The Anti-Semitism The Media Does Not Want to See

Why CBS kept mum for four days about the brutal sexual assault of network correspondent Lara Logan by a Tahrir Square mob on Feb. 11?

The first question that comes to mind is "What is wrong with the so-called main stream media?" but that is a rhetorical question whose answer we all know: the intellectually dishonest "media" has stopped reporting a long time ago. It is now wrapping up its own political agenda in false journalism and dishes it out to an unsuspecting public. It seeks to proselytise its liberal far left message and not to inform.

Concerned that the news of the sexual assault on Logan, which took place almost exactly as Hosni Mubarak was relinquishing all powers, would detract from the "jubilant" crowd's "democracy" drama, CBS (and the other news outlets) buried the story.

Imagine if a star correspondent had been similarly violated by a mob of tea party-goers. Imagine the hypocritical outcry such an incident would have arowsed from the heart of the MSM (mainstream media) against the mob.

Not so in the Logan case. Only after the story was breaking did CBS release a brief description of the incident. We were told of Logan's accidental separation from her crew in the crowd. The prolonged assault by over 200 people "whipped into a frenzy." The rescue by a group of women and 20 soldiers. What CBS conveniently didn't mention was that as the thugs assaulted the 39-year-old journalist and mother of two, they shouted "Jew! Jew!"

This essential piece of the story, this obvious proof of obsessive anti-Semitism of the Islamic world (including Egypt) was broken by the New York Post. It has sparked little comment, which in itself is worth comment.

But Islam and its inherent anti-Semitism has never been considered a factor in the context of reporting the "pro-Democracy" riots on the streets of Cairo. Nor were the anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments of so many in the crowd so blatantly exposed on their protest banners. The hypocritical media has no interest in anything that can dirty the carefully crafted image and illusion that it tries to propagate. In other words, the liberal leftist media cannot be bothered with facts and inconvenient context.

In their politically correct (and blind) eyes, Islamic anti-Semitism might as well not exist.
Islam's teachings on women and particularly Jews are literally hateful: Jews "are the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."

When you ignore context and facts, it doesn't even matter that Logan is herself not Jewish. Still, she is a journalist (sort of...) and a woman. I wonder where are the feminist organizations?

"Social Justice" according to Michelle Obama

Elena Ceausescu will be in agreement with her. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y ?

US Jews Go Right

Despite the assumption that American Jews traditionally vote for Democrats and not Republicans, there is a shift in the Jewish vote already taking place at the state level.

Politico points out that nationally, Jews make up only about 2 percent of the American population but are heavily represented in big cities and have disproportionately high voter turnout rates. While Democrats do get the lion’s share of the Jewish vote, some Jewish groups such as the Orthodox Jews have shifted to the Republicans, as seen in the 2004 elections, when 70 percent of Orthodox Jews supported George W. Bush.

At the state level, the Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attracted 38 percent of the Jewish vote in 2009. As a result, Republicans who can be competitive in the Jewish community, gain an edge against Democratic opponents, who have been taking the Jewish vote for granted.

With only a week before historical mid-term elections, it is worth paying close attention to the Jewish vote in close Senate races in states with significant Jewish populations.
For example, Politico points to "the complicated Pennsylvania race,” where Republican-turned-Democrat Jewish senator, Arlen Specter was defeated in the primaries. In Philadelphia, Democratic nominee Joe Sestak signed the “Gaza 54 letter,” which called for Washington to pressure Israel to end the Gaza blockade. This fact alone might cause the Jewish voters to vote Republican.

Other examples where Jews might vote for the Republican candidates include Florida, where former Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist, who is being endorsed by Jewish former Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, might split the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote with Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, causing a boost for Republican Marco Rubio.

Closer to my heart, New Jersey’s 12th district is another important area. Scott Sipprelle is challenging Rush Holt, another "Gaza 54" letter signer. While neither candidate is Jewish, a “Rabbis for Sipprelle” group is seeking to raise awareness of Holt’s actions, another move which could help bring the district back to the Republicans.

The 9th Congressional District in Illinois is also an area to watch, as Republican Joel Pollak - who has won the endorsement of Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz - is challenging Democrat Jan Schakowsky, another Jewish candidate. Israel has become a central issue in the campaign, with Pollak claiming that Schakowsky does not do enough for Israel.

