to whip up public sentiment against the Muslim community received lukewarm reactions. Reporter Jonathan Wells had complained that he was "pissed that none of the other local media had picked up his story."
"Filing the lawsuit would be the initial lead/newsworthy component of the media angles," Anna Kolodner advised him. This would give the David Project a soapbox.
Anna Kolodner put David Project co-founder Charles Jacobs in charge of "enlisting support of the Black Church community in the suit as a possible plaintiff," but commendably, no one in the Black community would participate in their racist plot.
The David Project had to make do with an Italian American who lives in Mission Hill, nowhere near the Roxbury Mosque.
Policastro's suit was dismissed in 2007 by a judge as being "without merit," but the conspirators were not worried about winning the frivolous lawsuit. It had been a ploy to create negative publicity. Real estate investor Steve Cohen gloated over "the fact that a governmental action was taken in Boston may make this mosque more vulnerable to legal, political or media attack."
In this same email, entitled "Conversation with Jon Wells," Cohen mentioned reporter Jonathan Well's divorce and estrangement from his children like a weakness to exploit.
"After I come up with something to report, he and I will have lunch," Cohen bragged.
He also reported more of what he had learned from Wells.
"[T]he ADL is much more concerned and knowledgeable about this matter than their public statements would indicate. But, being associated with various ecumenical [read: interfaith] efforts, they are reluctant to be the lightning rod on this issue. Jon speculates that they would welcome the assistance and initiative of a bunch of independent guys (like us) who are not afraid of getting some bad press."
Steve Cohen described how he had specifically instructed the Fox TV news reporter Jonathan Wells to use language associating the mosque with terrorism.
According to his May 20, 2004 email, Cohen wanted to seek out information about the ISB's source of donations in the Middle East. Depending on the country of origin, the group would create a sensational news story saying the mosque was financed either by "the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia or by the Moslem Brotherhood," which, they would fraudulently claim "advocate the violent victory of Islam over the west [sic]."
Cohen went on about his conversation with Wells. "We both agreed that it would be very powerful if it could be proven that this is the source of the funding for the Mosque."
Cohen repeatedly contacted the executive producer of the Investigative Reporting unit at Fox25 News in Boston to pressure him and in one conversation instructed Jonathan Wells how to use the Freedom of Information act to obtain records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority about the City's sale of land to the Muslim community.
Cohen further explained his strategy to Anna Kolodner of the David Project:
"Aside from our 1st Amendment claims and the various other strategies to attack the mosque, ultimately our interest is based on the premise that some of the senior people in the ISB are supporters of terrorism and sworn enemies of America and Jews, and that the construction of the mosque may be funded by Wahhabis… If we are going to convince others to support our cause, especially in the media, we will need reasonably well-supported allegations."
The David Project collaborated with
Robert Leikind, the executive director of the ADL;
Steve Emerson, an infamous Islamophobe, who founded the Investigative Project,
Rita Katz, a discredited former FBI informant, who co-founded of the SITE Institute; and
Ilana Freedman, a Republican politician, who is a managing partner of Gerard Group of "counter-terrorism experts" in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts,
to create a "comprehensive document regarding the individuals/organizations/history etc. of the Mosque, which will be the backbone of the media campaign."
This fabrication, labeled "Mosque Characters.doc," lists over twenty Muslim leaders including Dr. Yusef al-Qaradawi, Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, and various ISB directors with bogus and bizarre links to "the Moslem Brotherhood," Hamas, Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba.
The email discussion shows that the conspirators wanted to enlist Jeff Jacoby in the anti-ISB campaign. Ever since Jacoby first wrote about the Roxbury Mosque in a January 1, 2006 op-ed column, the Globe has been the chief media source of charges, insinuations and accusatory questions directed at the ISB both in the news pages and in Jeff Jacoby's op-ed columns. The news articles often look like minor variants of David Project talking points or press releases while Jacoby's writing follows the recommendations that Charles Jacobs published on the David Project website in an essay entitled "Questions as Weapons" and January 12, 2007.
This David Project document shows how to use irrelevant and false accusations as an Israel advocacy technique based in the demonization of Arabs and Muslims. Following this principle Jacoby repeats the same charges and insinuating questions in his syndicated column no matter how many times the ISB provides refutations or explanations. The ISB has offered to meet with him and has sent him documentation, which he ignores. In a debate the David Project technique is unethical, and its use by Jacoby in lieu of serious journalism is disgraceful.
In 2004, the David Project, a 501c3 charitable organization, appears to have received half a million dollars in tax-payer funded government grants while at the same time planning this amazingly well organized campaign to deny the Boston Muslim community their 1st amendment rights to worship freely, according to ISB interfaith director Jessica Masse.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Who is Charles Jacobs?
Who is Charles Jacobs?
by Karin Friedemann, Boston
A Polish immigrant armed with only a BA from Rutgers and a Masters in Education from Harvard has proven exceptionally effective in manipulating the US government and major American institutions into following policy blueprints created by his Israel advocacy organization, the David Project. Charles Jacobs, like Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle, obtains speaking engagements through a PR firm called Benador Associates, which specializes in pro-Israel campus events focusing on Islam and terrorism. Like Alan Dershowitz, Charles Jacobs considers himself a progressive liberal. Fareeha Iqbal, a student at MIT, disagrees.
"Dr. Jacobs’ talk expressed blatantly racist and anti-Islamic views. In fact, I have never seen Islamophobia exuded so blatantly at a public forum at MIT, nor such racist views aired at a panel discussion on human rights.”
CAMERA
CAMERA, co-founded by Jacobs in 1982, is a media-monitoring organization dedicated to enforcing pro-Israel, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias in the news. It was a pioneer in the technological aspects of mass-marketing hate. One of the first media pressure groups to invest in the software necessary to create database capabilities for email blasting tailored messages to specific target groups, CAMERA sends out action alerts instructing its members to overwhelm newspaper and politicians’ offices with hundreds of emails and threatening phone calls to complain and argue about any media coverage critical to Israel or friendly to Islam.
Columbia Unbecoming
In 2002, a network of national Jewish organizations met to evaluate what they saw as an alarming rise in anti-Israel activity on campus. From those meetings emerged the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), which is founded in partnership with Hillel and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. (The three organizations share a building in Washington.) The David Project is an affiliate member of the ICC. In October 2003, the David Project agreed to provide funding for a film, produced by Ralph Avi Goldwasser, to slander professors Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi, and Georges Saliba of Columbia University's Department of Middle East studies. Joseph Massad became known as "one of the most dangerous intellectuals” on campus. Calls for the professor’s dismissal were issued by Congressman Weiner and by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, and the propaganda film was shown in Israel before a government minister at an anti-Semitism conference.
Sheikh Zayed/Harvard
The David Project regularly placed racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers on Harvard campus, but its first major accomplishment was blocking a $2 million donation from the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, for a chair in Islamic Studies at the Harvard Divinity School. The Project's 2003 smear campaign was coordinated with the ADL. By preventing Zayed from contributing to Harvard, Jacobs sought to minimize future input from Arabs and Muslims into discussions of developments at Harvard University.
American Anti-Slavery Group
The American Anti-Slavery Group grew directly out of Jacobs' pro-Israel advocacy. The group supports the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), which has been employed by the US in order to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Sudan and is believed to have trained along with Israeli forces at Otis Air Force base in Massachusetts.
The American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) is based in Boston and works with Christian Solidarity International. The organization has been closely involved in filming fraudulent "slave redemptions." Jacobs was presenting the issue as one of northern Arab "slavers" and African Christian southerners. In addition to claims of slavery, Jacobs has also described Sudan as a "terrorist, genocidal" state engaged in a "holy war." Charles Jacobs and his American Anti-Slavery Group's carefully designed "PR puff pieces" have managed to secure national media coverage. This campaign to vilify Arabs and Muslims is a multimedia effort that supplies huge quantities of lurid, both popular and pseudo-academic hate material.
Save Darfur
JCRC sponsored organizations that are staffed by Israel advocates trained by the David Project have further poisoned human rights discourse with the dishonest Save Darfur campaign aimed at divesting from Sudan as well as from any country which does business with Sudan. The David Project has proven uncommonly effective at changing US policy in a matter of months to listing Sudan as a terrorist nation and barring all trade with the country. While pro-Palestine activists have struggled for years to slow the stream of US public funds to Israel, Jacob’s anti-Sudan campaign is probably the quickest divestment success in US history. Thanks to the ongoing efforts of JCRCs and affiliated groups, Sudan divestment resolutions have become law in Iowa and are in the process of approval in 12 states. Although US involvement in Sudanese politics can only be a disaster for the Sudanese and for America, this sort of propaganda serves the purpose of turning Arab and African Americans against each other in order to prevent them from mounting any jointly organized political efforts. The David Project and the JCRC, who have had more than one director in common, work hand in hand to minimize the potential political influence of groups who might oppose continuing US funding of Israel.
Muslims Sue the David Project
In 2006, after the David Project was found instigating a lawsuit against the City over the construction of a new mosque, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban, chairman of the board of the Islamic Society of Boston, addressed Charles Jacobs in an open letter that was quoted in the Boston Globe.
"We would like to know why you and others at the David Project appear to be so intent on inflaming relations between our communities," Abou-Allaban wrote. "Do you really hate us that much?"
In a landmark defamation suit, the ISB detailed "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion." Discovery materials from the ISB lawsuit have exposed a network of Neocons in the establishment, pro-Israel organizations, the mass media, and Islamophobic academics, working together to make the public fear the Muslim community.
The list of defendants in the lawsuit include Steven Emerson, a self-proclaimed 'expert' on radical Islam whose documentary, “Jihad in America," has been widely discredited, William Sapers, a director of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Boston Herald, Boston's FOX TV station, the David Project, and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (CPT), whose president is Dennis Hale, a speaker for the David Project.
Some Jewish groups have distanced themselves from the conspiracy to deprive Muslim Americans of their constitutional rights, which is a federal crime, but Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston stated, "None of those organizations [who signed statements supporting the mosque] are members of the organizations of the JCRC. We don't consider them to be a part of the mainstream Jewish community."
Conclusion
Much of the mainstream media’s negative coverage of Muslims arises from the continuous stream of poisonous accusations and racist insinuations distributed as press releases by the David Project and its affiliates. Until recently, Israel advocacy organizations, which have been heavily engaged in subverting US foreign and domestic policy, have remained mostly invisible to American political scientists, who focused on traditional political lobbies like AIPAC.
Karin Friedemann is editor of World View News Service in Boston, focusing on the Islamic world. Please visit http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/.
by Karin Friedemann, Boston
A Polish immigrant armed with only a BA from Rutgers and a Masters in Education from Harvard has proven exceptionally effective in manipulating the US government and major American institutions into following policy blueprints created by his Israel advocacy organization, the David Project. Charles Jacobs, like Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle, obtains speaking engagements through a PR firm called Benador Associates, which specializes in pro-Israel campus events focusing on Islam and terrorism. Like Alan Dershowitz, Charles Jacobs considers himself a progressive liberal. Fareeha Iqbal, a student at MIT, disagrees.
"Dr. Jacobs’ talk expressed blatantly racist and anti-Islamic views. In fact, I have never seen Islamophobia exuded so blatantly at a public forum at MIT, nor such racist views aired at a panel discussion on human rights.”
CAMERA
CAMERA, co-founded by Jacobs in 1982, is a media-monitoring organization dedicated to enforcing pro-Israel, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias in the news. It was a pioneer in the technological aspects of mass-marketing hate. One of the first media pressure groups to invest in the software necessary to create database capabilities for email blasting tailored messages to specific target groups, CAMERA sends out action alerts instructing its members to overwhelm newspaper and politicians’ offices with hundreds of emails and threatening phone calls to complain and argue about any media coverage critical to Israel or friendly to Islam.
Columbia Unbecoming
In 2002, a network of national Jewish organizations met to evaluate what they saw as an alarming rise in anti-Israel activity on campus. From those meetings emerged the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), which is founded in partnership with Hillel and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. (The three organizations share a building in Washington.) The David Project is an affiliate member of the ICC. In October 2003, the David Project agreed to provide funding for a film, produced by Ralph Avi Goldwasser, to slander professors Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi, and Georges Saliba of Columbia University's Department of Middle East studies. Joseph Massad became known as "one of the most dangerous intellectuals” on campus. Calls for the professor’s dismissal were issued by Congressman Weiner and by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, and the propaganda film was shown in Israel before a government minister at an anti-Semitism conference.
Sheikh Zayed/Harvard
The David Project regularly placed racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers on Harvard campus, but its first major accomplishment was blocking a $2 million donation from the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, for a chair in Islamic Studies at the Harvard Divinity School. The Project's 2003 smear campaign was coordinated with the ADL. By preventing Zayed from contributing to Harvard, Jacobs sought to minimize future input from Arabs and Muslims into discussions of developments at Harvard University.
American Anti-Slavery Group
The American Anti-Slavery Group grew directly out of Jacobs' pro-Israel advocacy. The group supports the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), which has been employed by the US in order to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Sudan and is believed to have trained along with Israeli forces at Otis Air Force base in Massachusetts.
The American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) is based in Boston and works with Christian Solidarity International. The organization has been closely involved in filming fraudulent "slave redemptions." Jacobs was presenting the issue as one of northern Arab "slavers" and African Christian southerners. In addition to claims of slavery, Jacobs has also described Sudan as a "terrorist, genocidal" state engaged in a "holy war." Charles Jacobs and his American Anti-Slavery Group's carefully designed "PR puff pieces" have managed to secure national media coverage. This campaign to vilify Arabs and Muslims is a multimedia effort that supplies huge quantities of lurid, both popular and pseudo-academic hate material.
Save Darfur
JCRC sponsored organizations that are staffed by Israel advocates trained by the David Project have further poisoned human rights discourse with the dishonest Save Darfur campaign aimed at divesting from Sudan as well as from any country which does business with Sudan. The David Project has proven uncommonly effective at changing US policy in a matter of months to listing Sudan as a terrorist nation and barring all trade with the country. While pro-Palestine activists have struggled for years to slow the stream of US public funds to Israel, Jacob’s anti-Sudan campaign is probably the quickest divestment success in US history. Thanks to the ongoing efforts of JCRCs and affiliated groups, Sudan divestment resolutions have become law in Iowa and are in the process of approval in 12 states. Although US involvement in Sudanese politics can only be a disaster for the Sudanese and for America, this sort of propaganda serves the purpose of turning Arab and African Americans against each other in order to prevent them from mounting any jointly organized political efforts. The David Project and the JCRC, who have had more than one director in common, work hand in hand to minimize the potential political influence of groups who might oppose continuing US funding of Israel.
Muslims Sue the David Project
In 2006, after the David Project was found instigating a lawsuit against the City over the construction of a new mosque, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban, chairman of the board of the Islamic Society of Boston, addressed Charles Jacobs in an open letter that was quoted in the Boston Globe.
"We would like to know why you and others at the David Project appear to be so intent on inflaming relations between our communities," Abou-Allaban wrote. "Do you really hate us that much?"
In a landmark defamation suit, the ISB detailed "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion." Discovery materials from the ISB lawsuit have exposed a network of Neocons in the establishment, pro-Israel organizations, the mass media, and Islamophobic academics, working together to make the public fear the Muslim community.
The list of defendants in the lawsuit include Steven Emerson, a self-proclaimed 'expert' on radical Islam whose documentary, “Jihad in America," has been widely discredited, William Sapers, a director of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Boston Herald, Boston's FOX TV station, the David Project, and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (CPT), whose president is Dennis Hale, a speaker for the David Project.
Some Jewish groups have distanced themselves from the conspiracy to deprive Muslim Americans of their constitutional rights, which is a federal crime, but Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston stated, "None of those organizations [who signed statements supporting the mosque] are members of the organizations of the JCRC. We don't consider them to be a part of the mainstream Jewish community."
