Archive for the ‘Jewish Lobby’ Category

Coming out party: Modi’s visit to Israel marks a pragmatic turn in Indian foreign policy – Times of India (blog)

As Prime Minister Narendra Modis visit to Israel is hailed as a historic moment marking 25 years of full diplomatic relations, its surprising that it took so long for an Indian PM to visit Israel. India had recognised Israel way back in 1950. But progress in bilateral ties since then has been impeded, it has to be said, more by New Delhi than by Tel Aviv.

In that sense, Modis visit to Israel is a coming out party for bilateral ties and marks a pragmatic turn in Indias foreign policy. New Delhi can certainly boost ties with Tel Aviv without diluting its position on the two state solution vis–vis Palestine. The argument that Israels treatment of Palestinian Muslims should make India wary of deeper engagement doesnt cut much ice. There are many countries such as Saudi Arabia and China which score poorly on the human rights index, but India maintains wide-ranging relations with them. Why should Israel, a vibrant democracy, be treated differently? Even on the specific question of oppression of Muslims Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia do much worse (look at Pakistani/ Saudi suppression of Shias or Ahmadiyyas, or Chinese suppression of Uighurs).

From a historical perspective, Israels support for India during the 1971 war and the Kargil conflict had long laid the foundation for a strategic partnership. Modis visit now should fast track engagements across both traditional and non-traditional sectors. While defence ties are slated to receive a further fillip since April India has inked three missile deals with Israel worth $2.6 billion, and is looking forward to receiving armed drones agreements on space cooperation and water and agriculture are also on the anvil.

The latter is particularly relevant as Israel is a country that turned the desert green with its agriculture technology, while Indian agriculture is increasingly water depressed. Additionally, Israel has the second largest number of start-ups in the world and a strong R&D culture things that India should leverage. Co-production in sectors such as defence, IT and space technology will boost the Make in India initiative. Both India and Israel are victims of terrorism and could gain much through further enhancing counter-terror cooperation. Lastly Israel has strong ties to the Jewish lobby in the US, which in turn is well connected to the Trump administration. Those are useful connections New Delhi could turn to its advantage.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author’s own.

Read the original here:

Coming out party: Modi’s visit to Israel marks a pragmatic turn in Indian foreign policy – Times of India (blog)

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Dar disowns confession in Hudaibya reference – The Express Tribune

Claims providing details of every single penny during 45 minutes of testimony

Finance Minister Ishaq Dar. PHOTO: ONLINE

ISLAMABAD:Finance Minister Ishaq Dar on Monday disowned his confessional statement in the Hudaibya Paper Mills reference, saying: Pakistani courts have already decided that it contains no evidentiary value.

Its nothing but trash and a waste paper, Dar said while talking to the media soon after he recorded his statement before the joint investigation team (JIT) tasked with probing the Sharif familys offshore assets.

The confessional statement Dar referred to was given before a magistrate way back on April 25, 2000. In his handwritten statement, the senator had alleged that Sharif brothers used the Hudaibya Paper Mills as cover for money-laundering during the late 1990s.

A seemingly infuriated Dar, who spent almost 45 minutes with the probe team, verbally attacked PTI chairman Imran Khans personal life in probably the worst such action so far from any senior cabinet member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

He consumed around 30 minutes to talk about insignificance of three pending references against the Sharif family instituted during Musharrafs regime in an unholy haste; triviality of his famous confessional statement; a JIT not following procedure set by the apex court during the ongoing investigation; and some below-the-belt and personal attacks on Imran Khan involving his alleged marriage with Sita White and donations made by Dars family for Khans cancer hospital.

Exhausted Dar is just what Imran needed to expose guilt on face

He told the media that he answered all the questions posed by the members of the high-powered probe team. I provide them with details of every single penny, he said, adding, It is not difficult for him as all business affairs of the Sharif family are totally transparent.

Dar did not refuse to acknowledge his confessional statement in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case but said that its not his hand-written and was signed by him following a legal advice given to him at that time.

Even the holy Quran says to eat or drink prohibited (haram) stuff if ones life is in danger, Dar said, adding he was advised by the legal team to sign whatever they were asking for.

He said some 13 judges at different times had rejected the confessional statement and given categorical decisions about its admissibility and added that a former prosecutor general wrote that it had no evidentiary value.

Whoever producing it as substantial evidence is disgracing the judgment of the 13 judges, he said, adding that nobody dared to even challenge that decision of the judges.

I have valid proof where one of the senior members of the team [that managed to obtain that confessional statement] named an individual who did it just to please his superiors, he said. My so-called confessional statement is nothing but trash. Its a waste paper and I have been saying it since the day one, he added.

The finance minister said even former CJP Justice Jamali had refrained PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari in the Panamagate case to read out that statement which shows its insignificance.

In his confessional statement, Dar had admitted laundering $14.9 million to whiten Sharifs money.

Dar alleged that the JIT probing the Sharif familys offshore assets was not following the procedure set by the Supreme Court in the Arsalan Iftikhar case. It seems laws are different for the son of a judge and the children of a sitting PM. Its unfair.

He said he felt bad when the JIT issued summons for PMs daughter Maryam Nawaz. Its not about Maryam alone I will also feel bad if the JIT summons the sisters of Imran Khan, who were directors of an offshore firm owned by Imran, he said.

Taking on JIT aggressively appears to be new strategy of Sharif family

He requested the Supreme Court to take notice of the summons issued to Maryam Nawaz, saying the JIT should review its decision and rather sent a questionnaire to her as per the procedure laid out by the Supreme Court in the Arsalan Iftikhar case.

The JIT is required to prove its credibility, as several questions have so far been raised about its impartiality, he added.

The finance minister said there was no mention of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif anywhere in the Panama Papers nor did he own any offshore company. He said many named in the Panama Papers were part of different political parties and were the frontrunner in the whole campaign against the Sharif family.

A drama has been going on for the last 23 years, he said, adding that three references were instituted during Musharrafs dictatorial regime under mala fide intention and through presumptive and forced confessions.

While citing a reference, Dar said: The Ittefaq Foundries report was prepared on February 14, 2000 and on the same date the NAB scrutinised it and also completed the investigation under Section 18-G on the same date. Then on the same date the Lahore Accountability Court took cognisance of it and on the same date Abbas Sharif and others were produced in the case, he said.

It seems it was not a 24-hour day, rather a day spanning over 24 days. In legal language, unholy haste itself is a dangerous practice that destroys the fundamentals of justice, he said, calling the Panamagate case a conspiracy against Nawaz Sharif and his government, hatched by opponent political parties.

The senator spent a significant portion of his media talk to criticise the PTI chairman. From questioning about his alleged ties with the Jewish lobby to his secret marriage with Sita White and a daughter from that marriage, he said it all.

You are a liar, illiterate, gambler, coward, and tax evader, Dar said in one breath.

He said it was not the Sharif family but people on the right and left of Imran Khan who were involved in money laundering, adding that he would prove it if somebody challenged him on it.

You should be ashamed of doing politics based on hollow lies, Dar said, addressing Imran.

He also narrated when and how he in 1993 met Imran and over the period of time made generous donations for his hospital on his personal requests. I had a love-and-hate relationship with Imran and it spans over years but now I am completely disappointed, he said.

He said Imran used to wait for him while sitting in his office in 1993 just to get donations. He used to wait for my arrival while sitting with my sons in my office. And I used to give him Zakat and donations for his hospital, he said.

Under what authority you had entered petition under Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan against Nawaz Sharif. You should look at yourself and you will see the California case is enough for you, Dar said.

Taking on JIT aggressively appears to be new strategy of Sharif family

A California court had stamped that fact, Dar said, referring to Imrans child from Sita White, adding that Jemima Khan had taken the girl in her guardianship. Whatever happened, leave it but she is our daughter also, he said of Sita and Khans daughter.

In fact he is a coward. What you will say about a person who hides his marriage, he said of Imran.

Ask him where his marriage with Jemima occurred, Dar said, adding that he would say in Paris. Its a lie. It happened in Saint John Wart. I know the witnesses who signed his wedding papers, he said.

The finance minister also questioned Khans assets, asking how he had become the second richest politician of the country.

He is not a son of an industrialist like Nawaz Sharif. How he has become three times richer than me? I have a value. Various countries have offered me double or triple money I have been earning against my services in Pakistan, he said.

Dar concluded by saying that the truth would prevail in the end.

Original post:

Dar disowns confession in Hudaibya reference – The Express Tribune

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

US leftists attack Netanyahu – Israel National News – Arutz Sheva

J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami attacks Israel’s Prime Minister and the recent government decissions regarding the Western Wall

Hezki Baruch, 01/07/17 22:48

Yonatan Sindel, Flash 90

J Street head Jeremy Ben-Ami spoke on Saturday night to Israel’s Channel 10 about his anger over Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to block the Western Wall agreement.

