Archive for the ‘Abraham Foxman’ Category

Dartmouth Announces Linda Sarsour Lecture, Days After Refusing to Co-Sponsor Event Featuring Israeli Soldier – Algemeiner

Email a copy of “Dartmouth Announces Linda Sarsour Lecture, Days After Refusing to Co-Sponsor Event Featuring Israeli Soldier” to a friend

Linda Sarsour. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Dartmouth College announced Wednesday evening that it willbe hosting a lecture by virulently anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour, days after an officeat the school declined to co-sponsor an event featuring a veteran of the Israel Defense Forces.

The Sarsoureventto be held Friday eveningin honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is co-sponsored by the collegesOffice of Pluralism and Leadership (OPAL) and Special Programs and Events Committee. According to a member ofDartmouth Students for Israel (DSI) who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution by the administration OPAL turned him down earlier this week when he approached them about co-hosting a program featuring Izzy Ezagui, the only soldier to ever return to battleafter losing an arm in combat.

DSIwas told by an OPAL representative thattheEzagui lecturesounds like a great event, but it is felt that it does not meet the mission of OPAL. The representative then suggested more appropriate places to reach out to for assistance, including the Student Accessibility Services, which the DSI member said is generally not an organization that does events.

May 11, 2017 5:47 pm

On its website, OPAL describes its mission as to foster a Dartmouth where all students can thrive, value difference, and contribute to the creation of a socially just world.

The Ezagui eventwill go forward with the co-sponsorship ofthe Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America on Campus, as well as the Dartmouth Chabad and Hillel centers but the DSI member said he has asked OPAL tokindly explain in more detail why the event does not meet the OPAL mission?

In his follow-up email to OPAL, the DSI studentwrote, I looked at the OPAL mission prior to contacting the office and thought it was very compatible with a comprehensive leadership development program, as well as representing historically under-represented groups (Izzy is a Jew, and is disabled, so both groups have been historically under represented at this college and nationally).

Sarsour who will be speaking on how home and a sense of belonging is sometimes the result of our own personal advocacy, according to the program descriptiononFacebook has been condemnedby DemocraticNew York state AssemblymanDov Hikindas someone who associates with radical Islamists and as a bigot by former national director of the Anti-Defamation League,Abraham Foxman.

Sandor Farkas,thepresident of DSI, toldThe Algemeinerthat he and his friends are outraged by the Sarsour program, especially in light of the recent controversy surrounding a professor with ties to the campaign toboycott Israel who has beenpromotedto the consequential role of Dean of Faculty.

I think Dartmouth College has shown a remarkable disregard for the concerns of the Jewish community by inviting renowned BDS advocate and Israel-hater Linda Sarsour, said Farkas, who will graduate this spring.

Over my four years at Dartmouth, I have always felt that our campus conversation around Israel was reasoned and respectful, with only an occasional exception, he added. While I want to believe that this coincidence [of two anti-Israel incidents in one week]is nothing more than administrative incompetence, OPALs refusal to co-sponsor an event with an Israeli speaker demonstrates otherwise. I am deeply saddened to graduate knowing that my Jewish friends on campus may face real hatred and discrimination, not only from other students, but from the highest levels of the college administration.

Farkas said pro-Israel students plan to stage a silent protest during the [Sarsour] event, including flooding [her] with difficult questions.

Dartmouths announcement comes as the City University of New York (CUNY) has come under firefor inviting Sarsour to give thecommencement speech at the graduation exercisesfor CUNYs Graduate School of Public Health.

Representatives for OPAL did not immediately respond to The Algemeiners request for comment.

A flier for the Linda Sarsour event at Dartmouth College. Photo: Courtesy.

See the original post here:

Dartmouth Announces Linda Sarsour Lecture, Days After Refusing to Co-Sponsor Event Featuring Israeli Soldier – Algemeiner

Fair Usage Law

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Virulently Antisemitic NYC Council Candidate Seeks Support of BDS Advocate Linda Sarsour – Algemeiner

Email a copy of “Virulently Antisemitic NYC Council Candidate Seeks Support of BDS Advocate Linda Sarsour” to a friend

Antisemite Thomas Lopez-Pierre is running a new bid for a seat on the New York City Council. Picture: thomaslopezpierre.com

A hardened antisemite running for the New York City Council in upper Manhattan has appealed to BDS advocate Linda Sarsour for her support.

Thomas Lopez-Pierre is running in the 7th Council District which includes Washington Heights, West Harlem and the Upper West Side against incumbent Jewish Democrat Mark Levine on a platform that claims, as summarized on his Twitter feed: Jewish landlords OWN 80% of private rental buildings in Upper Manhattan; GUILTY of GREED for pushing Black/Hispanic tenants out.

Now Lopez-Pierre is seeking the endorsement of Sarsour, who is currently making waves over her forthcoming commencement speech at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Public Health on June 1. CUNY has been taken to task by Jewish leaders and some local politicians for honoring an activist with a record of inflammatory statements against Israel, including a tweet that declared nothing is creepier than Zionism. In a recent interview with The Algemeiner, Abraham Foxman, National Director Emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), deemed Sarsour a bigot and added that CUNY should not have extended an invitation to her.

May 10, 2017 11:11 am

But while Sarsour restricts her attacks to Zionists, avoiding Jews per se, Lopez-Pierre has a long history of bombastic and frequently foul-mouthed rants against both Jewish individuals and the community as a whole. His tweets routinely target Greedy Jewish Landlords, while a YouTube video by a Jewish female comedian poking fun at him drew the comment that This Jewish woman is NOT only sexy BUT very funny.

Lopez-Pierres dark side came to the fore recentlywhen the New York Observer reported that, in January, hewas found guilty on a misdemeanor criminal contempt charge for knowingly violating a family court restrainingorder his ex-wife had obtained. According to the Observer, his former spouse alleged that, despite the standing order of protection, Lopez-Pierre twice approached her in the fall of 2015 to threaten her with the words, Dont f with me, b-!

African-American supporters of his rival Mark Levine have been subjected to racist abuse by Lopez-Pierre. In 2013, when Lopez-Pierre ran against Levine for the first time, he emailed Brian Benjamin, an African-American supporter of Levines, telling him, You are an uncle TomIts N- b- like you that have sold out the Black people of Harlem.

On Twitter on Tuesday, in a response to a question from another user as to whether Sarsour had endorsed his campaign, Lopez-Pierre responded that he was seeking her support, describing her as a great social advocate.

While Sarsour has yet to respond to Lopez-Pierres appeal, her supporters on Twitterexpressed confidencethat shewould disavow him. Sarsour did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Algemeiner.

The rest is here:

Virulently Antisemitic NYC Council Candidate Seeks Support of BDS Advocate Linda Sarsour – Algemeiner

Fair Usage Law

May 10, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Activist Linda Sarsour: A Palestinian-American who divides Jews by courting controversy – The Jewish Standard

One of the best symbols of the current Jewish political divide is a Muslim woman.

To Jews on the left, Linda Sarsour is a courageous and effective activist who builds bridges and breaks stereotypes.

To Jews on the right and some in the center, shes an Israel-hating apologist for Islamic extremists.

Both sides point to evidence backing up their claims: Sarsour supports a boycott of Israel and favors a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And earlier this year, she raised more than $100,000 to repair a vandalized Jewish cemetery in Missouri.

Shes also a rising star in the protest movement against President Donald Trump, with a record of success in organizing and advocating for legislative change. As her profile rises in progressive circles, the tension over her attitude toward Israel keeps surfacing. Most recently, right-wing Jewish leaders condemned the choice of Sarsour to deliver the July commencement speech at City University of New Yorks Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy.

Heres what the controversy is all about.

Sarsour has become a leading advocate for Muslim and womens issues.

Born in Brooklyn in 1980, Sarsour was married when she was 17 and had three kids by the time she was 24, according to a profile on NY1, a local TV channel. She began engaging in activism after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, volunteering at the Arab-American Association of New York. Four years later, she was the groups executive director.

In the years since, she has effected change for her community and drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists. She participated in the successful campaigns for New York City schools to close on Muslim holidays and for an independent review of racial profiling from the citys police.

This year, Sarsour has seen her profile rise nationally as one of the co-organizers of the Womens March on Washington, a historically large protest for womens rights and against Trump. Time magazine included Sarsour and three other organizers on its list of 100 most influential people, and in the accompanying essay, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand called the four the suffragists of our time.

Sarsour also was recognized by President Barack Obama, whose White House named her a champion of change. The accompanying biography said she shatters stereotypes of Muslim women, which Sarsour has attributed to her wearing a hijab.

There are plenty of Muslim women who are backbones of the community, but they arent usually at the forefront, she told the New York Times in 2015. There just arent a lot of me out there women in hijabs, doing what I do.

She is an outspoken opponent of Israel and Zionism.

Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, has also been a harsh critic of Israel. Soon after the Womens March, she drew fire from Jewish leaders for telling the Nation that unabashed supporters of Israel cannot be feminists.

It just doesnt make any sense for someone to say, Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement? There cant be in feminism, she told the magazine in March. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none.

Sarsour backs the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel, known as BDS. She told NY1 that she supports a one-state solution that would create a shared country for Jews and Palestinians a solution that many Jews consider a formula for the demise of Israel. And in 2012, she tweeted, Nothing is creepier than Zionism.

Jews on the left emphasize her progressive bona fides. For right-wing Jews, her anti-Zionism is a red line.

These different aspects of Sarsours record have created a divide among Jewish leaders. Progressive Jews are willing to look past her anti-Zionism in light of her work on behalf of women and minorities, and her fundraising for the damaged cemetery. But right-wing and some centrist Jews cant support her activist work in light of her anti-Zionism.

Criticizing CUNYs decision to host Sarsour, Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, called her a bigot and divider and an extremist. Writing in the New York Post last month, Jerusalem Post reporter Lahav Harkov said her anti-Zionism made Sarsour NYCs queen of hate. Harkov noted that last month Sarsour shared the stage at a conference, hosted by the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace, with Rasmea Odeh, a Palestinian woman who was imprisoned in Israel for her participation in two terror attacks. According to Harkov, Sarsour told the audience she was honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.

The criticism extends beyond the right. Both the current and former national directors of the Anti-Defamation League, a large mainstream group, have harshly criticized Sarsours positions on Israel. In a March interview with the St. Louis Jewish Light, the ADLs national director, Jonathan Greenblatt, called the cemetery fundraising great but said Sarsours BDS advocacy encourages and spreads anti-Semitism.

Greenblatts longtime predecessor at the ADL, Abraham Foxman, called Sarsour bigoted.

Shes bigoted because she loves Jews but hates Zionism, Foxman said. Her progressive activism, he added, doesnt excuse bigotry. If youre an advocate for human rights, for human dignity, you should be more sensitive to the human rights and human dignity of the Jewish people.

But progressive Jews believe she is a proven advocate for human rights. Amid the controversy over her views following the Womens March, Rabbi Sharon Brous of Ikar in Los Angeles tweeted, Thank you @lsarsour for building a movement that can hold all of us in our diversity with love. #IMarchWithLinda. Sarsour also spoke as a surrogate for Senator Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign.

Jewish groups on the left have lavished praise on Sarsour.

Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, which backs the BDS movement, has described Sarsour as passionate and compelling, very smart, committed and an impressive person. And she has worked with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which focuses on domestic issues, including at the groups recent Seder in the Streets on Passover.

It is hard to think of a more appropriate speaker than Linda, who has done so much, both locally and nationally, to bring about a world in which everyone can thrive, JFREJ said in a statement last week commending her upcoming CUNY speech. She has stood with us against anti-Semitism, both in words and actions.

Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, cites Sarsour as the test of the choices we make about our alliances in the pursuit of our political causes.

Kurtzer suggests that both the right and the left should drop the litmus tests that prevent them from partnering with allies with whom they disagree on one or more key issues, like Israel.

Taking a cue from a quote by David Ben-Gurion, Kurtzer wrote in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, We [should] fight for our moral values in American political life as though there was no disagreement with our allies on these issues on Israel, and we [should] fight on Israel with critics of Israel as though there was no domestic agenda.

JTA Wire Service

Visit link:

Activist Linda Sarsour: A Palestinian-American who divides Jews by courting controversy – The Jewish Standard

Fair Usage Law

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why Don’t ‘Anti-Fascists’ Fight Islamofascism? – Middle East Forum

Islamofascist Linda Sarsour will deliver a commencement address at the City University of New York June 1.

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitler’s fascist dream of a “Thousand Year Reich” lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the “Fuhrer” who had shot himself five days earlier.

On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of “the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean.”

Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (today’s Pakistan) “from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations.”

When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of India’s freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence.

On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow.

It’s no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO.

Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times.

As in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry seem unconcerned about the threat of rising fascism.

But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold.

Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic.

These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps).

Today’s fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types. They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression, and the equality of men and women.

I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism.

The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO.

Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists.

Two recent incidents highlight this problem.

In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictator’s vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds.

And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1.

Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, “She’s [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldn’t have been invited [to CUNY].”

With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned “AntiFa” (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, “Mac Pap,” go?

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics: Muslims in the West, Radical Islam | Tarek Fatah receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list

Here is the original post:

Why Don’t ‘Anti-Fascists’ Fight Islamofascism? – Middle East Forum

Fair Usage Law

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? – Owen Sound Sun Times

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitlers fascist dream of a Thousand Year Reich lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the Fuhrer who had shot himself five days earlier.

On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean.

Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (todays Pakistan) from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations.

When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of Indias freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence.

On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow.

Its no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO.

Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times.

But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold.

Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic.

These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps).

Todays fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types.

They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression and the equality of men and women.