Conclusion
Much of the mainstream media’s negative coverage of Muslims arises from the continuous stream of poisonous accusations and racist insinuations distributed as press releases by the David Project and its affiliates. Until recently, Israel advocacy organizations, which have been heavily engaged in subverting US foreign and domestic policy, have remained mostly invisible to American political scientists, who focused on traditional political lobbies like AIPAC.
Karin Friedemann is editor of World View News Service in Boston, focusing on the Islamic world. Please visit http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Save Sudan
The Zionist Lobby and Coordinated Media have caused quite some concern about the civilian population of Western Sudan. Since the suffering in Sudan is at core an effect of Global Warming, the Zionists' attempts to hold the relatively penniless Sudanese government responsibile for all human tragedies in the region is just another defamation campaign against Muslims.
It appears that certain peace activists have borrowed the punishing language filtered down from the press releases connected to Bill Kristol and the neocons. They are calling for "non-violent means of action" - meaning starvation - to topple the Sudanese government.
I beg the reader to think deeply and not to jump too fast with this "humanitarian isolation" tactic, remembering that some well-meaning leftists engaged with neocons inadvertently not too long ago and pushed our nation to war against another country that did not threaten us, Afghanistan. America's leftists, steeped in anti-Muslim Marxist propaganda, were quick to assume the truth in the fraudulent press releases which originated in the Boston Jewish community, regarding the Taliban forcing Hindus to wear yellow armbands. There were reports spreading via the media that Afghan women were not being allowed to work outside the home, and that we must get rid of the evil Taliban.
I beg the reader to think deeply and not to jump too fast with this "humanitarian isolation" tactic, remembering that some well-meaning leftists engaged with neocons inadvertently not too long ago and pushed our nation to war against another country that did not threaten us, Afghanistan. America's leftists, steeped in anti-Muslim Marxist propaganda, were quick to assume the truth in the fraudulent press releases which originated in the Boston Jewish community, regarding the Taliban forcing Hindus to wear yellow armbands. There were reports spreading via the media that Afghan women were not being allowed to work outside the home, and that we must get rid of the evil Taliban.
The news of hundreds of thousands of people eating grass as there was no food because of the drought was conveniently omitted from the propaganda. Starving families left their farms and walked towards Kabul. The Taliban asked the UN for help to save these people's lives. The UN replied that they would not lift the sanctions against Afghanistan, but they would like to so some reparation work on one of Afghanistan's ancient Buddhist statues, carve out a piece of land around the statue and install UN troops to protect the tourists. We made a decision to let 100,000 innocent Afghans die of exposure. But that was not enough. Feminists and Democrats, led by Hilary Clinton and Oprah, and oddly enough, peace activists, pushed for war on Afghanistan to punish the Afghans for their barbaric tribal culture.
Now it's the same thing, people are saying the Islamic Sudanese government is so evil and barbaric that we must take it upon ourselves to get rid of them. The Afghan women are not better off without their husbands, as chauvenistic as they might have been. There are tens of thousands of homeless orphans eating garbage, sleeping in the streets of Kabul right now thanks to us. The druglords we employed to get rid of the Taliban piled thousands of men - these children's fathers - into containers, suffocating them to death as they were trucked hundreds of miles into the desert, so that by the time they arrived they were all dead, and then dumped in a mass grave, for the crime of declaring their country an Islamic Emirate. Now the leftists want us to punish Sudan for the crime of declaring their country an Islamic Republic.
We are not going to end dehydration and malaria in Sudan by depriving their country of much needed economic investments to provide jobs and infrastructure. This is the real genocide going on. Why does the US government want to oppose the development of Sudan? Don't forget Clinton bombed their malaria medicine plant and never paid for damages and never apologized. We committed an act of war against them. We purposely caused millions of Africans to die of malaria because they had no medicine. How is further depriving them of resources going to help the Sudanese people? We used Food for Oil to steal Iraqi resources. We gave the Iraqis two tablespoons of lentils a day as rations and refused to let them purify their water. Hundreds of thousands of children under the age of five died of hunger and diarrhea. Sanctions on Sudan would amount to the same thing but on a much larger scale. It's not going to help anyone. Do you think that putting sanctions on America would end inner city violence?
The idea that divestment or even a military invasion would be good for Sudan seems irrational. Zionists are urging "non-violent action" to end the violence in Sudan/Darfur. There is nothing non-violent about inflicting economic crisis on an already poor country, and economic sanctions with the intent to destabilize the government will certainly not promote law and order in Sudan. This sort of propaganda crafted and pioneered by Charles Jacobs with the American Anti-Slavery Group, a wing of the David Project, consciously serves the purpose of turning Arab and African Americans against each other in order to prevent them from mounting any jointly organized political efforts.
Perhaps the Sudanese government is capable of doing much more than it is doing to protect the well-being of all its citizens. The same could be said of our government. But Khartoum is not a government like in Europe or America. Other than in the capital city, Sudan has no paved roads, no water system, no electricity. It is vast open space filled with various tribes with conflicting interests and very little water.
The government of Sudan is not very effective at governing Sudan. Saddam Hussein had a lot of problems with his Shiite citizens. That does NOT imply that America had any business forcing Iraqis to be dependent on UN handouts or going in there to police. Right now the environmental crisis facing Sudan should be dealt with. The Sudanese government is allowing Muslim Americans to contribute funds to reforest Sudan. If the Jewish groups make it illegal for Muslim charities to help Sudan, like they did with Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, it is unlikely to make the Sudanese government any more effective at governing or at feeding their people. So far, the Sudanese government has allowed American charities to dig a well, open a clinic, or provide shelter to refugees. They are not standing in anyone's way that genuinely wants to help the people of Sudan. They just said "NO" to foreign troops.
It's not our business what's wrong with the Sudanese government. Other African countries are even worse. If we want to help the needy, we are free to donate some money to some humanitarian aid organization. There are similar relief efforts in the Congo and Sierre Leone. I think we all agree that Africans' lives could use a lot of improvement. However, the Zionist demonization campaign has NOTHING to do with improving the lives of Africans and EVERYTHING to do with controlling human rights discourse in America. They want to create a "good guys" vs "bad guys" narration which simply does not work. Divestment from Sudan is not going to eliminate hunger in Africa. We need to start looking at local Zionist control over our politics as well as world hunger.
Anything we do to stop global warming will help Sudan indirectly. I strongly believe that humanitarian efforts in Sudan are very worthwhile, especially because, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, the humanitarian aid is pretty sure to get there, because, contrary to neocon press releases, neither the government nor the rebels are opposed to Americans coming in and drilling wells for the people. The people who live in the camps are relatively safe from violence, fed one meal a day, and the kids receive elementary schooling. The money we donate actually gets to the people, and because of the exchange rate, very little money can help a great deal. [See irw.org for a non-interventionist relief and development organization helping Sudan.]
Anything we do to stop global warming will help Sudan indirectly. I strongly believe that humanitarian efforts in Sudan are very worthwhile, especially because, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, the humanitarian aid is pretty sure to get there, because, contrary to neocon press releases, neither the government nor the rebels are opposed to Americans coming in and drilling wells for the people. The people who live in the camps are relatively safe from violence, fed one meal a day, and the kids receive elementary schooling. The money we donate actually gets to the people, and because of the exchange rate, very little money can help a great deal. [See irw.org for a non-interventionist relief and development organization helping Sudan.]
"Divesting" from Sudan is nothing more than a code for stealing the oil from an African country in need because we can. If America wants Sudanese oil, let them pay the Sudanese government for the oil so that the Sudanese government can hire the police force they need to prevent crime. There is no excuse for us to occupy another country to steal its resources, especially since it is far cheaper to buy the oil than to invade the country and steal the oil. The oil revenue would create the means to build homes and businesses and create jobs for the Sudanese population. It's not our business who is president of Sudan, Bashir or Turabi. It's not our business. If we want business in Sudan, we should pay with our dollars and work with the government of Sudan, whoever is in power, to invest in the machinery needed to drill for oil.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Polite Discussion on Zionism: Is it Possible?
The Zionist philosophizes that the Palestinian is not a human (Israel was a land without a people). The Anti-Zionist argues that the Palestinian is a human being. So what is the moderate viewpoint? The Palestinian is a quasi-human? Is this the American Progressive Jewish position?
Polite Discussion on Zionism: Is it Possible?
Karin Friedemann
April 25, 2007
World View News Service
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/message/7271
I have dedicated my life to the study of our people's repressed racism. For this reason, I found the website www.realisticdove.org very interesting. Usually when confronted, we just get indignant and refuse to speak to you for a few months. I always wondered how a person could think that Israel has a "right"to "security" and shrug off this amazing assumption with the accusation that anyone who has questions about his definitions is accusing him of being an evil murderer. Why would any sane person think that he has the right to live unharrassed on someone else's stolen property? Even the cute kids waving Israeli flags are participating in a criminally insane political ideology.
Progressive Jews want to make the bottom line "Jews are nice people." But that is not the bottom line. As Hillel mentioned, the bottom line is that you don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. What would we expect if our neighbor, with or without warning, bulldozed our house?
First, we would call the police. If the man with the bulldozer failed to stop bulldozing the house, the police officer would have the duty to disable the vehicle and he might even shoot him. I'm talking about American law. The primary concept of civil rights is that you and your neighbor are sharing the same set of laws and punishments. The bulldozer man would be stopped. Hewould be considered a criminal. He would be put on trial. He would go to prison. If he had killed people in the process of bulldozing the house, he might even be executed. The owner of the house that was bulldozed would be entitled to damages plus extra for pain and suffering. The law requires that his property be restored to the original state that it was in. That includes replanting the trees and fixing the pavement around the house.
The emotional defensiveness of Jews is actually quite amusing, where they want to argue that the bulldozer man was not evil, he was not a murderer. The family that moved into the stolen property are just innocent idealists. They may be misguided, or mistaken, but for some reason Jews want to argue that they are not evil. What they are really saying is that they don't want Jews to be held legally accountable for their actions. They want to enjoy the privilege of being "protected" from the laws that apply to other people.
A law does not cover the "evilness" of a criminal. It covers actions and consequences.
If international law were followed, the Israeli "government' would never have kicked out any Palestinians. The entire existence of Israel is based on the condition made by the UN that Palestinians would remain in their homes and receive equal citizenship in the new nation state. That condition was not followed. Therefore, there is no legal basis for any assumption that Israel has a right to exist according to the UN. In fact, Israel does not really exist. It is a figment of imagination, the defensive mechanism of the neurotic Jewish collective consciousness. I agree that we need to stop arguing about isms but the next step is to solve the problems. Don't wait for the world community to force Israel to do it. Why don't we, as Jews, just do it? Why are Progressive Jews wasting their time feeling emotionally threatened by a one state solution? The real problem is that we are feeling emotionally threatened by any solution. Because a solution means that Jews need to be prosecuted.
The refugees must be given back their property with extra for damages. Even if they fled their homes because Arab leaders told them to get out of the fighting zone in 1948, they have the legal right to return to their homes as soon as the fighting stops. Small wonder why Israel continues to attack people day after day. The refugees must be given full civil rights. Full water rights, full road rights, and the full right to prosecute every Jewish family in America that has any property in the Holy Land as part of an organized crime network. Especially if both the Palestinian and the Jewish persons are American citizens. For example one friend of mine, after her family was forced off their land by gunpoint, New York Jews bought the land, bulldozed everything, and planted orange trees. She knows where they live. She knows their names. Anyone who buys or sells stolen property is a criminal who needs to be prosecuted. Any Jew who owns Palestinian property in the Holy Land should have his property seized, including their US assets, just like we did to the rum smugglers who funded Jewish terrorism in the 1920s, and Progressive Jews should insist on it instead of doing these mental "I'm not evil" gymnastics.
The Jews need to give back what they stole. I am not sure why that is so confusing to people. There needs to be a world tribunal like the Nuremburg trials to determine what was done and who was responsible, and to put an end to this nonsense. But failing that, the US legal system could solve the problem within a year if we just prosecuted this obnoxious real estate mafia. Why are Progressive Jews not lobbying for criminal penalties on Jews who invest in property that was cleared of its original owners by force in the Holy Land? There is enough room in Bush's new prisons for all these shady real estate agents. This is a simple matter of holding people legally accountable for the harm they cause others and for undermining the security of the United States in the process. It is exactly the same issue with dispute over the Roxbury Mosque in Boston. Some shady white (Jewish) real estate dealers were furious that the black community benefited from this piece of land next to the subway station that they wanted to develop, so now they are engaging in extra-legal trickery and character assassination to try to get that piece of real estate away from the people who own it. Once the Palestinians get their land back and all the Zionist organizations' assets are confiscated to repair the damage they have done, then we can talk about whether or not "the Jewish People" have the right to "self-determination" in the form of an ethnocentric nation state.
I learned when I was a kid that the way to get self-determination - i.e., the ability to do what you want when you want how you want - is to behave yourself. The Jews are not behaving themselves, and there is nothing okay about it. When a Progressive Jew avoids discussion by whining, "You think I'm evil!!" he or she breaks the heart of the human being who is trying to have peace with this person. It ends all rational discussion. It ends all hope for peace.
Sometimes Palestinians find it easier to deal with right wing Zionists than left wing because at least they are honest. A Palestinian can say to a right wing Jew, "You stole my property." The right wing Jew will say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? My religion says I can steal your property." Then the Muslim can with dignity say, "Well my religion says that God curses the man who puts another man out of his home, and that I have the right to fight you." That actually can be done in the context of a polite dialogue. A peace plan is even potentially possible. Because then the Jew can say, "Well, I don't want you to kill me and I can see why you would think that I deserved it, because if you did the same thing to me I would certainly kill you. So let's make a deal. I'll let you live in the garage." This is still insulting behavior, but it's in the process of becoming less sadistic.
On the other hand, if a Palestinian says to a Progressive Jew, "You stole my property!" the Progressive Jew will usually shut down entirely. I have seen a fifty year old man start crying and insisting he's not evil. This is the behavior of someone who is guilty as sin. Like when you accuse your husband of adultery and he starts guilt-tripping you about how you don't believe in him (hypothetical but common scenario).
The other reaction is to get maliciously angry and start doing character assassination via gossip so that none of the other Progressive Jews will greet that person who brought up the "touchy" subject. They will be told that this person is an "enemy of peace" - so that it will be politically correct to shun them the same way that we avoid eye contact with skinheads and Bible thumpers. Progressive Jews are the most amazingly idealistic people on the planet. They want to be able to continue to sit on someone else's stolen property (or at least vacation on it) and not only do they think they have a "right" to travel around unharmed, ride the buses, shop and eat pizza while the people they made homeless have no water or food - but they want their victims to LIKE them. The Jews are the only conquerors in the history of the planet that expected the conquered people to LIKE them! If they don't like us, we feel offended and outraged. And what Jews consider as "liking behavior" is never mentioning the property they stole.
I've discussed some of this with Avigail Abarbanel, an ex-Israeli psychiatrist in Australia. She views Zionism as a mental illness that can be treated. But Zionism is just a symptom of a deeper problem, the delusional belief that you have "rights" which do not exist. Like a kid thinking he has the right to hit his sister. It's a failure to apply the Golden Rule to one's personal sense of responsibility in certain situations. The inner conflict that arises from these "situational ethics" certainly does create a clinically diagnosable mental inability to process certain types of information that trigger the neurotic or sometimes even psychotic defensive reaction.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Israel, Jews are defensive in the sense that they cannot process the type of information that is necessary to create peaceful behaviors. For example, if a Jew and Palestinian live next door to each other in New Jersey, the Jew being the "owner" of a condo built on the Palestinian person's property, don't you think the Jew should offer to give it back, if he expects the other's friendship? If the Palestinian, as is normal, invites the Jew over for tea and politely doesn't bring up the subject, does the Jew feel that this means it's OK what he did? That he can forgive himself? That is what Jews want after all. We want to be forgiven without apology for everything we have done AND everything we are about to do.