One reason for the apparent fluidity of the Jewish vote could be Obama’s perceived tough stance on Israel. The Jewish vote in America is evolving. Instead of it being monolithically Democratic there are signs that at the local and state level Jews can shift their vote enough towards Republican candidates that Democrats are forced to play defense. Jewish voters care about issues such as the economy, the deficit, and health care. “Jewish voters in state elections across the country could significantly change our political landscape in November,” according to Politico.

The Associated Press reported that both Israelis and Palestinians are closely watching the upcoming midterm race in the United States, sensing that its results could affect both the peace talks as well as Obama's ability to coax concessions from Israel.

The report said that the Arabs are hoping that Obama’s mild reaction to Israel’s refusal to continue the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria has been due to political consideration, and that he would be freer to apply pressure on Israel after the vote November 2.
An adviser for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told AP that if Congress tilts Republican, it could have what he termed a "positive impact" on Israeli concerns, meaning there would be no pressure on Israel to make concessions.

“Settlements are not an obstacle to peace in the Middle East,” says Rev. Michael Faulkner, ex- New York Jets lineman, an evangelical minister and candidate for Congress. When asked about President Obama's plans to compel the Netanyahu government to extend the freeze on settlement construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of East Jerusalem, Faulkner replied, “I am tired of hearing the words 'occupation' and 'return to 1967 borders' when it comes to defining Israel because that simply is not the case. Israel is not an occupying power and thus anyone who says that Jewish settlement construction is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East is just using that as a smokescreen. The real obstacle to peace in that region are terrorists such as Hamas, Hizbullah and other Iranian proxies."

Expressing anger at the view of the Obama administration as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Faulkner stated, "Obama has participated in the delegitimization of Israel through his maltreatment of our best friend and stalwart ally in the region. By doing so he helps to fuel feelings of anti-Semitism."

Rev. Faulkner is fighting to unseat Charles Rangel, a Democrat and a political icon in Manhattan's 15th congressional district, which includes the upper West Side, Harlem and Washington Heights. Rev. Faulkner's candidacy has received endorsements from Fox TV commentator Sean Hannity, National Right to Life parties, Newt Gingrich. the New Era Democrats, the Black Republicans PAC, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and more than a dozen Christian churches, ministries, clerics and community groups.

America Supports Israel, Rejects Obama's Policies

A recent poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates has found that the majority of American adults support Israel and oppose Obama's Middle East Policy.

50.9% of Americans said Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital, compared to just 20.4% who disagreed. 77.9% said that Palestinian Authority leaders should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, compared to just 6% who said they should not.

A majority of 57.2% said Arab terrorism and denial of Israel's right to exist is primarily responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

More Americans felt a Palestinian state would increase problems in the Middle East than felt it would be a solution. 25.5% said that if such a state were created, terrorism against Israel would actually increase, with 50.2% saying that the anti-American sentiment in the Arab world would be unchanged.

51.6% agreed that Obama has been less friendly to Israel than previous presidents, while 35.4% disagreed. 54.4% said they disagree with Obama's policy of publicly criticizing Israel while 27% agree with Obama's actions.
46.5% said they believe Obama's attempt to reach out to the Muslim world has left America less secure, while 33.1% said they believe America is now more secure.

The poll also found that a candidate's image as pro-Israel or anti-Israel could affect elections. 52.7% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as pro-Israel, while 53.6% said they would not vote for an anti-Israel candidate even if they agreed with them on other issues.

Another finding was a strong concern that America could be the target if Iran obtained nuclear weapons. 49.8% said Iran is at least somewhat likely to attack America if it develops nuclear weapons, while a smaller number, 45.4%, termed such a scenario unlikely.
59.8% expressed support for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities in order to prevent the creation of a nuclear weapon, if sanctions fail.

Based on the findings of this poll, where to do you think the Obama Administration really stands? Judge its standing not according to empty words, but in relation to its deeds and actions. The conclusion, yet again, is that the Obama team is not in tone with the majority of the American people.

Jewish Support for GOP on the Rise

The plunge in Jewish support for Obama can be traced to plenty of reasons besides his pro-Arab policies and utter incompetence (overwhelmingly demonstrated during the Gulf Oil spill). The American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky writes that the failing Obama economic policies have a disproportionate and negative effect on American Jews.

