► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Leftist-Islamic Alliance’ Category

An honor killing, Brandeis University-style

by Speranza ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at April 15th, 2014 - 7:00 am

We are definitely living in an age of Liberal Fascism. Louis D. Brandeis, a proud Zionist and defender of free speech must be turning over in his grave as a university named after him and founded by secular but proud American Jews, caves in to the pressures of Marxists and Islamists.

by Zev Chafets

Brandeis University committed an honor killing this week. The victim was a Somali woman named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Honor killings are depressingly common in the Middle East: punishment for women guilty of being raped, losing their virginity outside of marriage, adultery, dressing provocatively or simply embarrassing a male relative. These murders – most of which go unreported and unprosecuted – are usually acid-in-the-face, blood-on-the-floor affairs meant not only to salvage the good name of the dishonored family but to intimidate other women (and gay men) into abiding by the prevailing code of behavior.

[.....]

She comes by her passion honestly. At the age of 5 she was subjected to ritual genital mutilation by her family. As a young woman she rebelled against a traditional forced marriage and fled to the Netherlands, where she received political asylum.

As a girl, Hirsi Ali wore a hijab, abided by Shariah law and even supported the death threat issued by Iranian clerics against renegade Muslim author Salman Rushdie.

[.....]

She enrolled at a local university, became an avowed atheist and, in 2003, just 11 years after her arrival in her new country, she was elected to the Dutch parliament.

Along with Theo Van Gogh, a descendant of painter Vincent Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali made “Submission,” a cinematic protest against the brutal treatment in the Middle East of women who do not submit to their role as second-class human beings.

In the wake of 9/11, she issued warnings about the violent nature of armed political Islam. Her point was made for her by a fanatic who, in the name of Allah, stabbed Van Gogh to death on an Amsterdam street.

The murderer pinned a letter to Van Gogh’s body: a death threat against Hirsi Ali, who was forced into hiding and lived under government protection until she settled in the United States in 2007.

Hirsi Ali’s story is a heroic one, and her persona – Third World woman of color, secular humanist, ardent feminist, defender of gay rights and a near martyr to her liberal Western principles – certainly resonated with the awards committee of a proudly progressive university like Brandeis. She was almost the perfect candidate for an honorary degree.

But there was one small problem. She had dared to criticize Islam and Muslim behavior in the same way other religions and other human behaviors get criticized in an open society. In America you can’t get killed for this (yet), but you can be dealt with.

Enter Nihad Awad, the national head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He launched a letter of protest at Brandeis president Fredrick Lawrence, accusing Hirsi Ali of wrong thoughts and evil words. Giving her an award, he wrote, would be like “promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites.”

That was rich. Awad has publicly supported Hamas (which is anti-Semitic) and Hezbollah, the terrorist arm of the Teheran Holocaust deniers. Not only that: He actually accused Ali of threatening the entire Muslim world with violence. The demand to rescind the award was backed by almost a quarter of the Brandeis faculty.

Faced with this absurd and offensive inversion of reality, President Lawrence informed Hirsi Ali that she was no longer welcome at commencement. He blamed this on “certain of her past statements,” which he said were inconsistent with the university’s “core values.”  He had the audacity to invite Hirsi Ali to visit the school someday for a discussion “in the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University through its history.”

[.....]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves her degree for precisely the reason Nihad Awad doesn’t want her to have it – because she dares to speak her mind and say things that offend the sort of people CAIR represents.

The Brandeis commencement this year is conferring an honorary degree on Jill Abramson, the gifted and outspoken editor of The New York Times. Hopefully she won’t let the occasion pass without reminding her hosts of who is absent from the podium: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman whose reputation is the victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style.

Read the rest – Ayaan Hirsi Ali -  victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style

Passover is not about eating matza or watching “The Ten Commandments” on television, it is about freedom

by Speranza ( 167 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at April 14th, 2014 - 7:00 am

The spinelessness of the American Jewish leadership reminds me of  how the Victorian era Jew, Israel Zangwill referred to the leadership of British Jewry as being  composed of “trembling Israelites”.

by Caroline Glick

Passover, which begins on Monday night, is the festival of freedom.

The holiday reminds us of the brutal enslavement of the Jews by Pharaoh and the Egyptians. We recall their midnight flight from Egypt, pursued by the mighty Egyptian army, and God’s miraculous rescue of the Jews at the shores of the Red Sea.  [......]

We repeat the story of enslavement, flight, redemption and freedom each year at Passover, because our sages wanted to ensure that we never forget the value of freedom, and remain vigilant in our fight for it. In Israel, where our freedom is physically threatened, most Jews understand and live by the lessons of Passover.

But something is happening to the Jews in America.

More and more, every day we see American Jews embracing intellectual bondage. We see American Jewish leaders embracing the intolerant, who seek to constrain freedom, and shunning those who fight for freedom and the rights of Jews and other threatened peoples and groups.

To a large degree, this rejection of the lessons of the Exodus among the American Jewish community reflects the growing intolerance and tyranny of the political Left, to which most American Jews pledge their allegiance.

With increasing frequency, leftist groups and leaders in the US are openly acting to deny freedom of expression to their political and ideological foes, and to destroy the lives of people who oppose their dogma.

For instance, last week we saw the growing tyranny of gay activists. Under assault from homosexual thought police, the Mozilla Corporation of Firefox browser fame fired its CEO Brendan Eich because he once contributed $1,000 to a campaign to block the legalization of homosexual marriage in California.