Is this a rational approach to peace? Is it working?
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEWhttp://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?Please consider donating to WVNS today.Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Polite Discussion on Zionism: Is it Possible?
Karin Friedemann
April 25, 2007
World View News Service
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/message/7271
I have dedicated my life to the study of our people's repressed racism. For this reason, I found the website www.realisticdove.org very interesting. Usually when confronted, we just get indignant and refuse to speak to you for a few months. I always wondered how a person could think that Israel has a "right"to "security" and shrug off this amazing assumption with the accusation that anyone who has questions about his definitions is accusing him of being an evil murderer. Why would any sane person think that he has the right to live unharrassed on someone else's stolen property? Even the cute kids waving Israeli flags are participating in a criminally insane political ideology.
Progressive Jews want to make the bottom line "Jews are nice people." But that is not the bottom line. As Hillel mentioned, the bottom line is that you don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. What would we expect if our neighbor, with or without warning, bulldozed our house?
First, we would call the police. If the man with the bulldozer failed to stop bulldozing the house, the police officer would have the duty to disable the vehicle and he might even shoot him. I'm talking about American law. The primary concept of civil rights is that you and your neighbor are sharing the same set of laws and punishments. The bulldozer man would be stopped. Hewould be considered a criminal. He would be put on trial. He would go to prison. If he had killed people in the process of bulldozing the house, he might even be executed. The owner of the house that was bulldozed would be entitled to damages plus extra for pain and suffering. The law requires that his property be restored to the original state that it was in. That includes replanting the trees and fixing the pavement around the house.
The emotional defensiveness of Jews is actually quite amusing, where they want to argue that the bulldozer man was not evil, he was not a murderer. The family that moved into the stolen property are just innocent idealists. They may be misguided, or mistaken, but for some reason Jews want to argue that they are not evil. What they are really saying is that they don't want Jews to be held legally accountable for their actions. They want to enjoy the privilege of being "protected" from the laws that apply to other people.
A law does not cover the "evilness" of a criminal. It covers actions and consequences.
If international law were followed, the Israeli "government' would never have kicked out any Palestinians. The entire existence of Israel is based on the condition made by the UN that Palestinians would remain in their homes and receive equal citizenship in the new nation state. That condition was not followed. Therefore, there is no legal basis for any assumption that Israel has a right to exist according to the UN. In fact, Israel does not really exist. It is a figment of imagination, the defensive mechanism of the neurotic Jewish collective consciousness. I agree that we need to stop arguing about isms but the next step is to solve the problems. Don't wait for the world community to force Israel to do it. Why don't we, as Jews, just do it? Why are Progressive Jews wasting their time feeling emotionally threatened by a one state solution? The real problem is that we are feeling emotionally threatened by any solution. Because a solution means that Jews need to be prosecuted.
The refugees must be given back their property with extra for damages. Even if they fled their homes because Arab leaders told them to get out of the fighting zone in 1948, they have the legal right to return to their homes as soon as the fighting stops. Small wonder why Israel continues to attack people day after day. The refugees must be given full civil rights. Full water rights, full road rights, and the full right to prosecute every Jewish family in America that has any property in the Holy Land as part of an organized crime network. Especially if both the Palestinian and the Jewish persons are American citizens. For example one friend of mine, after her family was forced off their land by gunpoint, New York Jews bought the land, bulldozed everything, and planted orange trees. She knows where they live. She knows their names. Anyone who buys or sells stolen property is a criminal who needs to be prosecuted. Any Jew who owns Palestinian property in the Holy Land should have his property seized, including their US assets, just like we did to the rum smugglers who funded Jewish terrorism in the 1920s, and Progressive Jews should insist on it instead of doing these mental "I'm not evil" gymnastics.
The Jews need to give back what they stole. I am not sure why that is so confusing to people. There needs to be a world tribunal like the Nuremburg trials to determine what was done and who was responsible, and to put an end to this nonsense. But failing that, the US legal system could solve the problem within a year if we just prosecuted this obnoxious real estate mafia. Why are Progressive Jews not lobbying for criminal penalties on Jews who invest in property that was cleared of its original owners by force in the Holy Land? There is enough room in Bush's new prisons for all these shady real estate agents. This is a simple matter of holding people legally accountable for the harm they cause others and for undermining the security of the United States in the process. It is exactly the same issue with dispute over the Roxbury Mosque in Boston. Some shady white (Jewish) real estate dealers were furious that the black community benefited from this piece of land next to the subway station that they wanted to develop, so now they are engaging in extra-legal trickery and character assassination to try to get that piece of real estate away from the people who own it. Once the Palestinians get their land back and all the Zionist organizations' assets are confiscated to repair the damage they have done, then we can talk about whether or not "the Jewish People" have the right to "self-determination" in the form of an ethnocentric nation state.
I learned when I was a kid that the way to get self-determination - i.e., the ability to do what you want when you want how you want - is to behave yourself. The Jews are not behaving themselves, and there is nothing okay about it. When a Progressive Jew avoids discussion by whining, "You think I'm evil!!" he or she breaks the heart of the human being who is trying to have peace with this person. It ends all rational discussion. It ends all hope for peace.
Sometimes Palestinians find it easier to deal with right wing Zionists than left wing because at least they are honest. A Palestinian can say to a right wing Jew, "You stole my property." The right wing Jew will say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? My religion says I can steal your property." Then the Muslim can with dignity say, "Well my religion says that God curses the man who puts another man out of his home, and that I have the right to fight you." That actually can be done in the context of a polite dialogue. A peace plan is even potentially possible. Because then the Jew can say, "Well, I don't want you to kill me and I can see why you would think that I deserved it, because if you did the same thing to me I would certainly kill you. So let's make a deal. I'll let you live in the garage." This is still insulting behavior, but it's in the process of becoming less sadistic.
On the other hand, if a Palestinian says to a Progressive Jew, "You stole my property!" the Progressive Jew will usually shut down entirely. I have seen a fifty year old man start crying and insisting he's not evil. This is the behavior of someone who is guilty as sin. Like when you accuse your husband of adultery and he starts guilt-tripping you about how you don't believe in him (hypothetical but common scenario).
The other reaction is to get maliciously angry and start doing character assassination via gossip so that none of the other Progressive Jews will greet that person who brought up the "touchy" subject. They will be told that this person is an "enemy of peace" - so that it will be politically correct to shun them the same way that we avoid eye contact with skinheads and Bible thumpers. Progressive Jews are the most amazingly idealistic people on the planet. They want to be able to continue to sit on someone else's stolen property (or at least vacation on it) and not only do they think they have a "right" to travel around unharmed, ride the buses, shop and eat pizza while the people they made homeless have no water or food - but they want their victims to LIKE them. The Jews are the only conquerors in the history of the planet that expected the conquered people to LIKE them! If they don't like us, we feel offended and outraged. And what Jews consider as "liking behavior" is never mentioning the property they stole.
I've discussed some of this with Avigail Abarbanel, an ex-Israeli psychiatrist in Australia. She views Zionism as a mental illness that can be treated. But Zionism is just a symptom of a deeper problem, the delusional belief that you have "rights" which do not exist. Like a kid thinking he has the right to hit his sister. It's a failure to apply the Golden Rule to one's personal sense of responsibility in certain situations. The inner conflict that arises from these "situational ethics" certainly does create a clinically diagnosable mental inability to process certain types of information that trigger the neurotic or sometimes even psychotic defensive reaction.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Israel, Jews are defensive in the sense that they cannot process the type of information that is necessary to create peaceful behaviors. For example, if a Jew and Palestinian live next door to each other in New Jersey, the Jew being the "owner" of a condo built on the Palestinian person's property, don't you think the Jew should offer to give it back, if he expects the other's friendship? If the Palestinian, as is normal, invites the Jew over for tea and politely doesn't bring up the subject, does the Jew feel that this means it's OK what he did? That he can forgive himself? That is what Jews want after all. We want to be forgiven without apology for everything we have done AND everything we are about to do.
Is this a rational approach to peace? Is it working?
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEWhttp://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?Please consider donating to WVNS today.Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Friday, February 16, 2007
Sugarman Steals 'Sexy' Election from Hamas
The World Chooses Sexiest Anti-Zionists on the Planet
Sugarman Steals 'Sexy' Election from Hamas:
Charlotte Kates Emerges as Female Champion
World View News Exclusive!!!
by Umm Yakoub
Well, the votes are in for the World View News Service's "Sexiest
Anti-Zionist on the Planet." The female winner is Palestine Solidarity
activist Charlotte Kates. Leila Khaled came in as runner-up - see
http://www.mqm.com/English-News/Jan-2001/leilakhalid.htm for her
photo, but in truth she didn't even come close because no one could
top this gushing nomination from Charlotte's very shy admirer -
"I have to say that she reminds me of a very young Bette Davis
(complete with her bewitching eyes!), and her smile could melt the
heart of any sentient human. But, I guess it's her voice that really
stands out; it has a character, a limerance, a sort of joyful
resonance that is -- well -- "captivating" is the word that comes to
mind. She is also perhaps the most graceful and engaging human being I
know of." See Charlotte Kates' photo and read about her passion at
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2242.shtml
The male winner looked like it was going to be the manly Palestinian
prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh -
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=18704 -
but a last-minute, coordinated campaign by Chaim Sugarman to subvert
the election resulted in the landslide victory of this previously
unknown candidate. View the heart-stopping Chaim Sugarman campaign
poster at
http://kabobfest.blogspot.com/2007/02/our-vote-planets-sexiest-anti-zionist.html
Warmest Congratulations to Charlotte Kates, Sexiest Female
Anti-Zionist on the Planet! Hats off to Chaim Sugarman the Sexiest
Anti-Zionist Man on the Planet! See him without his shirt at
http://www.blogger.com/profile/33281445
Other Nominations:
Roger Tucker in North Carolina (I can provide his phone number ladies)
Elaine Antonia in Florida
Judy Andreas in New York
Shams in Kuwait (we don't know if she's actually an anti-Zionist but
we like her video: http://www.mon-pagerank.com/videos/out.php?id=4847)
and of course, Karin Friedemann and Joachim Martillo in Massachussetts
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Sugarman Steals 'Sexy' Election from Hamas:
Charlotte Kates Emerges as Female Champion
World View News Exclusive!!!
by Umm Yakoub
Well, the votes are in for the World View News Service's "Sexiest
Anti-Zionist on the Planet." The female winner is Palestine Solidarity
activist Charlotte Kates. Leila Khaled came in as runner-up - see
http://www.mqm.com/English-News/Jan-2001/leilakhalid.htm for her
photo, but in truth she didn't even come close because no one could
top this gushing nomination from Charlotte's very shy admirer -
"I have to say that she reminds me of a very young Bette Davis
(complete with her bewitching eyes!), and her smile could melt the
heart of any sentient human. But, I guess it's her voice that really
stands out; it has a character, a limerance, a sort of joyful
resonance that is -- well -- "captivating" is the word that comes to
mind. She is also perhaps the most graceful and engaging human being I
know of." See Charlotte Kates' photo and read about her passion at
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2242.shtml
The male winner looked like it was going to be the manly Palestinian
prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh -
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=18704 -
but a last-minute, coordinated campaign by Chaim Sugarman to subvert
the election resulted in the landslide victory of this previously
unknown candidate. View the heart-stopping Chaim Sugarman campaign
poster at
http://kabobfest.blogspot.com/2007/02/our-vote-planets-sexiest-anti-zionist.html
Warmest Congratulations to Charlotte Kates, Sexiest Female
Anti-Zionist on the Planet! Hats off to Chaim Sugarman the Sexiest
Anti-Zionist Man on the Planet! See him without his shirt at
http://www.blogger.com/profile/33281445
Other Nominations:
Roger Tucker in North Carolina (I can provide his phone number ladies)
Elaine Antonia in Florida
Judy Andreas in New York
Shams in Kuwait (we don't know if she's actually an anti-Zionist but
we like her video: http://www.mon-pagerank.com/videos/out.php?id=4847)
and of course, Karin Friedemann and Joachim Martillo in Massachussetts
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
THE PASSION OF ROXBURY
Local college and university alumni decided to contribute something to our city. Do they have the right to erect a place of worship in Boston? They are American citizens. Does it matter if they got a good deal on the purchase of land, similar to the breaks given to area churches and synagogues? The corner where the Roxbury mosque is located used to be a trash-littered area in a dangerous neighborhood. Now, it’s a place through which people drive the long way home just so they can glimpse the mosque-in-progress. Roxbury’s new mosque is an appropriate edifice for the major world intellectual and cultural center that Boston is. This glamorous combination of red brick and gold expresses the sincere desire of Boston’s Muslims to give back to the community of which they are a part.
Roxbury’s mega-mosque is the last work of the late Hasan Fathi, who is one of the great architects of the 20th century. The Egyptian architect, known for his environmentally appropriate buildings, created a Bostonian “look” for this premiere mosque that sparkles yet blends into its surroundings harmoniously. It complements the nearby churches, some of which are 100-175 years old. When the Roxbury Mosque is completed, it will attract tourists from all over the world to a section of Boston that desperately needs tourist dollars.
There are some who feel threatened by the inclusion of Muslims in the melting pot of American society. The Roxbury mosque project has been subject to intense scrutiny because of empty, malicious accusations in the media against the Islamic Development Bank, probably the world’s most respected Sharia-compliant financial institution. Simple fairness requires exposure of an Islamophobic agenda, which incites religious and race hatred to marginalize American Muslims.
Conspiracy to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights is unethical. The media’s vigilante effort to defame the Islamic Society of Boston, its leadership and its membership deprives us, the American public, of the ability to hear important points of view, and it is probably illegal. Demonizing Islamic finance closes the USA to financial investments from the Arab world.
Venture capital can flow away from our region in the blink of an eye if international investors see that fanatic racists and Islamophobes dominate Boston politics. This campaign against the Roxbury mosque will probably cost the Massachusetts economy tens of billions of dollars of investment capital.
Roxbury’s mega-mosque is the last work of the late Hasan Fathi, who is one of the great architects of the 20th century. The Egyptian architect, known for his environmentally appropriate buildings, created a Bostonian “look” for this premiere mosque that sparkles yet blends into its surroundings harmoniously. It complements the nearby churches, some of which are 100-175 years old. When the Roxbury Mosque is completed, it will attract tourists from all over the world to a section of Boston that desperately needs tourist dollars.
There are some who feel threatened by the inclusion of Muslims in the melting pot of American society. The Roxbury mosque project has been subject to intense scrutiny because of empty, malicious accusations in the media against the Islamic Development Bank, probably the world’s most respected Sharia-compliant financial institution. Simple fairness requires exposure of an Islamophobic agenda, which incites religious and race hatred to marginalize American Muslims.
Conspiracy to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights is unethical. The media’s vigilante effort to defame the Islamic Society of Boston, its leadership and its membership deprives us, the American public, of the ability to hear important points of view, and it is probably illegal. Demonizing Islamic finance closes the USA to financial investments from the Arab world.
Venture capital can flow away from our region in the blink of an eye if international investors see that fanatic racists and Islamophobes dominate Boston politics. This campaign against the Roxbury mosque will probably cost the Massachusetts economy tens of billions of dollars of investment capital.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Islamophobia: the New Anti-Semitism?
Is Islamophobia the New Anti-Semitism?