I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism.

The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO.

Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists.

Two recent incidents highlight this problem.

In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictators vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds.

And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1.

Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, Shes [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY].

With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned AntiFa (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, Mac Pap, go?

Read more:

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? – Owen Sound Sun Times

Fair Usage Law

May 5, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? – Standard Freeholder

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitlers fascist dream of a Thousand Year Reich lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the Fuhrer who had shot himself five days earlier.

On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean.

Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (todays Pakistan) from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations.

When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of Indias freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence.

On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow.

Its no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO.

Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times.

But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold.

Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic.

These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps).

Todays fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types.

They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression and the equality of men and women.

I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism.

The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO.

Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists.

Two recent incidents highlight this problem.

In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictators vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds.

And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1.

Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, Shes [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY].

With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned AntiFa (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, Mac Pap, go?

Read the original here:

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? – Standard Freeholder

Fair Usage Law

May 3, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? | The Kingston Whig … – The Kingston Whig-Standard

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitlers fascist dream of a Thousand Year Reich lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the Fuhrer who had shot himself five days earlier.

On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean.

Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (todays Pakistan) from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations.

When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of Indias freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence.

On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow.

Its no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO.

Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times.

But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold.

Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic.

These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps).

Todays fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types.

They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression and the equality of men and women.

I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism.

The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO.

Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists.

Two recent incidents highlight this problem.

In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictators vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds.

And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1.

Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, Shes [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY].

With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned AntiFa (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, Mac Pap, go?

More:

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? | The Kingston Whig … – The Kingston Whig-Standard

Fair Usage Law

May 3, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Economic antisemitism – Wikipedia

Economic antisemitism comprises stereotypes and canards based on the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews. It also includes economic behavior, laws and governmental policies targeting the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews. In some cases, the stereotypes and canards have motivated economic behavior and governmental action targeting Jews; in other cases, the economic behavior, laws and/or governmental policies have fed the propagation of the stereotypes and canards.

Leon Poliakov writes that economic antisemitism is not a distinct form of antisemitism, but merely a manifestation of theologic antisemitism (because, without the theological causes of the economic antisemitism, there would be no economic antisemitism). In opposition to this argument, Derek Penslar contends that in the modern era, the economic antisemitism is “distinct and nearly constant” but theological antisemitism is “often subdued”.[1]

Derek Penslar describes modern economic antisemitism as a “double helix of intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination.”[2] Throughout history, the stereotype of Jews as being connected to greed, money-lending and usury has stoked anti-Jewish sentiments and still to a large extent influences the perception of Jews today. Reuveni and Wobick-segev suggest that we are still haunted by the image of “the mighty, greedy Jew”.[3] Allegations regarding the relationship of Jews and money have been characterized as underpinning the most damaging and lasting antisemitic canards.[4]

Antisemites have often promulgated myths related to money, such as the canard that Jews control the world finances, first promoted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and later repeated by Henry Ford and his Dearborn Independent. In the modern era, many such myths continue to be widespread in the Islamic world, and in books such as The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews published by the Nation of Islam, and on the internet.

Abraham Foxman cites examples of economic antisemitism found around the world, particularly in United Kingdom, Germany, Argentina, and Spain. He also cites many modern instances of money-related antisemitism that are found on the internet.[5]

Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as “[Jews] control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses – of the community, of the country, of the world”.[6] Krefetz gives, as illustrations, many slurs and proverbs (in several different languages) which suggest that Jews are stingy, or greedy, or miserly, or aggressive bargainers.[7] Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being “scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted”, but following the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle- or upper-class in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were “clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate [world finances]”.[8]

Abraham Foxman describes six facets of canards used by proponents of economic antisemitism:

The Anti Defamation League conducted a poll in Europe in 2007 which asked respondents if they agreed with the statement that “Jews have too much power in international financial markets”. Polling data showed that respondents agreed with that statement as follows: 61% in Hungary, 43% in Austria, 40% in Switzerland, 40% in Belgium, 21% in the United Kingdom, and 13% in the Netherlands.[15][16] Another poll conducted by the ADL in 2009 found that 31% of Europeans surveyed blamed Jews for the global financial crisis that began in 2008.[17]

William Brustein describes popular economic antisemitism in Europe before the 19th century as based on accusations of Jews employing alleged unethical business practices in second-hand trade, petty commerce, and money lending.[18]

During the 17th and 18th centuries, anecdotal remarks from Christian merchants and traders show that there were negative feelings towards Jewish business people, who were sometimes regarded as liars or cheats. Werner Sombart concluded that the perceptions of cheating or dishonesty were simply a manifestation of Christian frustration at innovative commercial practices of Jews, which were contrary to custom and tradition of the Christian merchants, but were otherwise ethical.[19]

One form of economic antisemitism in the medieval period were legal restrictions imposed on the occupations and professions of Jews. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, tolerated then as a “necessary evil”.[20] Catholic doctrine of the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews dominated this business. The Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible criticize usury but interpretations of the Biblical prohibition vary. Since few other occupations were open to them, Jews were motivated to take up money lending. This was said to show Jews were usurers, and subsequently led to many negative stereotypes and propaganda. Natural tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) were added to social, political, religious, and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked.

Also present in the European medieval period was the coercion of Jews into being economic objects, possessions, and even slaves by groups of nobles, evident in examples from the English code Leges Edwardi Confessoris. Jews were re-cast into various economic occupational roles, and as a result became a people that could be coveted, sold, or traded for economic purposes by those in power at the time. This “use of Jews also had political causes and ramifications in the time period, but the economic practice of using Jews to fill particular roles in economic sectors was prevalent.[21]

Another aspect of economic antisemitism is the assertion that Jews do not produce anything of value, but instead tend to serve as middlemen, acting as “parasites in the production line” of non-Jews that are doing the real work. Krefetz lists middlemen occupations subject to this canard as distributors, shoppers, wholesalers, brokers, financiers, and retailers and writes that they are “all notably Jewish occupations”.[22]

From the medieval period continuing up to the modern era, Diaspora Judaism has been characterized by a real or perceived “inverted occupational pyramid”, i.e. Jews in the Diaspora were perceived to be more prevalent in the tertiary sector, working in service jobs such as accounting, finance, medicine, law or commerce than in the secondary and primary sectors.[23] Although Jews were employed in all sectors of the economy, the perception that Jews were more prevalent in certain occupations or in the professions (e.g. medicine or law) has been the target of antisemitic sentiment at different periods in history.

Jews have been the targets of antisemitic criticism for their occupational preferences. For example, Robert von Mohl characterized European Jews of the 19th century as being concentrated in trade and finance with some representation in the artistic and intellectual fields.[24] Perceptions of over-representation of Jews in certain occupations have driven antisemitic sentiment in the Soviet Union.[25] There have been a number of theories advanced as to the reason for the “inverted occupational pyramid”. Gerald Krefetz writes that the livelihood of Jews, particularly their business activities, has been influenced by religious, cultural, social, and historical factors. Krefetz asserts that these factors have led to a predisposition for occupations marked by independence, professionalism, and scholarship.[26] Jews have tended to show an “entrepreneurial spirit” and “capacity for risk-taking” that has led them to innovate financial concepts like negotiable instruments of credit, international syndicates, department stores, holding companies, and investment banks.[27] Krefetz suggests that Jews have frequently chosen professions that are “portable” or involve duties as a middle-man, because of their long historical background which was based on trading and “heightened awareness of continual persecution.” In a similar vein, Abraham Foxman argues that many Jews in the medieval period were especially well suited for commerce, because the Jewish diaspora caused many Jews to have far-flung networks of friends and family, which facilitated trade.[28]

According to Werner Sombart, one complaint of Christian businesspeople were that Jews did not limit themselves to one particular trade or market, but instead Jews often were “jack of all trades” or were “ubiquitous” and “paid no heed to the demarcation of all economic activities into separate categories”[29] When Jews entered trades or business areas in Europe, this frequently resulted in complaints from Christian competitors that the Jews were depriving them of customers and profit.[30] Sombart analyzed the 17th- and 18th-century Christian views of Jewish merchants, and concluded that they objected to Jewish merchants because the Jew’s pursuit of profit was blatant, open, and aggressive, in contrast to the Christian approach which – while willing to seek profit – viewed the aggressive pursuit of profit as unseemly, uncivilized and uncouth.[31] Sombart also asserts another cause of Christian frustration with Jewish businesspeople: Jews imported raw materials, which was considered inappropriate by Christian merchants.[32]

Niewyk and Nicosia describe economic antisemitism as focusing on “excessive” Jewish wealth and power growing out of the Jews’ success in commerce, banking, and the professions.[33]

Marvin Perry asserts that much antisemitism in the European commercial world derived from the fact that non-Jewish merchants could not match the “economies of scale and advertising promotions” of Jewish competitors.[34]Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) wrote “I am persuaded that in Russia, Austria, and Germany nine-tenths of the hostility to the Jew comes from the average Christian’s inability to compete success fully with the average Jew in business in either straight business or the questionable sort.”[35] Similarly, Abraham Foxman writes that it is likely that non-Jews in Medieval or Renaissance Europe harbored feelings of fear, vulnerability, and hostility towards Jews, because they resented being beholden to Jewish lenders.[36] Foxman claims that money-based antisemitism is a result of resentment and jealousy of Jews.[37] Gerald Krefetz also makes a similar point: that the ability of Jews to make money occasionally stirs jealousy and hate in non-Jews, contributing to a fear that Jews will “ascend too high” in the economic sphere and begin to manipulate and control world finances.[38] Krefetz asserts that anti-Semitism in the United States seems “rooted less in religion or contempt and more in envy, jealously and fear” of Jewish affluence, and of the hidden power of “Jewish money”.[39]

In contradiction to these theories, Prager and Telushkin offer a different perspective. Addressing the premise that “the Jews’ disproportionate wealth and concentration in business and in the professions is said to provoke anti- Jewish hostility.”, they assert that, “while economic factors can and often do exacerbate antisemitism, … economic factors do not cause Jew-hatred; they only provide opportunities for it to be expressed.” As one of the arguments supporting their thesis, Prager and Telushkin point out that “Jews have often suffered the worst antisemitism when they were poor, as was true with the overwhelming majority of Jews in … Poland and Russia, and have encountered the least amount of antisemitism when affluent as in the United States and Canada today.”[40]

Derek Penslar characterizes economic antisemitism as “an extreme form of the antimercantile sentiments that are rooted in pagan antiquity and the early Christian tradition.”[41]

In the 19th century, Jews came to be so closely associated with capitalism that some even viewed the Jews as the “creators of capitalism”.[12][42] According to Muller, those that embraced capitalism tended to be sympathetic to Jews, and those that rejected capitalism tended to be hostile to Jews.[43]

Richard Levy writes that, although there were local variations, modern economic antisemitism is primarily defined by “the scapegoating of Jews for capitalism’s ills.”[44] Similarly, Steven Beller writes that economic antisemitism at the turn of the 20th century was “based on fear and envy at the supposed stranglehold of ‘the Jews’ over finance and accused Jews of being behind the depredations of capitalism on the traditional economy.”[45] Laurel Platt attributes antisemitic attitudes that extend back to medieval times for the tendency to blame Jews for the problems of capitalism and urbanization that arose in the late 19th century.[46]

Scholars have noted the antisemitic attitudes of mid-19th-century French socialists such as Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Fourier vilified the Jews as the “incarnation of commerce: parasitical, deceitful, traitorous and unproductive.” Proudhon used even more vehement invective, attacking Jews as the “incarnation of finance capitalism” and characterizing them as anti-producers by temperament. Alphonse Toussenel, a follower of Fourier, wrote finance (meaning the Jews) was dominating and ruining France; similarly, Auguste Blanqui commented in his correspondence on Jews as being usurers and Shylocks.[47]

Karl Marx argued that earning a living from collecting interest (or from acting as a middleman) was an unjust and exploitive aspect of capitalism.[48] Because many Jews were employed occupations that Marx considered “non-productive”, he singled out Jews for particular criticism and blamed Judaism for the exploitation and alienation of workers.[49]Moses Mendelssohn argued, to the contrary, that commercial activity was just as valid and beneficial as manual labor, writing “Many a merchant, while quietly engaged at is desk in forming commercial speculations … produces … more than the most active and noisy mechanic or tradesman.”[50]

Derek Penslar writes that Marx did not argue that Jews merely embraced capitalism, but rather that they “embodied” it. Penslar states that Marx claimed that the Jewish religious culture shared many key characteristics of capitalism, such as materialism and egoism.[51]

Marx concluded that Judaism was responsible for the alienation of many workers, and this idea became a component of Marx’s theory of communism. Marx viewed Judaism as a commercial practice, not a theology.[52] According to Perry, Marx believed that “Jews are the embodiment of capitalism (money-system) in action and the creators of all its evil consequences for humanity.”[53]

Marx’s views were shared by Bruno Bauer, who claimed that the essence of Judaism was egotism and materialism, and Marx claimed that money was the Jew’s worldly god.[54][55]

Several commentators note that economic antisemitism increases in times of recession or economic hardship, for instance during the Depression of 1873.[56][57][58][59]

Jewish Bolshevism is an antisemitic canard[60] based on the claim that Jews have been the driving force behind or are disproportionately involved in the modern Communist movement, or sometimes more specifically Russian Bolshevism.[61]

The expression was the title of a pamphlet, The Jewish Bolshevism, and became current after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, featuring prominently in the propaganda of the anti-communist “White” forces during the Russian Civil War. It spread worldwide in the 1920s with the publication and circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It made an issue out of the Jewishness of some leading Bolsheviks (most notably Leon Trotsky) during and after the October Revolution. Daniel Pipes says that “primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Whites spread these charges to an international audience.”[62]James Webb wrote that it is rare to find an antisemitic source after 1917 that “does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution”.[63]

The label “Judeo-Bolshevism” was used in Nazi Germany to equate Jews with communists, implying that the communist movement served Jewish interests and/or that all Jews were communists.[64] Jews and Communists were both blamed for having allegedly betrayed Germany in World War I and resulting in Germany signing The Treaty of Versailles, in what is known as the “stab-in-the-back myth.” In Poland before World War II, ydokomuna was used in the same way to allege that the Jews were conspiring with the USSR to capture Poland. According to Andr Gerrits, “The myth of Jewish Communism was one of the most popular and widespread political prejudices in the first half of the 20th century, in Eastern Europe in particular.”[65] The allegation still sees use in antisemitic publications and websites today.

Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:

According to Norman Roth, “far more attention has [been] focused on Jewish moneylending than on any other occupation.” Roth asserts that general histories of the medieval period, if they mention Jews at all, refer to Jews as moneylenders or as being involved in the slave trade. He assets that there is not a great abundance of research on commercial activity of Jews in the Middle East. He accuses scholars of making “sweeping generalizations that would be “laughable and unthinkable in any other context.”[67]

Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews were subjected to a wide range of legal disabilities and restrictions, some of which lasted until the end of the 19th century. At times, even moneylending and peddling were at times forbidden to them. The number of Jews permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and were not allowed to own land; they were subject to discriminatory taxes on entering cities or districts other than their own and were forced to swear special Jewish Oaths, and they suffered a variety of other measures.

The exclusion of Jews from many trades and craft guilds began following the First Crusade (10961099).[68] The exclusion often came at the urging of clergy and local guild members, state and local governments.[69] Jews were excluded in certain places from certain crafts (excluded by the craft guilds), in certain trades, and – indirectly – agriculture due to bans on land-ownership; these exclusions led Jews of often engage in peddling, second-hand goods, pawnbroking, and moneylending.[70][71][72] In Southern Europe, Christian competitors of Jews in several occupations – including the moneylending occupation – asked their country’s leaders to expel Jews, in order to reduce competition.[71]

The result of these occupational restrictions was to push Jews into marginal roles considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, occupations only tolerated as a “necessary evil”. Although Jews had not been particularly associated with moneylending in antiquity, a stereotype of them acting in this capacity was developed beginning in the 11th century. Jonathan Frankel notes that this stereotype, though obviously an exaggeration, had a solid basis in reality. While not all Jews were moneylenders, it does seem to have been true that Jews were disproportionately represented in the trade.[73]

Catholic doctrine at the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and it was an occupation forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews made this business their own, despite possible criticism of usury in the Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, this led to many negative stereotypes of Jews as insolent, greedy usurers and the understandable tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) added to social, political, religious, and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could see them as personally taking their money while unaware of those on whose behalf these Jews worked.[citation needed]

Howard Sachar writes that the occupations that were left for Jews to engage in were often the occupations that Christians disdained, such as peddling, hawking and moneylending, and he estimates that three fourths of Jews in Central and Western Europe were occupied in these occupations in the 18th century.[69] Sachar states that “[i]n their [Jews] struggle for livelihood, they generated a sizable underclass of beggars, fencers, pimps, even robbers, thereby creating a self-fulfilling gentile scenario of Jews, one that would endlessly invoked by Jew-haters throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”[69] Similarly, Todeschini writes that the perception of Jews as dishonest and immoral became a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the exclusion from other professions forced them to engage in moneylending and other marginal professions that were regarded as unethical.[74]

One of the reasons that moneylending was open to Jews as a profession was that European Christian culture regarded moneylending as sinful or immoral. This caused Christians to avoid the profession, leaving a vacuum which Jews were free to fill. The Christian abhorrence of moneylending was rooted in the Old Testament laws of Exodus 22:25, Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Psalms 15:5.[75] These biblical rules were re-emphasized in the Middle Ages in the Lateran councils[76] particularly the Second Lateran Council of 1139[75] and the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215,[77] however these proclamations of the Catholic Church outlawed excessively high interest rates, not interest in general.[75][77]

Max Dimont asserts that moneylending, of all professions, was the “most reviled”. The occupation of moneylending was considered a “degenerate” profession, in the 14th century by many Christians, including Franciscans in England such as John Peckham who engaged in discussions of usury and debt.[78]

One reason that Christians permitted Jews to engage in moneylending, even though it was considered a sinful activity, was because Jews were already considered to be damned, and so they may as well commit the sin of usury, thus saving the souls of Christians that would otherwise be forced to lend money.[79][80][81]

Moneylending became an important occupation for Jews, beginning in the early Middle Ages, and continuing into the modern era. Moneylending was first noted as a significant occupation in the 9th century, and in the 10th century, some Jews were large scale financiers.[68] This prevalence in the field of moneylending has led to scholarly debate which considered the question of why Jews gravitated towards money-related occupations.

Dimont writes that the Jewish role in moneylending was the most important contribution of Jews to medieval society, since the feudal culture might have failed without a flow of capital.[82] Foxman writes that the moneylending profession gave rise, eventually, to the modern financial industries, including banking. Over time, Jews became very skilled at both commerce and moneylending.[83] Some European leaders encouraged Jews to engage in moneylending, because it enhanced economic activity and provided personal benefit to the leaders themselves[77] In addition, leaders benefited from Jewish moneylenders by collecting fees and taxes.[84] Throughout Europe, Jews filled the role of Court Jew for virtually every seat of nobility. In spite of this, some European leaders expelled Jews from their countries (England 1290, France 1306 and 1394) depriving themselves of the economic benefits provided by the moneylenders.[84]

Although most scholars attribute the large number of Jews in the moneylending occupation to the exclusion from other crafts and trades, Werner Sombart, in his book The Jews and Modern Capitalism, asserts that moneylending was an occupation that many Jews preferred, and voluntarily engaged in.[85] As evidence, Sombart cites the fact that Jews were heavily engaged in moneylending before the era when they were excluded from trades and crafts; and also the fact that the religion and culture of Judaism predisposed Jews to commercial and financial endeavors.[86] Because Sombart speculated on anthropological and racial explanations, his work has been described as antisemitic and racist.[87][88] However, some modern scholars characterize his presentation of the topic as sympathetic and valid.[89][90] Sombart’s work was a watershed in the scholarship of Jewish culture, because it prompted subsequent historians and economists to begin to examine the relationship between Jews and money.[89][91]

Sombart contends that many of the trade and craft prohibitions were rarely enforced, and thus Jews could have found employment in many of the proscribed occupations, if they desired. However, Sombart writes that Jews were absolutely excluded from government jobs, and that this exclusion was more significant than the putative trade exclusions. He also suggests that exclusion from government jobs had some incidental benefits for Jews, because it freed them from problems associated with political partisanship.[92]

Derek Penslar asserts that, whereas the “more fantastic aspects of medieval antisemitism, which include the demonization of Jews, and accusations of ritual murder and black magic were (incompletely) suppressed, to some extent, by the combined forces of Protestantism and the modern state”, economic antisemitism did not share the same fate because “it has fit as well into a rationalized worldview as a magical one, into a secular sensibility as a theological one.”[41]

According to Perry and Schweitzer, “Jewish economic endeavors labored under the stigma, variously, of being “unproductive,” sterile, parasitic, usurious, dangerous, dishonest, criminal and the like.”[93]

Prior to approximately 1820 in Europe, most Jews were peddlers and shopkeepers, but following the Jewish emancipation in the 19th century, Jews were able to migrate to middle- and upper-class and engage in a wider variety of occupations.[94] In 1859 in the Austro-Hungarian empire, guilds were abolished and that opportunity enabled Jews to enter “liberal professions” such as law, journalism, and medicine.[95]

In the middle of the 19th century, a number of German Jews founded investment banking firms which later became mainstays of the industry. Most prominent Jewish banks in the United States were investment banks, rather than commercial banks.[96] Jonathan Knee postulates that Jews were forced to focus on the development of investment banks because they were excluded from the commercial banking sector.[97]

Following legislation supporting the equality of French Jews with other citizens during the French Revolution, similar laws promoting Jewish emancipation were enacted in the early 19th century in those parts of Europe over which France had influence.[98][99] The old laws restricting them to ghettos, as well as the many laws that limited their property rights, rights of worship and occupation, were rescinded.

Despite the lifting of official economic restrictions against Jews throughout Europe, economic stereotypes and unofficial or semi-official restrictions on the economic activity of Jews continued. Bernard Lazare commented that, “Economic antisemitism to-day is stronger than it ever was, for the reason that to-day, more than ever, the Jew appears powerful and rich. Formerly he was not seen: he remained hidden in his Ghetto, far from Christian eyes. He had but one care, to conceal his wealth, that wealth of which tradition regarded him as the gatherer, and not the proprietor. The day he was freed from his disabilities, the day the restrictions put to his activities fell away, the Jew showed himself in public.”[100]Howard Sachar writes that throughout much of the 19th century, popular literature and theatrical performances in the Austrian and German empires were merciless in their caricatures of the Rothschilds as “Jewish cash bags” or “Jews behind the throne”.[69] These caricatures evolved from mere political satire to more overt antisemitism at the start of the 20th century.[69] Sachar notes that there is irony in the fact that Jewish proponents of communism, such as Karl Marx were partially responsible for antisemitism targeting the relationship between Jews and capitalism.[69]

One example of economic antisemitism was promulgated in France by Edouard Drumont in his 1879 pamphlet entitled What we Demand of Modern Jewry, in which he contrasted the poverty of the French workers with the wealth of the Jewish bankers and industrialists.[101]

By the time of the Civil War, tensions over race and immigration, as well as economic competition between Jews and non-Jews, combined to produce the worst American outbreak of anti-Semitism to that date. Americans on both sides of the slavery issue denounced Jews as disloyal war profiteers, and accused them of driving Christians out of business and of aiding and abetting the enemy.

Major General Ulysses S. Grant was influenced by these sentiments and issued General Order No. 11 expelling Jews from areas under his control in western Tennessee:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

This order was quickly rescinded by President Abraham Lincoln but not until it had been enforced in a number of towns.[102] According to Jerome Chanes, Lincoln’s revocation of Grant’s order was based primarily on “constitutional strictures against …the federal government singling out any group for special treatment.” Chanes characterizes General Order No. 11 as “unique in the history of the United States” because it was the only overtly antisemitic official action of the United States government.[103]

Grant later issued an order “that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the road southward.” His aide, Colonel John V. DuBois, ordered “all cotton speculators, Jews, and all vagabonds with no honest means of support”, to leave the district. “The Israelites especially should be kept outthey are such an intolerable nuisance.”

Beginning in the early 1880s, declining farm prices also prompted elements of the Populist movement to blame the perceived evils of capitalism and industrialism on Jews because of their alleged racial/religious inclination for financial exploitation and, more specifically, because of the alleged financial manipulations of Jewish financiers such as the Rothschilds.[104] Although Jews played only a minor role in the nation’s commercial banking system, the prominence of Jewish investment bankers such as the Rothschilds in Europe, and Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in New York City, made the claims of anti-Semites believable to some. In the 1890s, is Mary Elizabeth Lease, an American farming activist and populist from Kansas, frequently blamed the Rothschilds and the “British bankers” as the source of farmers’ ills.[105]

The Morgan Bonds scandal injected populist anti-Semitism into the 1896 presidential campaign. It was disclosed that President Grover Cleveland had sold bonds to a syndicate which included J. P. Morgan and the Rothschilds house, bonds which that syndicate was now selling for a profit, the Populists used it as an opportunity to uphold their view of history, and prove to the nation that Washington and Wall Street were in the hands of the international Jewish banking houses.

Another focus of anti-Semitic feeling was the allegation that Jews were at the center of an international conspiracy to fix the currency and thus the economy to a single gold standard.[106]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting attended by world Jewish leaders, the “Elders of Zion”, who are conspiring to take over the world. The Protocols includes plans to subvert the morals of the non-Jewish world, plans for Jewish bankers to control the world’s economies, plans for Jewish control of the press, and – ultimately – plans for the destruction of civilization. The document consists of twenty-four “protocols”, which have been analyzed by Steven Jacobs and Mark Weitzman, and they documented several protocols that suggested that Jews would employ control of the worlds banking system to dominate the world. Of the 24 protocols, the ones that focus on economic issues are 2, 3, 4, 21, and 22.[107][108][109]

Henry Ford was a non-interventionist who opposed World War I, and he believed that Jews were responsible for starting wars in order to profit from them: “International financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the international Jew: German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all those countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme . . . here the Jew is a threat”.[110] Ford also shared Marx’s view that Jews were responsible for capitalism, and in their role as financiers, they did not contribute anything of value to society.[111]

In 1915, during World War I, Ford blamed Jews for instigating the war, saying “I know who caused the war: German-Jewish bankers.”[112] Later, in 1925, Ford said “What I oppose most is the international Jewish money power that is met in every war. That is what I oppose – a power that has no country and that can order the young men of all countries out to death'”. According to author Steven Watts, Ford’s antisemitism was partially due to a desire for world peace.[112][113]

Ford became aware of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and believed it to be a legitimate document, and he published portions of it in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. Also, in 1920-21 the Dearborn Independent carried a series of articles expanding on the themes of financial control by Jews, entitled:[114] One of the articles, “Jewish Power and America’s Money Famine”, asserted that the power exercised by Jews over the nation’s supply of money was insidious by helping deprive farmers and others outside the banking coterie of money when they needed it most. The article asked the question: “Where is the American gold supply? … It may be in the United States but it does not belong to the United States” and it drew the conclusion that Jews controlled the gold supply and, hence, American money.[115] Another of the articles, “Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve System” was a reflection of Ford’s suspicion of the Federal Reserve System and its proponent, Paul Warburg. Ford believed the Federal Reserve system was secretive and insidious.[116] These articles gave rise to claims of antisemitism against Ford,[117] and in 1929 he signed a statement apologizing for the articles.[118]

Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point Party Program, published in 1920, Nazi Party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from “Aryan” society and to abrogate Jews’ political, legal, and civil rights. Nazi leaders began to carry out their pledge to persecute German Jews soon after their assumption of power.

Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism party rose to power in Germany during a time of economic depression. Hitler blamed Jews for Germany’s economic woes. Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (German, My Struggle) included the following passage which was representative of much of the antisemitism in Germany and Europe: “The Jewish train of thought in all this is clear. The Bolshevization of Germany – that is, the extermination of the national folkish Jewish intelligentsia to make possible the sweating of the German working class under the yoke of Jewish world finance – is conceived only as a preliminary to the further extension of this Jewish tendency of world conquest…. If our people and our state become the victim of these blood-thirsty and avaricious Jewish tyrants of nations, the whole earth will sink into the snares of this octopus.”[119]

Starting in 1933, repressive laws were passed against Jews, culminating in the Nuremberg Laws which removed most of the rights of citizenship from Jews, using a racial definition based on descent, rather than any religious definition of who was a Jew. Sporadic violence against the Jews became widespread with the Kristallnacht riots, which targeted Jewish homes, businesses and places of worship, killing hundreds across Germany and Austria.

The antisemitic agenda culminated in the genocide of the Jews of Europe, known as the Holocaust.

The first major law to curtail the rights of Jewish German citizens was the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” of April 7, 1933, according to which Jewish and “politically unreliable” civil servants and employees were to be excluded from state service.

The new Civil Service Law was the German authorities’ first formulation of the so-called Aryan Paragraph, a kind of regulation used to exclude Jews (and often by extension other “non-Aryans”) from organizations, professions, and other aspects of public life. In April 1933, German law restricted the number of Jewish students at German schools and universities. In the same month, further legislation sharply curtailed “Jewish activity” in the medical and legal professions. Subsequent laws and decrees restricted reimbursement of Jewish doctors from public (state) health insurance funds.

On April 1, 1933, Jewish doctors, shops, lawyers and stores were boycotted. Only six days later, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from being employed in government. This law meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and upper-level positions reserved for Aryan Germans. From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, beneath non-Jews, pushing them to more labored positions.

In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry. Because of this, there was nothing to stop the anti-Jewish actions which spread across the Nazi-German economy.

In 1937 and 1938, German authorities again stepped up legislative persecution of German Jews. The government set out to impoverish Jews and remove them from the German economy by requiring them to register their property. Even before the Olympics, the Nazi government had initiated the practice of “Aryanizing” Jewish businesses. “Aryanization” meant the dismissal of Jewish workers and managers of a company and/or the takeover of Jewish-owned businesses by non-Jewish Germans who bought them at bargain prices fixed by government or Nazi party officials. IAs of March 1, 1938, government contracts could no longer be awarded to Jewish businesses. On September 30, the government forbade Jewish doctors to treat non-Jews, and revoked the licenses of Jewish lawyers to practice law.

Following the Kristallnacht (commonly known as “Night of Broken Glass”) pogrom of November 910, 1938, Nazi leaders stepped up “Aryanization” efforts and enforced measures that succeeded increasingly in physically isolating and segregating Jews from their fellow Germans. Jews were barred from all public schools and universities, as well as from cinemas, theaters, and sports facilities. In many cities, Jews were forbidden to enter designated “Aryan” zones. German decrees and ordinances expanded the ban on Jews in professional life. By September 1938, for instance, Jewish physicians were effectively banned from treating “Aryan” patients.

By April 1939, nearly all Jewish companies had either collapsed under financial pressure and declining profits, or had been forced to sell out to the Nazi German government. This further reduced Jews rights as human beings; they were in many ways officially separated from the German populace.

Antisemitism was particularly virulent in Vichy France during World War II. The antisemitic demands of right-wing groups were implemented under the collaborating Vichy regime of Marshal Philippe Ptain, following the defeat of the French by the German army in 1940. A law on the status of Jews of that year, followed by another in 1941, purged Jews from employment in administrative, civil service and judicial posts, from most professions and even from the entertainment industry restricting them, mostly, to menial jobs.

William Korey describes a 1977 Academy of Sciences of the USSR report titledInternational Zionism: History and Politics alleging that “Jewish bourgeoisie”, using Zionism as a cover, sought “the expansion of their positions in the economy of the largest capitalist states … and in the economic system of world capitalism as a whole”.[120] The report specifically mentioned six Wall Street investment firms: Lazard Brothers, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Loeb Rhoades, Bache & Co., and Goldman-Sachs. The report also expounded on the “clannish” theory that Jewish financial firms around the world were related by family-ties and collaborated unethically.[121]

In 1922, educational discrimination became a national issue when Harvard announced it was considering a quota system for Jewish students. Although it was eventually dropped, the quota was enforced in many colleges through underhanded techniques (as late as 1945 Dartmouth openly admitted and defended a quota system against Jewish students). To limit the growing number of Jewish students, a number of private liberal arts universities and medical and dental schools instituted a quota system referred to as Numerus clausus. These included Harvard University, Columbia University, Cornell University, and Boston University[citation needed]. In 1925 Yale University, which already had such admissions preferences as “character”, “solidity”, and “physical characteristics” added a program of legacy preference admission spots for children of Yale alumni, in an explicit attempt to put the brakes on the rising percentage of Jews in the student body. This was soon copied by other Ivy League and other schools[citation needed], and admissions of Jews were kept down to 10% through the 1950s. Such policies were for the most part discarded during the early 1960s although the last vestiges were not eliminated at Yale University until 1970.

Jews encountered resistance when they tried to move into white-collar and professional positions. Banking, insurance, public utilities, medical schools, hospitals, large law firms and faculty positions, restricted the entrance of Jews. This era of polite antisemitism through social discrimination, underwent an ideological escalation in the 1930s

The Anti Defamation League documented one of the more common aspects of money-related antisemitism: the claim that the United States’ Federal Reserve System was created by Jews and is run by them for their own financial benefit. The ADL gives examples of this myth repeated by Aryan Nations, Louis Farrakhan, Sheldon Emry, and Wickliffe Vennard. Another example cited by the ADL is Bo Gritz, the 1992 Presidential candidate of the Populist Party, in his book Called to Serve.[122]

Abraham Foxman rebuts the Federal Reserve myth in his book Jews and Money, by explaining that the Federal Reserve system is a quasi-public entity that was created and is controlled by the United States Congress.[123]

Various incarnations of money-related antisemitism have been documented in the Islamic world. In a 1968 conference at the University of Cairo, a speaker proclaimed that “money-worship [is among the] inherent qualities in them [the Jews]. … They are characterized by avarice and many other vices, which arose from selfishness, love of worldly life, and envy…”.[124]

The Arab discourse on the Holocaust displays various instances of economic antisemitic rhetoric. One such example is Shaykh Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawis 1997 book The Israelites in the Quran. Tantawi was an integral part of the religious leadership in Egypt, a leadership that purported the idea that Jews had undermined Islam throughout history.[125] In this book, Jews are characterized as a swindler people, starting both the Great War and WWII for selfish economic gain, and taking over the German economy as a result of their sinister fiscal techniques. Tantawi uses this perception of Jews as a justification for Hitlers genocidal agenda, saying that it is little wonder that the Germans rose against them several times and employed all the means of killing, expulsion, and pillage.[126]

The Murabitun organization has published policy statements that are antisemitic and concentrate on breaking Jewish control of the world financial system.[127]

According to Robert S. Wistrich, Hamas and Hezbollah routinely make pronouncements which blame “the world banking crisis on the Jews who supposedly control the American government and economy”.[128]

Osama bin Laden, in his 2002 Letter to America, wrote “You [United States] are the nation that permits usury, which has been forbidden by all religions. yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of all this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving aims at their expense.”[129][130]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, told the United Nations General Assembly in 2008 that the Zionists[131] “have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers … in a deceitful, complex, and furtive manner”.[132]

Abraham Foxman also identifies editorials, cartoons, and news stories throughout the Middle East as sources that repeat money-related antisemitic myths.[129]

The Nation of Islam has promulgated some money-based antisemtic myths, particularly in their book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Volume 1 of the book claims that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade, and profited from black slavery.[133] Volume 2 of the book alleges that Jews in America exploited black labor and innovation, for instance in cotton, textiles, music, and banking.[134][135] The book also asserts that Jews have promoted a myth of black racial inferiority.[134]

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has also elaborated on these concepts in speeches, making statements such as “The Federal Reserve is the synagogue of Satan, the House of Rothschild “, and “The Black man and woman have always been looked upon as the ‘property’ of White America, and particularly, members of the Jewish community “.[134][136]

Activist Kieth Shive, of the Farmers Liberation Army in the United States, published a position paper in the 1980s which promoted agricultural activism and listed as goals “(1) Get rid of the privately held Federal Reserve System … and its phony money; (2) Adopt a sane US monetary policy which eliminates interest payments to the International Bankers “.[105] Author Daniel Levitas interprets this as a veiled antisemitic statement, because Shive also repeated a fictitious quote attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild “Let me issue and control the money of a country and I care not who passes the laws” which Shive contended applied to the United States Federal Reserve System.[105]

In the 1970s, the White Supremacist movement in the United States adopted the position that Jews are “parasites and vultures” and are attempting to enslave Aryans through domination of world banking and media.[137] White supremacists such as William L. Pierce have repeated money-based antisemitic myths.[138]

The militia movement in the United States is also a source of money-based antisemitism, including leaders Bo Gritz, who alleges that the Federal Reserve System is controlled by Jews, and John Trochman who believes that the nation’s problems are the fault of a Jewish “banking elite”.[139][140]

According to Rosensaft and Bauer, the international Arab boycott constitutes a “new economic antisemitism”.[141] Irwin Cotler elaborates that the new economic antisemitism involves the “extra-territorial application by Arab countries of an international restrictive covenant against corporations conditioning their trade with Arab countries on their agreement to:

Jews have been portrayed as miserly and greedy in both belles-lettres and popular literature.[143][144]

The character Shylock in William Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice is a Jewish moneylender who is portrayed in unscrupulous and avaricious. Derek Penslar asserts that Shylock is a metaphor for the Jewish “otherness” and that he represents the “inseparability of Jewish religious, social, and economic distinctiveness”.[145]Gerald Krefetz calls Shylock a “classic image” which has haunted Jews ever since it first appeared, since it made Jews a scapegoat.[143]

Historian Richard Hofstadter writes that Shylock was used as the basis for “crankery” by Charles Coughlin and Ezra Pound.[146]

John Gross states that Shylock represented “the sinister international financier” on both sides of the Atlantic.[147]

Abraham Foxman contends that Shylock may have contributed to antisemitism in Japan, becauseThe Merchant of Venice is translated into Japanese more than any other play of Shakespeare.[148]

The character Fagin in Charles Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist is depicted as avaricious and has served to support antisemitic stereotypes.[149] Dickens claims he held Jews in high regard, and that the depiction of Fagin was simply a caricature that was based upon actual persons, and – in an apparent demonstration of remorse – Dickens removed many occurrences of the word “Jew” from later editions of the work.

Read more here:

Economic antisemitism – Wikipedia

Fair Usage Law

May 1, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Former ADL Chief Abraham Foxman: Sarsour a Bigot Who …

Foxman was always a running dog for the left, and he is wholly undeserving of the fawning treatment Algemeiner gives him here. But he is right that Sarsour is a bigot, although wrong that she should not be canceled. Enough is enough. For decencys sake alone, this vicious hatemonger should be canceled.

Former ADL Chief Abraham Foxman Warns Against Politicization of Antisemitism; Calls Sarsour a Bigot Who Should Not Have Received CUNY Invite, by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, April 30, 2017:

During an interview with The Algemeiner on Friday, the conversation inevitably turned to the subject of Linda Sarsour, the vocal BDS advocate who, this past week alone, earned the praise of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the pages of Time magazine and was invited to speak at the commencement ceremony at CUNYs Graduate School of Public Health.

Shes a champion of equal rights, except when it comes to Jewish rights, Foxman said of Sarsour. She plays that game, I love Jews, I dont like Zionists. Well, Ive got news for her. Every Jew whos a Jew prays to Jerusalem, says Im eshkachech Yerushalayim, (If I forget you, Jerusalem.) So this is a throwback to 1948.

Yet Foxman is careful not to charge every Palestinian solidarity activist with antisemitism. You can be an advocate of the Palestinian liberation movement without being an enemy of Jewish liberation, Foxman stressed. But that, he continued, is not the case with Sarsour. She is an enemy of Jewish sovereignty and Jewish liberation, he stated. Shes a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY].

