Israeli Consulate Occupied in Boston

But hey, it's not anti-Semitic or anything.

At Future of Capitalism, "Occupy Boston Occupies Israeli Consulate."

Also, at Power Line, "IS DEMOCRATS’ DEMAGOGUERY FUELING ANTI-SEMITISM?"

Occupy Wall Street and the Jews

The key thing about the rash of anti-Semitism we've seen out of Occupy Wall Street is not that it's shocking, but so mainstream. I'm not shocked at all by it. I write about this stuff all the time. One reason progressives work so hard to shut me down and shut down this blog is because I continually and relentless shine a light of moral approbation on their Jew-hatred. Not enough people do this, in my opinion. People must think that anti-Semitism lingers only in the extreme fringes of the aging millenarian right-wing, the last gasp of a few Nazis. But it's not that. As I've noted numerous times, Jew-hatred is the premiere organizing position of today's progressive-left movement. And while some remind us not to worry too much about Israel, say, since it's more vibrant and economically stronger than its regional enemies, I think there's never a good time be complacent about these things, especially since Jew-hatred seems to gain more mainstream acceptance by the day. The events of the last two months in New York and around the country have shown what it's like when the big media outlets and top political officials pooh-pooh the hate. "First they came…"

A particularly perverse version of such enabling can be seen in Michelle Goldberg's, "One Percent," at the Jewish magazine Tablet. Goldberg keeps stressing how Occupy Wall Street is "anarchist," and hence, there's no way to control or ostracize the "minimal" numbers of anti-Semitic members:

Occupy Wall Street lacks tools for enforcing any sort of discipline, or ostracizing troublemakers. When someone at a Tea Party rally holds a particularly offensive sign, as many have, the movement can denounce them. But there is no one at Occupy Wall Street to do the denouncing.

Somehow Goldberg can write this with a straight face, after she writes earlier in the essay that the organizing model at Zuccotti Park has "has fostered, for the most part, a spirit of volunteerism and cooperation." So which is it? Anarchy or cooperation? If there's cooperation among activists, there's not an "inability to enforce some kind of order." All these idiots have to do is get in the face of the Jew-hating freaks and have them GTFO. What's the problem?

Well, the problem is that Goldberg is a typical progressive Jew who sees the main danger to Jewish life emerging on the right. Sure, Goldberg probably really does cringe at the blatant anti-Semitism. I just think she's too stupid to realize she's attached to the wrong side. Not so for MJ Rosenberg, a Media Matters "fellow" and epitome of Jewish neo-communist extremism. See Rosenberg's piece, "Exploiting anti-Semitism to destroy Occupy Wall Street," at the Jewish Journal:

An ugly old tradition is back: exploiting anti-Semitism to break the backs of popular movements that threaten the power of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. It is being used to undermine the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has conservatives in a state of near panic....

Because utilizing anti-Semitism directly would not succeed in this country today, the reactionary defenders of the economic status quo are using the flip side of the coin: the fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street’s agenda is just opposition to Jews.

There's more at the link, and Rosenberg gets hammered at the comments. He's a really bad act, and his ravings are truly the product of the most perverse neo-communist class-warfare tropes. He turns my stomach.

In any case, the video above is the trailer for "Unmasked: Judeophobia and the Threat to Civilization." Phyllis Chesler references it at her entry, "An Open Letter to the ‘Good Liberal’ Who Ignores Occupy Wall Street’s Jew Hatred." And she notes there:

Unmasked ... shows us the Parisian mobs (leftists and Islamists) crying “Death to the Jews” in 2001. We see and hear angry, hate-choked speeches delivered on American campuses which characterize Israel as a “Nazi, Apartheid” state. We see Israeli soldiers confiscating 50 tons of ship-borne weapons in 2010 — weapons which included rockets with the capacity to attack the Israeli Navy and even more sites in civilian Israel. We see what really happened when armed Turkish mercenaries violated international law and attacked Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara. We are reminded that Israel was condemned for exercising its legal right to self-defense, and that Israel brings all goods and supplies into Gaza after first checking for weapons. The “blockade” of Gaza exists to keep weapons out that are being expressly brought in to exterminate Israelis.

When I ran into anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, I at first believed it could be contained, even resolved, if Israel only Did Something Else.

I was wrong. No matter what else or what more Israel did or could do, it would ever have been enough. Israel’s crime is an essential and existential one. It exists. This is unforgivable. It remains a permanent offense to Arabs and Muslims. In 2000, when Arafat launched his Second Intifada, I knew that Wiesel’s bloody beast was back. In 2003, I published a book about it: The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It.

What I first began writing and talking about nearly a decade ago has here been brought to life, expanded, and dramatically enacted in this film.

Read the whole thing.