J Street is a left-wing Jewish lobby based in the US, supported by George Soros, that competes with AIPAC, the traditional and centrist-right pro-Israel lobby.

“It’s a real crisis, since the identity of most American Jews is hanging in the balance ,” Ben-Ami told Channel 10.

“It’s not a question of J Street or AIPAC – it’s about 90% of American Jewry. These aren’t Orthodox people, and the message they’re getting is that they ‘don’t count.’

“The question is if Prime Minister Netanyahu’s only interest in Israel is to keep his coalition. I hope that his main interest is the Jewish nation and the State of Israel. There is even discussion about practical steps, about harming businesses and tourism.”

Meanwhile Coaliation Chairman David Bitan (Likud) told Channel 10 that “in order to bring about an agreement via the legal system, we needed to freeze the current proposal.”

“Regardless, there is a place for egalitarian prayer right now – they just want to have partial control over it. Even the haredim don’t want to get into this issue, but the Reform turned to the Supreme Court, leaving the haredim with no other choice.”

Link:

US leftists attack Netanyahu – Israel National News – Arutz Sheva

Fair Usage Law

July 2, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Sessions mocked for citing ‘Jewish AIPAC event’ – The Times of Israel

US Attorney-General Jeff Sessions was roundly mocked on Tuesday for referencing a Jewish AIPAC event during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee probing allegations of collusion between Russia and members of the presidential campaign of US President Donald Trump during last years elections.

Sessions said he was excited to attend a speech to be given by Trump because the only time hed heard him speak previously was at a Jewish AIPAC event, in reference to the pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Trump, as a candidate, spoke before the organization and its guests at the annual AIPAC conference in 2016.

In his testimony, Sessions said he had been very anxious to see how president Trump would do in his first major foreign policy address. I believe hed only given one major speech before, that was maybe at the Jewish AIPAC event

The Twitterverse mocked the attorney-general for the remark which erroneously refered to the organization as Jewish, when it lobbies for Israel and has many non-Jewish members and activists. Calling AIPAC a Jewish lobby would add[s] up to an effort to delegitimize pro-Israel activists and has elements of age-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories alleging insidious Jewish efforts to dominate seats of power, as described by the Anti-Defamation League.

Read more:

Sessions mocked for citing ‘Jewish AIPAC event’ – The Times of Israel

Fair Usage Law

June 13, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Ari Shavit: Triumph by treachery towards the Promised Land – Arutz Sheva

Ari Shavits history of Israel, entitled My Promised Land: the Triumph and Tragedy of Israel,has been very well received throughout the Jewish world. Both the American Jewish and mainstream American presses nearly all gave it rave reviews. It has received three prestigious Jewish book awardsThe Natan Book Award, and The National Jewish Book Award.1Shavit made a successful and very well-paid speaking tour of synagogues and Jewish community centers throughout the United States, complete with book-signings and sales. Both the Hillel organization and the pro-Israel American Jewish lobby, AIPAC, distributed and marketed My Promised Land for Shavit. HBO is in the process of filming a documentary series based on Shavits book, to be narrated by Shavit himself.2

But while all this acclaim is certainly a triumph for Shavit, his book is best described not as a tragedy but as an abomination of desolation of Biblical proportions. It is a vicious assault on Israel, a false and libelous narrative of Israeli history, although cleverly disguised as a sympathetic account by a loyal son of his country.

According to Shavit, Zionist leaders in Palestine decided, no later than in World War II, that the Arabs of Palestine would have to be expelled and their land seized to enable the resettlement of the Jews who would survive the Holocaust in Europe, and to preemptively crush Arab resistance to the creation of a Jewish state. The Zionists then launched a surprise attack on the Palestinians in 1947-48, driving them out of the country by perpetrating numerous massacres of unarmed civilians, executing prisoners, and dynamiting villages, while celebrating these deeds with savage war dances, and gleefully looting the villages and towns evacuated by the fleeing Arabs.

But Is this the truth? Numerous eye-witness accounts by participants in the conflict, Arab as well as Israeli, reporting by journalists who covered the conflict on the spot in Palestine, and masses of documentary records in Israeli archives, both military and political, that have now been made available to scholars (the archives of all of the Arab states, significantly, all remain closed to researchers), all reveal an authentic history that is completely at odds with Shavits Jewish-conspiracy narrative. The best summary and digest of these authentic primary sources for the history of the war is the thoroughly documented study by Israeli professor Efraim Karsh, entitledPalestine Betrayed;3but Karshs conclusions are fully confirmed by many other books written by journalists who covered the war fromPalestine while it was happening, and military historians with access to primary sources, both human and documentary.4

All of these legitimate sources of history affirm that Israels War of Independence was actually a defensive war of survival fought by Jews fighting not only for their independence, but for their very lives. It resulted not from any premeditated aggression by the Jewish-Zionist leadership, or much the less by ordinary Palestinian (soon to become Israeli) Jews, but quite the contrary, premeditated aggression by both the League of Arab States and the leaders of the Palestinian Arab community, with the semi-covert participation of the British colonial authorities in Palestine.

These sources describe a Jewish leadership that hoped to resolve the Palestine dispute peacefully through diplomacy, and planned on accommodating a large Arab population with full citizens rights in the hoped-for future Jewish state. This is also thoroughly documented in the published speeches and writings of the major Zionist leaders of the 1940s. The war known to Israelis as the War of Independence, and to the Palestinian Arabs as the Nakba (disaster), was initiated by the Arab Palestinian leaderswithin 24 hoursof the passage of a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly calling for the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The resolution was more than fair to the Palestinian Arabs, granting them half of what was left of Palestine after the British gave three fourths of the country to a sheikh from what is now called Saudi Arabia. It also granted them full parliamentary representation in the area of the country designated for a Jewish state.

Despite this very fair offer made to them by the UN General Assembly, which the Jewish leaders of Palestine accepted even though it gave the Jews only one-eighth of the land granted them by the League of Nations twenty-five years earlier, the Palestine Arab leaders, backed by the League of Arab States, and Britain, immediately launched a terrorist war against their Jewish neighbors. Nearly every Jewish village, urban or suburban neighborhood was attacked. Jews were also attacked on every major road in Palestine when their vehicles drove past any Arab village, which placed the entire Jewish population of the country under siege. Jews were removed from buses by the Arab guerilla terrorists and shot on the spot. The Palestinians (as they are now called) also attacked trains and seized huge quantities of food and other supplies from them that were being sent to Jewish communities, especially the 100,000 or so Jews in Jerusalem. Severe shortages of food and fuel developed in Jewish communities; tens of thousands of Jews suffered malnutrition and nearly starved to death, and shivered in the winter in unheated buildings. Finally, the Palestinian guerillas even cut off water supplies to the Jews of Jerusalem, forcing them to subsist on carefully rationed water collected in cisterns.

Far from plotting an aggressive war to expel the Arab population, the Jewish political and military leaders had never drawn upanyplan for full-scale war until three monthsafterthe Palestinian Arabs launched an all-out guerilla-terrorist war against their Jewish neighbors in November and December of 1947.When the Jewish Haganah (meaning Defense) militia finally did draw up a serious military plan to repel the Arab armed attacks, it contained no provision for the expulsion of the Arab population. Quite the contrary, it contained plans for caring for the large Arab population that the Haganah leaders expected would become citizens of the soon-to-be-proclaimed Jewish state.

Eventually, the Jewish Haganah defense militia had no choice but to occupy Arab villages that served as bases of operation and sources of recruits and supplies for the hostile guerillas who were attacking the Israelis. The guerillas, who intermingled with the civilian population and used their houses as fortresses, resisted these necessary Jewish counter-insurgency operations fiercely, and as the Jewish forces gradually overcame their armed resistance in one village after another, the civilian residents, who in many cases were the wives and children of the fighters, fled along with the Arab fighters to areas still under Arab control.

In May of 1948, the Palestinian irregular fighters and the out-of-uniform soldiers from the Arab states, who had infiltrated Palestines Arab villages and reinforced the local Palestinian-Arab fighters, were joined by tens of thousands of regular army soldiers dispatched by six Arab states in a concerted invasion of Palestine and attack on its Jewish community and their newly proclaimed state of Israel. But the local fighters continued to participate in the war against their Jewish neighbors, and assisted the Arab League invaders in every way they could. In order to repulse the fierce attack by the Arab League invaders, the Jewish militia, now renamed the Israel Defense Forces, had no choice but to occupy additional Arab villages and two small Arab towns, Ramleh and Lydda (now named Ramla and Lod), that were held either by the invasion forces, the local Palestinian Arab irregular fighters, or both. Inevitably, additional Arab civilians fled from these settlements along with the defeated, withdrawing Arab soldiers. In this way, a population of Palestinian Arab refugees on the Arab side of the eventual armistice lines separating Israel from the Arab-occupied areas was created. Israel had neither desired this result nor expected it when its leaders accepted the UN General Assembly recommendation for a compromise settlement of the conflict. The Palestinian Arab leadership, along with the governments of the Arab states, rejected the UN proposal and instead chose to launch an aggressive war. Arab refugees were the result–a self-created Nakba.