But now that the invitation had been extended, Foxman said, CUNY would be better off learning about her views and distancing itself appropriately, rather than turning Sarsour into a free speech martyr.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administrations War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

See the article here:

Former ADL Chief Abraham Foxman: Sarsour a Bigot Who …

Fair Usage Law

May 1, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Dartmouth Announces Linda Sarsour Lecture, Days After Refusing to Co-Sponsor Event Featuring Israeli Soldier – Algemeiner

Email a copy of “Dartmouth Announces Linda Sarsour Lecture, Days After Refusing to Co-Sponsor Event Featuring Israeli Soldier” to a friend Linda Sarsour. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. Dartmouth College announced Wednesday evening that it willbe hosting a lecture by virulently anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour, days after an officeat the school declined to co-sponsor an event featuring a veteran of the Israel Defense Forces. The Sarsoureventto be held Friday eveningin honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is co-sponsored by the collegesOffice of Pluralism and Leadership (OPAL) and Special Programs and Events Committee. According to a member ofDartmouth Students for Israel (DSI) who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution by the administration OPAL turned him down earlier this week when he approached them about co-hosting a program featuring Izzy Ezagui, the only soldier to ever return to battleafter losing an arm in combat. DSIwas told by an OPAL representative thattheEzagui lecturesounds like a great event, but it is felt that it does not meet the mission of OPAL. The representative then suggested more appropriate places to reach out to for assistance, including the Student Accessibility Services, which the DSI member said is generally not an organization that does events. May 11, 2017 5:47 pm On its website, OPAL describes its mission as to foster a Dartmouth where all students can thrive, value difference, and contribute to the creation of a socially just world. The Ezagui eventwill go forward with the co-sponsorship ofthe Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America on Campus, as well as the Dartmouth Chabad and Hillel centers but the DSI member said he has asked OPAL tokindly explain in more detail why the event does not meet the OPAL mission? In his follow-up email to OPAL, the DSI studentwrote, I looked at the OPAL mission prior to contacting the office and thought it was very compatible with a comprehensive leadership development program, as well as representing historically under-represented groups (Izzy is a Jew, and is disabled, so both groups have been historically under represented at this college and nationally). Sarsour who will be speaking on how home and a sense of belonging is sometimes the result of our own personal advocacy, according to the program descriptiononFacebook has been condemnedby DemocraticNew York state AssemblymanDov Hikindas someone who associates with radical Islamists and as a bigot by former national director of the Anti-Defamation League,Abraham Foxman. Sandor Farkas,thepresident of DSI, toldThe Algemeinerthat he and his friends are outraged by the Sarsour program, especially in light of the recent controversy surrounding a professor with ties to the campaign toboycott Israel who has beenpromotedto the consequential role of Dean of Faculty. I think Dartmouth College has shown a remarkable disregard for the concerns of the Jewish community by inviting renowned BDS advocate and Israel-hater Linda Sarsour, said Farkas, who will graduate this spring. Over my four years at Dartmouth, I have always felt that our campus conversation around Israel was reasoned and respectful, with only an occasional exception, he added. While I want to believe that this coincidence [of two anti-Israel incidents in one week]is nothing more than administrative incompetence, OPALs refusal to co-sponsor an event with an Israeli speaker demonstrates otherwise. I am deeply saddened to graduate knowing that my Jewish friends on campus may face real hatred and discrimination, not only from other students, but from the highest levels of the college administration. Farkas said pro-Israel students plan to stage a silent protest during the [Sarsour] event, including flooding [her] with difficult questions. Dartmouths announcement comes as the City University of New York (CUNY) has come under firefor inviting Sarsour to give thecommencement speech at the graduation exercisesfor CUNYs Graduate School of Public Health. Representatives for OPAL did not immediately respond to The Algemeiners request for comment. A flier for the Linda Sarsour event at Dartmouth College. Photo: Courtesy.

Fair Usage Law

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Virulently Antisemitic NYC Council Candidate Seeks Support of BDS Advocate Linda Sarsour – Algemeiner

Email a copy of “Virulently Antisemitic NYC Council Candidate Seeks Support of BDS Advocate Linda Sarsour” to a friend Antisemite Thomas Lopez-Pierre is running a new bid for a seat on the New York City Council. Picture: thomaslopezpierre.com A hardened antisemite running for the New York City Council in upper Manhattan has appealed to BDS advocate Linda Sarsour for her support. Thomas Lopez-Pierre is running in the 7th Council District which includes Washington Heights, West Harlem and the Upper West Side against incumbent Jewish Democrat Mark Levine on a platform that claims, as summarized on his Twitter feed: Jewish landlords OWN 80% of private rental buildings in Upper Manhattan; GUILTY of GREED for pushing Black/Hispanic tenants out. Now Lopez-Pierre is seeking the endorsement of Sarsour, who is currently making waves over her forthcoming commencement speech at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Public Health on June 1. CUNY has been taken to task by Jewish leaders and some local politicians for honoring an activist with a record of inflammatory statements against Israel, including a tweet that declared nothing is creepier than Zionism. In a recent interview with The Algemeiner, Abraham Foxman, National Director Emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), deemed Sarsour a bigot and added that CUNY should not have extended an invitation to her. May 10, 2017 11:11 am But while Sarsour restricts her attacks to Zionists, avoiding Jews per se, Lopez-Pierre has a long history of bombastic and frequently foul-mouthed rants against both Jewish individuals and the community as a whole. His tweets routinely target Greedy Jewish Landlords, while a YouTube video by a Jewish female comedian poking fun at him drew the comment that This Jewish woman is NOT only sexy BUT very funny. Lopez-Pierres dark side came to the fore recentlywhen the New York Observer reported that, in January, hewas found guilty on a misdemeanor criminal contempt charge for knowingly violating a family court restrainingorder his ex-wife had obtained. According to the Observer, his former spouse alleged that, despite the standing order of protection, Lopez-Pierre twice approached her in the fall of 2015 to threaten her with the words, Dont f with me, b-! African-American supporters of his rival Mark Levine have been subjected to racist abuse by Lopez-Pierre. In 2013, when Lopez-Pierre ran against Levine for the first time, he emailed Brian Benjamin, an African-American supporter of Levines, telling him, You are an uncle TomIts N- b- like you that have sold out the Black people of Harlem. On Twitter on Tuesday, in a response to a question from another user as to whether Sarsour had endorsed his campaign, Lopez-Pierre responded that he was seeking her support, describing her as a great social advocate. While Sarsour has yet to respond to Lopez-Pierres appeal, her supporters on Twitterexpressed confidencethat shewould disavow him. Sarsour did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Algemeiner.

Fair Usage Law

May 10, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Activist Linda Sarsour: A Palestinian-American who divides Jews by courting controversy – The Jewish Standard

One of the best symbols of the current Jewish political divide is a Muslim woman. To Jews on the left, Linda Sarsour is a courageous and effective activist who builds bridges and breaks stereotypes. To Jews on the right and some in the center, shes an Israel-hating apologist for Islamic extremists. Both sides point to evidence backing up their claims: Sarsour supports a boycott of Israel and favors a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And earlier this year, she raised more than $100,000 to repair a vandalized Jewish cemetery in Missouri. Shes also a rising star in the protest movement against President Donald Trump, with a record of success in organizing and advocating for legislative change. As her profile rises in progressive circles, the tension over her attitude toward Israel keeps surfacing. Most recently, right-wing Jewish leaders condemned the choice of Sarsour to deliver the July commencement speech at City University of New Yorks Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. Heres what the controversy is all about. Sarsour has become a leading advocate for Muslim and womens issues. Born in Brooklyn in 1980, Sarsour was married when she was 17 and had three kids by the time she was 24, according to a profile on NY1, a local TV channel. She began engaging in activism after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, volunteering at the Arab-American Association of New York. Four years later, she was the groups executive director. In the years since, she has effected change for her community and drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists. She participated in the successful campaigns for New York City schools to close on Muslim holidays and for an independent review of racial profiling from the citys police. This year, Sarsour has seen her profile rise nationally as one of the co-organizers of the Womens March on Washington, a historically large protest for womens rights and against Trump. Time magazine included Sarsour and three other organizers on its list of 100 most influential people, and in the accompanying essay, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand called the four the suffragists of our time. Sarsour also was recognized by President Barack Obama, whose White House named her a champion of change. The accompanying biography said she shatters stereotypes of Muslim women, which Sarsour has attributed to her wearing a hijab. There are plenty of Muslim women who are backbones of the community, but they arent usually at the forefront, she told the New York Times in 2015. There just arent a lot of me out there women in hijabs, doing what I do. She is an outspoken opponent of Israel and Zionism. Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, has also been a harsh critic of Israel. Soon after the Womens March, she drew fire from Jewish leaders for telling the Nation that unabashed supporters of Israel cannot be feminists. It just doesnt make any sense for someone to say, Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement? There cant be in feminism, she told the magazine in March. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. Sarsour backs the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel, known as BDS. She told NY1 that she supports a one-state solution that would create a shared country for Jews and Palestinians a solution that many Jews consider a formula for the demise of Israel. And in 2012, she tweeted, Nothing is creepier than Zionism. Jews on the left emphasize her progressive bona fides. For right-wing Jews, her anti-Zionism is a red line. These different aspects of Sarsours record have created a divide among Jewish leaders. Progressive Jews are willing to look past her anti-Zionism in light of her work on behalf of women and minorities, and her fundraising for the damaged cemetery. But right-wing and some centrist Jews cant support her activist work in light of her anti-Zionism. Criticizing CUNYs decision to host Sarsour, Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, called her a bigot and divider and an extremist. Writing in the New York Post last month, Jerusalem Post reporter Lahav Harkov said her anti-Zionism made Sarsour NYCs queen of hate. Harkov noted that last month Sarsour shared the stage at a conference, hosted by the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace, with Rasmea Odeh, a Palestinian woman who was imprisoned in Israel for her participation in two terror attacks. According to Harkov, Sarsour told the audience she was honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea. The criticism extends beyond the right. Both the current and former national directors of the Anti-Defamation League, a large mainstream group, have harshly criticized Sarsours positions on Israel. In a March interview with the St. Louis Jewish Light, the ADLs national director, Jonathan Greenblatt, called the cemetery fundraising great but said Sarsours BDS advocacy encourages and spreads anti-Semitism. Greenblatts longtime predecessor at the ADL, Abraham Foxman, called Sarsour bigoted. Shes bigoted because she loves Jews but hates Zionism, Foxman said. Her progressive activism, he added, doesnt excuse bigotry. If youre an advocate for human rights, for human dignity, you should be more sensitive to the human rights and human dignity of the Jewish people. But progressive Jews believe she is a proven advocate for human rights. Amid the controversy over her views following the Womens March, Rabbi Sharon Brous of Ikar in Los Angeles tweeted, Thank you @lsarsour for building a movement that can hold all of us in our diversity with love. #IMarchWithLinda. Sarsour also spoke as a surrogate for Senator Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. Jewish groups on the left have lavished praise on Sarsour. Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, which backs the BDS movement, has described Sarsour as passionate and compelling, very smart, committed and an impressive person. And she has worked with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which focuses on domestic issues, including at the groups recent Seder in the Streets on Passover. It is hard to think of a more appropriate speaker than Linda, who has done so much, both locally and nationally, to bring about a world in which everyone can thrive, JFREJ said in a statement last week commending her upcoming CUNY speech. She has stood with us against anti-Semitism, both in words and actions. Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, cites Sarsour as the test of the choices we make about our alliances in the pursuit of our political causes. Kurtzer suggests that both the right and the left should drop the litmus tests that prevent them from partnering with allies with whom they disagree on one or more key issues, like Israel. Taking a cue from a quote by David Ben-Gurion, Kurtzer wrote in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, We [should] fight for our moral values in American political life as though there was no disagreement with our allies on these issues on Israel, and we [should] fight on Israel with critics of Israel as though there was no domestic agenda. JTA Wire Service

Fair Usage Law

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why Don’t ‘Anti-Fascists’ Fight Islamofascism? – Middle East Forum

Islamofascist Linda Sarsour will deliver a commencement address at the City University of New York June 1. Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitler’s fascist dream of a “Thousand Year Reich” lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the “Fuhrer” who had shot himself five days earlier. On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of “the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean.” Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (today’s Pakistan) “from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations.” When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of India’s freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence. On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow. It’s no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO. Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times. As in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry seem unconcerned about the threat of rising fascism. But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold. Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic. These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps). Today’s fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types. They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression, and the equality of men and women. I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism. The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO. Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists. Two recent incidents highlight this problem. In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictator’s vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds. And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1. Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, “She’s [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldn’t have been invited [to CUNY].” With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned “AntiFa” (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, “Mac Pap,” go? Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Related Topics: Muslims in the West, Radical Islam | Tarek Fatah receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list

Fair Usage Law

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? – Owen Sound Sun Times

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitlers fascist dream of a Thousand Year Reich lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the Fuhrer who had shot himself five days earlier. On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean. Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (todays Pakistan) from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations. When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of Indias freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence. On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow. Its no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO. Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times. But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold. Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic. These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps). Todays fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types. They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression and the equality of men and women. I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism. The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO. Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists. Two recent incidents highlight this problem. In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictators vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds. And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1. Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, Shes [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY]. With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned AntiFa (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, Mac Pap, go?

Fair Usage Law

May 5, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? – Standard Freeholder

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitlers fascist dream of a Thousand Year Reich lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the Fuhrer who had shot himself five days earlier. On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean. Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (todays Pakistan) from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations. When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of Indias freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence. On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow. Its no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO. Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times. But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold. Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic. These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps). Todays fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types. They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression and the equality of men and women. I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism. The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO. Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists. Two recent incidents highlight this problem. In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictators vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds. And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1. Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, Shes [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY]. With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned AntiFa (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, Mac Pap, go?