Chesler indicates that the war against the Jews is a war of the information battlespace. It's a battle of the minds over the social construction of right and wrong in the contemporary age. If big media silence on the #OWS Jew-hatred is any sign, we've got a lot of work to do.

UPDATE: Linked at PACNW Righty, "Occupy Wall Street and the Jews."

Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

McAllister, in a local TV interview, discusses her termination at the video. She's holding a sign that reads, "Congress Should Print the Money, NOT the Zionist Jews":

McAllister was fired by LAUSD after her anti-Semitic statements went viral over the weekend on YouTube. Reason's Tim Cavanaugh, who interviewed her, has responded with his own commentary --- and it's not very compelling, frankly, considering Reason's reputation as the premiere libertarian magazine: "Reason Guilty of Anti-ANTI-Semitism: Sub Teacher Fired." Go read it all. Cavanaugh attempts to split the difference between being a parent and being a journalist, and he fails badly.

And more failure from the editors at Los Angeles Times, who applaud the district's decision: "Free speech — Within Limits." It's a horrible editorial. The woman's entitled to her opinions, no matter how sick, and the Times offers the slipperiest of slopes to defend her termination:

As a teacher, McAllister works with a captive audience of vulnerable children. Her comments certainly raise questions about her ability to treat them all equally and fairly. What's more, even if she's been the soul of discretion on the job, as well as kind and evenhanded with all her students, by making herself a public symbol of intolerance, McAllister no longer can serve effectively as a teacher.

For one thing, Jewish students likely would feel intimidated in her classes, no matter how nicely she treated them; their parents and many others might storm the principals' offices demanding her removal. Other students and parents might rally to her cause, or, alternately, they too might feel threatened by her bigoted positions. She would be a disruptive element on campus, and her future effectiveness as a teacher would almost certainly be compromised. (After she was fired, McAllister expanded on her views in an interview with Fox TV: "The word Jew is similar to communism today … Jews have been run out of 109 countries through history and we need to run them out of this one.")

As execrable as her comments were, it might be a different matter if McAllister were, say, a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk. There, she would be dealing with adults who could hold their own, and would have little direct authority over them. It also might be different if she had expressed a controversial opinion that was not an inflammatory attack on a particular ethnic or religious group.

We're reluctant to restrict anyone's ability to express even the most loathsome views openly and publicly. But when a teacher trumpets hateful opinions that could intimidate the impressionable young people she's supposed to be serving, that's not just free speech — it's a performance issue. In speaking out so intemperately, McAllister's ability to do her job was fatally compromised.

I find McAllister's comments reprehensible. But as one who's been the subject of a three-year campaign attempting to get me fired, I have serious issues with concern trolling bullshit like this. Watch the video above. Toward the end the news clip, the district's statement flashes on screen:

As Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), I want to emphasize that we condemn the remarks made recently by Patricia McAllister.

Her comments, made during non-work time at a recent protest rally, were her private opinions and were not made in the context of District services. At LAUSD, we recognize that the law is very protective of the freedom of speech rights of public employees when they are speaking as private citizens during non-working time.

I further emphasize to our students, who watch us and look to us for guidance, to be role models and to represent the ideals by which LAUSD lives, that we will never stand for behavior that is disrespectful, intolerant or discriminatory.

As a day-to-day substitute teacher, Ms. McAllister was an at-will employee. As of today, she is no longer an employee of the LAUSD.

Notice that? The district states a principle, yet abandons it because the teacher is untenured. Thus, being tenured creates rights that are denied to individuals not similarly situated. Ugly or not, the woman was stating her opinion, a political opinion, at a political rally while acting in private capacity. The district's decision reaches into the realm of personal space. And it should not. This is tyranny. They fired her because they could, not because it was right. And there's so much more going on there: McAllister taught small children, so perhaps parents would have been upset, as the Times suggests. Fine. Let the parents pull their kids out of class. Or better yet, let them pull their students out of the school altogether. McAllister's comments are not an aberration. That kind of progressive anti-Semitism is inherent to radical left-wing ideology. And people just like McAllister are like grotesque malignancies growing all through public education in the United States. LAUSD burned off a cancerous growth but they didn't cure the disease. The solution to offensive speech is more speech. Let more McAllisters bloom and Americans will soon be taking a closer look at the public schools, and they won't like what they see. Note how McAllister is not misspeaking when she spouts her hatred. It would have come out on the job, sooner or later. And if the kids in her charge are young and vulnerable, transfer her into the higher grades. If students are offended they'll know without having to be force-fed outrage. They can complain fair and square and the school would have been on solid ground in terminating her for racist, discriminatory speech in the classroom, prohibited by statutory regulation.

And here's this from Gary, at the comments at Libertarian Republican:

Big Brother keeps marching.

Your employer will not allow freedom of speech on your own time and away from your place of employment.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You got it.