However, a deceitful counterfactual narrative has been created over the course of many years by numerous writers who are motivated by malicious hatred of Israel, and who are propagandists seeking to justify the continued Arab war against it–a war that has genocide as its openly proclaimed objective, and that uses the most atrocious acts of cruelty against innocent civilians, including babies and holy men praying in houses of worship, as its characteristic method. None of these writers were actual witnesses to the conflict, and none even attempts to give a complete account of the war, instead focusing exclusively on the Palestine Arab refugee exodus.. These deceitful counterfactual narratives have been constructed by misrepresenting the contents of earlier, legitimate histories of the conflict, by quotations from them that have been carefully scissored, cropped and spliced out of their original context so as to distort their meaning, and by systematically expurgated and sanitized versions of the actual sequence of events in the conflict that leave out any references to Arab violence against Jews.5

Shavit claims Ben-Gurion announced his intention to drive out the Palestinian Arabs, (the early 1940s) but he actually told a group of Jewish leaders that they had to plan on a million Arab citizens living in the future Jewish state. The inclusion of such an obvious fabricated quotation from Ben Gurion in Shavits narrative is truly outrageous. While Shavits book thus adds to an already rich tradition of anti-Israel propaganda disguised as history, it does have some unique aspects. For one thing, unlike previous anti-Israel narratives, it does not distort or misrepresent its documentary sources, but rather contains no documentation at all! Although Shavit claims at various places in the text to have consulted he doesnt ever bother to tell us what these archives are or where they are located, or much the less, identify the specific documents he is citing. He summarizes and at times quotes what he says witnesses told him in interviews, but doesnt tell us when or where he interviewed them, and in some cases, doesnt even identify the interviewees by name, instead referring to them by nicknames– such as The Bulldozer for one Israeli retired officer whom he dislikes. He quotes from letters that he says were written by witnesses to the conflict, but often fails to identify them by name, name the individuals to whom they were written, indicate when they were written, or where and how he gained access to them. He quotes from an alleged remark by Israels future Prime Minister, supposedly made in 1944, which says that Israel must expel all of the Arabs from Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state. But he cites no source at all for this supposed statement.

In addition, we have not found it in any of the numerous anti-Israel histories published before Shavits book that we have consulted; the authors of these narratives would certainly have included it if there was even the slightest plausible evidence that Ben-Gurion said such a thing. Last but not least, a collection of Ben-Gurions speeches, published years ago, reveals that at around the same time

Shavit claims Ben-Gurion announced his intention to drive out the Palestinian Arabs, (the early 1940s) he actually told a group of Jewish leaders that they had to plan on a million Arab citizens living in the future Jewish state. The inclusion of such an obvious fabricated quotation from Ben Gurion in Shavits narrative is truly outrageous. 6

Like earlier anti-Israel narrators of the of War of Independence, Shavit includes many allegations of Israeli atrocities in the war. Nearly all of these atrocity stories had already been disproven, even prior to the publication of Shavits book, by the research of legitimate historians. But Shavit goes beyond any of the previous anti-Israel story-tellers with which we are familiar by depictingeverymilitary operation undertaken by Israel in the course of the war as an atrocity marked by murders of innocents, forcible eviction of the Arab population, the torture and execution of Arab prisoners, and massive looting of Arab property. And he depictsallof these purported atrocities as part of a systematic, premeditated plan to drive the Arab population out of the country and seize their land.

Shavit also adds some lurid details of his own to the preexisting fictitious Israeli atrocity narrative that we have never seen before in any publication, such as ecstatic war dances by Haganah soldiers, dancing with knives between their teeth, in order to rev themselves up to commit atrocities in a planned attack on innocent Arab villagers, or in celebration of these atrocities after returning from such a raid. Jewish soldiers are thereby presented as a sort of combination of American Indian braves (the war dances) and Viking raiders (the knives in their teeth). It is something out of a really tasteless comic book.

Also, unprecedented in Shavits presentation is his constant return to these false allegations even when he has moved on to other topics and later periods of Israeli history, and the long poetic passages of purple prose in which he invokes the alleged continued suffering of Israels alleged victims, decades after the 1947-49 war. In reality, many of the Palestine Arab refugees, and their children and grandchildren, have led very comfortable and successful lives since 1948. And those who have suffered have suffered at the hands of corrupt Arab rulers and Arab terrorist gangs, not Israel.

How did Shavit get away with writing such a viciously libelous book about his own country, and still persuade American Jews that he was pro-Israel? One reason major reason is that large numbers of American Jews, and for that matter many Israeli Jews as well, have internalized the lies that our enemies tell about us, have been persuaded that they are true. But Shavit has reinforced these misconceptions by inserting rhetorical maneuvers into his narrative that help him to deceive people into thinking that he loves Israel, despite all of its (fictitious) sins. The maneuvers most frequently employed by Shavit are sympathetic portraits of individual Israelis, their personal histories and their work, which he intersperses with his libels of the countrys political and military institutions. For example, he describes the allegedly idyllic life of a Jewish farmer in Palestine during the 1930s, who works hard to grow beautiful oranges with the help of both Arab and Jewish workers, or a teacher who founds a wonderful school for orphaned Jewish children during the same period. But before long Shavit has switched the subject to the atrocities supposedly committed by Jewish terrorists during the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and the War of Independence (1947-49).

In later chapters, he will admit that Israel helped to rehabilitate and provide decent lives to numerous Jewish children who survived the Holocaust somehow, and give sympathetic biographical sketches of the lives of several such individuals (many of them leftist writers like himself), both in their miserable childhoods in Europe and their later successful lives in Israel. He even admits that Israel worked miracles creating a successful economy from scratch and integrating over a million and a half penniless people from Europe, North Africa and the Mideast into a vibrant reborn nation.

But soon he returns to the theme of how Israel accomplished all this only by destroying Palestine evicting and impoverishing the Palestinians in order to create space for all these Jewish refugees and immigrants. (This is not only a falsehood, but an anachronism, since the Arabs living in Palestine prior to 1948 almost never called themselves Palestinians, and did not even recognize the existence of a country called Palestine; their homeland, as they conceived it, was al-Shams, meanly literally the North, a country that in Arab parlance comprises present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel/Palestine as one country). But even as he returns to his favorite theme of Palestinian dispossession, Shavit claims that he considers all of these atrocities supposedly committed by the Jews to be partially justified, since Jews really needed a homeland of their own, both to escape persecution in Europe and to avoid assimilation in the liberal democracies, such as England and the United States. In this way, Shavit is able to pose as a loyal Israeli while relentlessly slandering Israel. It is a very seductive, even innovative, kind of rhetorical hypocrisy.

Shavit should have entitled his bookMy Betrayal of the Promised Land; the Triumph and Treachery of Ari Shavit.

NOTES:

1.https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496064610&sr=1-1&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit#customerReviews;http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-ari-shavit.

2. See David Edens summary of the success of Shavits book inThe Times of Israel,http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-ari-shavit. For favorable reviews of the book, seehttps://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n19/nathan-thrall/feeling-good-about-feeling-bad;http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/my-promised-land-by-ari-shavit.html;https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/14/idea-israel-ilan-pappe-promised-land-ari-shavit-review;http://harvardkennedyschoolreview.com/book-review-of-my-promised-land-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-israel-by-ari-shavit/;https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/08/14/liberal-zionists/;http://www.arishavit.com/books/my-promised-land/;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10635882/My-Promised-Land-by-Ari-Shavit-review.html;http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/my-promised-land-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-israel;https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/tragedy-political-correctness-ari-shavit-confusion-zionist-liberal-left/;https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit&tag=googhydr-20&index=digital-text&hvadid=177276011443&hvpos=2t2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14551111597318695181&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9004924&hvtargid=kwd-67855113305&ref=pd_sl_2nr36js006_b;https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496064610&sr=1-1&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit;https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496064610&sr=1-1&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit#customerReviews.For the HBO series in the making, seehttp://variety.com/2015/tv/news/hbo-israel-my-promised-land-ari-shavit-documentary-1201453453/.