The alarm bells went off in Democratic circles last week when the Pew Research Center reported that the number of Jews supporting Republican candidates or independents has jumped 50% since Obama was elected nearly three years ago.

A poll conducted last April by McLaughlin & Associates revealed that while 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama, only 42% would consider voting for him again.

Claims that Jews are pro-Israel, with the insinuation that they profess dual loyalty, were championed last Saturday in an op-ed by New York Times columnist Charles Blow. The duplicity and dishonesty of the leftist “drive-by” media is appalling, of course, since the same charge is not made against Latino Congressmen, many of whom have made immigration reform (i.e. blanket Amnesty) a top priority. The hidden anti-Semitism of the left is sometimes hard to confine.

As many Jews are owners of small businesses in the US, “Obama Care,” economic policies aimed against small businessmen, proposed higher taxes on high-income owners and capital gains will hit Jews much harder than other sectors in American society.

Small business owners are the unsung heroes in America; they generate most of the private-sector jobs. They also lead generally very stressful lives -- trying to deal with the challenges of competition, labor relations, customer service [and] risks of bankruptcy. Through his anti-capitalist policies, Barack Obama and the Democrats have just loaded onto their shoulders many more problems.

“Obama Care” will negatively affect Jews more than others for two reasons: they are the oldest ethnic group in America and also include a disproportionately high percentage of American doctors.

Older people have often relied on the health of the stock market to cushion their retirement years. That cushion has deflated this year under the multiple blows administered by Barack Obama and the Democrats…. The market started to tank because investors saw a bleak future for free enterprise in the Age of Obama… “Obama Care” will suppress the freedom of doctors, load them up with additional paperwork and patients, and will eventually hit their bottom line.”

“Jews are as American as everyone else,” the article concludes. “When they see their lives being harmed, their interests being ignored, and their dreams being dashed to death by Democrats, they respond just as other Americans do. They express their concerns and seek to protect their future in that most American of places: the voting booth.”

Stimulus Plan for...Kenya

Everyone knows that the country is rapidly approaching a financial abyss. That however, does not mean that the Obama regime cannot pump money into...Kenya.

In response to recent inquiry started by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) the U.S. Agency for International Development admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass a highly contentious constitution. The investigation revealed that the Obama regime has secretly funded a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum (scheduled for Aug. 4) that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

The proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law and would grant legal status to what are known as "Kadhi Courts," constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure. Codifying the "Kadhi Courts" would constitute a blatant violation of the separation of state and religion by allowing Sharia law to have official legal status.

In the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman, like Obama's father – signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.

Many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi Courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

US taxpayers funds are used to take sides in what is an internal Kenyan affair which drew criticism from the Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto (who is leading the team opposing the constitutional referendum). He has accused the US Ambassador in Kenya of crossing the "no-go-zone for foreign diplomats."

Obama's links to Odinga

The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.

During that trip, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics.

During the December 2007 elections, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud, which resulted in violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kikuyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kikuyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.

Obama did not object to Odinga's continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga's electoral defeat.

Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co–head of state with Kibaki.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, is currently investigating the possibility of criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the postelection violence.

Your tax dollars at work in...Kenya.

Dangerous Naïveté or Hidden Enmity?

Lets see if you can answer this short quiz:
1. Which organization is most responsible for the wave of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s?
2. Which organization is responsible for the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut which killed 241 Americans?
3. Which organization kidnapped and murdered US Marine Col. William Higgins and the CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley?
4. Which organization is responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which left 85 innocents dead?

If you answered Hezbollah to all of the above, you were right, if not, you were either uniformed or chose to oversee the facts....Much like Obama's "counter-terrorism" chief, John Brennan. Recently, he announced that the Obama administration wants to "try to build up the more moderate elements" within Hezbollah!

In a murderous group officially labeled as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department, closely tied to Iran, which funds and supplies it and third most responsible for American casualties (after Al Qaeda and Taliban), a deluded Administration wants to “build up (…) more moderate elements”.

Brennan is quoted as saying that Hezbollah has evolved from "purely a terrorist organization" to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet. Does that mean that a moderate wing of Hezbollah now exists or does this mean that a terrorist group has infiltrated the government of Lebanon?

When a terrorist group takes on quasi-governmental characteristics, as Hamas has done in Gaza, or forces its way into elected positions in a weak state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, that is not "evolution" - it is another step toward those groups' original goal: bringing down a fledging democracy and replace it with an Islamist government. The Nazis in the 1930’s Germany employed similar tactics and used democratic institutions in order to destroy democracy.