[.......]

The aim of these assaults is to silence all opposition to their agenda using the tools of social ostracism and intellectual terror.

Young Americans now embrace intellectual and social tyranny in the name of “liberal” values. In an op-ed in The Harvard Crimson, undergraduate Sandra Korn celebrated the eclipse of academic freedom in favor of what she called “justice.” Korn called for censoring conservative voices for their “offensive” views.

She also embraced the anti-Jewish hate movement popularly known as BDS (boycotts, divestments and sanctions of the Jewish state) as a good way to promote “justice” at the expense of freedom.

In Korn’s conflation of conservative voices with Zionist voices and insistence on delegitimizing and silencing both due to the “offense” they cause to “right thinking” thought enforcers like herself we see the central role that Jew hatred and the denial of Jewish freedom plays in the new wave of mass rejection of reason in favor of passions and hatred.

Sadly, many parts of the organized American Jewish community have embraced leftist tyranny and discrimination.

In 2008, the New York UJA-Federation teamed up with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and forced the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to disinvite then-US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin from addressing a rally opposing then Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while he addressed the UN General Assembly.

To ensure that Palin would be denied the right to speak, the New York UJA-Federation and the JCPA threatened that her appearance would jeopardize the tax exempt status of the Conference of Presidents and other major Jewish organizations.

It may very well be that this threat was the first instance of leftists threatening prejudicial IRS investigations against their political foes as a means of ensuring obedience to their agenda.
[.......]

Palin’s invitation was an oversight.

While fervent Zionists are silenced, post-Zionists and anti-Zionists are legitimized and staunchly defended.

Six years after Palin was brutally disinvited, in the name of cultivating a “wide tent,” the same New York UJA-Federation and JCPA invited anti-Israel organizations that support the boycott of Jewish Israeli businesses to take part in the annual pro-Israel parade.

Three such organizations, Partners for a Progressive Israel, the New Israel Fund and B’Tselem all call for a boycott of Jewish businesses operating beyond the 1949 armistice lines. All three groups have played roles in mainstreaming the BDS movement.

In Israel, the public understands that boycotts are about mainstreaming hatred and bigotry just as much as they are about economic strangulation. That is why in 2011 the Knesset passed the anti-boycott law which allows all Israeli entities to sue groups calling for boycotts against them for civil damages, and bars such groups from participating in state tenders.

But in the American Jewish community, these groups are defended and legitimized.

Disgusted at their community leadership’s double standard of tolerance and support for foes of Israel and intolerance for supporters of Israel, a consortium of organizations and synagogues organized a protest against the inclusion of anti-Israel organizations in the Israel Day Parade.

After weeks of protests in the press and on social media sites, on Tuesday some 200 people demonstrated outside the UJA-Federation building in New York and demanded that the boycott supporters and abettors be shunned.

It was an important act of defiance.

[......]

These groups have joined together in the past to protest against UJA-Federation funding of institutions such as the 92nd Street Y and the New York JCC, which have provided platforms for Jew-haters and BDS supporters.

Their protest was vital. It would be a tragedy if the thuggish behavior of the Jewish community leaders went unopposed. But it is hard to see how the protesters can change the situation.

The rot runs deep.

Consider Brandeis University’s craven and intolerant administration.

Brandeis was founded as a traditionally Jewish university in 1948, the year that Israel was established.

But whereas Israel has remained faithful to its sovereign duty to cultivate and defend Jewish freedom and engender a liberal democracy, over the years, Brandeis has largely abandoned its mission of standing up to intolerance, and protecting Jewish rights and those of other threatened groups.

Case in point is its obscene treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim who suffered genital mutilation as a child in Somalia and at age 21 fled to Holland to avoid a forced marriage.

After liberating herself, Hirsi Ali could have settled into a quiet European life. Instead, she dedicated her life to championing the rights of women and girls in Islamic societies.

For the past decade, Hirsi Ali has lived under an Islamic death sentence for her work. She can go nowhere without bodyguards.

In 2006, despite her membership in the Dutch parliament, Hirsi Ali was forced to flee to the US, when the Dutch government refused to continue to protect her.

[......]

Most recently, she was the executive producer of a new documentary film called Honor Diaries, which describes the plight of Muslim women and girls living in societies where they risk murder at the hands of their family members if they refuse to live in abject humiliation and submission to the misogyny of Islamic law.

Several months ago, Brandeis offered to confer an honorary doctorate on Hirsi Ali for her work on behalf of women and girls.

When the leftist and Muslim thought police in the Brandeis student body and faculty got wind of the university’s plan to honor her, they joined forces with the Council on American-Islamic Relations to force the administration to cancel the honorary degree.

CAIR claims to be a Muslim civil rights group. And yet, the group that purports to care about the civil rights of Muslims is waging a nationwide campaign to bar screenings of Honor Diaries, at universities around the country.

When Fox News’s intrepid host Megyn Kelly asked CAIR leaders this week how they can object to a film that seeks to help Muslims, they said they don’t have a problem with its content. They object to the fact that it was produced by Jews (also known as “Islamophobes”).

Far from being a civil rights group, CAIR is a pro- Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood organization. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas financing trial against the Holyland Foundation.

And yet, on Wednesday, Brandeis sided with CAIR and the thought police, against Hirsi Ali. Brandeis canceled its plan to confer its honorary doctorate on her.