3.https://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Betrayed-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300172346/ref=la_B001IR3L2I_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080884&sr=1-3

4. Other reliable sources for the history of Israels War of Independence, including the Palestinian Arabs who became refugees during it, include Natenel LorchsEdge of the Sword,https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Sword-Israels-Independence-1947-1949/dp/B0000CL7TH/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080006&sr=1-1&keywords=Israel+War+of+Independence+1948; Jon and David Kimche,Both Sides of the Hill,https://www.amazon.com/Both-Sides-Hill-Britain-Palestine/dp/B0000CKNCM/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080248&sr=1-6&keywords=Jon+Kimche, also published under the nameA Clash of Destinies,https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Destinies-Arab-Jewish-Founding-Stat/dp/B0014O2A54/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080248&sr=1-7&keywords=Jon+Kimche; Jon KimchesSeven Fallen Pillars in the Middle East,https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Fallen-Pillars-Middle-East/dp/B0006DHMSY/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080514&sr=1-19&keywords=Jon+Kimche; Kenneth Bilbys New Star in the Middle East,https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Kenneth+Bilby+Israel&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3AKenneth+Bilby+Israel, and Edgar OBalancesArab-Israel War 1948.https://www.amazon.com/Arab-Israeli-War-1948-Edgar-OBalance/dp/B00UBAQ2LU/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496087887&sr=1-2&keywords=Edgar+O%27Balance. While these histories of course differ with each other about some details here and there, they are in agreement about all of the major causes and events of the war, and the context of the Palestinian refugee problem that was one its consequences. In this column, we have accurately summarized all of the main events described in these works.

5See Efraim KarshsFabricating Israeli History; the New Historians,is the best introduction to, and expose of, these counterfactual story-tellers masquerading as historians. (https://www.amazon.com/Fabricating-Israeli-History-Historians-Politics/dp/071468063X/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496092620&sr=1-7&keywords=efraim+karsh). The most widely read and popular of these pseudo-historians, prior to Shavits entry into the field, was Benny Morrislike Shavit, an Israeli citizen of British origin. Seehttps://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=benny+morris+books&sprefix=Benny+Morris%2Cstripbooks%2C156&crid=2X0FI23CI2JCFfor a list of Morriss misleading counterfactual histories. HisThe Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited,https://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Refugee-Problem-Revisited-Cambridge/dp/0521009677/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496082938&sr=1-1&keywords=benny+morris+books is the one that has inflicted the most damage on Israel. Other Israeli writers who are prime offenders at libeling their own nation are Ilan Pappe (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Illan+Pappe) and Tom Segev (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=tom+segev&sprefix=Tom+Segev%2Cstripbooks%2C159&crid=3D6JN7XB61PKE&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Atom+segev) . But the true pioneer of fabricating the false narrative of Israeli history is probably Walid Khalidi, an Arab scholar who has been a professor at Harvard for many years (;From Haven to Conquest,https://www.amazon.com/Haven-Conquest-Readings-Palestine-Anthology/dp/0887281559/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496082026&sr=1-5&keywords=Walid+Khalidi).

6. David Ben Gurion,Rebirth and Destiny of Israel,https://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-destiny-Israel-David-Ben-Gurion/dp/B0007DEAM4/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496162883&sr=1-26&keywords=David+Ben-Gurion

Rachel Neuwirth is an internationally recognized political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy.

John Landau is a freelance journalist, independent scholar, and longtime student of world history and international relations.

Continued here:

Ari Shavit: Triumph by treachery towards the Promised Land – Arutz Sheva

Fair Usage Law

June 13, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Roger Waters branded an anti-Semite over Israel boycott comments … – Tone Deaf

Roger Waters recently published an open letter to Radiohead, urging them to call off their Tel Aviv concert due to Israels treatment of the Palestinians.

Yorke has since said he found the public, vitriolic nature of the letter extremely upsetting, to which Waters claimed he didnt wish for his comments to be taken as confrontational, despite being put in the public domain.

Now a lobbying group named We Dont Need No Roger Waters have erected a petition on change.org which calls upon the boycotting of Waters until he disavows the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign which calls for such Israeli boycotts, and renounces antisemitism in all of its forms.

The protest is strongly worded, and highlights what the petitioners say is an extensive history of espousing antisemitic conspiracy theories, speaking about the extraordinary power of the Jewish lobby and going so far as to compare Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The petition also points out that at a 2013 concert, Waters appeared on stage in a Nazi-like uniform, with a pig-shaped balloon emblazoned with a Star of David and symbols of dictatorial regimes.

Over a thousand people have signed the protest in the few two days. Read the full text of We Dont Need No Roger Waters statement, below.

Roger Waters has been a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign within the cultural arena. He has lobbied countless artists to refuse to perform in Israel, while publicly criticizing others for doing so. In 2013, Waters appeared on stage in a Nazi-like uniform, with a pig-shaped balloon emblazoned with a Star of David and symbols of dictatorial regimes. Waters has an extensive history of espousing antisemitic conspiracy theories, speaking about the extraordinary power of the Jewish lobby and going so far as to compare Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.

While Waters speaks about tear[ing] down wall[s], he is one of the leading musicians today erecting the very walls that hinder peace in the region and fuel hatred. This hatred not only affects the State of Israel, but Jewish communities worldwide, as well as all those who care about human rights and democratic principles.

BDS leaders often claim that the purpose of the BDS movement is to champion Palestinian rights. However, this is highly misleading. As illustrated by extensive research and documentation, the objective of BDS is the complete elimination of the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It seeks not to condemn specific Israeli government policies, but to unjustly target Israelis, Jews, and all those worldwide who stand in support of the Jewish state. The tactics of utilizing immoral double standards and strategies of demonization and delegitimization are all expressions of contemporary antisemitism.

Music is intended to transcend political barriers and promote cultural exchange, pluralism, and diversity. Instead, Roger Waters is promoting hate. We, the undersigned, therefore boycott Roger Waters until he renounces antisemitism in all of its forms, including the unjust boycott of the Jewish state.

View post:

Roger Waters branded an anti-Semite over Israel boycott comments … – Tone Deaf

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Antisemitism – Algemeiner

A neo-Nazi rally. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

This article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

All over the world antisemites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew-hater. This is especially so if the antisemite uses the cover of rabid hatred for the nation-state of the Jewish people. These bigots succeed in becoming accepted even praised not because of their antisemitism, but despite it. Increasingly, they are given a pass on their Jew-hatred because those who support them admire or share other aspects of what they represent. This implicit tolerance of antisemitism as long as it comes from someone whose other views are acceptable represents a dangerous new trend from both the Right andLeft.

In the United States, the Trump election has brought hard-right antisemitism into public view, but the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Thoseon the Left who support left-wing antisemites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really antisemites. They are anti-Zionist is the excuse du jour. Those on the Right do essentially the same, saying, They are nationalists. Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that when analyzing and exposing these dangerous trends, a single standard of criticism must be directed at each.

June 8, 2017 4:48 pm

Generally speaking, extreme right-wing antisemitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe and among a relatively small group of alt-right Americans. But it also exists among those who self-identify as run-of-the-mill conservatives.

Consider, for example, former presidential candidate and Reagan staffer, Pat Buchanan. The list of Buchanans anti-Jewish bigotry is exhaustive. Over the years, he has consistently blamed Jews for wide-ranging societal and political problems. In his criticism of the Iraq War, for example, Buchanan infamously quipped: There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East:the Israeli Defense Ministry and its Amen corner in the United States. He then singled out for rebuke only Jewish political figures and commentators, such as Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer and A.M. Rosenthal. He did not mention any of the vocal non-Jewish supporters of the war.

Furthermore, Buchanan also said that the Israeli lobby would be responsible if President Obama decided to strike Iran, threatening that if it were to happen, Netanyahu and his Amen corner in Congress would face backlash worldwide.

Buchanans sordid flirtation with Nazi revisionism is also well documented.

Meanwhile, on university campuses the absurd concept of intersectionality which has become a code word for antisemitism is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation is a case in point. Since co-organizing the Womens March on Washington in January, Sarsour has become a feminist icon for so called progressives.

This is the same Linda Sarsour who has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. Theres just no way around it.

And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation), the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: I wish I could take away their vaginas.

The irony is palpable. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour who is also a staunch BDS supporter cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does.

Indeed, Sarsour has emerged as a champion of the hard-left. Both New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and Bernie Sanders have sought her endorsement. Moreover, Deputy DNC Chair, Keith Ellison who himself has a sordid history with antisemitism stemming from his association with Louis Farrakhan, a man whohas publicly boasted about his own Jew-hatred has come out in support of the bigoted Sarsour. When it comes to Ellison, an old idiom comes to mind: a man is known by the company he keeps.