Brennan has a history of controversial judgement to say the least. In a speech last February to the Islamic Center at New York University, Brennan said, "And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is Al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together." Al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, is an Islamist rallying cry. The Ayatollah Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan "Al Quds Day “- "The Day of the Oppressed". Maybe someone should have reminded this rambling idiot that The “Al Quds Brigades” is the name of the "military wing" of a Palestinian Islamist terrorist group and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a secret “Al Quds unit”, that coordinates with its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah. For an American counterterrorism official to use such a weighted phrase to gratify a Muslim audience is not only troubling, it’s either proof of dangerous naïveté or down right stupidity (or both).
In the mean time, his boss, the most anti-Israel President in this country’s history pressures Israel not to build in….Al-Quds.

It is hard to believe that an “expert” in counterterrorism and the Middle East, as Brennan purports himself to be, could be so blind to the reality of Hezbollah, or to the real and growing danger of Iranian power in the region. It so hard to believe that the only other logical conclusion would be that Brennan knows exactly what he is saying and reflects the growing anti-Israel position of his boss, while at the same time, trying to appease the Islamo-Nazis. Reaching out to "build up" imaginary moderates in Hezbollah can only strengthen the Iranian regime, as Obama’s impotent policies toward Iran in the last 17 months have already done, while playing to the far left base of the Democrat Party by showing that the Administration is “building bridges” with the murderers.

Since Brennan is the subject of media speculation as a possible replacement for outgoing Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, we should all be deeply troubled that a man in whom Obama places such confidence advances such a misguided and out of touch view of our nation's enemies.

Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?

Most clearly thinking Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the US foreign policy in general and the war on Islamic terror in particular, but it seems that in Muslim countries, his "over seas contingency operations" are viewed favorably. 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' a leading international Arab newspaper has hailed Obama for officially removing the description “Muslim terrorist” as part of his campaign “to reach out to the Muslim world.” The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim background of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

The Saudi owned newspaper, published in London, ran an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government’s policy of using the term “Islamic terrorism” in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, the article explained.

Echoing views in the Muslim worls, the newspaper sees Obama carrying out his pledge in his “reaching out to Muslims speech” at Cairo University in June 2008. Regarding Obama's statements on the botched Times Square bombing, the editor praised him for not once referring to prime suspect Faisal Shahzad’s as being a Muslim and for not “mentioning Islam in discussing the terrorist operation."

The same approach was taken after the failed Christmas Day bombing by Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib. “Obama spoke about the detained terrorist as a member of the Al-Qaeda organization but he did not speak about him being a Muslim. (...) Even when he spoke about Al-Qaeda, Obama noted that it was not the first time that the network had targeted America, ignoring the links that were made in the past between the organization and Islam or when it was put in the context of 'Islamic extremism.'"

Similarly, after the Fort Hood, Texas attack by a Muslim terrorist who murdered 13 people last November, “President Obama 'cautioned against jumping to conclusions’” and did not refer to the terrorist's Arab origin or religion.

The article did not mention that most, if not all, Arab terrorists are indoctrinated by Muslim extremism. Instead, the editor argued that describing terrorists as Muslims actually provokes more terror. “There is recognition today of the fact that terrorists are benefiting from the creation of an anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim atmosphere after any terrorist operation, and that issuing statements or taking steps that target Muslims employed by extremist groups further spreads hostility against the U.S., the West, and even moderate Islamic states,” he reasoned.

The writer argued that “the identity of the terrorist does not necessarily implicate the country he belongs to, in the same way that other adherents of the religion the terrorist follows should not be condemned."

He accused former President George W. Bush of being “captive to the Big Stick policy and slogans of 'you're either with us or against us,' which caused the popularity of the U.S. to wane, not only in the Islamic world but in numerous countries around the world." In contrast, he continued, “The new president has extended his hand to the Islamic world,… and the tendency to link every terrorist operation to the religion of the perpetrator has disappeared.”

The policy of appeasment towards Islamic fascism, the pre-911 mentality together with a wilful attitude of denying reality and hiding from facts are a dangerous characteristic of this Administration.

US Jews Start to Wake Up

There are signs that American Jews are (finally) starting to wake up and see the Obama Administration for what it really is: a radical, anti-Israel Administration.