Fair Usage Law

May 3, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Why don’t anti-fascists fight Islamofascism? | The Kingston Whig … – The Kingston Whig-Standard

Seventy-two years ago this Friday, on May 5, 1945, Hitlers fascist dream of a Thousand Year Reich lay in ruins, as Berlin fell to the Red Army, only to find the ashes of the Fuhrer who had shot himself five days earlier. On the very day Berlin fell to the Soviets, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an appraisal of the long-term policy required to safeguard the strategic interests of the British Empire in India and the Indian Ocean. Two weeks later, Churchill received the top-secret report that, among other proposals, cited the necessity of a British presence in northwest India (todays Pakistan) from which British air power could threaten Soviet military installations. When this was brought to the attention of the leaders of Indias freedom movement, they made it clear to Britain they would not accept British bases on Indian soil after independence. On the other hand, the leader of the All Indian Muslim League, M. A. Jinnah, was amenable to the idea, and so was laid the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — that would serve the West in fighting Moscow. Its no coincidence that within a few years, Pakistan joined the West in two military pacts against Moscow SEATO and CENTO. Today, a new fascism is in the air, one that also speaks of rule over the planet, not just for 1,000 years, but until the end times. But like the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930s, the West and its citizenry again seem unconcerned or unaware of the catastrophe that may unfold. Even in the 1930s, when the Spanish Republic stood up to the Hitler-backed fascists of Francisco Franco, the UK and US refused to help the elected government in Madrid, leaving it to left-wing activists from around the world to join the war on the side of the Republic. These included Canadian volunteers of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade (popularly known as the Mac Paps). Todays fascists have an additional advantage over the Franco-Mussolini-Hitler types. They are Islamofascists, who not only seek authoritarian supremacy, but claim to possess a divinely ordained doctrine to justify annihilating democracy, liberty, freedom of expression and the equality of men and women. I am not just referring to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Shabab in Somalia or Boko Haram in Nigeria. These are the fringes of Islamofascism. The two main players are in Pakistan, created by Britain and armed by America, and the authoritarian dictatorship of Turkey, that is still sustained by NATO. Unlike the years leading up to the last Great War against fascism, this time the left in the West has deviated from its historic role and is today an ally of the Islamists. Two recent incidents highlight this problem. In India, the Islamic University of Jamia Milli has conferred an honourary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite the dictators vicious crackdown on dissenting Turks and ruthless treatment of minority Kurds. And in the United States, the City University of New York has invited radical Muslim activist, Linda Sarsour, to deliver a commencement address June 1. Abraham Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, Shes [Sarsour] a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY]. With universities honouring such individuals, where does an old-fashioned AntiFa (anti-fascist) like me, whose licence plate says, Mac Pap, go?

Fair Usage Law

May 3, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Economic antisemitism – Wikipedia