The Problem the Boston Globe has with Muslims
Video: "If I Wasn't Muslim" (See http://tinyurl.com/skpkn)
Joachim Martillo & Karin Friedemann
January 12, 2007
For several years the news media have reported increasing numbers of controversies involving Muslim communities throughout the USA as well as in Europe. Recently, Representative Goode and US Holocaust Museum Memorial Museum Council member Dennis Prager objected to US Representative Ellison's use of a Quran during the congressional oath-taking ceremony. Since Ellison's election, Goode and many other politicians and pundits have been demanding changes in immigration law to decrease or to stop the immigration of Muslims to the USA as if the Ellison's ancestors have not been residing in the territory of the USA since the eighteenth century. Such proposals constitute an unsubtle statement that Muslims have no place in America. Muslims seem to us somewhat exotic, and are therefore easy to stereotype. Dumping on Muslims is fun, cheap, and easy.The unwillingness of American and Western societies in general to confront naked Islamophobic incitement recalls so many pathological actions associated with the development of modern anti-Semitism in Central and Eastern Europe that we Americans must ask ourselves whether Islamophobia is the New Anti-Semitism.Unabashed Islamophobe Robert Spencer (http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/), who has strong associations with Neocon organizations and leaders, routinely mischaracterizes Islamic religion and cultures. The title of his book, Islam Unveiled, is strongly reminiscent of Eisenmenger's classic anti-Jewish text entitled Entdecktes Judentum (Judaism Unmasked). He recently visited Temple Emanuel in Newton, Massachusetts at the invitation of this synagogue's Israel Action Forum in order to assist in the ongoing defamation of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). (See "Report on Robert Spencer and the Boston Anti-Islamic Controversy" by Joachim Martillo: http://tinyurl.com/yx7xqz.)Other scribblers of anti-Islamic screeds have begun to cast Muslim owned and managed businesses like the Islamic Development Bank, from which the ISB obtained a mortgage, in the role of sinister malevolent entities just as nineteenth and twentieth century anti-Semites used to depict Jewish owned and managed financial institutions like the Rothschild or Bleichroeder banks as forces of darkness and exploitation. The Globe ran two perfect examples of such anti-Semitism on January 10, 2007: "The Boston mosque's Saudi connection" by Jeff Jacoby (http://tinyurl.com/ykv6h9) and "Saudi bank’s role in mosque is questioned" by Charles A. Radin and Stephen Kurkjian (http://tinyurl.com/y6o7yd).The analogy between contemporary Islamophobia and classical anti-Semitism is not merely literary. Most Globe readers probably analogized the anti-Mosque confrontation described in reporter Colin Nickerson’s Jan. 9 front page Boston Globe article, “As a mosque rises, a dispute flares in Berlin,” (http://tinyurl.com/y5yjz8) with the Roxbury Mosque conflict. The article uses classic anti-Semitic verbal tactics to make Islamophobia appear as a virtuous activity. The headline cites the Syrian-born Arab studies specialist Bassam Tibi with an Otto Weininger-esque quotation: "Europeans have used tolerance as the excuse for not confronting intolerance." One hopes that the author has taken Professor Tibi's words out of context, for he is certainly out of his field. Germans simply are not known for being particularly tolerant and have a strong history of racist violence and bigotry, which continues to this day. As if there were no history of decades of expressions of anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish hatred in Germany, Nickerson defines traditional German bigotry as a new willingness to confront Muslims.The problem in the Globe's coverage of Muslims arises from the continuous stream of poisonous accusations and insinuations provided by pro-Israel advocacy organizations like the David Project (http://www.davidproject.org) and its affiliates. Like many other US newspapers the Boston Globe is giving license to journalists, who found their entry level jobs at the ethnic Jewish press or who are otherwise enmeshed with the organized Jewish community, to repeat talking points and press releases circulated on the Internet by people like David Project founder Charles Jacobs when a good reporter would be doing serious investigative journalism or at least fact-checking.As the cost of the Israeli-American alliance becomes more obvious, the David Project and similar Israel advocacy organizations are finding it more and more difficult to control discourse or to win debates about US Middle East policy. From the standpoint of the David Project, it makes much more sense to marginalize, to demonize, and to delegitimize Muslims in order to deflect criticism, than to engage in a debate with the American public that it is likely to lose.In the Jan. 10 Boston Globe, reporters Charles Radin and Stephen Kurjian raised questions about the funding of the Roxbury mosque project. Again. The funding of the Roxbury mosque is not only not news; it's old news. The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB, http://www.isboston.com) has simply obtained a loan to finance construction of its Islamic center just as many Americans do when they build their homes. The libelers casting suspicion on the ISB for [gasp!] getting a mortgage, are counting on members of the American public to be unaware that banks are multinational corporations. When you get a loan from Citibank, a lot of that money comes from the United Arab Emirates. Such cash flow is normal. The ISB is limited in its choice of mortgage providers because it must obtain a loan that conforms to Islamic law. The ISB already submitted their financial information to the Globe and to the David Project but the Globe refused to print the clarifications. An apology would have been in order.The Globe willfully chose to create a fake story even while it had the facts. What is the reason? Subverting American news media is an important aspect of the David Project's self-declared mission ("diminishing the impact of Israel's detractors"). We have looked at the court filings and personal defamation suits directed at the David Project and friends. There is evidence to support the contention that various news media including the Boston Herald and Fox News, have conspired with the David Project in a campaign to make us fear the mosque.We that have followed the demonization of the Islamic Society of Boston by the David Project, Charles Jacobs, and his motley crew of anti-Arab anti-Muslim true believers are tired of the harassment of our friends and neighbors by bigoted, malicious know-nothings. The ISB is by any standard a completely apolitical faith organization, whose members are very nice people as anyone can learn by attending one of the ISB's public dinners. The members of the ISB, its directors and staff are completely law-abiding American citizens. The ISB has never even made any public statements on Israel. The ISB unlike many Boston-area synagogues and Jewish community centers only flies the American flag.
Debates on foreign policy have no relevance to the Roxbury Mosque controversy except that Charles Jacobs is coordinating various pro-Israel organizations to defame American Muslims. Conspiracy to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights to assemble freely to worship is a federal crime. It is an indication of the power of the Israel Lobby and the level of moral corruption to which the USA has sunk under the Bush administration that Charles Jacobs and his co-conspirators have not been indicted. If the American political leadership does not have the courage to stand up to those that try to normalize Islamophobia, our democracy will be lost because the enemies of freedom will not stop with American Muslims.
It is time for the Israel advocacy propagandists to be scrutinized. We have looked at their public filings, and the David Project appears to be at the center of a network of connections among power brokers in Boston-area academia, in the Massachusetts Republican Party and in the Massachusetts Democratic Party as well as in the local real estate and financial industries. (For details see http://members.aol.com/ThorsProvoni/mosque.htm.) This type of non-transparent para-organization (friends of friends) among the powers that be can easily develop into a threat to American democracy and become a mechanism to deprive groups of American citizens of their legal protections.
By suppressing public debate on important issues, Israel advocates put all Americans at risk of financial disaster or worse as policy makers more loyal to Israel than to the US manipulate America into waging pointless wars instead of engaging in a civil dialogue with the rest of the world on matters of worldwide concern. Well, guess what! There is no constitutional requirement for Americans whether Muslim or non-Muslim to love Israel. The Boston news media and the FBI should be investigating the David Project, which is the genuine threat to America.
Afterword
Jan. 12, 2007 the Boston Globe published a Reuters article ("Islam urged to accept Enlightenment", see http://tinyurl.com/yjlafz), whose Islamophobic innuendo duplicates classic 18th and 19th century exhortations from Judeophobes and anti-Semites that Jews must assimilate enlightened Christian values.
The Problem the Boston Globe has with Muslims
Video: "If I Wasn't Muslim" (See http://tinyurl.com/skpkn)
Joachim Martillo & Karin Friedemann
January 12, 2007
For several years the news media have reported increasing numbers of controversies involving Muslim communities throughout the USA as well as in Europe. Recently, Representative Goode and US Holocaust Museum Memorial Museum Council member Dennis Prager objected to US Representative Ellison's use of a Quran during the congressional oath-taking ceremony. Since Ellison's election, Goode and many other politicians and pundits have been demanding changes in immigration law to decrease or to stop the immigration of Muslims to the USA as if the Ellison's ancestors have not been residing in the territory of the USA since the eighteenth century. Such proposals constitute an unsubtle statement that Muslims have no place in America. Muslims seem to us somewhat exotic, and are therefore easy to stereotype. Dumping on Muslims is fun, cheap, and easy.The unwillingness of American and Western societies in general to confront naked Islamophobic incitement recalls so many pathological actions associated with the development of modern anti-Semitism in Central and Eastern Europe that we Americans must ask ourselves whether Islamophobia is the New Anti-Semitism.Unabashed Islamophobe Robert Spencer (http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/), who has strong associations with Neocon organizations and leaders, routinely mischaracterizes Islamic religion and cultures. The title of his book, Islam Unveiled, is strongly reminiscent of Eisenmenger's classic anti-Jewish text entitled Entdecktes Judentum (Judaism Unmasked). He recently visited Temple Emanuel in Newton, Massachusetts at the invitation of this synagogue's Israel Action Forum in order to assist in the ongoing defamation of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). (See "Report on Robert Spencer and the Boston Anti-Islamic Controversy" by Joachim Martillo: http://tinyurl.com/yx7xqz.)Other scribblers of anti-Islamic screeds have begun to cast Muslim owned and managed businesses like the Islamic Development Bank, from which the ISB obtained a mortgage, in the role of sinister malevolent entities just as nineteenth and twentieth century anti-Semites used to depict Jewish owned and managed financial institutions like the Rothschild or Bleichroeder banks as forces of darkness and exploitation. The Globe ran two perfect examples of such anti-Semitism on January 10, 2007: "The Boston mosque's Saudi connection" by Jeff Jacoby (http://tinyurl.com/ykv6h9) and "Saudi bank’s role in mosque is questioned" by Charles A. Radin and Stephen Kurkjian (http://tinyurl.com/y6o7yd).The analogy between contemporary Islamophobia and classical anti-Semitism is not merely literary. Most Globe readers probably analogized the anti-Mosque confrontation described in reporter Colin Nickerson’s Jan. 9 front page Boston Globe article, “As a mosque rises, a dispute flares in Berlin,” (http://tinyurl.com/y5yjz8) with the Roxbury Mosque conflict. The article uses classic anti-Semitic verbal tactics to make Islamophobia appear as a virtuous activity. The headline cites the Syrian-born Arab studies specialist Bassam Tibi with an Otto Weininger-esque quotation: "Europeans have used tolerance as the excuse for not confronting intolerance." One hopes that the author has taken Professor Tibi's words out of context, for he is certainly out of his field. Germans simply are not known for being particularly tolerant and have a strong history of racist violence and bigotry, which continues to this day. As if there were no history of decades of expressions of anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish hatred in Germany, Nickerson defines traditional German bigotry as a new willingness to confront Muslims.The problem in the Globe's coverage of Muslims arises from the continuous stream of poisonous accusations and insinuations provided by pro-Israel advocacy organizations like the David Project (http://www.davidproject.org) and its affiliates. Like many other US newspapers the Boston Globe is giving license to journalists, who found their entry level jobs at the ethnic Jewish press or who are otherwise enmeshed with the organized Jewish community, to repeat talking points and press releases circulated on the Internet by people like David Project founder Charles Jacobs when a good reporter would be doing serious investigative journalism or at least fact-checking.As the cost of the Israeli-American alliance becomes more obvious, the David Project and similar Israel advocacy organizations are finding it more and more difficult to control discourse or to win debates about US Middle East policy. From the standpoint of the David Project, it makes much more sense to marginalize, to demonize, and to delegitimize Muslims in order to deflect criticism, than to engage in a debate with the American public that it is likely to lose.In the Jan. 10 Boston Globe, reporters Charles Radin and Stephen Kurjian raised questions about the funding of the Roxbury mosque project. Again. The funding of the Roxbury mosque is not only not news; it's old news. The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB, http://www.isboston.com) has simply obtained a loan to finance construction of its Islamic center just as many Americans do when they build their homes. The libelers casting suspicion on the ISB for [gasp!] getting a mortgage, are counting on members of the American public to be unaware that banks are multinational corporations. When you get a loan from Citibank, a lot of that money comes from the United Arab Emirates. Such cash flow is normal. The ISB is limited in its choice of mortgage providers because it must obtain a loan that conforms to Islamic law. The ISB already submitted their financial information to the Globe and to the David Project but the Globe refused to print the clarifications. An apology would have been in order.The Globe willfully chose to create a fake story even while it had the facts. What is the reason? Subverting American news media is an important aspect of the David Project's self-declared mission ("diminishing the impact of Israel's detractors"). We have looked at the court filings and personal defamation suits directed at the David Project and friends. There is evidence to support the contention that various news media including the Boston Herald and Fox News, have conspired with the David Project in a campaign to make us fear the mosque.We that have followed the demonization of the Islamic Society of Boston by the David Project, Charles Jacobs, and his motley crew of anti-Arab anti-Muslim true believers are tired of the harassment of our friends and neighbors by bigoted, malicious know-nothings. The ISB is by any standard a completely apolitical faith organization, whose members are very nice people as anyone can learn by attending one of the ISB's public dinners. The members of the ISB, its directors and staff are completely law-abiding American citizens. The ISB has never even made any public statements on Israel. The ISB unlike many Boston-area synagogues and Jewish community centers only flies the American flag.
Debates on foreign policy have no relevance to the Roxbury Mosque controversy except that Charles Jacobs is coordinating various pro-Israel organizations to defame American Muslims. Conspiracy to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights to assemble freely to worship is a federal crime. It is an indication of the power of the Israel Lobby and the level of moral corruption to which the USA has sunk under the Bush administration that Charles Jacobs and his co-conspirators have not been indicted. If the American political leadership does not have the courage to stand up to those that try to normalize Islamophobia, our democracy will be lost because the enemies of freedom will not stop with American Muslims.
It is time for the Israel advocacy propagandists to be scrutinized. We have looked at their public filings, and the David Project appears to be at the center of a network of connections among power brokers in Boston-area academia, in the Massachusetts Republican Party and in the Massachusetts Democratic Party as well as in the local real estate and financial industries. (For details see http://members.aol.com/ThorsProvoni/mosque.htm.) This type of non-transparent para-organization (friends of friends) among the powers that be can easily develop into a threat to American democracy and become a mechanism to deprive groups of American citizens of their legal protections.
By suppressing public debate on important issues, Israel advocates put all Americans at risk of financial disaster or worse as policy makers more loyal to Israel than to the US manipulate America into waging pointless wars instead of engaging in a civil dialogue with the rest of the world on matters of worldwide concern. Well, guess what! There is no constitutional requirement for Americans whether Muslim or non-Muslim to love Israel. The Boston news media and the FBI should be investigating the David Project, which is the genuine threat to America.