A recent poll by the McLaughlin Group shows that Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews.

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.

In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Obama. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10.

The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.

Among Orthodox/Hassidic voters, 69% marked 'someone else' vs. 17% who marked 're-elect.' Among Conservative-affiliated voters the proportion was 50% to 38%. Among Reform Jews, a slim majority of 52% still supported Obama while 36% indicated they would consider someone else. Among Jews with family in Israel and those who had been to Israel, about 50% said they would consider someone else, while 41%-42% supported Obama.

Although 50% of the Jewish voters polled said they approved of the job Obama is doing handling US relations with Israel (!?!), 39% said they disapproved.
For a group of voters that have been traditionally Democratic (only 16% of US Jews are believed to be Republican), this rating is not good news.

A majority of 52% said they disapproved of the idea of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within two years. 62% said that if given a state, “the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel.” Only 19% thought they would live peacefully with Israel.

As Obama loses support among members of the influential Jewish voter bloc, possible Republican candidate Sarah Palin seems to be doing her best to woo them to her camp. At Time Magazine’s May 4 dinner honoring the ‘100 Most Influential People in the World,’ she was sporting a US/Israel flag pin.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is widely perceived to be behind the de facto construction freeze in eastern Jerusalem. The construction freeze sought by Obama is discriminatory, as by law, the entire city of Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty, and no distinction should be made between various neighborhoods.

Hitler's Children

65 Years have passed and the world is quiet once again. On this Yom Ha'Shoah (Day of Holocaust Remembrance), we remember the evil so that it can never raise its head again. We pay homage to the victims and teach the young what happens when evil is appeased.
Hitler's Children is a powerful documentary about the children of the monsters and the children of the survivors. For them, the Holocaust never really ended:

CLICK TO PLAY










PM Benyamin Nethanyahu: "The World is silent and putting up with Iran's declarations of genocide against Israel".
Pres. Shimon Peres: "We should not go back to indifference"
Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi: "We will not stand defenseless once again".

The Week of Hate

“Apartheid Week” is an annual event organized on college campuses in the United States, Canada and elsewhere by extreme anti-Israel groups.

The week-long event includes lectures and exhibits aimed at convincing students that Israel is a racist, colonial state. Participants are asked to sign a document opposing Zionism while supporting the creation of a state for Palestinian Authority Arabs. Although its organizers would like to paint this event as a legitimate form of political protest, it is nothing more than an orgy of anti-semitic hate, wrapped up in "anti-Zionist activism" meant to de-legitimize the State of Israel.

Bnei Brith Canada called this week to ban “Apartheid Week” events completely: "Today's resolution is an important first step towards what must be an outright ban of 'Israel Apartheid Week' and other similar events on campus whose raison d'etre to promote hatred, and whose activities invariably encourage harassment and intimidation of Jewish students,” Bnei Brith stated in a press release.

The organization Stand With Us took a different approach, urging students to “Use the Apartheid weeks ahead as a wonderful opportunity to teach the campus and local community about apartheid that exists today, in a majority of Middle Eastern countries where human rights abuses are commonplace... Simultaneously, encourage students and community leadership to stand up to misinformation about Israel.”

Stand With Us has produced a booklet titled “Middle East Apartheid Today” to counter Apartheid Week criticism of Israel. The booklet describes the oppression of black citizens of South Africa under apartheid and compares it to the situation of women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and reformists in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The booklet is available on the Stand With Us website.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has also put materials online to assist those interested in countering anti-Israel rhetoric. The site, www.israeliapartheidweek.com, includes information on the radical nature of Apartheid Week, the double standard implicit in criticizing Jewish self-determination and not that of other national groups, and genuine oppression elsewhere in the Middle East.

The legislature of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, and major Canadian dailies have railed against the use of the term ‘apartheid” and the "Israel Apartheid Week” campaign. However, 500 Montreal artists rallied behind an anti-Zionist call to boycott Israel.

Ontario’s resolution condemned the annual anti-Israel event, which opened this week.

In the predominantly French-speaking city of Montreal, 500 artists, including several left-wing Israelis, promoted a petition supporting "Israel Apartheid Week" and backing the Arab claim of the "right of return” for millions of Arabs claming ancestry to those who fled Israel during the wars in 1948 and 1967. Ample historical evidence has shown that the Arab world encouraged most of them to leave to allow the Arab Legion to complete what it thought would be the annihilation of the Jewish State.