The Occupy Movement's Anti-Semitism

Kathy Shaidle on the Michael Coren Show, via Blazing Cat Fur:

More Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street

At Astute Bloggers, "Occupy Wall Street organizer has history of anti-semitic writing."

Also, at Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Video shows anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street protests." The video is here: "Hate at Occupy Wall Street."

More, at Israel Today, "Israelis worried by anti-Semitic flavor of 'Occupy Wall St.' protests" (via Memeorandum).

Political Scientists Barbara Walter and Andrew Kydd Beclown Themselves with Theory of Palestinian Bargaining

Here's the authors' op-ed from yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "A win-win strategy for the Palestinians." And the key passage of beclownment:

The Palestinians are playing a long-term bargaining game, and any move toward the goal of statehood has to be considered a victory. Statehood will not come immediately, or when a vote is taken in the Security Council. What will happen is that support for it will slowly and surely increase among average citizens around the world. The extreme positions of Israel and the United States — their refusal to pursue real efforts to allow Palestinians to rule themselves and be free of military occupation — will be increasingly revealed, and tolerance for these positions, even among Israelis and Americans, will decline. Going to the Security Council knowing the bid will be publicly and persistently rejected, therefore, is an inspired strategy. Palestinians appear peaceful and reasonable. Israel and the United States do not.

Walter and Kydd are offering a strategic theory, and any theory like this is based on a number of assumptions, like the assumption of actor rationality. As highlighted above, the authors also assume Israeli and American intransigence. But a model is only as good as its assumptions, and the intransigence assumption here is fatally flawed, and hence their larger analysis falls apart. Case in point: Also out yesterday was Charles Krauthammer's column at Washington Post, "Land without peace: Why Abbas went to the U.N." Krauthammer explicitly challenges Walter and Kydd's assumption that Israel and the U.S. "refuse to pursue real efforts" free of military occupation:

While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.

It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.

To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.

Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider...

Keep reading for Krauthammer's examples, from Camp David in 2000 to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert peace deal of 2008.

So think about it: Who's intransigent? It's the Palestinians who are refusing "to pursue real efforts" at self-rule, which would allow themselves to "be free of military occupation." And it's for this reason that the Palestinians have gone to the United Nations. They don't want to negotiate. They've never wanted a final negotiated settlement, because it would mean leaving the Israeli state at the center of the territory to which they claim historical rights.

So notice what we really have: Two fairly prominent political scientists, writing in one of the nation's national newspapers, offering a fancy theory of Middle East bargaining and diplomacy that's based on a theoretical assumption that's a pure lie. And notice further: This example illustrates the power of the global left's campaign of delegitimation against Israel. Statements alleged as fact are shown to be complete fabrications after an elementary review of the historical record. But it goes on and on like this. Modern "progressive" societies buy into a historicism of deceit the exists for the sole purpose of exterminating the Jewish state. And notice one more thing: Walter and Kydd, who I've never met, again show us how often tragically useless is contemporary political science in explaining the world. At a basic level, rigid ideology is a poor foundation for problem solving, since to sustain an ideology requires the erection and perpetuation of myths such as, in this case, Israel's strategic intransigence. By contrast, some basic historical pragmatism shows that in fact the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected peace, having instead opted for violence --- indiscriminate violence, at that --- and war. And when Israel responds it's the one who's rebuked for employing force. I have hard time taking a lot of modern political science seriously precisely because scholars have poisoned their minds with really dishonest ideological presumptions. The idea that Israel is the reason for the failure of peace in the Middle East is false. It's an enormously malicious falsehood. And it's one more tragedy of the political science discipline that scholars rest serious substantive arguments on it.

RELATED: "The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer."

I Missed Jonathan Tobin's Post on John Mearsheimer...

See Tobin's brief essay at Commentary, "Mearsheimer’s Vanishing Veneer of Respectability." This part is excellent:

The author of the book Mearsheimer admires is Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli who not only doubts the truth of the Holocaust but also thinks the Jews persecuted Hitler and Nazi persecution of the Jews was justified. For Atzmon, any expression of Jewish identity is tantamount to racism. He believes Israel is worse than Nazi Germany. His hatred of his own people has even motivated him to claim medieval blood libels might have been true, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion provides historical insights about the Jews.

And:

The Israel Lobby was itself a typical example of anti-Semitic invective in the way it sought to delegitimize Israel’s American supporters and to single them out as sinister forces undermining democracy. But because its authors were two distinguished academics, they were able to cloak their prejudice in more respectable garb. One can only hope Mearsheimer’s endorsement of Atzmon helps to strip away that unjustified veneer of respectability that continues to attach to the authors’ work.

That ties in pretty well with my remarks at "The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer." Both Mearsheimer and Walt are scholars I admired. But in the end my ignorance is inexcusable. I long viewed The Israel Lobby through the lens of pluralist political science, perhaps out of deference for these "two distinguished academics." But it's not looking good for Mearsheimer. Even hardline anti-Zionists are throwing him under the bus. It's devastating, as noted previously.