The same trend is detectable among the hard-left in Europe, particularly in Britain, which is days away from an election. The British Labour Party has now been hijacked by radical extremists on the Left, and is known for being soft on antisemitism.

In a recent interview with a BBC reporter, Emma Barnett who happens to be Jewish Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn fumbled when answering a question about how much his proposed childcare policy would cost. Rather than critique Corbyn, Labour supporters viciously trolled the Jewish BBC reporter. Tweets such as these abounded: Allegations have surfaced that @Emmabarnett is a Zionist and Zionist Emma Barnett (family lived off brothels) attacks Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn has also been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry himself. He has said in the past that the genocidal Hamas terrorist group should be removed from the UKs designated terror list and has called Hezbollah and Hamas (which are both vowed to the destruction of the nation-state of the Jewish people) my friends. (I recently wrote extensively on Corbyns association with some of Britains most notorious Holocaust deniers and antisemites.)

Increasingly, antisemitic discourse is also seeping into the arts and academia.

Consider the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bigotry of former Pink Floyd bassist, Roger Waters. A staunch supporter of the so-called BDS movement, Waters has said about the Palestinians that parallels with what went on in the 30s in Germany are so crushingly obvious. He also had a pig shape balloon with a Star of David on it at one of his concerts. And when asked about his aggressive effort to recruit people to join the BDS movement, Waters blamed the Jewish lobby, which he explained is extraordinarily powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry. In 2013, the ADL declared that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories had seeped into the totality of Waters views.

Likewise, the marketplace of ideas on college campuses and within academic institutions has seen an embrace of antisemitism often disguised as anti-Zionism. Several years ago, I identified the dangerous trend of academics crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing Jew-hatred. This was in light of the disgraceful endorsement by a number of prominent academics, of an antisemitic book written by Gilad Arzmon a notorious Jew-hater who denies the Holocaust and attributed widespread economic troubles to a Zio-punch.

When asked recently about the hullabaloo surrounding her CUNY address, Linda Sarsour disingenuously played the victim card, saying, Since the Womens March on Washington, once the right-wing saw a very prominent Muslim-American woman in a hijab who was a Palestinian who was resonating with a community in a very large way, they made it their mission to do everything they can to take my platform away.

No, Ms. Sarsour. You are wrong. This is not a smear campaign by the right-wing, but rather, a show that people of goodwill reject your manifestations of bigotry.

Those who tolerate antisemitism from those they otherwise admire would never accept other forms of bigotry, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. Its difficult to imagine Bernie Sanders campaigning for a socialist who didnt like black peopleor who was against gay marriage. But he is comfortable campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn, who has made a career out of condemning Zionists by which he means Jews.

The growing tolerance for antisemitism by both the extreme Left and Right is quickly becoming mainstream. That is why it is so dangerous and must be exposed for what it is: complicity in and encouragement of the oldest form of bigotry.

Shame on those who tolerate antisemitism when it comes from their side of the political spectrum.

People on both sides of the aisle must have the same zero tolerance for antisemitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia. Decent people everywhere Jews and non-Jews must condemn with equal vigor all manifestations of bigotry whether they emanate from the hard alt-right or hard alt-left.

I will continue to judge individuals on the basis of their own statements and actions, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.

Follow himon Twitter @AlanDersh andFacebook.

More here:

Alan Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Antisemitism – Algemeiner

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Is Richard Gere a conman or a mensch in Norman? – RTE.ie

Updated / Thursday, 8 Jun 2017 18:37

Richard Gere is excellent in this clever little moral of a film about a New York fixer who finds himself dangerously out of his depth.

“Youre a drowning man trying to wave at an ocean liner.” This is how Norman Opopenheimers nephew describes his uncle in this curious little film from first time director Joseph Cedar.

Its one of many well-turned phrases in an understated character study about a boyishly enthusiastic New York fixer played by Richard Gere. But is this nephew, played by the always great Michael Sheen, really Normans nephew?

Nothing can be sure about Norman Oppenheimer. He is a small time operator and a man who desperately wants to be seen as a power broker behind the scenes. He tries to bring together the great (and rich) of society for the greater good but also, of course, for his own advancement.Is Norman a conman or is he actually a mensch?

As he quips afterhis nephews rueful admonishment, “Im a good swimmer.” He is certainly a survivor with the tenacity of Pep Le Pew. He picks his way around the fringes of New York’s upper echelons- with his mobile phone as his office – trying to find an angle on everything and just when it looks like hes hit rock bottom for good, he meets a struggling Israeli politician, played with suavity byLior Ashkenazi.

Three years later and this politico has become Prime Minister of Israel and things begin to look up for our likeable but untrustworthy loser. Norman is soon seen as a mysterious confidante to the new PM but he becomes caught up in the slippery nexus between the US Jewish lobby and Israeli politics.

As a director, Joseph Cedar owes something to the style of Woody Allen but hisuse ofcertain framing devices and techniques can be jarring (montages, split screen) and while some might find the ending overly neat, as a study in vanityand our need to fit in, Norman is quietly excellent.

Its also another example of how Gere is going through a brilliant third act in his long and distinguished career.

Alan Corr @corralan

Follow this link:

Is Richard Gere a conman or a mensch in Norman? – RTE.ie

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Screenshot

All over the world anti-Semites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew hater. This is especially so if the anti-Semite uses the cover of rabid hatred for the nation-state of the Jewish people. These bigots succeed in becoming accepted even praised not because of their anti-Semitism, but despite it. Increasingly, they are given a pass on their Jew-hatred because those who support them admire or share other aspects of what they represent. This implicit tolerance of anti-Semitism as long as it comes from someone whose other views are acceptable represents a dangerous new trend from both the right and left.

In the United States, although there has been hard-right anti-Semitism for decades, the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Those on the left who support left-wing anti-Semites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really anti-Semites. They are anti-Zionist is the excuse du jour. Those on the right do essentially the same: they are nationalists. Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that when analyzing and exposing these dangerous trends, a single standard of criticism must be directed at each.

Generally speaking, extreme right-wing anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe and among a relatively small group of alt-right Americans. But it also exists among those who self-identify as run-of-the-mill conservatives. Consider, for example, former presidential candidate and Reagan staffer, Pat Buchanan.

The list of Buchanans anti-Jewish bigotry is exhaustive. Over the years, he has consistently blamed Jews for wide-ranging societal and political problems. In his criticism of the Iraq War, for example, Buchanan infamously quipped: There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States. He then singled out for rebuke only Jewish political figures and commentators such as Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer and A.M. Rosenthal. Buchanan did not mention any of the vocal non-Jewish supporters of the war. Furthermore, Buchanan also said that the Israeli lobby would be responsible if President Obama decided to strike Iran, threatening that if it were to happen, Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress would face backlash worldwide. Buchanans sordid flirtation with Nazi revisionism is also well documented.

Meanwhile, on university campuses, the absurd concept of intersectionality which has become a code word for anti-Semitism is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist, Linda Sarsour who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation is a case in point. A co-organizer of the Womens March on Washington in January, she has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. Theres just no way around it. And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation) the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: I wish I could take away their vaginas.

The irony is breathtaking. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour who is also a staunch supporter of trying to destroy Israel economically cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does.

Sarsour supports Islamic religious law, Sharia. If taken literally, this would presumably mean that she also supports punishing homosexuality by death; amputation for theft; death by stoning for adultery (which can include being raped); women being valued at half the worth of a man, being flogged for drinking alcohol, and above all, slavery (see here, here and here).

Yet, Sarsour has emerged as a champion of the hard-left. Both New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and Bernie Sanders have sought her endorsement. Moreover, Deputy DNC Chair, Keith Ellison who himself has a sordid history with anti-Semitism, stemming from his association with Louis Farrakhan (who publicly boasted about his own Jew hatred) has come out in support of the bigoted Sarsour. When it comes to Ellison, an old idiom comes to mind: a man is known by the company he keeps.

The same trend is detectable among the hard-left in Europe, particularly in Britain, which is days away from an election. The British Labour Party has now been hijacked by radical extremists on the left, and is known for being soft on anti-Semitism.

In a recent interview with a BBC reporter, Emma Barnett who happens to be Jewish Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn fumbled when answering a question about how much his proposed childcare policy would cost. Rather than critique Corbyn, Labour supporters viciously trolled the Jewish BBC reporter. Tweets such as these abounded: Allegations have surfaced that @Emmabarnett is a Zionist and Zionist Emma Barnett (family lived off brothels) attacks Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has also been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry himself. He has said in the past that the genocidal Hamas terrorist group should be removed from the UKs designated terror list, and has called Hezbollah and Hamas (which are both vowed to the destruction of the nation-state of the Jewish people) my friends. (I recently wrote extensively on Corbyns association with some of Britains most notorious Holocaust-deniers and anti-Semites.)