Afterword
Jan. 12, 2007 the Boston Globe published a Reuters article ("Islam urged to accept Enlightenment", see http://tinyurl.com/yjlafz), whose Islamophobic innuendo duplicates classic 18th and 19th century exhortations from Judeophobes and anti-Semites that Jews must assimilate enlightened Christian values.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Ahmadinejad is Right
Ahmadinejad is doing the right thing to point out the Jewish issues. Any time you make an anti-Israel statement the Jews are going to be told by all the Jewish organizations to "feel attacked" in order to use this fear for fundraising. You can't let their little hissy fit stop you from exposing them. They will always misquote and demonize anyone who speaks against their domination. The Jews want to bomb Iran. So there is no point in pretending that "if only he had said the right thing about the Holocaust," that Jews would have another attitude towards the Iranians. Whenever a PalestineSolidarity Conference takes place in the US, the media is filled with lies and distortions regarding what the conference is about, and invariably a team of rabbis will fill the newspapers with op-eds decrying the conference organizers for "hate." Threatened with an Iraq-style war by the US Jews, Ahmadinejad has nothing to lose. He saw from Saddam's example that if you comply with weapons inspectors and act submissive and politically correct, your country will be irradiated. So therefore he is trying a different tactic, that of being abrasive and mirroring Jewish offensive practices. Do you realize how many Nakba Denial conferences and Anti-Muslim genocide incitement conferences the Jewish organizations hold per year in the United States? Iran did nothing but hold an academic conference. The only tactic that has ever worked against slanderers is to point the finger back at them. Ahmadinejad is going on a media offensive - and this conference was widely applauded throughout theMiddle East - because he knows that being defensive and cooperative with Jews never works. Since no one has tried this "be offensive as possible" media tactic yet, Ahmadinejad is willing togive creativity a chance to stop a war. I hope to God he succeeds.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The End of Time Arguments Spread Fear
The End of Time Arguments Spread Fear
By Maria Hussain (aka Karin Friedemann)
Al-Jazeerah.info, May 15, 2004
At the recent Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin, Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli official raised the spectre of a “totalitarian, radical Islamist ideology” based on the widespread Zionist belief that Muslim fundamentalists are ready for a second genocide of the Jewish people. It is rather ironic that the Israelis are appealing to the Germans for help, the very nation that got them into this mess. Transfer of funds from Nazi Germany in the 1930s made the Jewish State possible. Presumably, getting the Jews out of Germany was part of Hitler’s Final Solution. The idea that the State of Israel could ever provide security to Jewish persons is absurd given that Israel is Hitler’s baby. Why the Jews still to this day seem determined to bring about Hitler’s Final Solution upon themselves as some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy is worth asking. The creation of a Jewish gathering place and the subsequent efficiency of its obliteration would suffice as reason for Hitler’s funding of the State.
When confronted with their injustices, Semitists will invariably attempt to divert attention to the threat of Islamic anti-Semitism as the common enemy of mankind. This may seem like an irrational conclusion to anyone who has ever spoken with Arabs. The idea that Arabs want to exterminate all Jews can only be the subconscious projection of the Jewish obsession with exterminating Arabs. They assume the hatred to be mutual, but it is not. Arabs are the most secular and the most willing to compromise of all the Muslims. The terror Jews suffer at the dread of Arab vengeance is a comical expression of the repressed Jewish conscience. I believe the Arabs would consent to a non-Zionist, secular state in all of historical Palestine. I have never heard any public calls for collective punishment or expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land coming from any Palestinian organization, whether leftist or Islamist. The fear that Arabs want to drive Jews into the sea is something you only hear from Jews. The Jews’ attempt to criminalize Jihad is nothing more than a racist denial of the Arabs’ right to self-defense.
The Semitists’ terror of Islamic justice has blinded them to the reality of the threat they do not see. While it is untrue that Arabs wish to annihilate the Jews, there are perhaps hundreds of millions of people around the world who would simply call it God’s Justice. Since the assumptions promoted by anti-Islamic scholars are made from inferences based on Quranic verses quoted out of context and interpreted in ways that Muslims do not interpret them, it is not clear that these “scholars” are even aware of the vast body of Islamic literature attributed to the Prophet Mohammed that includes the entire Armegeddon scenario including the Mehdi, the return of Jesus the Messiah, the defeat of the Anti-Christ in Jerusalem, and the last genocide of the Jews at God’s command. The Islamic scholar, Maududi threw out this entire collection of ahadith as “unsound” fabrications and these prophecies are not taught as part of the core of Islamic teachings. However, they are widely circulated and accepted as truth by the mainstream of South Asian Muslim culture. Arabs are actually far less likely to await the liberation of Palestine by an Islamic army from Afghanistan waving black flags led by a Saudi Arabian war hero, but this hope, based on sayings attributed to Mohammed, seems to be a major part of the global Islamist coalition’s recruiting propaganda. The Zionists are largely unaware of it. They are still distracted by the idea of 70 virgins in paradise.
The Zionist belief in the ingathering of Jews in the Land of Israel was the adoption and subversion of the Biblical Revelations in the New Testament. The belief that Jews were physically expelled by the Romans from the Holy Land 2000 years ago is also borrowed from Christian theology. The Quranic mentions of Israelite claims on Palestine hold that the story of the Promised Land is a promise fulfilled. There is no further promise. Any future ingathering of Jews refers to the ingathering of every nation and tribe at the Day of Judgement after the Last Day, when we all will be called to judgement.
But the fundamentalist Christians, the fundamentalist Jews, and the fundamentalist Muslims are united in this idea that there has to be some military show-down between the Jewish Messiah and Jesus. Some of our useless passivity results from a feeling of inevitability based on the belief that all has been written. Is the Great Battle between Jesus and Dajjal a fundamental Islamic belief?
This entire world war is based on false assumptions based on messianistic expectations. If we entertain the possibility that the ahadith (the Prophet's sayings) related to the second coming of Jesus are borrowed from Christianity, and we limit our Islamic belief to what is clearly established in the Holy Quran and the “sound” ahadith, then there is no reason to think that the future of the world could not have a happy ending. There is no final destruction of the Jews and Christians and loss of Dhimmi status. All the Islamic laws requiring the just treatment of conquered minorities still hold.
There is nothing in the core of Islamic teachings that says that the future of our world is reduced to a final showdown between good and evil. In fact, this superstition is related to Zoroastrianism. The Quranic descriptions of the Last Days of the earth are more based in astronomy than politics. They seem to imply a gradual slowing down of the earths’ rotation to the point where gravity disappears and everything on earth goes flying off into space. This nightmare scenario makes nuclear armegeddon seem pretty mild in comparison. The idea that the destruction of Masjid Al Aqsa is inevitable, or that the Gog and Magog will use up all the water in the Sea of Galilee -- are these things we should accept? Have we been allowing these madmen to take over the Middle East because we have been sold into Freemasonic conspiracy theories? The idea that Muslims will defeat the Zionist World Order and establish a global Islamic order led by Jesus is not actually central to the Islamic religion. Given that we want peace for the sake of the children more than we need to base our decisions on these questionable ahadith, it may be wise for the Muslims to entertain the possibility that we may be giving the Jews far more credit than they deserve. Sure, they would love to be the priesthood of the New World Order. But their power is only that which we attribute to them. We can also just laugh at them.
Let us face the facts. Even the most sincere Muslims among us are not equipped to turn the situation around. Only Allah can help us, and we have to beg Him to show us how to build a sustainable society. But the devil is like a snake which eats its own tail. Evil sows the seeds of its own destruction. We can use our energy to create alternatives rather than just fighting bad guys all the time. Let us then stop waiting for the Messiah because there is a very real chance that all these End Time Islamic oral traditions were planted by Ismailis during the British Empire as a way of frightening Muslims into accepting the idea of an all-powerful world government led by Jews. The vast majority of Muslims are traumatized by violence or the fear of violence. This prophetic literature makes them fall into a black hole of helpless terror that stunts their effectiveness personally and collectively because death seems the only option. Either we can die as pathetic victims or we can die as men, fighting for the sake of Allah. There is a way out of this trap. There is an Islamic loophole.
If we stop believing in the supernatural powers of Jews, we no longer need to take for granted that the Zionists will forever strive to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, nor do we need to believe in the awesome Pharonic powers of Israel. It is enough for us to heed the Quranic warning against witchcraft and emulate the noble character of the Islamic King Solomon who was so merciful that he avoided stepping on ants. It may be that we can use the great minds that Allah gave us in order to establish a just society which protects the weak. Whether it’s a secular and multi-cultural nation with an Islamic majority, or it’s an Islamic state with political bodies representing minority communities who conduct their own internal affairs, we can do this. If we forget about the End Time prophecies and concentrate on the Lowest Common Denominator that we can all agree on, that we hold it as self-evident that all men were created equal; we could start from there. Naturally, there are mighty men with terrible weapons who will stand in the way of the success of convincing Jews to give up their neurotic superiority complexes. These people will have to be fought and defeated. But we can fight injustice with a sense of inner peace -- not revenge. We can use our intellectual capabilities and our inner faith to build a society that is sustainable.
It could be true that the end of the world is at hand. But God’s time is different than human time. It is all too convenient to believe that a Messiah is coming to solve all our problems. The fact is, the Messiah has already come and he is now sitting at the Right Hand of the Lord. He is going to pray for his followers on the Day of Judgement but that is all we know for sure. It could be that there are many many centuries that we must struggle through before we reach the climactic end of all of humanity’s efforts. Even the End Time prophecies state that on the Last Day, if you have a sapling in your hand you should plant it. We are not allowed to give up hope. This is because we never know if this could just be one of many trials from our Lord.
We have tried the path of unrestrained materialism and it has gotten us into a bad place. We have tried the path of unrestrained idealism and it has not gotten us out of that bad place. Since we have all tried so hard and still failed, perhaps we should try something else. We all need each other because we all want the same thing. It is easy to die but it is harder to live free. And yet that is what we have to find a way how to do. The Path lies within our hearts and leads to the Source of all that is. There is no Islam or peace without free will and mutual respect. We all need to find the courage to ask questions, to let go of opinions, and have faith in the ultimate goodness of destiny. I believe we will find that when we give ourselves the freedom to know and to strive for what we really want, it will still be Islam that we want: the best possible interpretation of Islam as a balanced holistic circle that cherishes all life and recognizes no human master.
By Maria Hussain (aka Karin Friedemann)
Al-Jazeerah.info, May 15, 2004
At the recent Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin, Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli official raised the spectre of a “totalitarian, radical Islamist ideology” based on the widespread Zionist belief that Muslim fundamentalists are ready for a second genocide of the Jewish people. It is rather ironic that the Israelis are appealing to the Germans for help, the very nation that got them into this mess. Transfer of funds from Nazi Germany in the 1930s made the Jewish State possible. Presumably, getting the Jews out of Germany was part of Hitler’s Final Solution. The idea that the State of Israel could ever provide security to Jewish persons is absurd given that Israel is Hitler’s baby. Why the Jews still to this day seem determined to bring about Hitler’s Final Solution upon themselves as some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy is worth asking. The creation of a Jewish gathering place and the subsequent efficiency of its obliteration would suffice as reason for Hitler’s funding of the State.
When confronted with their injustices, Semitists will invariably attempt to divert attention to the threat of Islamic anti-Semitism as the common enemy of mankind. This may seem like an irrational conclusion to anyone who has ever spoken with Arabs. The idea that Arabs want to exterminate all Jews can only be the subconscious projection of the Jewish obsession with exterminating Arabs. They assume the hatred to be mutual, but it is not. Arabs are the most secular and the most willing to compromise of all the Muslims. The terror Jews suffer at the dread of Arab vengeance is a comical expression of the repressed Jewish conscience. I believe the Arabs would consent to a non-Zionist, secular state in all of historical Palestine. I have never heard any public calls for collective punishment or expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land coming from any Palestinian organization, whether leftist or Islamist. The fear that Arabs want to drive Jews into the sea is something you only hear from Jews. The Jews’ attempt to criminalize Jihad is nothing more than a racist denial of the Arabs’ right to self-defense.
The Semitists’ terror of Islamic justice has blinded them to the reality of the threat they do not see. While it is untrue that Arabs wish to annihilate the Jews, there are perhaps hundreds of millions of people around the world who would simply call it God’s Justice. Since the assumptions promoted by anti-Islamic scholars are made from inferences based on Quranic verses quoted out of context and interpreted in ways that Muslims do not interpret them, it is not clear that these “scholars” are even aware of the vast body of Islamic literature attributed to the Prophet Mohammed that includes the entire Armegeddon scenario including the Mehdi, the return of Jesus the Messiah, the defeat of the Anti-Christ in Jerusalem, and the last genocide of the Jews at God’s command. The Islamic scholar, Maududi threw out this entire collection of ahadith as “unsound” fabrications and these prophecies are not taught as part of the core of Islamic teachings. However, they are widely circulated and accepted as truth by the mainstream of South Asian Muslim culture. Arabs are actually far less likely to await the liberation of Palestine by an Islamic army from Afghanistan waving black flags led by a Saudi Arabian war hero, but this hope, based on sayings attributed to Mohammed, seems to be a major part of the global Islamist coalition’s recruiting propaganda. The Zionists are largely unaware of it. They are still distracted by the idea of 70 virgins in paradise.
The Zionist belief in the ingathering of Jews in the Land of Israel was the adoption and subversion of the Biblical Revelations in the New Testament. The belief that Jews were physically expelled by the Romans from the Holy Land 2000 years ago is also borrowed from Christian theology. The Quranic mentions of Israelite claims on Palestine hold that the story of the Promised Land is a promise fulfilled. There is no further promise. Any future ingathering of Jews refers to the ingathering of every nation and tribe at the Day of Judgement after the Last Day, when we all will be called to judgement.
But the fundamentalist Christians, the fundamentalist Jews, and the fundamentalist Muslims are united in this idea that there has to be some military show-down between the Jewish Messiah and Jesus. Some of our useless passivity results from a feeling of inevitability based on the belief that all has been written. Is the Great Battle between Jesus and Dajjal a fundamental Islamic belief?
This entire world war is based on false assumptions based on messianistic expectations. If we entertain the possibility that the ahadith (the Prophet's sayings) related to the second coming of Jesus are borrowed from Christianity, and we limit our Islamic belief to what is clearly established in the Holy Quran and the “sound” ahadith, then there is no reason to think that the future of the world could not have a happy ending. There is no final destruction of the Jews and Christians and loss of Dhimmi status. All the Islamic laws requiring the just treatment of conquered minorities still hold.
There is nothing in the core of Islamic teachings that says that the future of our world is reduced to a final showdown between good and evil. In fact, this superstition is related to Zoroastrianism. The Quranic descriptions of the Last Days of the earth are more based in astronomy than politics. They seem to imply a gradual slowing down of the earths’ rotation to the point where gravity disappears and everything on earth goes flying off into space. This nightmare scenario makes nuclear armegeddon seem pretty mild in comparison. The idea that the destruction of Masjid Al Aqsa is inevitable, or that the Gog and Magog will use up all the water in the Sea of Galilee -- are these things we should accept? Have we been allowing these madmen to take over the Middle East because we have been sold into Freemasonic conspiracy theories? The idea that Muslims will defeat the Zionist World Order and establish a global Islamic order led by Jesus is not actually central to the Islamic religion. Given that we want peace for the sake of the children more than we need to base our decisions on these questionable ahadith, it may be wise for the Muslims to entertain the possibility that we may be giving the Jews far more credit than they deserve. Sure, they would love to be the priesthood of the New World Order. But their power is only that which we attribute to them. We can also just laugh at them.
Let us face the facts. Even the most sincere Muslims among us are not equipped to turn the situation around. Only Allah can help us, and we have to beg Him to show us how to build a sustainable society. But the devil is like a snake which eats its own tail. Evil sows the seeds of its own destruction. We can use our energy to create alternatives rather than just fighting bad guys all the time. Let us then stop waiting for the Messiah because there is a very real chance that all these End Time Islamic oral traditions were planted by Ismailis during the British Empire as a way of frightening Muslims into accepting the idea of an all-powerful world government led by Jews. The vast majority of Muslims are traumatized by violence or the fear of violence. This prophetic literature makes them fall into a black hole of helpless terror that stunts their effectiveness personally and collectively because death seems the only option. Either we can die as pathetic victims or we can die as men, fighting for the sake of Allah. There is a way out of this trap. There is an Islamic loophole.