See also the update from David Bernstein, "John Mearsheimer and Gilad Atzmon Update." And earlier at Israel Matzav, "John Mearsheimer comes out of the closet." (Apparently not all the BDS types have bailed on Atzmon.)

The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer

There's been a recent and very significant development involving Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. A few days ago, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote an entry pointing out that Professor Mearsheimer had written a book blurb for Gilad Atzmon's, The Wandering Who. The title at Goldberg's entry is not subtle: "John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist." I hoped to blog something about it, but being the big birthday weekend, I put it off for a bit. In the meantime, a number of other writers have picked up on the story, and the implications for Mearsheimer are nothing short of devastating. In addition to The Israel Lobby, Professor Mearsheimer is the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, a work of neorealist international relations theory that received general acclaim in the discipline. The book argues that great power politics is tragic, especially for the leading states in the system, since the structure of the realm impels them to seek greater power and act more aggressively, with revisionist aims for international mastery. Since opposing great powers share the same incentives to offense and expansion, states are fated to perpetual conflict. And thus the prospects are dim for international peace.

I think the prospects for internal peace are dim for Professor Mearsheimer. By that I mean that while both Mearsheimer and his co-author Stephen Walt have received withering criticism since the publication of "The Israel Lobby" in 2006 (and the full-length book in 2007), this latest controversy is a definitive confirmation of the attacks on Mearsheimer by his critics. As will be seen below, amid these developments, I can't imagine how Mearsheimer will ever live down the allegations of anti-Semitism that have followed him for years -- he will be fated to unsuccessfully fighting these battles for the remainder of his career. Personally, I've always held back on making such allegations. I was late to the debate in the first place, and the full weight of all the writings and responses took me a while to absorb. And frankly, there's hardly any more ugly attacks than to call someone anti-Semitic, especially a scholar whose work could be evaluated on scientific grounds. But I can't any longer make those arguments in good faith. After reading all the commentary on this, it's undeniable that Gilad Atzmon, whose book Mearsheimer blurbed, is a despicable and ugly Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier. What's also particularly disturbing is that Professor Stephen Walt joined the debate to explicitly defend Mearsheimer against the allegations of anti-Semitism. The two together are fighting a rearguard action with virtually no prospects for success. Readers will recall that I've hammered Walt on occasion, for example, when he spoke at the Code Pink convention earlier this year, where the roster of sponsoring organizations was a veritable "one-stop shop for the global left's international solidarity movement." It would be one thing to offer up a controversial theory of Israel as the primary focus of American foreign policy. It's quite another thing to actively join forces with the global left's Israel extermination industry, but that's what Stephen Walt has done. I find that tragic too, since Walt was someone who I studied a great deal in graduate school, and I wrote my dissertation with some of his theories as the starting point. Now the both of them have dug down deep to defend against this backlash, and it's just pathetic. These two eminent scholars have destroyed their reputations by peddling the most base anti-Israel stereotypes that simply can longer be defended on academic grounds. When you traffic with Holocaust deniers --- no, when you champion them --- you've pretty much given up the game.

In any case, Jeffrey Goldberg has been updating his responses to the controversy. See, "Mearsheimer's Endorsement of a Holocaust Revisionist (Cont'd)"; "Giving John Mearsheimer a Chance to Climb Down"; and "A Mearsheimer Falsehood, and Other Reactions to Atzmon."

And from David Bernstein, at Volokh, "A Challenge to John Mearsheimer":

Mearsheimer accuses his critics of suggesting that he must be an anti-Semite, given that he is intellectually in bed, so to speak, with the likes of Gilad Atzmon. Certainly, it’s reasonable to suspect Mearsheimer of anti-Semitism as this point, given that the main alternative explanation, that he is simply a fool who endorses highly polemical books attacking Jews and Israel without reading them closely or knowing anything about the author, has now been rebutted by Mearsheimer himself. But one could also posit Mearsheimer has decided to adopt a “Popular Front Strategy”, willing to accept any anti-Israel allies even from the blatantly anti-Semitic fringe. Regardless, it’s a pathetic fall from grace for Mearsheimer, and it’s disappointing to see that his co-author Walt is enabling him rather than pulling him back from the brink.

Bernstein links to Pejman Yousefzadeh, and here's another from Pejman that's vital: "John Mearsheimer Further Beclowns Self. Film at Eleven."

And here's this from David Rothkopf, "Mearsheimer picks a winner: Finally, a revealing book jacket blurb":

Mearsheimer was given a chance by Walt on this website to "defend" himself against the "smears" of Goldberg. Walt thus associated himself with Mearsheimer's choice to back Atzmon. He also asserted Goldberg was more inclined to make ad hominem attacks than to address the substance of U.S.-Israel relations. This is of course, absurd as, agree with him or not, no one can deny that Goldberg has written extensively on the subject and, to his credit, comparatively little about the two professors.