Writing in a column published from Vancouver to Montreal, Leonard Stern wrote that Israel Apartheid Week gives Israel the “assigned the role of Jew among the nations — singled-out, cursed and harassed….The whiff of something medieval hangs over this March ritual. This isn’t about Jews, say the organizers. It’s about Zionists. Problem is, the activist groups behind Israeli Apartheid Week are doing everything to erase the distinction.”

He pointed out that an Ottawa research group in 2008 refused to promote a lecture on African development “because Jewish students at the University of Ottawa happened to be organizing it. The event had zero connection to Israel but [the group] said it wouldn’t partner with the Jewish students’ union due to the latter’s 'relationship to apartheid Israel.'”

Who Are You, Mr. Goldstone?

The US House of Representatives has rejected as "irredeemably biased" the findings of a UN-sponsored report which says Israel committed "war crimes" during its last military operation in the Gaza Strip (code named "Cast Lead").

The report, also known as "Goldstone Report", named after Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed the panel, accused Israel and (to a much lesser extent, the Hamas terrorist group) of war crimes during the 22-day conflict in December and January 2007-2008. It has been characterized as "a distorted picture" by Steny Hoyer, the Democrat House majority leader. Steven Rothman, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey said that the report "was not written to talk about 12,000 rockets intentionally sent by Hamas to slaughter Israeli men, women and children, versus the Israelis trying in many respects to minimize the damage to Palestinian civilians."

Israel refused to collaborate with the biased "investigation" and around the world, many voices were heard in defense of Israel and the IDF ("IDF is the most moral army in the history of warfare"). But many others took the opportunity to lash out against Israel and to use the conclusions of the report in order to further their anti-Israel (and often anti-Semitic) agenda, using charges of "war crimes" against the Jewish State.

Goldstone maintains his objectivity and impartiality. A recent article in the Israeli daily "Israel Ha'Yom", however, uncovers another side of Mr. Goldstone....

It seems that the "impartial" and "objective" judge Goldstone is anything but. According to the "Im Tirtzu" group, Goldstone was a member of the "International Center for Transitional Justice", a far left group masquerading as working "to redress and prevent the most severe violations of human rights", but has a history of accusing Israel of some of the worst abuses of human rights. On its website, the group quotes Goldstone as lamenting that he cannot understand how "Jews can act with racism".

Goldstone served in the Board of Directors of "Human Rights Watch" (although his name was removed from the organization's website after the group "Monitor NGO" publicized the judge's links with HRW). In its March 2009 report, HRW accuses Israel of "war crimes" during its "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza.

Today, Goldstone belongs to "Doctors for Human Rights", another self proclaimed global human rights organization which has a history of accusing Israel in the past of "violations of international human rights".

Impartial and objective? Goldstone's bias and lies are shameful to the very least.

Another Obama Anti-Zionist Jew

The Czar of Czars (no, it's not the Russian Czar) has gotten himself also an "Anti-Semitism Czar", as if 32 other useless, unelected czars with quasi-dictatorial powers were not enough (for a list of the 32 Obama "czars", go here).

This one is Hannah Rosenthal, a member of the "J Street" advisory panel and an ex-member of the Board of Directors for the left wing "Americans for Peace Now".

"J Street" is a lunatic, far left, anti-Israel organization funded by Arab and other radical sources, masquerading as a concerned supporter of Israel, presenting itself as a counter weight to the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. "American Thinker" has an excellent article in which it exposes this farce called "J Street" ("Blowing J Street's Cover").

Only a month after her investiture by His Highness the "Czar of Czars", Rosenthal went to attack. Not against the rising Anti-Semitism in Europe or the insane "blood libels" washing the Western and Muslim press...No...Her first target is none other than Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, who dared to turn down a "J Street" request to be a key speaker at its first annual conference, refused to attend the event and voice remarks against the far left group.

Rosenthal, in turn, said that Oren "would have learned a lot" had he participated in the conference. Her words prompted a storm of protests, best voiced by Harvey Schwartz, head of American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC):
"As a high ranking member of the Obama Administration, Rosenthal's criticism of the Israeli Ambassador to the US is beyond bizarre and highly offensive in the extreme. It is a virulent anti-Israel attack which AIAC interprets to be anti-Semitic."
Instead of fighting Anti-Semitism, the ideologue Rosenthal is actually promoting it!