If we stop believing in the supernatural powers of Jews, we no longer need to take for granted that the Zionists will forever strive to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, nor do we need to believe in the awesome Pharonic powers of Israel. It is enough for us to heed the Quranic warning against witchcraft and emulate the noble character of the Islamic King Solomon who was so merciful that he avoided stepping on ants. It may be that we can use the great minds that Allah gave us in order to establish a just society which protects the weak. Whether it’s a secular and multi-cultural nation with an Islamic majority, or it’s an Islamic state with political bodies representing minority communities who conduct their own internal affairs, we can do this. If we forget about the End Time prophecies and concentrate on the Lowest Common Denominator that we can all agree on, that we hold it as self-evident that all men were created equal; we could start from there. Naturally, there are mighty men with terrible weapons who will stand in the way of the success of convincing Jews to give up their neurotic superiority complexes. These people will have to be fought and defeated. But we can fight injustice with a sense of inner peace -- not revenge. We can use our intellectual capabilities and our inner faith to build a society that is sustainable.
It could be true that the end of the world is at hand. But God’s time is different than human time. It is all too convenient to believe that a Messiah is coming to solve all our problems. The fact is, the Messiah has already come and he is now sitting at the Right Hand of the Lord. He is going to pray for his followers on the Day of Judgement but that is all we know for sure. It could be that there are many many centuries that we must struggle through before we reach the climactic end of all of humanity’s efforts. Even the End Time prophecies state that on the Last Day, if you have a sapling in your hand you should plant it. We are not allowed to give up hope. This is because we never know if this could just be one of many trials from our Lord.
We have tried the path of unrestrained materialism and it has gotten us into a bad place. We have tried the path of unrestrained idealism and it has not gotten us out of that bad place. Since we have all tried so hard and still failed, perhaps we should try something else. We all need each other because we all want the same thing. It is easy to die but it is harder to live free. And yet that is what we have to find a way how to do. The Path lies within our hearts and leads to the Source of all that is. There is no Islam or peace without free will and mutual respect. We all need to find the courage to ask questions, to let go of opinions, and have faith in the ultimate goodness of destiny. I believe we will find that when we give ourselves the freedom to know and to strive for what we really want, it will still be Islam that we want: the best possible interpretation of Islam as a balanced holistic circle that cherishes all life and recognizes no human master.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Picking American Pockets For Israel
Recruiting American Jews for Israel
by Karin Friedemann and Joachim Martillo
2005-10-15
http://bridgenews.org/news/americanjews
The U.S. government funds Israel's ongoing program to remove the native population of Palestine, primarily Muslims and Christians, and supplant them with European-American Jewish colonists. Our tax dollars facilitate this ethnic cleansing and colonization of Occupied Palestine.
Why do seemingly normal, middle class Jewish American families take part in genocidal ethnic cleansing? While some sick individuals might get a "thrill" from moving into property stolen from a family expelled from their home at gunpoint by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), our observations indicate that funand profit serve as the primary motivation for relocating to Occupied Palestine.
The Israeli government offers American Jews subsidized mortgages at interest rates far lower than anything available to non-Jews. The subsidies are funded by Israeli bonds and underwritten by U.S. loan guarantees. The new mortgage holders are allowed to sink their credit card debts into Israeli mortgages valued in shekels, which are practically guaranteed to depreciate relative to the dollar. (See http://www.tehilla.com/homes). While these "ethically challenged" American Jews stay in Israel, they are offered free Hebrew classes and living expenses for up to oneyear, paid by the Israeli government.
The cost of "doing business" with Israel is not only financial but moral. The system creates suburban sprawl in the Holy Land, environmental devastation and mass homelessness of the original, rightful non-Jewish property owners. Most Palestinians under Israeli government control are not citizens and have no rights under Israeli law. Lands to which the Jewish Agency holds title are only leased or deeded under conditions that prevent transfer or use by non-Jews. Such discrimination would be illegal in the USA.
The Israeli government organizes the eviction (nishul) of Palestinians (usually uncompensated) through transfers of the land to specialized organizations like the Jewish Agency or the Israel Lands Authority (ILA), or Israel discovers military or security requirements that "necessitate" the transfer of property from Palestinians to the Army. Eventually, the ILA develops the stolen land to create or expand Jews-Only settlements. The contractors employed by the ILA and its helper organizations build the homes and necessary infrastructure. They are typically connected to government and military officials and all profit tremendously from the US-financed plunder and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population.
Local travel agents often double as recruiters and real estate brokers for Israel. American Jews willing to relocate to stolen properties arenot usually subject to credit checks when they seek an Israeli mortgage because the Israeli government subordinates its fiscal responsibility to the goal of overwhelming the Palestinians demographically. Most American olim (immigrants) do not settle permanently in OccupiedPalestine. They live there for a couple of years and then sell theirhouse when the value goes up and come back debt free. They enjoy a nice vacation and make a profit as well.
Here's how it works: Jewish aliyah (immigration to Israel) organizations engage in ongoing campaigns to recruit American Jews. They advertise in the Jewish media, through Jewish run travel agencies, and on college campuses. Suppose you are an American Jew with $60,000 in educational or credit card debt. You might attend a class at the local Jewish Community Center or take part in some organized pro-Israel activity. At some point you will meet an official or semi-official shaliah (recruiter/emissary) who will explain the deal to you.
1. You can purchase a home, with no down payment, in a new settlement with a subsidized mortgage of up to $300,000. You will only pay interest (usually 3% or less) on half the mortgage. The other half is interest-free. You can buy a new house for $100,000 - comparable toa $750,000 house in Brookline, MA.
2. Say you have a $60,000 debt, are paying $2,000 a month rent and you owe another $1000 in various loan payments and other expenses. You can get a $160,000 mortgage in Israel for less than $400/month. Try getting that from Fannie Mae!
3. You and your family get free health insurance. Can't get that in America!
4. The Israeli government will pay your living expenses for at least 6 months. What a deal!
5. You get Israeli citizenship and all the rights the nativepopulation does not have.
6. Settlers in the more recently ethnically cleansed Occupied Territories get lower tax rates and other special benefits than those settling in "Israel Proper."
7. Qualified individuals may receive free plane tickets to Israel from organizations like Birthright Israel.
8. You can apply for an additional $5,000 - $25,000 stipend from organizations like Nefesh b'Nefesh (Soul to Soul - i.e. Jewish souls)
You should be able to live for one year without working, at which point your home has accrued in value as the settlement has expanded and amenities have improved. You should be able to sell your home at a profit, pay off your debt and return to the USA debt free. Once back home you will be strongly encouraged to contribute generously to your local Congressmen. Doesn't it sound like payback for the pleasant vacation and good fortune made possible by the U.S. government simplybecause you are Jewish?
by Karin Friedemann and Joachim Martillo
2005-10-15
http://bridgenews.org/news/americanjews
The U.S. government funds Israel's ongoing program to remove the native population of Palestine, primarily Muslims and Christians, and supplant them with European-American Jewish colonists. Our tax dollars facilitate this ethnic cleansing and colonization of Occupied Palestine.
Why do seemingly normal, middle class Jewish American families take part in genocidal ethnic cleansing? While some sick individuals might get a "thrill" from moving into property stolen from a family expelled from their home at gunpoint by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), our observations indicate that funand profit serve as the primary motivation for relocating to Occupied Palestine.
The Israeli government offers American Jews subsidized mortgages at interest rates far lower than anything available to non-Jews. The subsidies are funded by Israeli bonds and underwritten by U.S. loan guarantees. The new mortgage holders are allowed to sink their credit card debts into Israeli mortgages valued in shekels, which are practically guaranteed to depreciate relative to the dollar. (See http://www.tehilla.com/homes). While these "ethically challenged" American Jews stay in Israel, they are offered free Hebrew classes and living expenses for up to oneyear, paid by the Israeli government.
The cost of "doing business" with Israel is not only financial but moral. The system creates suburban sprawl in the Holy Land, environmental devastation and mass homelessness of the original, rightful non-Jewish property owners. Most Palestinians under Israeli government control are not citizens and have no rights under Israeli law. Lands to which the Jewish Agency holds title are only leased or deeded under conditions that prevent transfer or use by non-Jews. Such discrimination would be illegal in the USA.
The Israeli government organizes the eviction (nishul) of Palestinians (usually uncompensated) through transfers of the land to specialized organizations like the Jewish Agency or the Israel Lands Authority (ILA), or Israel discovers military or security requirements that "necessitate" the transfer of property from Palestinians to the Army. Eventually, the ILA develops the stolen land to create or expand Jews-Only settlements. The contractors employed by the ILA and its helper organizations build the homes and necessary infrastructure. They are typically connected to government and military officials and all profit tremendously from the US-financed plunder and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population.
Local travel agents often double as recruiters and real estate brokers for Israel. American Jews willing to relocate to stolen properties arenot usually subject to credit checks when they seek an Israeli mortgage because the Israeli government subordinates its fiscal responsibility to the goal of overwhelming the Palestinians demographically. Most American olim (immigrants) do not settle permanently in OccupiedPalestine. They live there for a couple of years and then sell theirhouse when the value goes up and come back debt free. They enjoy a nice vacation and make a profit as well.
Here's how it works: Jewish aliyah (immigration to Israel) organizations engage in ongoing campaigns to recruit American Jews. They advertise in the Jewish media, through Jewish run travel agencies, and on college campuses. Suppose you are an American Jew with $60,000 in educational or credit card debt. You might attend a class at the local Jewish Community Center or take part in some organized pro-Israel activity. At some point you will meet an official or semi-official shaliah (recruiter/emissary) who will explain the deal to you.
1. You can purchase a home, with no down payment, in a new settlement with a subsidized mortgage of up to $300,000. You will only pay interest (usually 3% or less) on half the mortgage. The other half is interest-free. You can buy a new house for $100,000 - comparable toa $750,000 house in Brookline, MA.
2. Say you have a $60,000 debt, are paying $2,000 a month rent and you owe another $1000 in various loan payments and other expenses. You can get a $160,000 mortgage in Israel for less than $400/month. Try getting that from Fannie Mae!
3. You and your family get free health insurance. Can't get that in America!
4. The Israeli government will pay your living expenses for at least 6 months. What a deal!
5. You get Israeli citizenship and all the rights the nativepopulation does not have.
6. Settlers in the more recently ethnically cleansed Occupied Territories get lower tax rates and other special benefits than those settling in "Israel Proper."
7. Qualified individuals may receive free plane tickets to Israel from organizations like Birthright Israel.
8. You can apply for an additional $5,000 - $25,000 stipend from organizations like Nefesh b'Nefesh (Soul to Soul - i.e. Jewish souls)
You should be able to live for one year without working, at which point your home has accrued in value as the settlement has expanded and amenities have improved. You should be able to sell your home at a profit, pay off your debt and return to the USA debt free. Once back home you will be strongly encouraged to contribute generously to your local Congressmen. Doesn't it sound like payback for the pleasant vacation and good fortune made possible by the U.S. government simplybecause you are Jewish?
ADL's "Interfaith" Enmeshment
Christians being fed self-hatred by the ADL
ADL's "Interfaith" Enmeshment
by Karin Friedemann with Joachim Martillo
12/12/05
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/47184/index.php
===
Report on: "New Direction" Sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League --Wednesday, Dec. 7 at 9:30 a.m. in Lower Level McKim A. In keeping with the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II documentof 1965 that set Catholic-Jewish relations in a new direction, this interfaith, interactive workshop will focus on helping Christian religious educators to prevent the "fires of hate" both inside and outside the classroom. This workshop will be presented by the NewDirections project, a Catholic-Jewish educational initiative co-sponsored by the New England Region of the Anti-Defamation League and the Office of Religious Education of the Archdiocese of Boston.
===
My husband and I took part in the above Catholic Jewish discussionat the Boston Public Library of Nostra Aetate and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) Exhibition "Fighting the Fires ofHate: America and the Nazi Book Burnings" that was hosted at theCopley Square Public Library in Boston. Nostra Aetate is Pope Paul VI's major declaration that summarizes the relationship of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions. He issued it Oct. 28, 1965. (*) This document refers to the Jewish people. The term Jewish people comes from Zionist ideology and is unknown in Catholic theology. In the past, Catholic documents employed terms like communitas iudaica (Jewish community) or occasionally natio judaica (Jewish brotherhood -- I know it looks like Jewish nation, but the Latin texts refer to shoemakers as anatio, and I consider the closest modern English usage to be phrases like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). The use of Zionist terminology in the Nostra Aetate leads one to suspect that key parts of the proclamation itself were written bythe ADL or other American Zionists and simply translated into Latin.
By employing such terminology, the Catholic Church accepts the Zionist conceptualization of an unchanging Jewish ethno-nationalgroup (Volk) that has existed from time immemorial and that maintains blood-and-soil historic rights to Palestine. This primordialist essentialism is the exact Zionist counterpart of theGerman Nazi idea of an unchanging German people that has existed from time immemorial and that maintains blood-and-soil historic rights to places where German peoples (including ancient Teutonicand Germanic tribes) live or have lived in the past even if no or very few modern Germans have lived there in recent times.
Jewish groups tend to construe Pope John Paul II's 1998 affirmation of "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah" as an apology for inadequacies of Catholic response to the Holocaust. In reality thedocument is ambiguous on the issue of the Church's responsibility.(**) One really must ask for what should the Church be expressing contritition. At the time when German Catholics were resisting Hitler, the Zionists entered into an extensive collaboration with the German Nazis. While leading Polish Catholics politicians were considering a preemptive strike against Germany after Hindenberg appointed Hitler Chancellor, Zionist ethnic Ashkenazim worked toundermine the worldwide boycott of Germany under the Haaverah Agreement, which supplied the Zionists with necessary capital in their program to murder Arab Palestine. Hitler facilitated the Zionist acquisition of the necessary capital to expand racist Zionist settlements in Palestine, then ruled by the British. The Haaverah Agreement also transfered the extensive property holdings of the German Colony in Palestine to the Zionist Jewish NationalFund. Until 1938 the German Nazi party maintained Jewish adjunct organizations in which German Jews were active.
American Jews generally skip over such shameful elements of the history of the1930s. Zionists want the rest of the world to treat the mass murder of Jews during WW2 as a unique unspeakable event in order to drownout the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians against them. Now that Soviet archives have become available, we now can state withstrong grounds that 1920s and 1930s Soviet crimes, in which Soviet ethnic Ashkenazim played a leading role, were far worse than the crimes of Nazi Germany.
The ADL loves the Nostra Aetate because it deplores hatred of Jewswithout qualification. Of course, ethnic Ashkenazim have been widely hated throughout the century and will become even more hated in the21st century, but they reap what they have sown. From a Christian standpoint one could argue that hatred against anyone is wrong anytime, but the papal declaration effectively gives Jews a license to commit any atrocity because the Church would according to the plain meaning of the text condemn any animosity toward Jews as amanifestation of unforgivable "anti-Semitism" even if widespread Jewish or ethnic Ashkenazi misdeeds were provoking the reactions of hate and anger. It is a mistakefor the Catholic Church to pander them in documents like Nostra Aetate. The past few years, the Zionist lobby groups have been pouring huge amounts of money into cash-poor Christian organizations in order toenmesh them as accomplices to the genocide of Palestinians. Many if not most of the Catholics attending this discussion had been flown in from other cities for a nice tourist vacation in Boston.
TheADL's general purpose for inviting Christians to participate inthese interfaith discussions is to promote Zionism among Christians and to make Christians hesitant about divesting from Israel for fear of offending "Jewish sensitivities." This was evident as I spoke to the woman who represented the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. While she was willing to blame the Germans as a whole for the Holocaust, she was unwilling to blame the ADL as an organization for its workto ban books and undermine the Constitution in America, for fear of "stereotyping Jews," even though the ADL was instrumental in lobbying for the Patriot Act.