Mearsheimer's defense is stunningly lame. He begins with an attack on Goldberg. He then quotes the blurb and edges slightly away from the book by saying he doesn't agree with everything in it. He then repeats his admonition that Jews and non-Jews should read the book ... although I can hardly imagine how many Jews will be moved to buy a book on the recommendation of John Mearsheimer.

That said, he goes on to say that he has taught courses about the Holocaust and is therefore not a Holocaust denier. That said, Goldberg never said he was a Holocaust denier. He said he had endorsed one. Goldberg's assertion, based on Atzmon's writings, is that Atzmon has sought to both minimize the event and to explain away its origins as something at least in large part provoked by the Jews. What is this if not revisionism and there is no disputing that by blaming the Jews in part for their fate, Atzmon is, in fact, as accused a full-fledged apologist for Hitler.

Rothkopf's reference is the the post by Mearsheimer at Stephen Walt's blog at Foreign Policy, "Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg's latest smear."

I may be missing a couple of the responses I saw while researching this post, and I'll update if I find anything with added value. That said, this Harry's Place entry is probably the most precise examination of Gilad Atzmon's anti-Semitism: "Mearsheimer and Walt defend antisemite who thinks Hitler will be proved right." (And note that Harry's Place includes examples of Atzmon's anti-Semitism found in The Wandering Who, the very book that Mearsheimer reviewed.)

Check back for updates. Goldberg and Rothkopf are left-of-center, so Mearsheimer's taking a hit from those closer ideologically than myself. It's fascinating, and sad too, the way the authors of The Israel Lobby have kept digging when the long ago should have just stopped.

The Global Left's Anti-Israel Forum

See Anne Bayefsky, at Weekly Standard, "Durban III: An Anti-Israel Forum Takes Shape" (via Memeorandum).

Israel — An Apartheid State?

From Dennis Prager, at Frontpage Magazine:

Next month, the UN-sponsored hate-Israel festival known as Durban III takes place. Under the heading “anti-racism,” the great bulk of the conference, like Durban I and Durban II, consists of condemning Israel for racism and equating it to an apartheid state.



Of the world’s many great lies, this is among the greatest.



How do we know it is a lie? Because when South Africa was an apartheid state, no one accused Israel of being one. Even the UN would have regarded the accusation as absurd.



Israel has nothing in common with an apartheid state, but few people know enough about Israel — or about apartheid South Africa — to refute the slander. So let’s respond.



First, what is an apartheid state? And does Israel fit that definition?



From 1948 to 1994, South Africa, the country that came up with this term, had an official policy that declared blacks second-class citizens in every aspect of that nation’s life. Among many other prohibitions on the country’s blacks, they could not vote; could not hold political office; were forced to reside in certain locations; could not marry whites; and couldn’t even use the same public restrooms as whites.



Not one of those restrictions applies to Arabs living in Israel.



One and a half million Arabs live in Israel, constituting about 20 percent of that country’s population. They have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens. They can vote, and they do. They can serve in the Israeli parliament, and they do. They can own property and businesses and work in professions alongside other Israelis, and they do. They can be judges, and they are. Here’s one telling example: it was an Arab judge on Israel’s Supreme Court who sentenced the former president of Israel — a Jew — to jail on a rape charge.



Some other examples of Arabs in Israeli life: Reda Mansour was the youngest ambassador in Israel’s history, and is now Consul General at Israel’s Atlanta Consulate; Walid Badir is an international soccer star on Israel’s national team and captain of one of Tel Aviv’s major teams; Rana Raslan is a former Miss Israel; Ishmael Khaldi was until recently the deputy consul of Israel in San Francisco; Khaled Abu Toameh is a major journalist with the Jerusalem Post; Ghaleb Majadele was until recently a Minister in the Israeli Government. They are all Israeli Arabs. Not one is a Jew.



Arabs in Israel live freer lives than Arabs living anywhere in the Arab world.



No Arab in any Arab country has the civil rights and personal liberty that Arabs in Israel enjoy.

Keep reading at that top link.



The "apartheid state" lie is just one more lie in a long train of progressive evils. What's especially sad is that the left gets away with this stuff. Kinda like the Nazis hiding the camps. It's all just one big lie.