Economic antisemitism comprises stereotypes and canards based on the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews. It also includes economic behavior, laws and governmental policies targeting the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews. In some cases, the stereotypes and canards have motivated economic behavior and governmental action targeting Jews; in other cases, the economic behavior, laws and/or governmental policies have fed the propagation of the stereotypes and canards. Leon Poliakov writes that economic antisemitism is not a distinct form of antisemitism, but merely a manifestation of theologic antisemitism (because, without the theological causes of the economic antisemitism, there would be no economic antisemitism). In opposition to this argument, Derek Penslar contends that in the modern era, the economic antisemitism is “distinct and nearly constant” but theological antisemitism is “often subdued”.[1] Derek Penslar describes modern economic antisemitism as a “double helix of intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination.”[2] Throughout history, the stereotype of Jews as being connected to greed, money-lending and usury has stoked anti-Jewish sentiments and still to a large extent influences the perception of Jews today. Reuveni and Wobick-segev suggest that we are still haunted by the image of “the mighty, greedy Jew”.[3] Allegations regarding the relationship of Jews and money have been characterized as underpinning the most damaging and lasting antisemitic canards.[4] Antisemites have often promulgated myths related to money, such as the canard that Jews control the world finances, first promoted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and later repeated by Henry Ford and his Dearborn Independent. In the modern era, many such myths continue to be widespread in the Islamic world, and in books such as The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews published by the Nation of Islam, and on the internet. Abraham Foxman cites examples of economic antisemitism found around the world, particularly in United Kingdom, Germany, Argentina, and Spain. He also cites many modern instances of money-related antisemitism that are found on the internet.[5] Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as “[Jews] control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses – of the community, of the country, of the world”.[6] Krefetz gives, as illustrations, many slurs and proverbs (in several different languages) which suggest that Jews are stingy, or greedy, or miserly, or aggressive bargainers.[7] Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being “scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted”, but following the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle- or upper-class in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were “clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate [world finances]”.[8] Abraham Foxman describes six facets of canards used by proponents of economic antisemitism: The Anti Defamation League conducted a poll in Europe in 2007 which asked respondents if they agreed with the statement that “Jews have too much power in international financial markets”. Polling data showed that respondents agreed with that statement as follows: 61% in Hungary, 43% in Austria, 40% in Switzerland, 40% in Belgium, 21% in the United Kingdom, and 13% in the Netherlands.[15][16] Another poll conducted by the ADL in 2009 found that 31% of Europeans surveyed blamed Jews for the global financial crisis that began in 2008.[17] William Brustein describes popular economic antisemitism in Europe before the 19th century as based on accusations of Jews employing alleged unethical business practices in second-hand trade, petty commerce, and money lending.[18] During the 17th and 18th centuries, anecdotal remarks from Christian merchants and traders show that there were negative feelings towards Jewish business people, who were sometimes regarded as liars or cheats. Werner Sombart concluded that the perceptions of cheating or dishonesty were simply a manifestation of Christian frustration at innovative commercial practices of Jews, which were contrary to custom and tradition of the Christian merchants, but were otherwise ethical.[19] One form of economic antisemitism in the medieval period were legal restrictions imposed on the occupations and professions of Jews. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, tolerated then as a “necessary evil”.[20] Catholic doctrine of the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews dominated this business. The Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible criticize usury but interpretations of the Biblical prohibition vary. Since few other occupations were open to them, Jews were motivated to take up money lending. This was said to show Jews were usurers, and subsequently led to many negative stereotypes and propaganda. Natural tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) were added to social, political, religious, and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked. Also present in the European medieval period was the coercion of Jews into being economic objects, possessions, and even slaves by groups of nobles, evident in examples from the English code Leges Edwardi Confessoris. Jews were re-cast into various economic occupational roles, and as a result became a people that could be coveted, sold, or traded for economic purposes by those in power at the time. This “use of Jews also had political causes and ramifications in the time period, but the economic practice of using Jews to fill particular roles in economic sectors was prevalent.[21] Another aspect of economic antisemitism is the assertion that Jews do not produce anything of value, but instead tend to serve as middlemen, acting as “parasites in the production line” of non-Jews that are doing the real work. Krefetz lists middlemen occupations subject to this canard as distributors, shoppers, wholesalers, brokers, financiers, and retailers and writes that they are “all notably Jewish occupations”.[22] From the medieval period continuing up to the modern era, Diaspora Judaism has been characterized by a real or perceived “inverted occupational pyramid”, i.e. Jews in the Diaspora were perceived to be more prevalent in the tertiary sector, working in service jobs such as accounting, finance, medicine, law or commerce than in the secondary and primary sectors.[23] Although Jews were employed in all sectors of the economy, the perception that Jews were more prevalent in certain occupations or in the professions (e.g. medicine or law) has been the target of antisemitic sentiment at different periods in history. Jews have been the targets of antisemitic criticism for their occupational preferences. For example, Robert von Mohl characterized European Jews of the 19th century as being concentrated in trade and finance with some representation in the artistic and intellectual fields.[24] Perceptions of over-representation of Jews in certain occupations have driven antisemitic sentiment in the Soviet Union.[25] There have been a number of theories advanced as to the reason for the “inverted occupational pyramid”. Gerald Krefetz writes that the livelihood of Jews, particularly their business activities, has been influenced by religious, cultural, social, and historical factors. Krefetz asserts that these factors have led to a predisposition for occupations marked by independence, professionalism, and scholarship.[26] Jews have tended to show an “entrepreneurial spirit” and “capacity for risk-taking” that has led them to innovate financial concepts like negotiable instruments of credit, international syndicates, department stores, holding companies, and investment banks.[27] Krefetz suggests that Jews have frequently chosen professions that are “portable” or involve duties as a middle-man, because of their long historical background which was based on trading and “heightened awareness of continual persecution.” In a similar vein, Abraham Foxman argues that many Jews in the medieval period were especially well suited for commerce, because the Jewish diaspora caused many Jews to have far-flung networks of friends and family, which facilitated trade.[28] According to Werner Sombart, one complaint of Christian businesspeople were that Jews did not limit themselves to one particular trade or market, but instead Jews often were “jack of all trades” or were “ubiquitous” and “paid no heed to the demarcation of all economic activities into separate categories”[29] When Jews entered trades or business areas in Europe, this frequently resulted in complaints from Christian competitors that the Jews were depriving them of customers and profit.[30] Sombart analyzed the 17th- and 18th-century Christian views of Jewish merchants, and concluded that they objected to Jewish merchants because the Jew’s pursuit of profit was blatant, open, and aggressive, in contrast to the Christian approach which – while willing to seek profit – viewed the aggressive pursuit of profit as unseemly, uncivilized and uncouth.[31] Sombart also asserts another cause of Christian frustration with Jewish businesspeople: Jews imported raw materials, which was considered inappropriate by Christian merchants.[32] Niewyk and Nicosia describe economic antisemitism as focusing on “excessive” Jewish wealth and power growing out of the Jews’ success in commerce, banking, and the professions.[33] Marvin Perry asserts that much antisemitism in the European commercial world derived from the fact that non-Jewish merchants could not match the “economies of scale and advertising promotions” of Jewish competitors.[34]Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) wrote “I am persuaded that in Russia, Austria, and Germany nine-tenths of the hostility to the Jew comes from the average Christian’s inability to compete success fully with the average Jew in business in either straight business or the questionable sort.”[35] Similarly, Abraham Foxman writes that it is likely that non-Jews in Medieval or Renaissance Europe harbored feelings of fear, vulnerability, and hostility towards Jews, because they resented being beholden to Jewish lenders.[36] Foxman claims that money-based antisemitism is a result of resentment and jealousy of Jews.[37] Gerald Krefetz also makes a similar point: that the ability of Jews to make money occasionally stirs jealousy and hate in non-Jews, contributing to a fear that Jews will “ascend too high” in the economic sphere and begin to manipulate and control world finances.[38] Krefetz asserts that anti-Semitism in the United States seems “rooted less in religion or contempt and more in envy, jealously and fear” of Jewish affluence, and of the hidden power of “Jewish money”.[39] In contradiction to these theories, Prager and Telushkin offer a different perspective. Addressing the premise that “the Jews’ disproportionate wealth and concentration in business and in the professions is said to provoke anti- Jewish hostility.”, they assert that, “while economic factors can and often do exacerbate antisemitism, … economic factors do not cause Jew-hatred; they only provide opportunities for it to be expressed.” As one of the arguments supporting their thesis, Prager and Telushkin point out that “Jews have often suffered the worst antisemitism when they were poor, as was true with the overwhelming majority of Jews in … Poland and Russia, and have encountered the least amount of antisemitism when affluent as in the United States and Canada today.”[40] Derek Penslar characterizes economic antisemitism as “an extreme form of the antimercantile sentiments that are rooted in pagan antiquity and the early Christian tradition.”[41] In the 19th century, Jews came to be so closely associated with capitalism that some even viewed the Jews as the “creators of capitalism”.[12][42] According to Muller, those that embraced capitalism tended to be sympathetic to Jews, and those that rejected capitalism tended to be hostile to Jews.[43] Richard Levy writes that, although there were local variations, modern economic antisemitism is primarily defined by “the scapegoating of Jews for capitalism’s ills.”[44] Similarly, Steven Beller writes that economic antisemitism at the turn of the 20th century was “based on fear and envy at the supposed stranglehold of ‘the Jews’ over finance and accused Jews of being behind the depredations of capitalism on the traditional economy.”[45] Laurel Platt attributes antisemitic attitudes that extend back to medieval times for the tendency to blame Jews for the problems of capitalism and urbanization that arose in the late 19th century.[46] Scholars have noted the antisemitic attitudes of mid-19th-century French socialists such as Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Fourier vilified the Jews as the “incarnation of commerce: parasitical, deceitful, traitorous and unproductive.” Proudhon used even more vehement invective, attacking Jews as the “incarnation of finance capitalism” and characterizing them as anti-producers by temperament. Alphonse Toussenel, a follower of Fourier, wrote finance (meaning the Jews) was dominating and ruining France; similarly, Auguste Blanqui commented in his correspondence on Jews as being usurers and Shylocks.[47] Karl Marx argued that earning a living from collecting interest (or from acting as a middleman) was an unjust and exploitive aspect of capitalism.[48] Because many Jews were employed occupations that Marx considered “non-productive”, he singled out Jews for particular criticism and blamed Judaism for the exploitation and alienation of workers.[49]Moses Mendelssohn argued, to the contrary, that commercial activity was just as valid and beneficial as manual labor, writing “Many a merchant, while quietly engaged at is desk in forming commercial speculations … produces … more than the most active and noisy mechanic or tradesman.”[50] Derek Penslar writes that Marx did not argue that Jews merely embraced capitalism, but rather that they “embodied” it. Penslar states that Marx claimed that the Jewish religious culture shared many key characteristics of capitalism, such as materialism and egoism.[51] Marx concluded that Judaism was responsible for the alienation of many workers, and this idea became a component of Marx’s theory of communism. Marx viewed Judaism as a commercial practice, not a theology.[52] According to Perry, Marx believed that “Jews are the embodiment of capitalism (money-system) in action and the creators of all its evil consequences for humanity.”[53] Marx’s views were shared by Bruno Bauer, who claimed that the essence of Judaism was egotism and materialism, and Marx claimed that money was the Jew’s worldly god.[54][55] Several commentators note that economic antisemitism increases in times of recession or economic hardship, for instance during the Depression of 1873.[56][57][58][59] Jewish Bolshevism is an antisemitic canard[60] based on the claim that Jews have been the driving force behind or are disproportionately involved in the modern Communist movement, or sometimes more specifically Russian Bolshevism.[61] The expression was the title of a pamphlet, The Jewish Bolshevism, and became current after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, featuring prominently in the propaganda of the anti-communist “White” forces during the Russian Civil War. It spread worldwide in the 1920s with the publication and circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It made an issue out of the Jewishness of some leading Bolsheviks (most notably Leon Trotsky) during and after the October Revolution. Daniel Pipes says that “primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Whites spread these charges to an international audience.”[62]James Webb wrote that it is rare to find an antisemitic source after 1917 that “does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution”.[63] The label “Judeo-Bolshevism” was used in Nazi Germany to equate Jews with communists, implying that the communist movement served Jewish interests and/or that all Jews were communists.[64] Jews and Communists were both blamed for having allegedly betrayed Germany in World War I and resulting in Germany signing The Treaty of Versailles, in what is known as the “stab-in-the-back myth.” In Poland before World War II, ydokomuna was used in the same way to allege that the Jews were conspiring with the USSR to capture Poland. According to Andr Gerrits, “The myth of Jewish Communism was one of the most popular and widespread political prejudices in the first half of the 20th century, in Eastern Europe in particular.”[65] The allegation still sees use in antisemitic publications and websites today. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism: According to Norman Roth, “far more attention has [been] focused on Jewish moneylending than on any other occupation.” Roth asserts that general histories of the medieval period, if they mention Jews at all, refer to Jews as moneylenders or as being involved in the slave trade. He assets that there is not a great abundance of research on commercial activity of Jews in the Middle East. He accuses scholars of making “sweeping generalizations that would be “laughable and unthinkable in any other context.”[67] Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews were subjected to a wide range of legal disabilities and restrictions, some of which lasted until the end of the 19th century. At times, even moneylending and peddling were at times forbidden to them. The number of Jews permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and were not allowed to own land; they were subject to discriminatory taxes on entering cities or districts other than their own and were forced to swear special Jewish Oaths, and they suffered a variety of other measures. The exclusion of Jews from many trades and craft guilds began following the First Crusade (10961099).[68] The exclusion often came at the urging of clergy and local guild members, state and local governments.[69] Jews were excluded in certain places from certain crafts (excluded by the craft guilds), in certain trades, and – indirectly – agriculture due to bans on land-ownership; these exclusions led Jews of often engage in peddling, second-hand goods, pawnbroking, and moneylending.[70][71][72] In Southern Europe, Christian competitors of Jews in several occupations – including the moneylending occupation – asked their country’s leaders to expel Jews, in order to reduce competition.[71] The result of these occupational restrictions was to push Jews into marginal roles considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, occupations only tolerated as a “necessary evil”. Although Jews had not been particularly associated with moneylending in antiquity, a stereotype of them acting in this capacity was developed beginning in the 11th century. Jonathan Frankel notes that this stereotype, though obviously an exaggeration, had a solid basis in reality. While not all Jews were moneylenders, it does seem to have been true that Jews were disproportionately represented in the trade.[73] Catholic doctrine at the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and it was an occupation forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews made this business their own, despite possible criticism of usury in the Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, this led to many negative stereotypes of Jews as insolent, greedy usurers and the understandable tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) added to social, political, religious, and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could see them as personally taking their money while unaware of those on whose behalf these Jews worked.[citation needed] Howard Sachar writes that the occupations that were left for Jews to engage in were often the occupations that Christians disdained, such as peddling, hawking and moneylending, and he estimates that three fourths of Jews in Central and Western Europe were occupied in these occupations in the 18th century.[69] Sachar states that “[i]n their [Jews] struggle for livelihood, they generated a sizable underclass of beggars, fencers, pimps, even robbers, thereby creating a self-fulfilling gentile scenario of Jews, one that would endlessly invoked by Jew-haters throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”[69] Similarly, Todeschini writes that the perception of Jews as dishonest and immoral became a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the exclusion from other professions forced them to engage in moneylending and other marginal professions that were regarded as unethical.[74] One of the reasons that moneylending was open to Jews as a profession was that European Christian culture regarded moneylending as sinful or immoral. This caused Christians to avoid the profession, leaving a vacuum which Jews were free to fill. The Christian abhorrence of moneylending was rooted in the Old Testament laws of Exodus 22:25, Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Psalms 15:5.[75] These biblical rules were re-emphasized in the Middle Ages in the Lateran councils[76] particularly the Second Lateran Council of 1139[75] and the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215,[77] however these proclamations of the Catholic Church outlawed excessively high interest rates, not interest in general.[75][77] Max Dimont asserts that moneylending, of all professions, was the “most reviled”. The occupation of moneylending was considered a “degenerate” profession, in the 14th century by many Christians, including Franciscans in England such as John Peckham who engaged in discussions of usury and debt.[78] One reason that Christians permitted Jews to engage in moneylending, even though it was considered a sinful activity, was because Jews were already considered to be damned, and so they may as well commit the sin of usury, thus saving the souls of Christians that would otherwise be forced to lend money.[79][80][81] Moneylending became an important occupation for Jews, beginning in the early Middle Ages, and continuing into the modern era. Moneylending was first noted as a significant occupation in the 9th century, and in the 10th century, some Jews were large scale financiers.[68] This prevalence in the field of moneylending has led to scholarly debate which considered the question of why Jews gravitated towards money-related occupations. Dimont writes that the Jewish role in moneylending was the most important contribution of Jews to medieval society, since the feudal culture might have failed without a flow of capital.[82] Foxman writes that the moneylending profession gave rise, eventually, to the modern financial industries, including banking. Over time, Jews became very skilled at both commerce and moneylending.[83] Some European leaders encouraged Jews to engage in moneylending, because it enhanced economic activity and provided personal benefit to the leaders themselves[77] In addition, leaders benefited from Jewish moneylenders by collecting fees and taxes.[84] Throughout Europe, Jews filled the role of Court Jew for virtually every seat of nobility. In spite of this, some European leaders expelled Jews from their countries (England 1290, France 1306 and 1394) depriving themselves of the economic benefits provided by the moneylenders.[84] Although most scholars attribute the large number of Jews in the moneylending occupation to the exclusion from other crafts and trades, Werner Sombart, in his book The Jews and Modern Capitalism, asserts that moneylending was an occupation that many Jews preferred, and voluntarily engaged in.[85] As evidence, Sombart cites the fact that Jews were heavily engaged in moneylending before the era when they were excluded from trades and crafts; and also the fact that the religion and culture of Judaism predisposed Jews to commercial and financial endeavors.[86] Because Sombart speculated on anthropological and racial explanations, his work has been described as antisemitic and racist.[87][88] However, some modern scholars characterize his presentation of the topic as sympathetic and valid.[89][90] Sombart’s work was a watershed in the scholarship of Jewish culture, because it prompted subsequent historians and economists to begin to examine the relationship between Jews and money.[89][91] Sombart contends that many of the trade and craft prohibitions were rarely enforced, and thus Jews could have found employment in many of the proscribed occupations, if they desired. However, Sombart writes that Jews were absolutely excluded from government jobs, and that this exclusion was more significant than the putative trade exclusions. He also suggests that exclusion from government jobs had some incidental benefits for Jews, because it freed them from problems associated with political partisanship.[92] Derek Penslar asserts that, whereas the “more fantastic aspects of medieval antisemitism, which include the demonization of Jews, and accusations of ritual murder and black magic were (incompletely) suppressed, to some extent, by the combined forces of Protestantism and the modern state”, economic antisemitism did not share the same fate because “it has fit as well into a rationalized worldview as a magical one, into a secular sensibility as a theological one.”[41] According to Perry and Schweitzer, “Jewish economic endeavors labored under the stigma, variously, of being “unproductive,” sterile, parasitic, usurious, dangerous, dishonest, criminal and the like.”[93] Prior to approximately 1820 in Europe, most Jews were peddlers and shopkeepers, but following the Jewish emancipation in the 19th century, Jews were able to migrate to middle- and upper-class and engage in a wider variety of occupations.[94] In 1859 in the Austro-Hungarian empire, guilds were abolished and that opportunity enabled Jews to enter “liberal professions” such as law, journalism, and medicine.[95] In the middle of the 19th century, a number of German Jews founded investment banking firms which later became mainstays of the industry. Most prominent Jewish banks in the United States were investment banks, rather than commercial banks.[96] Jonathan Knee postulates that Jews were forced to focus on the development of investment banks because they were excluded from the commercial banking sector.[97] Following legislation supporting the equality of French Jews with other citizens during the French Revolution, similar laws promoting Jewish emancipation were enacted in the early 19th century in those parts of Europe over which France had influence.[98][99] The old laws restricting them to ghettos, as well as the many laws that limited their property rights, rights of worship and occupation, were rescinded. Despite the lifting of official economic restrictions against Jews throughout Europe, economic stereotypes and unofficial or semi-official restrictions on the economic activity of Jews continued. Bernard Lazare commented that, “Economic antisemitism to-day is stronger than it ever was, for the reason that to-day, more than ever, the Jew appears powerful and rich. Formerly he was not seen: he remained hidden in his Ghetto, far from Christian eyes. He had but one care, to conceal his wealth, that wealth of which tradition regarded him as the gatherer, and not the proprietor. The day he was freed from his disabilities, the day the restrictions put to his activities fell away, the Jew showed himself in public.”[100]Howard Sachar writes that throughout much of the 19th century, popular literature and theatrical performances in the Austrian and German empires were merciless in their caricatures of the Rothschilds as “Jewish cash bags” or “Jews behind the throne”.[69] These caricatures evolved from mere political satire to more overt antisemitism at the start of the 20th century.[69] Sachar notes that there is irony in the fact that Jewish proponents of communism, such as Karl Marx were partially responsible for antisemitism targeting the relationship between Jews and capitalism.[69] One example of economic antisemitism was promulgated in France by Edouard Drumont in his 1879 pamphlet entitled What we Demand of Modern Jewry, in which he contrasted the poverty of the French workers with the wealth of the Jewish bankers and industrialists.[101] By the time of the Civil War, tensions over race and immigration, as well as economic competition between Jews and non-Jews, combined to produce the worst American outbreak of anti-Semitism to that date. Americans on both sides of the slavery issue denounced Jews as disloyal war profiteers, and accused them of driving Christians out of business and of aiding and abetting the enemy. Major General Ulysses S. Grant was influenced by these sentiments and issued General Order No. 11 expelling Jews from areas under his control in western Tennessee: The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order. This order was quickly rescinded by President Abraham Lincoln but not until it had been enforced in a number of towns.[102] According to Jerome Chanes, Lincoln’s revocation of Grant’s order was based primarily on “constitutional strictures against …the federal government singling out any group for special treatment.” Chanes characterizes General Order No. 11 as “unique in the history of the United States” because it was the only overtly antisemitic official action of the United States government.[103] Grant later issued an order “that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the road southward.” His aide, Colonel John V. DuBois, ordered “all cotton speculators, Jews, and all vagabonds with no honest means of support”, to leave the district. “The Israelites especially should be kept outthey are such an intolerable nuisance.” Beginning in the early 1880s, declining farm prices also prompted elements of the Populist movement to blame the perceived evils of capitalism and industrialism on Jews because of their alleged racial/religious inclination for financial exploitation and, more specifically, because of the alleged financial manipulations of Jewish financiers such as the Rothschilds.[104] Although Jews played only a minor role in the nation’s commercial banking system, the prominence of Jewish investment bankers such as the Rothschilds in Europe, and Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in New York City, made the claims of anti-Semites believable to some. In the 1890s, is Mary Elizabeth Lease, an American farming activist and populist from Kansas, frequently blamed the Rothschilds and the “British bankers” as the source of farmers’ ills.[105] The Morgan Bonds scandal injected populist anti-Semitism into the 1896 presidential campaign. It was disclosed that President Grover Cleveland had sold bonds to a syndicate which included J. P. Morgan and the Rothschilds house, bonds which that syndicate was now selling for a profit, the Populists used it as an opportunity to uphold their view of history, and prove to the nation that Washington and Wall Street were in the hands of the international Jewish banking houses. Another focus of anti-Semitic feeling was the allegation that Jews were at the center of an international conspiracy to fix the currency and thus the economy to a single gold standard.[106] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting attended by world Jewish leaders, the “Elders of Zion”, who are conspiring to take over the world. The Protocols includes plans to subvert the morals of the non-Jewish world, plans for Jewish bankers to control the world’s economies, plans for Jewish control of the press, and – ultimately – plans for the destruction of civilization. The document consists of twenty-four “protocols”, which have been analyzed by Steven Jacobs and Mark Weitzman, and they documented several protocols that suggested that Jews would employ control of the worlds banking system to dominate the world. Of the 24 protocols, the ones that focus on economic issues are 2, 3, 4, 21, and 22.[107][108][109] Henry Ford was a non-interventionist who opposed World War I, and he believed that Jews were responsible for starting wars in order to profit from them: “International financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the international Jew: German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all those countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme . . . here the Jew is a threat”.[110] Ford also shared Marx’s view that Jews were responsible for capitalism, and in their role as financiers, they did not contribute anything of value to society.[111] In 1915, during World War I, Ford blamed Jews for instigating the war, saying “I know who caused the war: German-Jewish bankers.”[112] Later, in 1925, Ford said “What I oppose most is the international Jewish money power that is met in every war. That is what I oppose – a power that has no country and that can order the young men of all countries out to death'”. According to author Steven Watts, Ford’s antisemitism was partially due to a desire for world peace.[112][113] Ford became aware of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and believed it to be a legitimate document, and he published portions of it in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. Also, in 1920-21 the Dearborn Independent carried a series of articles expanding on the themes of financial control by Jews, entitled:[114] One of the articles, “Jewish Power and America’s Money Famine”, asserted that the power exercised by Jews over the nation’s supply of money was insidious by helping deprive farmers and others outside the banking coterie of money when they needed it most. The article asked the question: “Where is the American gold supply? … It may be in the United States but it does not belong to the United States” and it drew the conclusion that Jews controlled the gold supply and, hence, American money.[115] Another of the articles, “Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve System” was a reflection of Ford’s suspicion of the Federal Reserve System and its proponent, Paul Warburg. Ford believed the Federal Reserve system was secretive and insidious.[116] These articles gave rise to claims of antisemitism against Ford,[117] and in 1929 he signed a statement apologizing for the articles.[118] Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point Party Program, published in 1920, Nazi Party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from “Aryan” society and to abrogate Jews’ political, legal, and civil rights. Nazi leaders began to carry out their pledge to persecute German Jews soon after their assumption of power. Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism party rose to power in Germany during a time of economic depression. Hitler blamed Jews for Germany’s economic woes. Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (German, My Struggle) included the following passage which was representative of much of the antisemitism in Germany and Europe: “The Jewish train of thought in all this is clear. The Bolshevization of Germany – that is, the extermination of the national folkish Jewish intelligentsia to make possible the sweating of the German working class under the yoke of Jewish world finance – is conceived only as a preliminary to the further extension of this Jewish tendency of world conquest…. If our people and our state become the victim of these blood-thirsty and avaricious Jewish tyrants of nations, the whole earth will sink into the snares of this octopus.”[119] Starting in 1933, repressive laws were passed against Jews, culminating in the Nuremberg Laws which removed most of the rights of citizenship from Jews, using a racial definition based on descent, rather than any religious definition of who was a Jew. Sporadic violence against the Jews became widespread with the Kristallnacht riots, which targeted Jewish homes, businesses and places of worship, killing hundreds across Germany and Austria. The antisemitic agenda culminated in the genocide of the Jews of Europe, known as the Holocaust. The first major law to curtail the rights of Jewish German citizens was the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” of April 7, 1933, according to which Jewish and “politically unreliable” civil servants and employees were to be excluded from state service. The new Civil Service Law was the German authorities’ first formulation of the so-called Aryan Paragraph, a kind of regulation used to exclude Jews (and often by extension other “non-Aryans”) from organizations, professions, and other aspects of public life. In April 1933, German law restricted the number of Jewish students at German schools and universities. In the same month, further legislation sharply curtailed “Jewish activity” in the medical and legal professions. Subsequent laws and decrees restricted reimbursement of Jewish doctors from public (state) health insurance funds. On April 1, 1933, Jewish doctors, shops, lawyers and stores were boycotted. Only six days later, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from being employed in government. This law meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and upper-level positions reserved for Aryan Germans. From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, beneath non-Jews, pushing them to more labored positions. In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry. Because of this, there was nothing to stop the anti-Jewish actions which spread across the Nazi-German economy. In 1937 and 1938, German authorities again stepped up legislative persecution of German Jews. The government set out to impoverish Jews and remove them from the German economy by requiring them to register their property. Even before the Olympics, the Nazi government had initiated the practice of “Aryanizing” Jewish businesses. “Aryanization” meant the dismissal of Jewish workers and managers of a company and/or the takeover of Jewish-owned businesses by non-Jewish Germans who bought them at bargain prices fixed by government or Nazi party officials. IAs of March 1, 1938, government contracts could no longer be awarded to Jewish businesses. On September 30, the government forbade Jewish doctors to treat non-Jews, and revoked the licenses of Jewish lawyers to practice law. Following the Kristallnacht (commonly known as “Night of Broken Glass”) pogrom of November 910, 1938, Nazi leaders stepped up “Aryanization” efforts and enforced measures that succeeded increasingly in physically isolating and segregating Jews from their fellow Germans. Jews were barred from all public schools and universities, as well as from cinemas, theaters, and sports facilities. In many cities, Jews were forbidden to enter designated “Aryan” zones. German decrees and ordinances expanded the ban on Jews in professional life. By September 1938, for instance, Jewish physicians were effectively banned from treating “Aryan” patients. By April 1939, nearly all Jewish companies had either collapsed under financial pressure and declining profits, or had been forced to sell out to the Nazi German government. This further reduced Jews rights as human beings; they were in many ways officially separated from the German populace. Antisemitism was particularly virulent in Vichy France during World War II. The antisemitic demands of right-wing groups were implemented under the collaborating Vichy regime of Marshal Philippe Ptain, following the defeat of the French by the German army in 1940. A law on the status of Jews of that year, followed by another in 1941, purged Jews from employment in administrative, civil service and judicial posts, from most professions and even from the entertainment industry restricting them, mostly, to menial jobs. William Korey describes a 1977 Academy of Sciences of the USSR report titledInternational Zionism: History and Politics alleging that “Jewish bourgeoisie”, using Zionism as a cover, sought “the expansion of their positions in the economy of the largest capitalist states … and in the economic system of world capitalism as a whole”.[120] The report specifically mentioned six Wall Street investment firms: Lazard Brothers, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Loeb Rhoades, Bache & Co., and Goldman-Sachs. The report also expounded on the “clannish” theory that Jewish financial firms around the world were related by family-ties and collaborated unethically.[121] In 1922, educational discrimination became a national issue when Harvard announced it was considering a quota system for Jewish students. Although it was eventually dropped, the quota was enforced in many colleges through underhanded techniques (as late as 1945 Dartmouth openly admitted and defended a quota system against Jewish students). To limit the growing number of Jewish students, a number of private liberal arts universities and medical and dental schools instituted a quota system referred to as Numerus clausus. These included Harvard University, Columbia University, Cornell University, and Boston University[citation needed]. In 1925 Yale University, which already had such admissions preferences as “character”, “solidity”, and “physical characteristics” added a program of legacy preference admission spots for children of Yale alumni, in an explicit attempt to put the brakes on the rising percentage of Jews in the student body. This was soon copied by other Ivy League and other schools[citation needed], and admissions of Jews were kept down to 10% through the 1950s. Such policies were for the most part discarded during the early 1960s although the last vestiges were not eliminated at Yale University until 1970. Jews encountered resistance when they tried to move into white-collar and professional positions. Banking, insurance, public utilities, medical schools, hospitals, large law firms and faculty positions, restricted the entrance of Jews. This era of polite antisemitism through social discrimination, underwent an ideological escalation in the 1930s The Anti Defamation League documented one of the more common aspects of money-related antisemitism: the claim that the United States’ Federal Reserve System was created by Jews and is run by them for their own financial benefit. The ADL gives examples of this myth repeated by Aryan Nations, Louis Farrakhan, Sheldon Emry, and Wickliffe Vennard. Another example cited by the ADL is Bo Gritz, the 1992 Presidential candidate of the Populist Party, in his book Called to Serve.[122] Abraham Foxman rebuts the Federal Reserve myth in his book Jews and Money, by explaining that the Federal Reserve system is a quasi-public entity that was created and is controlled by the United States Congress.[123] Various incarnations of money-related antisemitism have been documented in the Islamic world. In a 1968 conference at the University of Cairo, a speaker proclaimed that “money-worship [is among the] inherent qualities in them [the Jews]. … They are characterized by avarice and many other vices, which arose from selfishness, love of worldly life, and envy…”.[124] The Arab discourse on the Holocaust displays various instances of economic antisemitic rhetoric. One such example is Shaykh Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawis 1997 book The Israelites in the Quran. Tantawi was an integral part of the religious leadership in Egypt, a leadership that purported the idea that Jews had undermined Islam throughout history.[125] In this book, Jews are characterized as a swindler people, starting both the Great War and WWII for selfish economic gain, and taking over the German economy as a result of their sinister fiscal techniques. Tantawi uses this perception of Jews as a justification for Hitlers genocidal agenda, saying that it is little wonder that the Germans rose against them several times and employed all the means of killing, expulsion, and pillage.[126] The Murabitun organization has published policy statements that are antisemitic and concentrate on breaking Jewish control of the world financial system.[127] According to Robert S. Wistrich, Hamas and Hezbollah routinely make pronouncements which blame “the world banking crisis on the Jews who supposedly control the American government and economy”.[128] Osama bin Laden, in his 2002 Letter to America, wrote “You [United States] are the nation that permits usury, which has been forbidden by all religions. yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of all this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving aims at their expense.”[129][130] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, told the United Nations General Assembly in 2008 that the Zionists[131] “have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers … in a deceitful, complex, and furtive manner”.[132] Abraham Foxman also identifies editorials, cartoons, and news stories throughout the Middle East as sources that repeat money-related antisemitic myths.[129] The Nation of Islam has promulgated some money-based antisemtic myths, particularly in their book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Volume 1 of the book claims that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade, and profited from black slavery.[133] Volume 2 of the book alleges that Jews in America exploited black labor and innovation, for instance in cotton, textiles, music, and banking.[134][135] The book also asserts that Jews have promoted a myth of black racial inferiority.[134] Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has also elaborated on these concepts in speeches, making statements such as “The Federal Reserve is the synagogue of Satan, the House of Rothschild “, and “The Black man and woman have always been looked upon as the ‘property’ of White America, and particularly, members of the Jewish community “.[134][136] Activist Kieth Shive, of the Farmers Liberation Army in the United States, published a position paper in the 1980s which promoted agricultural activism and listed as goals “(1) Get rid of the privately held Federal Reserve System … and its phony money; (2) Adopt a sane US monetary policy which eliminates interest payments to the International Bankers “.[105] Author Daniel Levitas interprets this as a veiled antisemitic statement, because Shive also repeated a fictitious quote attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild “Let me issue and control the money of a country and I care not who passes the laws” which Shive contended applied to the United States Federal Reserve System.[105] In the 1970s, the White Supremacist movement in the United States adopted the position that Jews are “parasites and vultures” and are attempting to enslave Aryans through domination of world banking and media.[137] White supremacists such as William L. Pierce have repeated money-based antisemitic myths.[138] The militia movement in the United States is also a source of money-based antisemitism, including leaders Bo Gritz, who alleges that the Federal Reserve System is controlled by Jews, and John Trochman who believes that the nation’s problems are the fault of a Jewish “banking elite”.[139][140] According to Rosensaft and Bauer, the international Arab boycott constitutes a “new economic antisemitism”.[141] Irwin Cotler elaborates that the new economic antisemitism involves the “extra-territorial application by Arab countries of an international restrictive covenant against corporations conditioning their trade with Arab countries on their agreement to: Jews have been portrayed as miserly and greedy in both belles-lettres and popular literature.[143][144] The character Shylock in William Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice is a Jewish moneylender who is portrayed in unscrupulous and avaricious. Derek Penslar asserts that Shylock is a metaphor for the Jewish “otherness” and that he represents the “inseparability of Jewish religious, social, and economic distinctiveness”.[145]Gerald Krefetz calls Shylock a “classic image” which has haunted Jews ever since it first appeared, since it made Jews a scapegoat.[143] Historian Richard Hofstadter writes that Shylock was used as the basis for “crankery” by Charles Coughlin and Ezra Pound.[146] John Gross states that Shylock represented “the sinister international financier” on both sides of the Atlantic.[147] Abraham Foxman contends that Shylock may have contributed to antisemitism in Japan, becauseThe Merchant of Venice is translated into Japanese more than any other play of Shakespeare.[148] The character Fagin in Charles Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist is depicted as avaricious and has served to support antisemitic stereotypes.[149] Dickens claims he held Jews in high regard, and that the depiction of Fagin was simply a caricature that was based upon actual persons, and – in an apparent demonstration of remorse – Dickens removed many occurrences of the word “Jew” from later editions of the work.