And just as is the case with the New York UJA-Federation and the JCPA, Brandeis has no problem with double standard. As Daniel Mael, a Brandeis senior, noted in an interview with Andrew Breitbart, in 2006 Brandeis conferred an honorary degree on playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner, the outspoken foe of Israel. Kushner has claimed that Israel’s establishment was a “mistake,” and that “it would have been better if Israel never happened.” His work, particularly the film Munich, is replete with demonization of Israel and of the notion of Jewish power.

Mael noted that at the time, then-Brandeis president Jehuda Reinhartz defended his decision to honor Kushner by arguing, “Mr. Kushner is not being honored because he is a Jew, and he is not being honored for his political opinions. Brandeis is honoring him for his extraordinary achievements as one of this generation’s foremost playwrights, whose work is recognized in the arts and also addresses Brandeis’s commitment to social justice.”

In other words, Brandeis’s commitment to “social justice” involves shunning defenders of Muslim women and girls and celebrating foes of the Jewish state, which ensures Jewish freedom.

The work of activists like Mael, and of the trenchant demonstrators in New York is extremely important. But it is hard to be optimistic about the future freedom of America in general or of the Jewish community. Aside from the National Council of Young Israel, no major American Jewish organization agreed to sponsor the protesters’ call for pro-BDS groups to be disinvited from the Israel Parade.

When the leaders of the Jewish American community – like their fellow leftists – side with forces of intolerance and discrimination and against Israel’s stalwart defenders and opponents of the oppression endemic in Islamic societies, it does not bode well for the future.

It is my holiday prayer that on Monday night, they will remember that Passover is not about eating matza. It is about the price of freedom, and why that price is worth paying.

Read the rest -  Forgetting freedom at Passover

 

Brandeis University withdraws planned honorary degree for Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali

by Speranza ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Political Correctness at April 9th, 2014 - 10:55 am

Totalitarianism is alive and well on America’s campuses.

Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.

The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.

In 2007, Ali helped establish the AHA Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture, according to its website. The foundation also strives to protect basic rights and freedoms of women and girls. This includes control of their own bodies, access to an education and the ability to work outside the home and control their own income, the website says.

More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.

“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.

“But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.”

Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor “such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women’s rights, who has put her life at risk for those values.”

Bernard Macy, a 1979 Brandeis graduate, sent an email this week to university President Frederick Lawrence and several members of the faculty saying, “Thank you for recognizing Ayaan Hirsi Ali for defending Muslim women against Islamist honor violence.”

But Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said, “It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”

The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.

“This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.”

Minneapolis Lesbian Police Chief Dons Hijab for “Hijab Day”

by Rodan ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives at March 17th, 2014 - 10:37 pm

No words needed for this story.

According to a Facebook post, Somali staffers that work at Minneapolis City Hall declared February 28 “Hijab Day” at City Hall and convinced the police chief and female city council reps to wear hijabs on the job.

Pictures include: Minneapolis police chief Janee Harteau (who recently married her favorite female sergeant – not very hijab like), city council members Elizabeth Glidden and Lisa Bender as well as other staffers.

(Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers)

The phantom anti-Jewish establishment

by Speranza ( 105 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at March 11th, 2014 - 7:00 am

As someone wrote “these people are not Jews, they are Marxists whose ancestors happened to be Jewish”. They will be as forgotten as all the  other “Jews:” who worked to destroy the Jewish State.

by Daniel Greenfield

Alan Alda’s wife signed a letter denouncing the newly elected left-wing mayor of New York for doing AIPAC’s bidding. The Sandinista supporter had been accused of many things until then, but being an Israeli stooge wasn’t one of them. Signing the letter, along with the spouse of that guy from MASH, were Martha Weinman Lear, the wife of the cousin of liberal producer Norman Lear,  Eve Ensler of the Vagina Monologues and diet guru Jane Hirschmann author of Overcoming Overeating who took a break from obsessing over food to sail on a Jihad cruise to Gaza.

Signing on to the attack on Bill de Blasio for being a dirty Zionist were such faded celebrities of the literary left as Erica Jong, who hasn’t written a single book that anyone can name in the forty years since Fear of Flying first came out and Gloria Steinem, who peaked around that same time.

These familiar names of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit who grind their teeth every time they hear Netanyahu’s name, give way to the professional activists, the board members of the toxic American Jewish World Service, the Nathan Cummings Foundation and Dorot, the Rabbis for Gaza and Rabbis for Obama and the men and women like Peter Beinart of Open Zion and Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace who have built their lives around the war on Israel as much as any Islamic Jihadist tinkering with a Kassam rocket in Gaza.

Joining them was Kathleen Peratis who, according to her Nation bio is a “longtime peace activist” who repeatedly calls for boycotting Israel despite traveling there “at least twice a year for the past twenty years.” It’s unclear how she combined the two, perhaps she made sure not to buy anything from Jews while she was in Israel.

Their names are equally familiar to a smaller circle of those who fight for and against Israel and their signatures are as predictable as snowstorms in winter.

The radical clergy sign on; Rachel Brown Cowan, a Unitarian who married a Jewish writer for the Village Voice, added “Rabbi” to her name and has been attacking the Jewish State non-stop after her husband’s death, Rolando Matalon, who has yet to find a Latin American Marxist group he wouldn’t embrace,  Ellen Lippmann, a BDS supporter and Sharon Kleinbaum, a lesbian supporter of the Fast for Gaza that aids and abets the not particularly pro-lesbian Hamas.