More on Larry Derfner

See the reaction from readers at Jerusalem Post, "Firing a ‘Post’ columnist – the pros and cons." The responses are compelling and surprisingly compassionate. No doubt folks crave a full airing of opinions, although I think the one line of criticism worthy of even deeper consideration is the idea that Derfner had stopped making reasoned arguments and had become basically an attack dog against everything he hated. If so, perhaps Jerusalem Post might have waited until the controversy died down and then quietly given Derfner notice that his brand of invective commentary was no longer in tune with the expectations of quality writing at the publication. As I noted on Monday, what's bothersome is not so much Derfner's views, but that they were so well accepted on the anti-Israel left. That is, progressive widely endorse the idea that Israeli civilians deserve to die. That thought seems alone to be beyond rational discourse, and perhaps to the realm of simply terrorist agitation. Even the New York Times offers a super sympathetic report on Derfner, "Israeli Columnist Is Fired for Writing That Palestinian Terrorism Is ‘Justified’." Checking the essay one finds a link to Dimi Reider despicable essay (cited at my entry on Monday) offering massive historical lies to justify Derfner's commentary. I know it's the Times, but some reporters are still doing a good job, and I normally enjoy Robert Mackey's blogging at The Lede. He fell short on this one though, omitting some of the more heated criticism of Derfner's perfidy.



And see Barry Rubin's comments, "Larry Derfner Should Be Debated, Not Fired." Rubin says it's not left or right but truth versus lies (to which I disagree, with reference, for example, to the comments at New York Times, where again we see how entrenched is leftist progressive anti-Semitic bloodlust). That said, Rubin's right: Derfner shouldn't have been fired over this.



BONUS: Check Camera's post, and follow the links for additional commentary, "Larry Derfner Will Not Be Rattling The Cage Anymore at the Jerusalem Post."

Larry Derfner Fired by Jerusalem Post

Well, let's go straight to the source: "I got fired by the Jerusalem Post today."

I got fired by The Jerusalem Post today. The paper got hundreds of notices of cancellations of subscription after my blog post (“The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror”) of Sunday last week; the reason being given for my firing, though, is the substance of the essay, despite the apology I published later. A page-one notice to this effect will be published in the Post tomorrow.

The pro-terror Mondoweiss has the full essay, "Read the post for which Derfner was fired: "‘The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror’."



Jawa Report applauds: "Jerusalem Post Writer Larry Derfner Fired for Justifying Palestinian Terror."



And here's this, from Isi Leibler, "Justifying Murder – An Abomination" (at Memeorandum):

Derfner is an Israeli Jew professionally employed by the only English-language newspaper in Israel. For him to justify the barbaric murder of his own brothers and sisters on a public website represents the ultimate abomination. It is unforgiveable.



Presumably in response to massive protests directed against him, Derfner “apologized” a week after his article appeared and deleted it from his website. However, he had the chutzpah to reiterate the justification for terrorism, merely stating that he does not endorse the murder of fellow Israelis. This is neither a retraction nor an apology.



His obscene and callously insensitive remarks are likely to haunt him for the rest of his life.

Some may question Derfner's dismissal (I'm not bothered by it, but I wouldn't have called for his firing). What bothers me is that Derfner's ideas are frankly mainstream among the Israel-hating left. That is, Derfner was only stating publically the exact thoughts of the progressive Israel-delegitimation industry. See, for example, Dimi Reider's obscene endorsement of Derfner, and his claim that it's Caroline Glick who should be fired: "Jerusalem Post fires Larry Derfner over blog post." And there's more than 50 comments at Mondoweiss as this post goes live, almost all in support of Derfner. I mean seriously, it's like bloodlust:

For wannabe international lawyers, I can’t overemphasize that at times, attacks on civilians are perfectly legal and legitimate. The proper language is “protected non-combatants.” Jewish Zionist settler-colonists in the Occupied Territories cannot be considered protected non-combatants by any stretch of the imagination.

And Phillip Weiss enters the comments to add:

Larry, are you out there, do you want to post any response to the many comments at this site? Let me emphasize, you have my great sympathy on this occasion, and I like to think that your best work will flow from this very painful and upsetting incident...

So, again, while I wouldn't have called for Derfner's termination, it's clear that his words were not only incitement to terrorism, but that his views are perfectly representative of the progressive, neo-communist left's eliminationist ideological agenda. And once again, this is what I point out repeatedly at this blog. It's not leftist opposition to Israeli policies. It's leftist opposition to Israel and the Jews. It's the dawn of the new Shoah. And I will stand up against these satanic progressive fuckers as long as I live.

Norway's Anti-Semitism

From Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post, "Norway’s Jewish Problem" (via Israel Matzav):

In the wake of Anders Breivik’s massacre of his fellow Norwegians, I was amazed at the speed with which the leftist media throughout the US and Europe used his crime as a means of criminalizing their ideological opponents on the Right. Just hours after Breivik’s identity was reported, leftist media outlets and blogs were filled with attempts to blame Breivik’s crime on conservative public intellectuals whose ideas he cited in a 1,500 page online manifesto.



My revulsion at this bald attempt to use Breivik’s crime to attack freedom of speech propelled me to write my July 29 column, “Breivik and totalitarian democrats.”