While Pope John Paul publicly apologized for historical Catholic anti-Jewish sentiment, no Jewish leader has ever expressed regret for the slander of the Virgin Mary that exists in the Talmud. It is actually very confusing to try to understand the Jewish outrage atbeing blamed for killing Christ because the Talmud takes theposition that the Sanhedrin was right to kill him. Jews react in the same way to open discussions of such scriptural polemic as they do to any debate of the Zionist theft of Palestine. They become offended and fling accusations of "hate speech" when anyone tries to refer to the meticulous Zionist planning of the genocide of the native Palestinian population as is documented even in Zionist archives, by Zionist writers and in Zionist newspapers.
There is no evidence that the Catholic Church's new friendship with the Zionists is sincerely returned. Ethnic Ashkenazim have generally treated Nostra Aetate with contempt, and Goldhagen, a prominent racist ethnic Ashkenazi pseudo-scholar, effectively stated in AMoral Reckoning : The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair that the Catholic Church couldonly show true contrition by completely subordinating itself toZionism.
It was painful to watch sincere Christians being humiliated for their beliefs by Ashkenazi Americans, who are using the Catholic tendency towards repentance even for things they had nothing to do with, to promote their own opportunistic political agenda which includes wiping out the oldest Christian community in the world in Palestine. While Catholic teachings encourage penitence and sensitivity to the feelings of others, ethnic Ashkenazim never apologize for anything, but feign moral superiority while talking down to the Catholics.
INTERFAITH DISCUSSION OR ZIONIST INDOCTRINATION?
The discussion program was carefully crafted and aimed at encouraging the Catholic school system to incorporate the ADL's fictional Holocaust propaganda in their curriculum. The program began as the ADL discussion leader, Naomi Tovim, introduced theTalmud as the book of Jewish law and mentioned that Catholics had ahistory of burning this book. She of course did not mention what was in that book that may have offended Catholics, nor did she mention that Catholics at various points of history burned a lot of books, not limiting themselves to the Talmud. Bringing up the Catholic Church's alleged "anti-Semitism" as an introduction to the historically unrelated Nazi book burnings was in accord with the traditional ethnic Ashkenazi anti-Catholic polemic, which assigns collective guilt to all Christians for letting the Holocaust happen. This anti-Christian bigotry is sometimes given a scholarly veneer inthe works of racist ethnic Ashkenazi pseudo-scholars like Hyam Maccoby. In this polemic, Auschwitz is inherent in Christianity from the first composition of the Gospels. As a result of indoctrinationwith such nonsense American Jews reacted with outrage to MelGibson's film "The Passion."
The anti-Christian polemic never addresses the question why the Catholic Church for 1000 years after Constantine permitted the existence of successful Jewish communitiesin Catholic regions, without forcing them to convert, even thoughthe Catholic Church executed Protestants and other "heretics." Yes, the Catholic church has railed at the Talmud and burned it now and then. Yet the burning of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah by local Rabbis, who considered Maimonides' writings to be heretical, preceded the first Talmud burning by Catholics in Provence. This was followed by occasional burning of the Talmud in Italy for about 100 years because some Catholic scholars claimed that the modern Jewswere not practicing the same form of Judaism practiced by the ancient Judeans (as Jewish Karaite scholars then and now would also claim). The Catholic church at that time period did not have much more tolerance of Jewish heresy than it had of Christian heresy. The last Talmud burning took place in Poland in the context of political clashes between Jewish Frankists and anti-Frankists.
After the shaming of the Catholics for Talmud burning, the Catholic discussion leader, Celena Sirois, sent the group to tour the "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibition, which was completely empty of historical content, for in terms of killing authors and banning books by ethnic Ashkenazim in the Soviet Union of the same time period was orders of magnitude worse than Nazi Germany. Obscuring the facts about the Soviet Union serves the purposes of ethnic Ashkenazi Americans, who want to create a collective victim-status stereotype of Jews to cover up the racist criminal behavior of some Jews.
In the Soviet Union during the 20s and 30s ethnic Ashkenazim dominated the policies of book banning, collectivization,and alienization. These policies resulted in massive internal deportations and murders that totaled at least 8 million non-Jews. While ethnic Ashkenazim try to seize a moral high ground by collectively blaming all Germans for the acts of a tiny minority and by accusing all non-Jews of inadequate reactions to German Nazi anti-Semitism, the vast majority of ethnic Ashkenazim do not apply similar standards to themselves. They do not blame themselves collectively for Soviet crimes made possible by their ethnic group. While large numbers of Germans condemned German Nazis for anti-Jewish actions during the 30s, ethnic Ashkenazi Americans identify at 90% levels with Zionist Israel, a modern nation state that commits very similar or worse crimes against the native Palestinian population. It is hard to identify any human population on theplanet more hypocritical or racist than ethnic Ashkenazi Americans.
The traveling US Holocaust Memorial Museum "Fighting the Fires ofHate" Library exhibit was an expensive photo gallery complete with video clips demonizing Germans for their censorship and public burning of literature that Hitler found offensive. No mention was made that Hitler did not burn books written by Jews who promoted theZionist idea of "the Jewish people." There was no mention of the excellent relations between Zionists and German Nazis from 1933-1938, a time period that Hannah Arendt has called the Zionist phase of German Nazism. There was no suggestion that not all Germans were Nazis. In short, the message was simple. "Jews are innocent victims. Germans are evil incarnate. America to the rescue!" A little anti-Islamic bigotry was thrown in for spice with an out-of-contextreference to Salman Rushdie.
The exhibit glorified American Jewish protests against the German Nazis even as it neglected the extensive principled calls by German Americans like Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) for American opposition to Nazi Germany. The exhibit was not a statement against book burning in general, or they could have given examples of literature which had been banned or burned in America, and how aboutthe recent US bombing of the oldest library of the world in Baghdad?Since most people have little historical knowledge, this exhibit serves to create the idea that the Jews are the defenders of American free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Holocaust propaganda serves to shield the most privileged group inAmerica from just criticism of many of its members and of itscollective conduct, especially as relates to the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and the destruction of America's Constitutional liberties. The "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibit was a very stylish finger-pointing exercise to distract public attention from the fact that in our times, the ADL was one of the biggest lobbies pushing for the Patriot Act, which monitors the reading history of library patrons. Zionist organizations are heavily involved with Homeland Security and the State of Israel. They use book banning and far worse methods to squelch criticism of Israel. While there is no limit to the amount of hate speech against Muslims or Christians that is tolerated now in the western world, the mere suggestion that Muslims and Christians should have equal rights with Jews in the Holy Land, or that the Hollywood version of the Holocaust is not entirely accurate, have in recent times resulted in the deportation, imprisonment, and even assassination of the speakers, writers, or publishers, and in the banning of their books or films because ofZionist pressure on western governments to abandon the principle of freedom of expression. Therefore it was extremely ironic that theADL was using this library exhibit to present itself as America'sally in the fight against intellectual censorship.
After viewing the "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibit we returnedto the Conference room but we were not given a chance to brainstorm as a group about our personal impressions. We did not get a chance to reflect how the issue of book burnings might apply to our times. I found it very interesting the subtle way the Catholic schoolteachers were encouraged to absorb the historical propaganda and then guided away from rational thought on the matter. Without any logical transition, the topic shifted to the concept of faith education. The ADL leader read a portion of the Jewish Sabbath Amidah prayer that refers to "our God and the God of our fathers."Then we read a commentary by the Baal Shem Tov (the Besht), the founder of Hassidism that explains the phrase as classifying two separate approaches to religion. The "our God" approach requires searching analysis while "the God of our fathers" is based intradition and in following the practices and beliefs of our parentsand grandparents. The Besht argues that neither approach is sufficient for strong faith and that the two beliefs must be combined.
The ADL's pre-approved discussion question was, "How doesthe Ba'al Shem Tov's observation about faith formation apply to religious education?" However, they lost control of the discussion after my husband mentioned that the Besht was addressing the basic question of knowledge and faith and they had left out of his discussion two of the tools identified by medieval Jewish scholars to determine truth. Saadya Gaon lists four basis tools: the senses, logical reasoning, reliable tradition and "intrinsic insight or empathy." Saadyah Gaon considers that knowledge that it is better to do good than to do ill as an example of intrinsic insight. My husband suggested that the group consider the question, "How would you feel if you were a Palestinian and someone stole your country, murdered your family and bulldozed your home?" The ADL leader then became flustered and told us that we were not to discuss that topic.
The ADL and Zionists in general want Christians to accept thetraditional but incorrect belief that modern Eastern European Ashkenazim are physical descendants of ancient Judeans and Galileans of Palestine. Christians who believe such primordialist nonsense often consider the theft of Palestine from the native population by racist ethnic Ashkenazim to have been a legitimate action even though it contradicts Christian ethics and international law. Yet, the ADL and Zionists in general worry that connecting modernRabbinical Jews with ancient Galileans and Judeans is lnked with the traditional conceptualization of Jews as Christ-killers. Because of fear of this linkage the ADL tried to ban screen representations ofthe suffering and crucifixion of Christ even though they form the core of Christian theology. Thus, Zionists want Catholics to maintain flawed primordialist beliefs about modern ethnic Ashkenazimbut only if such traditional beliefs ("the God of our fathers"approach) are combined with the dispensation that Nostra Aetate (supposed to be a result of searching analysis by Catholic theologians) gives to modern ethnic Ashkenazim to commit atrocitieswith impunity. Zionists want Christians to accept essentialist primordialist Zionist ideology as long as Christianity drops all doctrine that assigns permanent pariah status for Jews.
After synthesizing Christian Zionism from Nostra Aetate with traditional Catholic beliefs, the program then focused on the presentation of modern Jews as marginal people in the "Fires ofHate" exhibition. We read the parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke10:25-37), which had no clear connection to the exhibition topic. A man is mugged by robbers and brigands, but the Priest and the Levitedo not help him. Yet the Samaritan, who comes from a marginal despised group, helps the victim without a second thought. The intended result was a zero-intellectual content lesson thatconnected Catholics and Jews in a bond of mutual agreement not to discuss the elephant in the room.
While it is normal in Jewish theological tradition to discuss religion in the absence of any ethical considerations, this is not true for Christianity. Usually Christians strive to apply the lessons to themselves and current issues. "What would Jesus do?" So here, not only were the Christians being fed self-hatred by the ADL, and encouraged to do penance and apologize to Jews for something that was not their fault, and made to accept the Jewish lack ofapology for their historical anti-Gentile polemic, and encouraged to remain silent and not come to the defense of Palestinian Christians and Muslims being ethnically cleansed from the Holy Land out of respect for their Jewish friends' feelings, but they were being taught a whole new way of looking at scripture: discussion ofreligious texts in a way that completely avoids the topic. In short, Christians were not only made to feel guilty for believing in their own religion, but encouraged to give up their religion.
The "NewDirection" Catholic Jewish discussion provided yet another example of the pervasiveness and thoroughness of the nation-wide program to indoctrinate Americans with Zionist ideology. The next ADL pre-approved discussion question related to the Good Samaritan was, "What might this text say about what you saw inthe "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibit?" However, because of my husband's previous comment about the Palestinians, the ADL leaderwas afraid to go around the room with this question as she had with the first question. So she only allowed one brief comment.
Then it ended with the last discussion question, "What do you imagine the victim will think, say and do when he wakes up and finds out he's been helped by a Samaritan?" In a subtle way, American Catholics were going to be asked to come to the rescue of the Jews by supporting and financing the continued existence of the marginal despised country of Israel. Since the ADL leader had failed to lead the group where she was trying to lead them, because it was obvious that every one of the Catholics sympathized with the plight of thePalestinians, the last question was answered in many different ways, and the group discussion ended without the group having come to any clear conclusions.
Because of the success of a single pro-Palestine comment in undermining an expensive Zionist indoctrination interfaith effort, I strongly encourage all supporters of human rights to attend these interfaith discussions to add their two cents to the discussion.
(*) Zionists tend to focus most on the following two paragraphs (not contiguous in the text) of Nostra Aetate or We Remember. The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants andthe law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), theSon of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
AUTHORITATIVE LATIN TEXT
Semper quoque prae oculis habet Ecclesia verba Apostoli Pauli decognatis eius, „quorum adoptio est filiorum et gloria et testamentumet legislatio et obsequium et promissa, quorum patres et ex quibusest Christus secundum carnem" (Rom. 9, 4-5), filius Mariae Virginis.Recordatur etiam ex populo iudaico natos esse Apostolos, Ecclesiaefundamenta et columnas, atque plurimos illos discipulos, quiEvangelium Christi mundo annuntiaverunt.Praeterea, Ecclesia, quae omnes persecutiones in quosvis hominesreprobat, memor communis cum Iudaeis patrimonii, nec rationibuspoliticis sed religiosa caritate evangelica impulsa, odia,persecutiones, antisemitismi manifestationes, quovis tempore et aquibusvis in Iudaeos habita, deplorat.
(**) Pope John Paul II stated in March 1998, It is my fervent hope that the document: We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, which the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has prepared under [Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy's] direction, will indeed help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices. May it enable memory to play its necessary part in the process of shaping a future in which the unspeakable iniquity of the Shoah will never again be possible. May the Lord of history guide the efforts of Catholics and Jews and all men and women of good willas they work together for a world of true respect for the life and dignity of every human being, for all have been created in the imageand likeness of God.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICETo subscribe to this group,
send an email to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
ADL's "Interfaith" Enmeshment
by Karin Friedemann with Joachim Martillo
12/12/05
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/47184/index.php
===
Report on: "New Direction" Sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League --Wednesday, Dec. 7 at 9:30 a.m. in Lower Level McKim A. In keeping with the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II documentof 1965 that set Catholic-Jewish relations in a new direction, this interfaith, interactive workshop will focus on helping Christian religious educators to prevent the "fires of hate" both inside and outside the classroom. This workshop will be presented by the NewDirections project, a Catholic-Jewish educational initiative co-sponsored by the New England Region of the Anti-Defamation League and the Office of Religious Education of the Archdiocese of Boston.
===
My husband and I took part in the above Catholic Jewish discussionat the Boston Public Library of Nostra Aetate and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) Exhibition "Fighting the Fires ofHate: America and the Nazi Book Burnings" that was hosted at theCopley Square Public Library in Boston. Nostra Aetate is Pope Paul VI's major declaration that summarizes the relationship of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions. He issued it Oct. 28, 1965. (*) This document refers to the Jewish people. The term Jewish people comes from Zionist ideology and is unknown in Catholic theology. In the past, Catholic documents employed terms like communitas iudaica (Jewish community) or occasionally natio judaica (Jewish brotherhood -- I know it looks like Jewish nation, but the Latin texts refer to shoemakers as anatio, and I consider the closest modern English usage to be phrases like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). The use of Zionist terminology in the Nostra Aetate leads one to suspect that key parts of the proclamation itself were written bythe ADL or other American Zionists and simply translated into Latin.
By employing such terminology, the Catholic Church accepts the Zionist conceptualization of an unchanging Jewish ethno-nationalgroup (Volk) that has existed from time immemorial and that maintains blood-and-soil historic rights to Palestine. This primordialist essentialism is the exact Zionist counterpart of theGerman Nazi idea of an unchanging German people that has existed from time immemorial and that maintains blood-and-soil historic rights to places where German peoples (including ancient Teutonicand Germanic tribes) live or have lived in the past even if no or very few modern Germans have lived there in recent times.