Reading these names feels like reviewing the membership of a small familiar club. Everyone knows everyone else and everyone in the club hates Israel.

Between Erica Jong and Alice Kessler-Harris (the biographer of Anti-Israel Communist playwright Lillian Hellman, whom Kessler described as having a “streak of Jewish anti-Semitism”) is Peter A. Joseph who pays for this whole dance, funding everything from Peter Beinart’s Open Zion to the Manhattan JCC whose anti-Israel turn has led to a pitched battle among members.

[......]

The Israel Policy Forum put out a letter in support of Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, despite his ties to the Iran Lobby, signed by Peter A. Joseph, hedge fund manager Neil Barsky, Marcia Riklis, the daughter of corporate raider Meshulam Riklis (not by his second wife Pia Zadora), Jack C. Bendheim, the president of a company that once dumped toxic waste in a Connecticut town, and Risa A. Levine, apparently a real estate lawyer from New York.

[........]

Hating Israel has become a small petty club for the wealthy left and the Israel Policy Forum allows assorted obscure figures to assert their status by denouncing things or demanding things under the banner of an organization whose only asset is the wealth of a few private equity backers.

The Jewish Anti-Israel left likes to pretend that it’s a grassroots movement whose voice is being squelched by some nebulous Jewish establishment when in reality it is an unelected establishment using its wealth and lingering fame to shout over the majority of American Jews who support Israel.

These sons, daughters, stepdaughters, wives and nieces of famous people, fading Feminist writers, Wall Street millionaires trying to buy social relevance, hippie social scientists who hit it big with books about food, sex or childrearing, radical rabbis holding forth to congregations who believe in religion as little as their preachers, are a phantom establishment, community leaders without a community except their own mutual approbation.

The Jewish Anti-Israel left is a phantom establishment of family foundations that direct money to networks of organizations that use the money to hire personnel and send out press releases to their own former staffers working for newspapers who then write about them maintaining the illusion of churning activity, when in reality all that is happening is that money is being moved around.

Anti-Israel Wall Street figures hire Anti-Israel activists to denounce the Jewish establishment for not paying enough attention to them. Family foundations run by privileged leftists send American activists to Israel to set up front groups to protest against something or other. They hold dinners where the nieces and nephews, the boycotters and the faded stars of the left listen to the activists that they pay tell them that any day now, American Jews will finally come around to their point of view.

[.......]
Every few weeks the Israel Policy Forum churns out another letter headlined “Prominent Jews Urge Someone or Other To Do Something” signed by the guy who made a Koch documentary, Pia Zadora’s stepdaughter, a hedge funder, another hedge funder, the guy whose company left drums of toxic waste in Connecticut, the Rabbi who loves the Sandinistas even more than Bill de Blasio and a retired Democratic congressman who attends the same cocktail parties.

The phantom establishment floats on a bubble of its own manufactured prominence. Its letter signers are important because they fund organizations that put out letters which they then sign. These antics are not limited to the Israel Policy Forum or even the United States.

A year after British comedian Stephen Fry appeared on a genealogy television show to trace his mother’s Jewish roots, he signed on to a letter by British Jews, a group that he had never considered himself a member of, declaring its “independence” from the British Jewish establishment. The list included the expected collection of fading feminist authors, Marxist playwrights, historians and philosophers, as well as radical sociologists, pop psychologists and professional activists.

The “coming out party” of Independent Jewish Voices consisted of non-practicing Marxist Jews who were notorious for hating Israel, the UK, industry, facts, mirrors and human civilization announcing that loudly in a letter that was covered by their media friends.

There is a long history of such letters going back to the founding of Israel, the names of forgotten self-proclaimed leaders mixing with a few more notorious figures whose unfortunate legacy has survived into this time. None of these letters however have counted as much as a bullet in the rifle of an Israeli soldier standing watch in the night.

American Jews who worry over these letters from the phantom establishment of the cocktail party ought to look back and see how futile the rantings of I.F. Stone, New Dealer Joseph Proskauer, the rabid Elmer Berger and FDR speechwriter Samuel Rosenman proved to be.

Before J Street or the Israel Policy Forum, there was Jewish Alternatives to Zionism  headed by “Rabbi” Elmer Berger who had claimed that the Communist revolution in the Soviet Union meant that Jews no longer needed “Palestine”.

Does anyone remember Lewis Affelder or Mr. and Mrs. Noel A. Buckner whose names appeared as sponsors on Jewish Alternatives to Zionism’s stationary? How many remember Mary Louise `Wheezie’ Gutman who collected English ceramics and owned a distillery? The wind of history has blown past their graves. Their names are smeared ink on yellowed paper while children play in the streets of Jerusalem.

The phantom establishment is rootless; it has no links to a people or to a religion. Its aims are destructive and like all destructive forces, it carries its own futility with it.

American Jews should contend with them, but should not be too impressed by them. Their kind has been at it for generations and, despite all the venom and fury, the boycotts and screeds, have made less of an impression on Israel than a single Jewish family in the hills of Shomron.