While the focus of my column was the Left’s attempt to silence their conservative opponents, I also noted that widespread popular support for Palestinian terrorists in Norway indicates that for many Norwegians, opposition to terrorism is less than comprehensive.



To support this position, I quoted an interview in Maariv with Norway’s Ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje.



Sevje explained that most Norwegians think that the Palestinians’ opposition to the supposed Israeli “occupation” is justified and so their lack of sympathy for Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism was unlikely to change in the wake of Breivik’s attack on Norwegians.



Since my column was a defense of free speech and a general explanation of why terrorism is antithetical to the foundations of liberal democracy – regardless of its ideological motivations – I did not focus my attention on Norwegian society. I did not discuss Norwegian anti- Semitism or anti-Zionism. Indeed, I purposely ignored these issues.



But when on Friday, Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide published an unjustified attack on me on these pages, he forced me to take the time to study the intellectual and political climate of hatred towards Israel and Jews that pervades Norwegian society.



That climate is not a contemporary development.



Rather it has been a mainstay of Norwegian society ...

Continue reading. It's a devastating indictment of Norway.



The Espen Barth Eide commentary is here.



I've said it once or twice, but I refrained from blogging on Norway's Labor Party, and the youth camp activists gunned down by Breivik. The agitprop on display on Utoeya that day was pro-Palestinian and pro-terror. Caroline Glick gets down to the bottom of it, and anti-Jewish tendencies there have a long pedigree, sadly.

Protest Tours for the Anti-Semitic Left

This essay's making the roudns, from Daniel Greenfield: "Outraged Protest Tours - The Tourism Package for Leftists Who Hate Israel."

Via Blazing Cat Fur.

Jerusalem Post: Jewish Groups Denounce 'Save Switzerland' Anti-Semitic Poster

Following up from yesterday, here's this from Jerusalem Post, "Swiss Jewish groups denounce ‘anti-Semitic’ poster."

A far-right Swiss group called Geneve Non Conforme has advertised a national “Save Switzerland” day with a poster depicting a doll wrapped in an Israeli flag, wearing a yarmulke, bearing peyot (sidelocks), and lying on its back with an arrow through its head.

Although the message was posted on June 17, it only come to the attention of Jewish groups late last week. Johanne Gurfinkiel of the Swiss Jewish rights group CICAD said that the image “defines the deep anti-Semitic hate” of the leaders of the movement, adding that the poster is “a call to murder, pure and simple.”

GNC defines itself as an anti-immigration, anti-globalization cultural association, but denies that it is anti- Semitic.

Following CICAD’s complaint, the poster was altered, and the yarmulke and sidelocks removed.

A statement on the group’s website stated that the doll in the poster was supposed to represent “Israeli extremism (Zionism)” and “was not meant as an attack against Jews.”

“The message is just the same,” said Gurfinkiel in response, “The threat is just as dangerous.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center called on the Swiss authorities to take action against GNC.

Check the link for the Simon Wiesenthal Center's response, but notice how the GNC's going to leave left the arrow in the head at the poster. And anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. It's getting kinda Kristallnacht-ish over there.

Pamela Geller and the English Defence League

I followed this story for a bit yesterday. The short of is that the folks at Gates of Vienna are attacking Pamela Geller for calling out the English Defense League for the anti-Semitism in its ranks. I thought I'd blog on this sooner or later, and there's never been a question as to picking sides: Pamela's my friend and she's long been slammed by idiots like Charles Johnson. So now that she's warned some in the EDL leadership it's clear there's going to be no tolerance for this at Atlas Shrugs. Pamela updated with a new post yesterday, "The Evil That Men Do":

Apparently an update is required on the blogwar against Atlas that is being waged by vultures with an altogether nefarious agenda. It's not important, because these bottomfeeders just bang keyboards and jockey for position on the bottom of the food chain. But to be clear .......

I stand by my concern about the increasing antisemitism in the ranks of the admins at the EDL. We have no intention of breaking with the EDL if they purge these antisemitic elements. If they do not, they will be finished as a force for good in England. I was immediately reassured that these rogue elements would be routed out. End of story. This campaign to gang up on Geller by small "counter-jihadists" trying to make a name for themselves clearly is motivated by something enitrely different. Something very ugly and transparent.

And about that Facebook page (pictured), Pamela writes:

There are pages and pages of this kind of stuff. Here is just one example. "Hel Gower" is a powerful EDL administrator. She "liked" this page.

I've read through the comments at Gates of Vienna, and mostly this is a prestige thing (there's rank jealousy of Pamela), but a lot of ugliness over there as well, for example, this comment from DP111:

The EDL is the only grassroots movement in the West that is against the destruction of Western civilisation. It is the only one that has the courage to go out on the streets, even into Muslim areas, and face the hostility and violence of Muslims, Left wing extremists, the police and the media. There is nothing like it in the West. There are now movements in the West that have modelled themselves on the EDL.