Fair Usage Law

May 1, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed

Former ADL Chief Abraham Foxman: Sarsour a Bigot Who …

Foxman was always a running dog for the left, and he is wholly undeserving of the fawning treatment Algemeiner gives him here. But he is right that Sarsour is a bigot, although wrong that she should not be canceled. Enough is enough. For decencys sake alone, this vicious hatemonger should be canceled. Former ADL Chief Abraham Foxman Warns Against Politicization of Antisemitism; Calls Sarsour a Bigot Who Should Not Have Received CUNY Invite, by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, April 30, 2017: During an interview with The Algemeiner on Friday, the conversation inevitably turned to the subject of Linda Sarsour, the vocal BDS advocate who, this past week alone, earned the praise of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the pages of Time magazine and was invited to speak at the commencement ceremony at CUNYs Graduate School of Public Health. Shes a champion of equal rights, except when it comes to Jewish rights, Foxman said of Sarsour. She plays that game, I love Jews, I dont like Zionists. Well, Ive got news for her. Every Jew whos a Jew prays to Jerusalem, says Im eshkachech Yerushalayim, (If I forget you, Jerusalem.) So this is a throwback to 1948. Yet Foxman is careful not to charge every Palestinian solidarity activist with antisemitism. You can be an advocate of the Palestinian liberation movement without being an enemy of Jewish liberation, Foxman stressed. But that, he continued, is not the case with Sarsour. She is an enemy of Jewish sovereignty and Jewish liberation, he stated. Shes a bigot, and she shouldnt have been invited [to CUNY]. But now that the invitation had been extended, Foxman said, CUNY would be better off learning about her views and distancing itself appropriately, rather than turning Sarsour into a free speech martyr. Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administrations War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Fair Usage Law

May 1, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."