Increasingly, anti-Semitic discourse is also seeping into the arts and academia. Consider the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bigotry of former Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters. A staunch supporter of the so-called BDS movement, Waters has said about the Palestinians that parallels with what went on in the 30s in Germany are so crushingly obvious. He also had a pig-shaped balloon with a Star of David on it at one of his concerts. And when asked about his aggressive effort to recruit people to join the BDS, Waters blamed the Jewish lobby, which he explained is extraordinary powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry. In 2013, the ADL declared that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories had seeped into the totality of Waters views.

Likewise, the marketplace of ideas on university campuses and within academic institutions has seen an embrace of anti-Semitism often disguised as anti-Zionism. Several years ago, I identified the dangerous trend of academics crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing Jew-hatred. This was in light of the disgraceful endorsement by a number of prominent academics of an anti-Semitic book written by Gilad Atzmon a notorious Jew-hater who denies the Holocaust and attributed widespread economic troubles to a Zio-punch.

When asked recently about the hullabaloo surrounding her CUNY address, Linda Sarsour disingenuously played the victim card:

since the Womens March on Washington, once the right-wing saw a very prominent Muslim-American woman in a hijab who was a Palestinian who was resonating with a community in a very large way, they made it their mission to do everything they can to take my platform away.

No, Ms. Sarsour. You are wrong. This is not a smear campaign by the right-wing, but rather, a show that people of goodwill reject your manifestations of bigotry.

Those who tolerate anti-Semitism from those they otherwise admire would never accept other forms of bigotry, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. Its difficult to imagine Bernie Sanders campaigning for a socialist who didnt like black people or who was against gay marriage. But he is comfortable campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn, who has made a career out of condemning Zionists by which he means Jews.

The growing tolerance for anti-Semitism by both the extreme left and right is quickly becoming mainstream. That is why it is so dangerous and must be exposed for what it is: complicity in, and encouragement of, the oldest form of bigotry. Shame on those who tolerate anti-Semitism when it comes from their side of the political spectrum.

People on both sides of the aisle must have the same zero tolerance for anti-Semitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia. Decent people everywhere Jews and non-Jews must condemn with equal vigor all manifestations of bigotry whether they emanate from the hard alt-right or hard alt-left. I will continue to judge individuals on the basis of their own statements and actions, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from.

Read this article:

A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Fair Usage Law

June 7, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Coming out party: Modi’s visit to Israel marks a pragmatic turn in Indian foreign policy – Times of India (blog)

As Prime Minister Narendra Modis visit to Israel is hailed as a historic moment marking 25 years of full diplomatic relations, its surprising that it took so long for an Indian PM to visit Israel. India had recognised Israel way back in 1950. But progress in bilateral ties since then has been impeded, it has to be said, more by New Delhi than by Tel Aviv. In that sense, Modis visit to Israel is a coming out party for bilateral ties and marks a pragmatic turn in Indias foreign policy. New Delhi can certainly boost ties with Tel Aviv without diluting its position on the two state solution vis–vis Palestine. The argument that Israels treatment of Palestinian Muslims should make India wary of deeper engagement doesnt cut much ice. There are many countries such as Saudi Arabia and China which score poorly on the human rights index, but India maintains wide-ranging relations with them. Why should Israel, a vibrant democracy, be treated differently? Even on the specific question of oppression of Muslims Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia do much worse (look at Pakistani/ Saudi suppression of Shias or Ahmadiyyas, or Chinese suppression of Uighurs). From a historical perspective, Israels support for India during the 1971 war and the Kargil conflict had long laid the foundation for a strategic partnership. Modis visit now should fast track engagements across both traditional and non-traditional sectors. While defence ties are slated to receive a further fillip since April India has inked three missile deals with Israel worth $2.6 billion, and is looking forward to receiving armed drones agreements on space cooperation and water and agriculture are also on the anvil. The latter is particularly relevant as Israel is a country that turned the desert green with its agriculture technology, while Indian agriculture is increasingly water depressed. Additionally, Israel has the second largest number of start-ups in the world and a strong R&D culture things that India should leverage. Co-production in sectors such as defence, IT and space technology will boost the Make in India initiative. Both India and Israel are victims of terrorism and could gain much through further enhancing counter-terror cooperation. Lastly Israel has strong ties to the Jewish lobby in the US, which in turn is well connected to the Trump administration. Those are useful connections New Delhi could turn to its advantage. DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author’s own.

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Dar disowns confession in Hudaibya reference – The Express Tribune

Claims providing details of every single penny during 45 minutes of testimony Finance Minister Ishaq Dar. PHOTO: ONLINE ISLAMABAD:Finance Minister Ishaq Dar on Monday disowned his confessional statement in the Hudaibya Paper Mills reference, saying: Pakistani courts have already decided that it contains no evidentiary value. Its nothing but trash and a waste paper, Dar said while talking to the media soon after he recorded his statement before the joint investigation team (JIT) tasked with probing the Sharif familys offshore assets. The confessional statement Dar referred to was given before a magistrate way back on April 25, 2000. In his handwritten statement, the senator had alleged that Sharif brothers used the Hudaibya Paper Mills as cover for money-laundering during the late 1990s. A seemingly infuriated Dar, who spent almost 45 minutes with the probe team, verbally attacked PTI chairman Imran Khans personal life in probably the worst such action so far from any senior cabinet member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). He consumed around 30 minutes to talk about insignificance of three pending references against the Sharif family instituted during Musharrafs regime in an unholy haste; triviality of his famous confessional statement; a JIT not following procedure set by the apex court during the ongoing investigation; and some below-the-belt and personal attacks on Imran Khan involving his alleged marriage with Sita White and donations made by Dars family for Khans cancer hospital. Exhausted Dar is just what Imran needed to expose guilt on face He told the media that he answered all the questions posed by the members of the high-powered probe team. I provide them with details of every single penny, he said, adding, It is not difficult for him as all business affairs of the Sharif family are totally transparent. Dar did not refuse to acknowledge his confessional statement in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case but said that its not his hand-written and was signed by him following a legal advice given to him at that time. Even the holy Quran says to eat or drink prohibited (haram) stuff if ones life is in danger, Dar said, adding he was advised by the legal team to sign whatever they were asking for. He said some 13 judges at different times had rejected the confessional statement and given categorical decisions about its admissibility and added that a former prosecutor general wrote that it had no evidentiary value. Whoever producing it as substantial evidence is disgracing the judgment of the 13 judges, he said, adding that nobody dared to even challenge that decision of the judges. I have valid proof where one of the senior members of the team [that managed to obtain that confessional statement] named an individual who did it just to please his superiors, he said. My so-called confessional statement is nothing but trash. Its a waste paper and I have been saying it since the day one, he added. The finance minister said even former CJP Justice Jamali had refrained PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari in the Panamagate case to read out that statement which shows its insignificance. In his confessional statement, Dar had admitted laundering $14.9 million to whiten Sharifs money. Dar alleged that the JIT probing the Sharif familys offshore assets was not following the procedure set by the Supreme Court in the Arsalan Iftikhar case. It seems laws are different for the son of a judge and the children of a sitting PM. Its unfair. He said he felt bad when the JIT issued summons for PMs daughter Maryam Nawaz. Its not about Maryam alone I will also feel bad if the JIT summons the sisters of Imran Khan, who were directors of an offshore firm owned by Imran, he said. Taking on JIT aggressively appears to be new strategy of Sharif family He requested the Supreme Court to take notice of the summons issued to Maryam Nawaz, saying the JIT should review its decision and rather sent a questionnaire to her as per the procedure laid out by the Supreme Court in the Arsalan Iftikhar case. The JIT is required to prove its credibility, as several questions have so far been raised about its impartiality, he added. The finance minister said there was no mention of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif anywhere in the Panama Papers nor did he own any offshore company. He said many named in the Panama Papers were part of different political parties and were the frontrunner in the whole campaign against the Sharif family. A drama has been going on for the last 23 years, he said, adding that three references were instituted during Musharrafs dictatorial regime under mala fide intention and through presumptive and forced confessions. While citing a reference, Dar said: The Ittefaq Foundries report was prepared on February 14, 2000 and on the same date the NAB scrutinised it and also completed the investigation under Section 18-G on the same date. Then on the same date the Lahore Accountability Court took cognisance of it and on the same date Abbas Sharif and others were produced in the case, he said. It seems it was not a 24-hour day, rather a day spanning over 24 days. In legal language, unholy haste itself is a dangerous practice that destroys the fundamentals of justice, he said, calling the Panamagate case a conspiracy against Nawaz Sharif and his government, hatched by opponent political parties. The senator spent a significant portion of his media talk to criticise the PTI chairman. From questioning about his alleged ties with the Jewish lobby to his secret marriage with Sita White and a daughter from that marriage, he said it all. You are a liar, illiterate, gambler, coward, and tax evader, Dar said in one breath. He said it was not the Sharif family but people on the right and left of Imran Khan who were involved in money laundering, adding that he would prove it if somebody challenged him on it. You should be ashamed of doing politics based on hollow lies, Dar said, addressing Imran. He also narrated when and how he in 1993 met Imran and over the period of time made generous donations for his hospital on his personal requests. I had a love-and-hate relationship with Imran and it spans over years but now I am completely disappointed, he said. He said Imran used to wait for him while sitting in his office in 1993 just to get donations. He used to wait for my arrival while sitting with my sons in my office. And I used to give him Zakat and donations for his hospital, he said. Under what authority you had entered petition under Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan against Nawaz Sharif. You should look at yourself and you will see the California case is enough for you, Dar said. Taking on JIT aggressively appears to be new strategy of Sharif family A California court had stamped that fact, Dar said, referring to Imrans child from Sita White, adding that Jemima Khan had taken the girl in her guardianship. Whatever happened, leave it but she is our daughter also, he said of Sita and Khans daughter. In fact he is a coward. What you will say about a person who hides his marriage, he said of Imran. Ask him where his marriage with Jemima occurred, Dar said, adding that he would say in Paris. Its a lie. It happened in Saint John Wart. I know the witnesses who signed his wedding papers, he said. The finance minister also questioned Khans assets, asking how he had become the second richest politician of the country. He is not a son of an industrialist like Nawaz Sharif. How he has become three times richer than me? I have a value. Various countries have offered me double or triple money I have been earning against my services in Pakistan, he said. Dar concluded by saying that the truth would prevail in the end.