Jewish groups tend to construe Pope John Paul II's 1998 affirmation of "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah" as an apology for inadequacies of Catholic response to the Holocaust. In reality thedocument is ambiguous on the issue of the Church's responsibility.(**) One really must ask for what should the Church be expressing contritition. At the time when German Catholics were resisting Hitler, the Zionists entered into an extensive collaboration with the German Nazis. While leading Polish Catholics politicians were considering a preemptive strike against Germany after Hindenberg appointed Hitler Chancellor, Zionist ethnic Ashkenazim worked toundermine the worldwide boycott of Germany under the Haaverah Agreement, which supplied the Zionists with necessary capital in their program to murder Arab Palestine. Hitler facilitated the Zionist acquisition of the necessary capital to expand racist Zionist settlements in Palestine, then ruled by the British. The Haaverah Agreement also transfered the extensive property holdings of the German Colony in Palestine to the Zionist Jewish NationalFund. Until 1938 the German Nazi party maintained Jewish adjunct organizations in which German Jews were active.
American Jews generally skip over such shameful elements of the history of the1930s. Zionists want the rest of the world to treat the mass murder of Jews during WW2 as a unique unspeakable event in order to drownout the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians against them. Now that Soviet archives have become available, we now can state withstrong grounds that 1920s and 1930s Soviet crimes, in which Soviet ethnic Ashkenazim played a leading role, were far worse than the crimes of Nazi Germany.
The ADL loves the Nostra Aetate because it deplores hatred of Jewswithout qualification. Of course, ethnic Ashkenazim have been widely hated throughout the century and will become even more hated in the21st century, but they reap what they have sown. From a Christian standpoint one could argue that hatred against anyone is wrong anytime, but the papal declaration effectively gives Jews a license to commit any atrocity because the Church would according to the plain meaning of the text condemn any animosity toward Jews as amanifestation of unforgivable "anti-Semitism" even if widespread Jewish or ethnic Ashkenazi misdeeds were provoking the reactions of hate and anger. It is a mistakefor the Catholic Church to pander them in documents like Nostra Aetate. The past few years, the Zionist lobby groups have been pouring huge amounts of money into cash-poor Christian organizations in order toenmesh them as accomplices to the genocide of Palestinians. Many if not most of the Catholics attending this discussion had been flown in from other cities for a nice tourist vacation in Boston.
TheADL's general purpose for inviting Christians to participate inthese interfaith discussions is to promote Zionism among Christians and to make Christians hesitant about divesting from Israel for fear of offending "Jewish sensitivities." This was evident as I spoke to the woman who represented the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. While she was willing to blame the Germans as a whole for the Holocaust, she was unwilling to blame the ADL as an organization for its workto ban books and undermine the Constitution in America, for fear of "stereotyping Jews," even though the ADL was instrumental in lobbying for the Patriot Act.
While Pope John Paul publicly apologized for historical Catholic anti-Jewish sentiment, no Jewish leader has ever expressed regret for the slander of the Virgin Mary that exists in the Talmud. It is actually very confusing to try to understand the Jewish outrage atbeing blamed for killing Christ because the Talmud takes theposition that the Sanhedrin was right to kill him. Jews react in the same way to open discussions of such scriptural polemic as they do to any debate of the Zionist theft of Palestine. They become offended and fling accusations of "hate speech" when anyone tries to refer to the meticulous Zionist planning of the genocide of the native Palestinian population as is documented even in Zionist archives, by Zionist writers and in Zionist newspapers.
There is no evidence that the Catholic Church's new friendship with the Zionists is sincerely returned. Ethnic Ashkenazim have generally treated Nostra Aetate with contempt, and Goldhagen, a prominent racist ethnic Ashkenazi pseudo-scholar, effectively stated in AMoral Reckoning : The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair that the Catholic Church couldonly show true contrition by completely subordinating itself toZionism.
It was painful to watch sincere Christians being humiliated for their beliefs by Ashkenazi Americans, who are using the Catholic tendency towards repentance even for things they had nothing to do with, to promote their own opportunistic political agenda which includes wiping out the oldest Christian community in the world in Palestine. While Catholic teachings encourage penitence and sensitivity to the feelings of others, ethnic Ashkenazim never apologize for anything, but feign moral superiority while talking down to the Catholics.
INTERFAITH DISCUSSION OR ZIONIST INDOCTRINATION?
The discussion program was carefully crafted and aimed at encouraging the Catholic school system to incorporate the ADL's fictional Holocaust propaganda in their curriculum. The program began as the ADL discussion leader, Naomi Tovim, introduced theTalmud as the book of Jewish law and mentioned that Catholics had ahistory of burning this book. She of course did not mention what was in that book that may have offended Catholics, nor did she mention that Catholics at various points of history burned a lot of books, not limiting themselves to the Talmud. Bringing up the Catholic Church's alleged "anti-Semitism" as an introduction to the historically unrelated Nazi book burnings was in accord with the traditional ethnic Ashkenazi anti-Catholic polemic, which assigns collective guilt to all Christians for letting the Holocaust happen. This anti-Christian bigotry is sometimes given a scholarly veneer inthe works of racist ethnic Ashkenazi pseudo-scholars like Hyam Maccoby. In this polemic, Auschwitz is inherent in Christianity from the first composition of the Gospels. As a result of indoctrinationwith such nonsense American Jews reacted with outrage to MelGibson's film "The Passion."
The anti-Christian polemic never addresses the question why the Catholic Church for 1000 years after Constantine permitted the existence of successful Jewish communitiesin Catholic regions, without forcing them to convert, even thoughthe Catholic Church executed Protestants and other "heretics." Yes, the Catholic church has railed at the Talmud and burned it now and then. Yet the burning of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah by local Rabbis, who considered Maimonides' writings to be heretical, preceded the first Talmud burning by Catholics in Provence. This was followed by occasional burning of the Talmud in Italy for about 100 years because some Catholic scholars claimed that the modern Jewswere not practicing the same form of Judaism practiced by the ancient Judeans (as Jewish Karaite scholars then and now would also claim). The Catholic church at that time period did not have much more tolerance of Jewish heresy than it had of Christian heresy. The last Talmud burning took place in Poland in the context of political clashes between Jewish Frankists and anti-Frankists.
After the shaming of the Catholics for Talmud burning, the Catholic discussion leader, Celena Sirois, sent the group to tour the "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibition, which was completely empty of historical content, for in terms of killing authors and banning books by ethnic Ashkenazim in the Soviet Union of the same time period was orders of magnitude worse than Nazi Germany. Obscuring the facts about the Soviet Union serves the purposes of ethnic Ashkenazi Americans, who want to create a collective victim-status stereotype of Jews to cover up the racist criminal behavior of some Jews.
In the Soviet Union during the 20s and 30s ethnic Ashkenazim dominated the policies of book banning, collectivization,and alienization. These policies resulted in massive internal deportations and murders that totaled at least 8 million non-Jews. While ethnic Ashkenazim try to seize a moral high ground by collectively blaming all Germans for the acts of a tiny minority and by accusing all non-Jews of inadequate reactions to German Nazi anti-Semitism, the vast majority of ethnic Ashkenazim do not apply similar standards to themselves. They do not blame themselves collectively for Soviet crimes made possible by their ethnic group. While large numbers of Germans condemned German Nazis for anti-Jewish actions during the 30s, ethnic Ashkenazi Americans identify at 90% levels with Zionist Israel, a modern nation state that commits very similar or worse crimes against the native Palestinian population. It is hard to identify any human population on theplanet more hypocritical or racist than ethnic Ashkenazi Americans.
The traveling US Holocaust Memorial Museum "Fighting the Fires ofHate" Library exhibit was an expensive photo gallery complete with video clips demonizing Germans for their censorship and public burning of literature that Hitler found offensive. No mention was made that Hitler did not burn books written by Jews who promoted theZionist idea of "the Jewish people." There was no mention of the excellent relations between Zionists and German Nazis from 1933-1938, a time period that Hannah Arendt has called the Zionist phase of German Nazism. There was no suggestion that not all Germans were Nazis. In short, the message was simple. "Jews are innocent victims. Germans are evil incarnate. America to the rescue!" A little anti-Islamic bigotry was thrown in for spice with an out-of-contextreference to Salman Rushdie.
The exhibit glorified American Jewish protests against the German Nazis even as it neglected the extensive principled calls by German Americans like Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) for American opposition to Nazi Germany. The exhibit was not a statement against book burning in general, or they could have given examples of literature which had been banned or burned in America, and how aboutthe recent US bombing of the oldest library of the world in Baghdad?Since most people have little historical knowledge, this exhibit serves to create the idea that the Jews are the defenders of American free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Holocaust propaganda serves to shield the most privileged group inAmerica from just criticism of many of its members and of itscollective conduct, especially as relates to the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and the destruction of America's Constitutional liberties. The "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibit was a very stylish finger-pointing exercise to distract public attention from the fact that in our times, the ADL was one of the biggest lobbies pushing for the Patriot Act, which monitors the reading history of library patrons. Zionist organizations are heavily involved with Homeland Security and the State of Israel. They use book banning and far worse methods to squelch criticism of Israel. While there is no limit to the amount of hate speech against Muslims or Christians that is tolerated now in the western world, the mere suggestion that Muslims and Christians should have equal rights with Jews in the Holy Land, or that the Hollywood version of the Holocaust is not entirely accurate, have in recent times resulted in the deportation, imprisonment, and even assassination of the speakers, writers, or publishers, and in the banning of their books or films because ofZionist pressure on western governments to abandon the principle of freedom of expression. Therefore it was extremely ironic that theADL was using this library exhibit to present itself as America'sally in the fight against intellectual censorship.
After viewing the "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibit we returnedto the Conference room but we were not given a chance to brainstorm as a group about our personal impressions. We did not get a chance to reflect how the issue of book burnings might apply to our times. I found it very interesting the subtle way the Catholic schoolteachers were encouraged to absorb the historical propaganda and then guided away from rational thought on the matter. Without any logical transition, the topic shifted to the concept of faith education. The ADL leader read a portion of the Jewish Sabbath Amidah prayer that refers to "our God and the God of our fathers."Then we read a commentary by the Baal Shem Tov (the Besht), the founder of Hassidism that explains the phrase as classifying two separate approaches to religion. The "our God" approach requires searching analysis while "the God of our fathers" is based intradition and in following the practices and beliefs of our parentsand grandparents. The Besht argues that neither approach is sufficient for strong faith and that the two beliefs must be combined.
The ADL's pre-approved discussion question was, "How doesthe Ba'al Shem Tov's observation about faith formation apply to religious education?" However, they lost control of the discussion after my husband mentioned that the Besht was addressing the basic question of knowledge and faith and they had left out of his discussion two of the tools identified by medieval Jewish scholars to determine truth. Saadya Gaon lists four basis tools: the senses, logical reasoning, reliable tradition and "intrinsic insight or empathy." Saadyah Gaon considers that knowledge that it is better to do good than to do ill as an example of intrinsic insight. My husband suggested that the group consider the question, "How would you feel if you were a Palestinian and someone stole your country, murdered your family and bulldozed your home?" The ADL leader then became flustered and told us that we were not to discuss that topic.
The ADL and Zionists in general want Christians to accept thetraditional but incorrect belief that modern Eastern European Ashkenazim are physical descendants of ancient Judeans and Galileans of Palestine. Christians who believe such primordialist nonsense often consider the theft of Palestine from the native population by racist ethnic Ashkenazim to have been a legitimate action even though it contradicts Christian ethics and international law. Yet, the ADL and Zionists in general worry that connecting modernRabbinical Jews with ancient Galileans and Judeans is lnked with the traditional conceptualization of Jews as Christ-killers. Because of fear of this linkage the ADL tried to ban screen representations ofthe suffering and crucifixion of Christ even though they form the core of Christian theology. Thus, Zionists want Catholics to maintain flawed primordialist beliefs about modern ethnic Ashkenazimbut only if such traditional beliefs ("the God of our fathers"approach) are combined with the dispensation that Nostra Aetate (supposed to be a result of searching analysis by Catholic theologians) gives to modern ethnic Ashkenazim to commit atrocitieswith impunity. Zionists want Christians to accept essentialist primordialist Zionist ideology as long as Christianity drops all doctrine that assigns permanent pariah status for Jews.
After synthesizing Christian Zionism from Nostra Aetate with traditional Catholic beliefs, the program then focused on the presentation of modern Jews as marginal people in the "Fires ofHate" exhibition. We read the parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke10:25-37), which had no clear connection to the exhibition topic. A man is mugged by robbers and brigands, but the Priest and the Levitedo not help him. Yet the Samaritan, who comes from a marginal despised group, helps the victim without a second thought. The intended result was a zero-intellectual content lesson thatconnected Catholics and Jews in a bond of mutual agreement not to discuss the elephant in the room.
While it is normal in Jewish theological tradition to discuss religion in the absence of any ethical considerations, this is not true for Christianity. Usually Christians strive to apply the lessons to themselves and current issues. "What would Jesus do?" So here, not only were the Christians being fed self-hatred by the ADL, and encouraged to do penance and apologize to Jews for something that was not their fault, and made to accept the Jewish lack ofapology for their historical anti-Gentile polemic, and encouraged to remain silent and not come to the defense of Palestinian Christians and Muslims being ethnically cleansed from the Holy Land out of respect for their Jewish friends' feelings, but they were being taught a whole new way of looking at scripture: discussion ofreligious texts in a way that completely avoids the topic. In short, Christians were not only made to feel guilty for believing in their own religion, but encouraged to give up their religion.
The "NewDirection" Catholic Jewish discussion provided yet another example of the pervasiveness and thoroughness of the nation-wide program to indoctrinate Americans with Zionist ideology. The next ADL pre-approved discussion question related to the Good Samaritan was, "What might this text say about what you saw inthe "Fighting the Fires of Hate" exhibit?" However, because of my husband's previous comment about the Palestinians, the ADL leaderwas afraid to go around the room with this question as she had with the first question. So she only allowed one brief comment.
Then it ended with the last discussion question, "What do you imagine the victim will think, say and do when he wakes up and finds out he's been helped by a Samaritan?" In a subtle way, American Catholics were going to be asked to come to the rescue of the Jews by supporting and financing the continued existence of the marginal despised country of Israel. Since the ADL leader had failed to lead the group where she was trying to lead them, because it was obvious that every one of the Catholics sympathized with the plight of thePalestinians, the last question was answered in many different ways, and the group discussion ended without the group having come to any clear conclusions.
Because of the success of a single pro-Palestine comment in undermining an expensive Zionist indoctrination interfaith effort, I strongly encourage all supporters of human rights to attend these interfaith discussions to add their two cents to the discussion.
(*) Zionists tend to focus most on the following two paragraphs (not contiguous in the text) of Nostra Aetate or We Remember. The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants andthe law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), theSon of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
AUTHORITATIVE LATIN TEXT
Semper quoque prae oculis habet Ecclesia verba Apostoli Pauli decognatis eius, „quorum adoptio est filiorum et gloria et testamentumet legislatio et obsequium et promissa, quorum patres et ex quibusest Christus secundum carnem" (Rom. 9, 4-5), filius Mariae Virginis.Recordatur etiam ex populo iudaico natos esse Apostolos, Ecclesiaefundamenta et columnas, atque plurimos illos discipulos, quiEvangelium Christi mundo annuntiaverunt.Praeterea, Ecclesia, quae omnes persecutiones in quosvis hominesreprobat, memor communis cum Iudaeis patrimonii, nec rationibuspoliticis sed religiosa caritate evangelica impulsa, odia,persecutiones, antisemitismi manifestationes, quovis tempore et aquibusvis in Iudaeos habita, deplorat.
(**) Pope John Paul II stated in March 1998, It is my fervent hope that the document: We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, which the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has prepared under [Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy's] direction, will indeed help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices. May it enable memory to play its necessary part in the process of shaping a future in which the unspeakable iniquity of the Shoah will never again be possible. May the Lord of history guide the efforts of Catholics and Jews and all men and women of good willas they work together for a world of true respect for the life and dignity of every human being, for all have been created in the imageand likeness of God.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICETo subscribe to this group,
send an email to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)