The Israeli Embassy asked for "clarifications" from the US Administration, but it is increasingly clear that the Obama White House is in no way as friendly to the Jewish State as the George W. Bush Administration was. And Rosenthal's remarks are only one of the many slaps Israel has suffered since the "Czar of Czars" has been elected.

To the many voices calling for her resignation, Hannah Rosenthal can only arrogantly say that criticism of her comes from "very few people that blog a lot"....Well, you can add this blogger to those people Hannah. With friends like you and your boss, Israel doesn't need anymore enemies.

Obama: 'take your hands off the Land of Israel!'”

Americans may still be stuck in the dream world provided by the Obama illusion machine (although they are starting to wake up in record numbers), but Israelis are taking to the streets protesting the American imposed freeze on buildings in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. These are some of the photos from the Dec. 9th, demonstration in Jerusalem, organized by the Yesha Council and attended by tens of thousands of Israelis:

"Blood Libels" fuel the New Anti-Semitism

The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's August 2009 story accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs is the latest in the long and dark history of European Antisemitism. Donald Bostrom, the author of the offensive piece, duly demonstrated his utter lack of any basic journalistic standards when he said: "But whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue." On top of this, the story was further undermined as one of the Palestinian families interviewed said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs.

With the credibility of the story in tatters one might have expected the outrageous accusations to have a limited shelf life or to disappear altogether. However, the Swedish blood libel is a textbook case study of how what starts as an article published in a language read by few from a country of limited international influence can turn into a poison that spreads much wider.

Perhaps no one can prevent the spread of such poison through the Internet and beyond. But it is still incumbent upon us to act as a bulwark and to ensure that the truth and an antidote to the poison appears online to counter the lies.

Such falsehoods take on a life of their own on Internet message boards. Some media outlets save their comments for perpetuity. For the miss informed, a comment or post on a message board may even become a valid source through a search engine such as Google or Yahoo.

A look at one example of this may be an indicator of the long-term consequences of the Swedish blood libel.

In a November 2008 story on the confirmation of uranium traces at a Syrian site bombed by Israel in September 2007, the discussion on CNN's message board invariably turned to accusations that Israel was responsible for the uranium.

One commenter posts from an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent from October 2006 that claimed that Israel had used uranium bombs during the 2006 Lebanon conflict. He then asks: "Israel used it [uranium] in Lebanon why should any one be surprised that Israel used it in Syria too."

However, the original story by Fisk was thoroughly debunked after a United Nations agency found the uranium charges to be false. The Independent refused to issue a correction or apology and so this libel is regurgitated on forums such as CNN's. The latest Swedish blood libel could be a similar story.

Several Ukrainian Web sites claim Israel has brought around some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the country over the past two years in order to harvest their organs. Vyacheslav Gudin told the estimated 300 attendees of the Kiev conference a detailed story about a Ukrainian man's fruitless search for 15 children who had been adopted in Israel. The children, Gudin said, had clearly been taken by Israeli medical centers, where they were used for "spare parts." Gudin said it was essential that all Ukrainians be made aware of the genocide Israel was perpetrating. In response to a request by the country's Jewish community Ukraine's police force is investigating ZUBR, one of the Web sites that reported the speeches.

The story spread into Canada via Al Ameen Post, a Canadian Muslim newspaper, which published an article repeating the libel that Jews kidnapped "25,000 Ukrainian children (...) over the past 2 years in order to harvest their organs".

The Palestinian Authority libel that Israel deliberately harvests organs from dead Palestinians has caught on in the Arab world. Last month Egyptian authorities temporarily denied Israeli doctors entry into Egypt to participate in a medical conference. The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate explained that this was because they "participated in torture" of Palestinians and because they "are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners."

In response to the Israeli doctors' protest over Egyptian authorities not issuing them permits to enter Egypt for a medical conference, the head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate, Dr. Hamdi Al-Sayed said: 'We have no regard or respect for the Israeli doctors because the medical community has condemned them due to their participation in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.' He added: 'The Israeli Medical Association has acknowledged having participated in torture, noting that it had done so with the aim of protecting Israeli citizens.' He stated that the Israeli doctors are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners, and that 'such people will not be permitted to take part in our medical activities." [Al-Ayyam, Nov. 27, 2009]

Saddly, in the 21st Century, the Antisemitism is alive and well.