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

US leftists attack Netanyahu – Israel National News – Arutz Sheva

J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami attacks Israel’s Prime Minister and the recent government decissions regarding the Western Wall Hezki Baruch, 01/07/17 22:48 Yonatan Sindel, Flash 90 J Street head Jeremy Ben-Ami spoke on Saturday night to Israel’s Channel 10 about his anger over Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to block the Western Wall agreement. J Street is a left-wing Jewish lobby based in the US, supported by George Soros, that competes with AIPAC, the traditional and centrist-right pro-Israel lobby. “It’s a real crisis, since the identity of most American Jews is hanging in the balance ,” Ben-Ami told Channel 10. “It’s not a question of J Street or AIPAC – it’s about 90% of American Jewry. These aren’t Orthodox people, and the message they’re getting is that they ‘don’t count.’ “The question is if Prime Minister Netanyahu’s only interest in Israel is to keep his coalition. I hope that his main interest is the Jewish nation and the State of Israel. There is even discussion about practical steps, about harming businesses and tourism.” Meanwhile Coaliation Chairman David Bitan (Likud) told Channel 10 that “in order to bring about an agreement via the legal system, we needed to freeze the current proposal.” “Regardless, there is a place for egalitarian prayer right now – they just want to have partial control over it. Even the haredim don’t want to get into this issue, but the Reform turned to the Supreme Court, leaving the haredim with no other choice.”

Fair Usage Law

July 2, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Sessions mocked for citing ‘Jewish AIPAC event’ – The Times of Israel

US Attorney-General Jeff Sessions was roundly mocked on Tuesday for referencing a Jewish AIPAC event during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee probing allegations of collusion between Russia and members of the presidential campaign of US President Donald Trump during last years elections. Sessions said he was excited to attend a speech to be given by Trump because the only time hed heard him speak previously was at a Jewish AIPAC event, in reference to the pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Trump, as a candidate, spoke before the organization and its guests at the annual AIPAC conference in 2016. In his testimony, Sessions said he had been very anxious to see how president Trump would do in his first major foreign policy address. I believe hed only given one major speech before, that was maybe at the Jewish AIPAC event The Twitterverse mocked the attorney-general for the remark which erroneously refered to the organization as Jewish, when it lobbies for Israel and has many non-Jewish members and activists. Calling AIPAC a Jewish lobby would add[s] up to an effort to delegitimize pro-Israel activists and has elements of age-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories alleging insidious Jewish efforts to dominate seats of power, as described by the Anti-Defamation League.

Fair Usage Law

June 13, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Ari Shavit: Triumph by treachery towards the Promised Land – Arutz Sheva