The phantom establishment is money and words. There is no blood in its veins or heart in its chest. It does not go on the way that the Jewish people do because it is not of them, only against them. When its anger is spent and its letters are signed, the children will play on in the streets and roads, the hills and fields of Israel, neither knowing nor caring that there was once a Jane Hirschmann, a Mrs. Noel A. Buckner, a Rachel Brown Cowan or a Rebecca Vilkomerson that sought to do them harm.

Read the rest – Letters from the Phantom anti-Jewish establishment

 

Obama bringing terrorists into the US.

by Guest Post ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Marxism, Progressives at February 6th, 2014 - 8:55 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey


Raise your hand if you are surprised to discover that Barack Obama has arranged to allow terrorists to legally enter the United States of America?

Obama admin unilaterally changes law to allow immigrants with ‘limited’ terror contact into US

The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.

“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry signed the exemptions.

Color me surprised that Sec. of State, John “I committed treason in 1973″ Kerry signed off on this. Barack Obama promised to side with the Muslims, I don’t know how you can side with them more than to grant Islamic Terrorists entry into the “Great Satan”. Barack Obama’s recent interview with Bill O’Reilly showed us a Barack Obama that was a narcissist, a pathological liar and a sociopath, but it also showed us something else that nearly everyone missed.

It showed us a Barack Obama who was bitterly disappointed, Obama had clearly believed his own propaganda that he was going to “Fundamentally Transform” America into a Marxist Utopia.

In Super Bowl Interview Obama backs away from fundamentally transforming America

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

In his Super Bowl Interview with Bill O’Reilly yesterday, President Obama finally backed away from his infamously radically extreme comment about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In an exchange at the end of the interview Obama denied that he thinks “we” have to fundamentally America:

O’REILLY: ”Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”

OBAMA: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…

O’REILLY: But those are your words.

Clearly Barack Obama over estimated his ability to “Fundamentally transform” America into his ideal Marxist Utopia and believed that America was far more Socialist then it actually is. It really cannot be over stated just how much damage Barack Obama has managed to accomplish in his tenure as POTUS. But what is now become painfully obvious is that Barack Obama is bitterly disappointed that he was not able to accomplish his ultimate goal of replacing the United States Constitution with a New Marxist Constitution.

Revelation 12:12

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Yes, Barack Obama’s time is indeed short, and if his bringing Islamic terrorists into the United States legally is any indication, then he most assuredly is angry and planning on getting his revenge on the citizens of the United States of America for not allowing him to completely fundamentally transform America into a Marxist Utopia.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

The anti-Semitic Jew Max Blumenthal, and what Peter Beinart thinks about his repulsive opinions

by Speranza ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians at January 7th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Actually Max Blumenthal is 1/2 Jewish (his mother is not), yet his views about Israel and with it the anti-Semitic baggage that it brings fits right into the Left’s narrative. The end game of anti-Zionism is always anti-Semtism and extermination.

by Ron Radosh

The Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles today presented it’s year-end list of the top 10 Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel slurs. It is an ecumenical list, including the usual suspects- led by Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei- and including Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan, UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, Pink Floyd’s front man Roger Waters,  among others.

The ninth listing was reserved for writers, and is titled “The Power of the Poison Pen.” Sharing the Wiesenthal award are the novelist Alice Walker, given to her for comparing Israelis to Nazis, and for writing that Israelis engage in “despicable and lawless sadistic behavior,” and for seeking to “erase” Palestinians “from their own land.” Jews, she said, “know how to hate and how to severely punish others.”

Sharing the listing with Walker is none other than “journalist” Max Blumenthal, and the Wiesenthal Center makes it quite clear that a Jew can indeed be an anti-Semite, and that Blumenthal is one. Equating Israelis with Nazis, Blumenthal mentions the Holocaust “only to ask [is it right] to have the Jewish victims of the Nazis impose their independence on another people’s tragedy?” Blumenthal uses the term “Judeo-Nazis” and explains the Israeli-Arab conflict as the result of Israeli politicians “outdoing one another in a competition for the most convincing exaltation of violence against the Arab evildoers.” According to Blumenthal, it notes, Israelis incite “unprovoked violence against the Arab outclass.” They also “indoctrinate schoolchildren into the culture of militarism.”

Rabbi Marvin Hier, co-founder of the Wiesenthal Center, told The Jerusalem Post that he considers Blumenthal to be a “Jewish anti-Semite.” We “judge him by what he writes,” Hier added. “He crossed the line into outright anti-Semitism.”

As I have pointed out in earlier columns, Blumenthal had two appearances in Washington, D.C., one at the National Press Club and the other at the liberal New America Foundation, whose director Ann-Marie Slaughter approved his appearance.  Atlantic editor Steve Clemons promoted the first. Writing in his announcement for the event,  he said:

[......]

A group called “The Committee for the Republic” sponsored the event. According to Source Watch, it is an ad hoc group that includes C. Boyden Gray, Charles Freeman, Stephen P. Cohen, and William A. Nitze. All are self-proclaimed realists and conservatives who are opponents of both Israel and those they call neo-conservatives, whom they attack as supporters of the American Empire.

Clemons’ comment is particularly inane. How “untouched” and “taboo” is the long held anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist slander of Islamists and the far Left, that Israelis are the new Nazis? Anyone familiar with the decades of slander against Israel has heard the kind of tripe now emanating from Blumenthal since way before his own birth.