The EDL is way above and beyond the likes of single bloggers such as Geller and Spencer, or for that matter any blogs. The EDL does not need to apologise or explain itself - its very being and what it does, is more then enough. The rest is immaterial. It does not need to have an apology from Spencer or Geller, as it is far bigger, stronger, and motivated enough to step on to the real battlefield, rather then merely bemoan the Islamisation of the West - they are real soldiers, who get bloodied and injured, rather then armchair commentators on the passing scene.

My hat off to the EDL. Support it, as your life, and the lives of your descendants, depends on these few.

My scholarly work covered European interwar politics, and reading that reminds me of the Brownshirts of Hitler's Germany. So this guy is calling out Pamela and Robert Spencer for raising questions about EDL affiliations? And as Pamela and Robert are by no means "armchair commentators" it seems that some of the animosity toward them is generated by an irrational hatred in response to challenge. And the commenter insinuates that fighting in the street, fighting with violence, is what it takes to fight the left and Islamization (see the Daily Mail on this). So it's a dispute on tactics as well. And not to read too much into one comment, but it's not a long step from the street thuggery against Muslims to attacks against Jews as part of a global conspiracy. (See this anti-Semitic British National Socialist blog post, for example, and the sidebar graphic there, which says "REMEMBER: PRO-ISRAEL + ANTI-ISLAM = New World Order.)

Anyway, see Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, "EDL leader: 'We repudiate any individual, group or writing that favors anti-Semitism, neofascism, and any race-based ideology'. "

And Robert Stacy McCain has more on the controversy, "Genesis 12:3." And following the link there takes us to Da Tech Guy, "Not late to Pam’s side this time."

Greece Arrests Captain of Gaza-Bound 'Audacity of Hope'

At New York Times, "Greece Jails U.S. Captain in Gaza Flotilla."

At the video, Communist Party member Angela Davis and Professor Rashid Khalidi, former PLO advisor to Yasser Arafat. Oh, and anti-Israel propgandist Noam Chomsky, the intellectual rock star of today's Jew-murdering left. And so many more:

Israel is the only country in the world held out for this kind of visceral hatred. It's anti-Semitic. Prominent people, shilling for terrorism. It's perverted.

Save Switzerland: Shoot Straight and Kill the Jews

Well, the ad just says "Save Switzerland: Shoot Straight." But the accompanying image leaves no doubt. How'd you like an arrow to the forehead?

And if this seems shocking, imagine how folks feel in Geneva.

At Ynet, "Swiss party ad features Jewish doll":

The anti-Semitic ads incurred the wrath of members of the Jewish community in the country. "This is a call for the murder of Jews," said Jonah Gurfinkel. Sabine Simkhovitch-Dreyfus, deputy director of the Jewish community federation said: "A red line has been crossed."

Check the link. I don't see more information about this GNC group online, but considering the recent reports on the far-left Left Party's anti-Semitic program in Germany, one might not brush this off too quickly as a fluke. (See: "A Map without Israel: Germany's Left Party Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism.")

The Billions Behind 'Cultures of Resistance' Filmmaker

An excellent essay from Dave Swindle, at FrontPage Magazine, "The Flotilla Jihadists’ Artsy Propagandist and Her Billionaire Husband." And propaganda it is. A sample:

And she's affiliated with this premiere group of communists and anti-Semites:

Too Hot for Huffington Post: 'The Hamas - Oops, Gaza - Flotilla'

I first read of Huffington Post's censorship of David Harris at Power Line, "Too Hot for HuffPo."

Harris is the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and his essay's posted at AJC's website. An excerpt:

George Orwell, where are you? You could have a field day with this story.

Actually, you anticipated it when you wrote about the Ministry of Truth in your classic book, 1984. What were the ruling party's slogans on the outside of the 1,000-foot-tall building housing the ministry? Weren't they "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength"? And didn't the ministry rewrite history at will to ensure it always served the party's interests?

The Gaza flotilla spokesmen are inverting the truth and rewriting history at will to serve their interests. And what are those interests? To prop up the Hamas regime in Gaza and delegitimize Israel.

While they are entitled to their own opinions, however misguided, they are not entitled to their own facts.

They cannot separate Hamas from the equation. Much as they might try, the central fact is that Hamas is key to understanding Gaza today.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Don't take my word for it. Check with the United States and European Union, both of which have designated Hamas as a terrorist entity.

You can see why that's an "Oops!" Doesn't jibe too well with the neo-communist narrative.

More at Ron Radosh, "The Huffington Post Censors AJC’s David Harris, for Telling the Truth about the New Flotilla."

And linked there, Howard Jacobson, "Why Alice Walker shouldn't sail to Gaza."