The Bowing President

As Obama wraps up yet another futile foreign trip, he finds another leader to bow to, this time to the Emperor of Japan.
After his bowing to the Saudi despot, apologizing for America's "arrogance" and declaring that Americans are just " a bunch of citizens", Obama is the first President in the history of this nation that does not believe in the uniquness of the American experience.No wonder that back home, Obama's approval ratings hit a new low: 46 percent, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday. An equal number -- 46 percent -- disapprove of the job he's doing. By comparison, more than twice as many Americans disapprove (63 percent) as approve (26 percent) of the job that the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing, but it is of little comfort to Obama.
In the mean time, Sarah Palin's approval ratings continue to rise. Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.
While Obama may not be in a hurry to read Palin's new book, among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

'IDF Most Moral Army in History of Warfare'

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

A Jew Asks Why Are Jews So Liberals?

Tough question. Norman Podhoretz tries to answer this question in an article recently published in the "Wall Street Journal".

Like many other Jewish intellectuals (Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved), Podhoretz moved from left to right more than four decades ago. Like many other Jews (your humbled blogger, included), he's been hoping for many years that our fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for a Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% (far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group). In 2008, 78% of the Jewish vote when to Obama. Except for blacks, who gave him 95% of their vote, Obama scored better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. What makes this even more unbelievable is that despite McCain's long history of sympathy towards Israel and Obama's atrocious associations with outright haters and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi, Obama beat McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points!

Today, the Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. While other ethno-religious groups have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party, Jews still remain heavily committed to the liberal agenda. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, increased government spending, expanded benefits to the lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

In the conflict between Judaism and "Jewish values", on one side and liberalism on the other, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.

Many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

In Podhoretz's view, when they look at America, liberals see injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

As such, the Jewish experience in this country bears testimony to the precious virtues of the traditional American system. Surely, then, Jews ought to be joining with conservatives against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions of the traditional American system.

Obama ran on the premise that the American system is seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, we hoped that our fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism of the past. It didn't happen.

The encouraging signs that more and more Jews are showing signs of "buyer's remorse", is perhaps one of the reasons Podhoretz hopes that the exposure of Obama as a "false messiah" will open the eyes of fellow Jews to the falsity of the political creed to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew II

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews."

Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.

The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements” (which Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago) in which he included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Obama revealed that Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.

Emanuel has pushed Obama into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government out of a strategy to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.

Obama's game is to try and defeat the Israel lobby from within, since he could not defeat the lobby from outside it.

But that strategy has backfired, turning into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where Obama’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and even in the liberal anti-Israeli American press.

The liberal "Washington Post" has criticized Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:

“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

The newspaper criticized Obama for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and observed that Palestinian and Arab leaders hardened their positions, while the Israeli public opinion has rallied behind Netanyahu (quite the opposite result that Obama and Emanuel had hoped for).

The turning point against Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.

He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for Obama and show off the relative new "J Street" lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.

At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.

The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."

In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area.

While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures in the making.

Hands off Jerusalem!

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to Obama's pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.

Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."

"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.

Obama's pressure on Israel is growing and the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded the halt of construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish philanthropist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.

Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.

Seven Jewish families and an all-day Torah-study program, known as a Kollel, are trying to renew the old Jewish neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon The Just).

The area, where Simon the Just and elders of the Sanhedrin were buried over 2,000 years ago, was a thriving Jewish community from 1895 until 1948, when it was evacuated by the British army during the Arab riots preceding the War of Independence.

In the mean time, former PM, Ehud Olmert is joining the debate. "Obama is making a big mistake by insisting that Israel freeze all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Friday in the Washington Post.

In his opinion article, which in effect was an open letter to the president, Olmert reminded the American government that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that its friendship with the United States is one of the country’s “greatest strategic asserts.”

The former Prime Minister wrote that the Annapolis, Maryland Middle East conference in the Middle East in November, 2007 was based on previous agreements with the Bush administration that Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria would remain part of the State of Israel in any agreement establishing a Palestinian Authority state.

Olmert wrote. "Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.”

Olmert noted that a total building freeze is “impossible to completely enforce” and would not help security.

Referring to his own offers for a new PA state, he declared that the U.S. should investigate “why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions.”