As to Blumenthal, Josh Block, CEO of The Israel Project, which publishers The Tower,  told the JP:

I am sure his colleagues at the Hezbollah newspaper where he was a writer for years are pleased and not at all surprised to see their guy on this list… Turns out the anti-Semites of Al-Akhbar and Iran’s Press TV discovered this modern- day Jewish Father Coughlin before anyone else.

What, I wondered, would Peter Beinart think about the characterization of Blumenthal as an anti-Semite? Beinart, of course, is the much heralded journalist who created “Open Zion” at The Daily Beast and for the past few years, has dedicated himself to a campaign that in his eyes is meant to save Israel from itself and rescue what he calls “liberal Zionism” from the catastrophe he thinks awaits the Jewish state, unless it abandons the settlements and adopts a new policy to promote peace with the Palestinians. Beinart is a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books, a publication not particularly known for having any fondness for Israel. Indeed, most recently, Beinart was subject to a rather savage critique by Shany Mor in the journal he once edited, The New Republic.

Mor says the following about how he thinks Beinart sees the issues:

Beinart’s discussion of suicide bombings is a good place as any to acquaint ourselves with the second theme of his writing. Any outcome or effect or result, however small or large, of the Israeli-Arab conflict is always and forever portrayed as an Israeli policy or the action of an Israeli subject on its Palestinian object. Where such a portrayal can’t credibly be made, Beinart will trace back an Israeli original cause….

No amount of self-criticism on the part of Israelis or Jews or their supporters is ever enough is for Beinart, while at the same time there is absolutely no expectation for any self-criticism or reflection by Palestinians or Arabs or their supporters.

[......]

Beinart chose not to directly answer my question as to whether or it was true that he gave such advice to Slaughter. Instead, he answered my query as to what he thought of The Wiesenthal Center labeling him an anti-Semite. He asked that I use his answer in full. It appears below:

Speaking for myself, as a Zionist who believes in the legitimacy of a democratic Jewish state, I disagree strongly with Max Blumenthal. I also disagree strongly with Naftali Bennett, who supports permanent Israeli control over millions of West Bank Palestinians who live under military law and lack the right to vote for the government that controls their lives.  And yet I think it was legitimate for Blumenthal to speak at New America, just as it was legitimate for Bennett to speak recently at the Brookings Institution. I believe that the correct answer to views about Israel with which one disagrees is to allow them to be expressed, and challenged. Indeed, that was the principle behind Open Zion, where I commissioned countless articles with which I strongly disagreed. If it were true that Max Blumenthal (who is Jewish himself) were an anti-Semite, as opposed to anti-Zionist, then I would make an exception to this general rule, as I don’t support offering a platform to bigots. But I have seen no evidence of that. Being anti-Zionist does not make you an anti-Semite: Ask the Satmar Rebbe.  [.......]

Beinart’s equivocating remark reveals how accurate Shany Mor is in his analysis of Beinart’s methodology. First, Beinart simply states his disagreement with Blumenthal. One should not be surprised. Blumenthal attacked Beinart’s own recent book for defending Israel’s right to exist.  After just one sentence about Blumenthal, Beinart immediately goes into an attack on Israeli settlers for their “control” over Palestinians in the West Bank. He cannot simply condemn the reprehensible Blumenthal without having to use the occasion to launch yet another blast at Israel.

Second, he defends Blumenthal’s talk as “legitimate.” The issue, however, was not whether talking anywhere is legitimate. The issue is whether a major self-avowed center/liberal think tank, The New America Foundation, that is allied with the Obama administration, should be a venue for an anti-Semite who in this case, happens to be Jewish?  Beinart believes that, according to the logic of his answer, that anyone who has a view should have it expressed, and then challenged. As I argued earlier, as did Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary, Blumenthal has plenty of venues to express his views. His book has been published, and The Nation featured an excerpt as a cover story. The issue is whether NAF should legitimize his out of the mainstream and anti-Semitic rants with its venue, thereby making his views appear to be important to be heard, rather than isolated to the fringe where it belongs. Moreover, no one at the event challenged him. Instead, writer Peter Bergen gave him a hearty welcome.

Next, Beinart says he does not believe in giving a bigot a space. In other words- and let me be clear about this- Beinart is saying in effect that Max Blumenthal is not a bigot. Really? The man whose incendiary chapter titles such as “How to Kill Goyim and Influence People” and “Night of the Broken Glass” are all meant to portray Jews as Nazis? Indeed, Beinart- who in fact has given Palestinian extremists a platform on “Open Zion,”- defends Blumenthal from the charge that he is an anti-Semite. Evidently, Beinart thinks Blumenthal is only “anti-Zionist.

As we all know- and Peter Beinart fails to comprehend- the new anti-Semitism comes in the form of anti-Zionism,  and virulent anti-Zionism is always accompanied by the refrains of classic old style anti-Semitism. Max Blumenthal is not only anti-Zionist, he believes in the total elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, and supports its demise. In his eyes, there is little difference between a conservative Israeli and a liberal one such as Beinart; to Blumenthal they are indistinguishable, and both are his enemies. If only Beinart was as tough with Blumenthal as Blumenthal is with him. Why else would Blumenthal be welcome, as Josh Block asks, in the pages of Hezbollah’s paper? Does Beinart really think someone with such extremist views deserves to be presented in a liberal American venue? If so, I would argue that says a great deal about the collapse of a principled liberalism such as Beinart himself used to stand for, at the time he wrote his first book.

[.......]

I have news for Beinart. The real anti-Semites are the Islamists and Arab extremists and terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah and the likes of those supported by Max Blumenthal, Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk and their brethren among old style Western anti-Semites, that now include the American left, all of whom collectively hate and despise Israel. The Wiesenthal Center hit its targets head on, and identified them all accurately. Their opposition to Israel is not that of the Satmar Rebbe, or any Jews who believe that Judaism is only a religion and who on religious grounds always opposed a Jewish state. Theirs is a modern style anti-Semitism, that stems from the kind of Marxist anti-Semitism that began with Marx himself, and that was the staple of the Communists in the 1920’s and the other Marxist sects, that supported the destruction of Israel in the name of anti-imperialism.

It is Peter Beinart who in fact gives comfort to the new and old anti-Semites alike, not the Wiesenthal Center. That he does so in the name of both liberalism and liberal Zionism is itself both a farce and a tragedy.  I ask one question of Peter Beinart: Do you really want to be known as a supporter of Max Blumenthal, and as one who really thinks he and his repulsive views deserve a hearing in our country?

Read the rest -  The anti-Semitic Jew Max Blumenthal, and how Peter Beinart views his repulsive views

How gay is Islam?

by Speranza ( 164 Comments › )
Filed under Islam, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Political Correctness at January 5th, 2014 - 9:00 am

Pat Condell wonders (as we all do) as to why do so many gay people think that Muslims are their natural allies?

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

by Speranza ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, September 11 at January 3rd, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Can you imagine any time between 1937 and 1945 a Japanese flag flying over any site in America?  An Islamic flag in front of the World Trade Center in 1997 (four years after Muslims tried to bring down  the WTC down) presaged the Ramadan dinners, the “Islam is a religion of peace” pablum that is a part of the staple of American political culture. The sycophancy of the American presidency and the political elites regarding Islam is nauseating. I do recall Mohammad T. Mehdi from the 1970′s and 80′sm he was a loudmouthed rabble rouser.

by Daniel Greenfield

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”—New York Times, 1997

In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of a violent ex-waiter and aslumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism”.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.

[.....]

No one who understood what had happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, would have permitted a banner associated with its attackers to be flown there. But while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, let Mehdi have his way with the World Trade Center, other Muslims were working to carry out Sheikh Abdel-Rahman’s agenda for a war on America and the free world.

[......]

While the Star and Crescent was blowing in the cold December wind coming off the Hudson River, an even colder wind was blowing out of Hamburg, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A year earlier Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had come up with the idea and presented it to Osama bin Laden. A year later the operation began to move forward.

While Secretary of State Albright was holding her Ramadan dinners, other Ramadan dinners were being held out of sight at which more substantive events were being discussed.

While the US was busy bombing Yugoslavian civilians in order to create a separatist Muslim state for KLA terrorists; Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were recruiting the first of the 9/11 hijackers. While the United States tried to appease Muslims, Muslims plotted to murder Americans.

In 1997, the New York Daily News wrote an upbeat story about Mehdi’s Star and Crescent, which envisioned Islam blending merrily into the holiday season.

New York may seem a little brighter this holiday season as the glowing Muslim crescent and star symbol nudges its way onto a seasonal landscape of Christmas trees, menorahs and Kwanzaa candles.

Watch out, ho, ho, ho-ing Santas you might get drowned out by cheery folks yelling, “Allahu akbar!”

Four years later, cheery folks yelling “Allahu Akbar” had filled downtown Manhattan with ashen snow and brightened it with the flames of the burning towers of the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 hijackers left behind notes which said among other things, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”.

If there were any Santas on those planes, they were certainly drowned out by the cries of “Allah Akbar”. And if that didn’t drown them out, having their throats being slit by the cheery folks with box cutters surely did.

[.......]

“It would be like a gift for somebody,” a police officer said, who was spending his holiday searching through the debris. A gift for the infidels from Islam.

While Muslims were stuffing their faces in November of 2001, Americans were mourning their dead. While Abdul, Mohammed and Raisa were picking through their lamb stew, Americans were picking up the pieces of their loved ones. But it was they who were told to be sensitive to Muslim concerns.

From Pakistan, Musharraf urged the US to suspend bombing his Taliban allies during Ramadan. In the name of sensitivity. New York City schools were making arrangements for Muslim prayers out of “heightened sensitivity to Muslim concerns after the Sept. 11 attack”. Instead of Americans being on the receiving end of “heightened sensitivity”, the ideology that had conspired to murder them was.

On the 9th anniversary of 9/11, Islam had another gift for New Yorkers. Having bought up a building damaged in their own attack, they plotted to set up a grand mosque near Ground Zero. Another gift to New Yorkers from the religion that kept on giving. Another Crescent and Star.

The same people who did not learn the lesson in 1997, and allowed the Crescent and Star to fly at the World Trade Center, were eager to let the Ground Zero Mosque go forward in the name of tolerance. But despite the Crescent and Star, appeasement proved to be no defense.

3,000 died on 9/11 because American leaders preferred to appease, rather than confront. And we are still busy appeasing, like never before.

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho.

Read the rest – Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

 

Left-wing Israeli newspaper publishes a Warsaw Ghetto revisionist screed

by Speranza ( 140 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Holocaust, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at January 3rd, 2014 - 7:00 am

Ha’aretz, (aka Ha’Hamas) a miserable left-wing. post-Zionist newspaper (financially kept going by  European NGO’s)  recently published a revisionist screed about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of April, 1943.  Ha’aretz is a newspaper that publishes the vile calumnies of Amira Hass and Gideon Levy (just Google their names as see the type of Internet sites that link to them) and is dedicated to the destruction of the nation which guarantees them the free speech that they abuse. By the way, the Nazis had already decided by the Summer of 1942 to liquidate the Warsaw Ghetto and had already shipped to Treblinka over 80% of the Warsaw Ghetto population so to blame the Uprising for the deaths of 50,000 Jews (who were condemned to death any way) is absurd.

 Warsaw Ghetto: Żelazna Street (looking East) from the intersection with Chłodna Street, June 1942.

Warsaw Ghetto: Żelazna Street (looking East) from the intersection with Chłodna Street, June 1942. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

by Isi Leibler

I rubbed my eyes in disbelief this week when I read an article prominently featured on Haaretz’s website entitled “The Warsaw Ghetto Myth.” The story asserts that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the largest single revolt by Jews under Nazi occupation, was extremely limited in in scope and duration. The most obscene aspect of the article is the allegation that the fighters were responsible for the death of the 50,000 Jews in the ghetto who had not yet been deported.

This unquestionably distorted interpretation of events typifies the historical revisionism to which Haaretz is predisposed, not only with regard to post-Zionism but now also to Jewish history. That such an article is given prominence in an Israeli daily newspaper with a wide Internet English readership reflects adversely on us all.

The author, Eli Gat, is a Holocaust survivor who in 2009 privately published a shoddy book called Not Just Another Holocaust describing his sufferings and alluding to the revisionist nonsense incorporated in his current article. His book was completely ignored and very few people would have even heard his name until Haaretz published his article.

In his article Gat dishonors the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and diminishes its historical and symbolic significance. He insists that there were fewer than 700 ghetto fighters and that the revolt lasted a mere two days, after which time many fighters fled. Gat has the gall to repudiate the accepted view that the most significant portion of the uprising took place over the course of a month and specifically dismisses the assertion confirming this by the late Professor Israel Gutman, a respected Holocaust historian and participant in the uprising.

The most obscene aspect of “The Warsaw Ghetto Myth” is the allegation that the ghetto fighters were responsible for the death of the 50,000 Jews who remained in the ghetto and were engaged in factories producing goods for the Nazi war effort, claiming that these Jews may have survived had the revolt not taken place. He justifies the tragically mistaken and failed policies of most of the Judenrats (Nazi-appointed Jewish committees to oversee the ghetto inhabitants) who opposed resistance and were convinced that acquiescing to the Nazis demands might save them.

The unqualified fact, however, is that the Nazis were unaffected by the Warsaw Ghetto heroes’ decision to die with honor rather than be led to slaughter; their commitment to a program of complete extermination was already absolute.

This article is only one example of Haaretz’s irresponsible and biased journalism. Over recent years the newspaper has served as the primary vehicle for promoting destructive post-Zionism. It has engaged in deliberate campaigns to demonize Israel and frequently published articles promoting the BDS movement.

Indeed, its online edition now represents one of the principal sources of fodder for global hatred against the Jewish state by the hostile international media and anti-Israeli politicians. It has inflicted, and continues to inflict enormous damage on Israel.

A most blatant example of Haaretz’s self-hating approach was its vitriolic campaign against the IDF, in which it published numerous examples of alleged war crimes committed by individual soldiers. These allegations were subsequently proven to be unfounded, but only after the damage had been done: the stories were reproduced on the front pages of the major media outlets throughout the world, fermenting the hostile climate which paved the way for the notorious Goldstone Report.

There are a number of Haaretz journalists who are often indistinguishable from Palestinian propagandists.

For example, in April this year, after an incident in which a three-year-old Israeli girl was critically wounded when a car driven by her mother was struck by a stone, Amira Haas, notorious for her pro-Palestinian bias, justified the act by stating, “Throwing stones is the hereditary right and duty of someone under a foreign power.” Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken defended her, stating, “sometimes you have to fight violence with violence.”

Gideon Levy, who regularly churns out articles that quote verbatim obscene Palestinian allegations of Israeli oppression and criminality, in October of last year produced a front-page story entitled “Most Israelis Support Apartheid Regime in Israel.”

Israelis were outraged and five days later Haaretz was forced to publish an apology. But again, the damage was done and newspapers throughout the world widely disseminated this lie.

[........]

But in recent years, the newspaper has extended its post-Zionism to promoting a revisionist narrative which undermines the core of Jewish continuity, questions links of today’s Jewish people with the biblical era, and challenges the validity of a Jewish nation.

Last year it published an article resurrecting the theory that the majority of today’s Jews are descendants of Turkic Khazars converted in the eighth century, who allegedly now represent the bulk of European Jewry. This absurd notion was employed in the past by anti-Semites and is now heavily promoted by the Arabs to “prove” that the Jews of today have no link to the biblical land of Israel.

[.......]

In its zeal to undermine the core principles of Zionism, it has done irrevocable damage. The distortion of facts, and outright lies, have aided our enemies and confused our friends, including Jews living in the Diaspora with limited understanding of Jewish or Israeli history. The Gat article demonstrates to what depths Haaretz will sink, twisting the facts – even of Holocaust history – to provoke its readers and disallow them even the smallest measure of Jewish pride.
[.......]

Read the rest – Debasing the Warsaw Ghetto