Ari Shavits history of Israel, entitled My Promised Land: the Triumph and Tragedy of Israel,has been very well received throughout the Jewish world. Both the American Jewish and mainstream American presses nearly all gave it rave reviews. It has received three prestigious Jewish book awardsThe Natan Book Award, and The National Jewish Book Award.1Shavit made a successful and very well-paid speaking tour of synagogues and Jewish community centers throughout the United States, complete with book-signings and sales. Both the Hillel organization and the pro-Israel American Jewish lobby, AIPAC, distributed and marketed My Promised Land for Shavit. HBO is in the process of filming a documentary series based on Shavits book, to be narrated by Shavit himself.2 But while all this acclaim is certainly a triumph for Shavit, his book is best described not as a tragedy but as an abomination of desolation of Biblical proportions. It is a vicious assault on Israel, a false and libelous narrative of Israeli history, although cleverly disguised as a sympathetic account by a loyal son of his country. According to Shavit, Zionist leaders in Palestine decided, no later than in World War II, that the Arabs of Palestine would have to be expelled and their land seized to enable the resettlement of the Jews who would survive the Holocaust in Europe, and to preemptively crush Arab resistance to the creation of a Jewish state. The Zionists then launched a surprise attack on the Palestinians in 1947-48, driving them out of the country by perpetrating numerous massacres of unarmed civilians, executing prisoners, and dynamiting villages, while celebrating these deeds with savage war dances, and gleefully looting the villages and towns evacuated by the fleeing Arabs. But Is this the truth? Numerous eye-witness accounts by participants in the conflict, Arab as well as Israeli, reporting by journalists who covered the conflict on the spot in Palestine, and masses of documentary records in Israeli archives, both military and political, that have now been made available to scholars (the archives of all of the Arab states, significantly, all remain closed to researchers), all reveal an authentic history that is completely at odds with Shavits Jewish-conspiracy narrative. The best summary and digest of these authentic primary sources for the history of the war is the thoroughly documented study by Israeli professor Efraim Karsh, entitledPalestine Betrayed;3but Karshs conclusions are fully confirmed by many other books written by journalists who covered the war fromPalestine while it was happening, and military historians with access to primary sources, both human and documentary.4 All of these legitimate sources of history affirm that Israels War of Independence was actually a defensive war of survival fought by Jews fighting not only for their independence, but for their very lives. It resulted not from any premeditated aggression by the Jewish-Zionist leadership, or much the less by ordinary Palestinian (soon to become Israeli) Jews, but quite the contrary, premeditated aggression by both the League of Arab States and the leaders of the Palestinian Arab community, with the semi-covert participation of the British colonial authorities in Palestine. These sources describe a Jewish leadership that hoped to resolve the Palestine dispute peacefully through diplomacy, and planned on accommodating a large Arab population with full citizens rights in the hoped-for future Jewish state. This is also thoroughly documented in the published speeches and writings of the major Zionist leaders of the 1940s. The war known to Israelis as the War of Independence, and to the Palestinian Arabs as the Nakba (disaster), was initiated by the Arab Palestinian leaderswithin 24 hoursof the passage of a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly calling for the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The resolution was more than fair to the Palestinian Arabs, granting them half of what was left of Palestine after the British gave three fourths of the country to a sheikh from what is now called Saudi Arabia. It also granted them full parliamentary representation in the area of the country designated for a Jewish state. Despite this very fair offer made to them by the UN General Assembly, which the Jewish leaders of Palestine accepted even though it gave the Jews only one-eighth of the land granted them by the League of Nations twenty-five years earlier, the Palestine Arab leaders, backed by the League of Arab States, and Britain, immediately launched a terrorist war against their Jewish neighbors. Nearly every Jewish village, urban or suburban neighborhood was attacked. Jews were also attacked on every major road in Palestine when their vehicles drove past any Arab village, which placed the entire Jewish population of the country under siege. Jews were removed from buses by the Arab guerilla terrorists and shot on the spot. The Palestinians (as they are now called) also attacked trains and seized huge quantities of food and other supplies from them that were being sent to Jewish communities, especially the 100,000 or so Jews in Jerusalem. Severe shortages of food and fuel developed in Jewish communities; tens of thousands of Jews suffered malnutrition and nearly starved to death, and shivered in the winter in unheated buildings. Finally, the Palestinian guerillas even cut off water supplies to the Jews of Jerusalem, forcing them to subsist on carefully rationed water collected in cisterns. Far from plotting an aggressive war to expel the Arab population, the Jewish political and military leaders had never drawn upanyplan for full-scale war until three monthsafterthe Palestinian Arabs launched an all-out guerilla-terrorist war against their Jewish neighbors in November and December of 1947.When the Jewish Haganah (meaning Defense) militia finally did draw up a serious military plan to repel the Arab armed attacks, it contained no provision for the expulsion of the Arab population. Quite the contrary, it contained plans for caring for the large Arab population that the Haganah leaders expected would become citizens of the soon-to-be-proclaimed Jewish state. Eventually, the Jewish Haganah defense militia had no choice but to occupy Arab villages that served as bases of operation and sources of recruits and supplies for the hostile guerillas who were attacking the Israelis. The guerillas, who intermingled with the civilian population and used their houses as fortresses, resisted these necessary Jewish counter-insurgency operations fiercely, and as the Jewish forces gradually overcame their armed resistance in one village after another, the civilian residents, who in many cases were the wives and children of the fighters, fled along with the Arab fighters to areas still under Arab control. In May of 1948, the Palestinian irregular fighters and the out-of-uniform soldiers from the Arab states, who had infiltrated Palestines Arab villages and reinforced the local Palestinian-Arab fighters, were joined by tens of thousands of regular army soldiers dispatched by six Arab states in a concerted invasion of Palestine and attack on its Jewish community and their newly proclaimed state of Israel. But the local fighters continued to participate in the war against their Jewish neighbors, and assisted the Arab League invaders in every way they could. In order to repulse the fierce attack by the Arab League invaders, the Jewish militia, now renamed the Israel Defense Forces, had no choice but to occupy additional Arab villages and two small Arab towns, Ramleh and Lydda (now named Ramla and Lod), that were held either by the invasion forces, the local Palestinian Arab irregular fighters, or both. Inevitably, additional Arab civilians fled from these settlements along with the defeated, withdrawing Arab soldiers. In this way, a population of Palestinian Arab refugees on the Arab side of the eventual armistice lines separating Israel from the Arab-occupied areas was created. Israel had neither desired this result nor expected it when its leaders accepted the UN General Assembly recommendation for a compromise settlement of the conflict. The Palestinian Arab leadership, along with the governments of the Arab states, rejected the UN proposal and instead chose to launch an aggressive war. Arab refugees were the result–a self-created Nakba. However, a deceitful counterfactual narrative has been created over the course of many years by numerous writers who are motivated by malicious hatred of Israel, and who are propagandists seeking to justify the continued Arab war against it–a war that has genocide as its openly proclaimed objective, and that uses the most atrocious acts of cruelty against innocent civilians, including babies and holy men praying in houses of worship, as its characteristic method. None of these writers were actual witnesses to the conflict, and none even attempts to give a complete account of the war, instead focusing exclusively on the Palestine Arab refugee exodus.. These deceitful counterfactual narratives have been constructed by misrepresenting the contents of earlier, legitimate histories of the conflict, by quotations from them that have been carefully scissored, cropped and spliced out of their original context so as to distort their meaning, and by systematically expurgated and sanitized versions of the actual sequence of events in the conflict that leave out any references to Arab violence against Jews.5 Shavit claims Ben-Gurion announced his intention to drive out the Palestinian Arabs, (the early 1940s) but he actually told a group of Jewish leaders that they had to plan on a million Arab citizens living in the future Jewish state. The inclusion of such an obvious fabricated quotation from Ben Gurion in Shavits narrative is truly outrageous. While Shavits book thus adds to an already rich tradition of anti-Israel propaganda disguised as history, it does have some unique aspects. For one thing, unlike previous anti-Israel narratives, it does not distort or misrepresent its documentary sources, but rather contains no documentation at all! Although Shavit claims at various places in the text to have consulted he doesnt ever bother to tell us what these archives are or where they are located, or much the less, identify the specific documents he is citing. He summarizes and at times quotes what he says witnesses told him in interviews, but doesnt tell us when or where he interviewed them, and in some cases, doesnt even identify the interviewees by name, instead referring to them by nicknames– such as The Bulldozer for one Israeli retired officer whom he dislikes. He quotes from letters that he says were written by witnesses to the conflict, but often fails to identify them by name, name the individuals to whom they were written, indicate when they were written, or where and how he gained access to them. He quotes from an alleged remark by Israels future Prime Minister, supposedly made in 1944, which says that Israel must expel all of the Arabs from Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state. But he cites no source at all for this supposed statement. In addition, we have not found it in any of the numerous anti-Israel histories published before Shavits book that we have consulted; the authors of these narratives would certainly have included it if there was even the slightest plausible evidence that Ben-Gurion said such a thing. Last but not least, a collection of Ben-Gurions speeches, published years ago, reveals that at around the same time Shavit claims Ben-Gurion announced his intention to drive out the Palestinian Arabs, (the early 1940s) he actually told a group of Jewish leaders that they had to plan on a million Arab citizens living in the future Jewish state. The inclusion of such an obvious fabricated quotation from Ben Gurion in Shavits narrative is truly outrageous. 6 Like earlier anti-Israel narrators of the of War of Independence, Shavit includes many allegations of Israeli atrocities in the war. Nearly all of these atrocity stories had already been disproven, even prior to the publication of Shavits book, by the research of legitimate historians. But Shavit goes beyond any of the previous anti-Israel story-tellers with which we are familiar by depictingeverymilitary operation undertaken by Israel in the course of the war as an atrocity marked by murders of innocents, forcible eviction of the Arab population, the torture and execution of Arab prisoners, and massive looting of Arab property. And he depictsallof these purported atrocities as part of a systematic, premeditated plan to drive the Arab population out of the country and seize their land. Shavit also adds some lurid details of his own to the preexisting fictitious Israeli atrocity narrative that we have never seen before in any publication, such as ecstatic war dances by Haganah soldiers, dancing with knives between their teeth, in order to rev themselves up to commit atrocities in a planned attack on innocent Arab villagers, or in celebration of these atrocities after returning from such a raid. Jewish soldiers are thereby presented as a sort of combination of American Indian braves (the war dances) and Viking raiders (the knives in their teeth). It is something out of a really tasteless comic book. Also, unprecedented in Shavits presentation is his constant return to these false allegations even when he has moved on to other topics and later periods of Israeli history, and the long poetic passages of purple prose in which he invokes the alleged continued suffering of Israels alleged victims, decades after the 1947-49 war. In reality, many of the Palestine Arab refugees, and their children and grandchildren, have led very comfortable and successful lives since 1948. And those who have suffered have suffered at the hands of corrupt Arab rulers and Arab terrorist gangs, not Israel. How did Shavit get away with writing such a viciously libelous book about his own country, and still persuade American Jews that he was pro-Israel? One reason major reason is that large numbers of American Jews, and for that matter many Israeli Jews as well, have internalized the lies that our enemies tell about us, have been persuaded that they are true. But Shavit has reinforced these misconceptions by inserting rhetorical maneuvers into his narrative that help him to deceive people into thinking that he loves Israel, despite all of its (fictitious) sins. The maneuvers most frequently employed by Shavit are sympathetic portraits of individual Israelis, their personal histories and their work, which he intersperses with his libels of the countrys political and military institutions. For example, he describes the allegedly idyllic life of a Jewish farmer in Palestine during the 1930s, who works hard to grow beautiful oranges with the help of both Arab and Jewish workers, or a teacher who founds a wonderful school for orphaned Jewish children during the same period. But before long Shavit has switched the subject to the atrocities supposedly committed by Jewish terrorists during the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and the War of Independence (1947-49). In later chapters, he will admit that Israel helped to rehabilitate and provide decent lives to numerous Jewish children who survived the Holocaust somehow, and give sympathetic biographical sketches of the lives of several such individuals (many of them leftist writers like himself), both in their miserable childhoods in Europe and their later successful lives in Israel. He even admits that Israel worked miracles creating a successful economy from scratch and integrating over a million and a half penniless people from Europe, North Africa and the Mideast into a vibrant reborn nation. But soon he returns to the theme of how Israel accomplished all this only by destroying Palestine evicting and impoverishing the Palestinians in order to create space for all these Jewish refugees and immigrants. (This is not only a falsehood, but an anachronism, since the Arabs living in Palestine prior to 1948 almost never called themselves Palestinians, and did not even recognize the existence of a country called Palestine; their homeland, as they conceived it, was al-Shams, meanly literally the North, a country that in Arab parlance comprises present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel/Palestine as one country). But even as he returns to his favorite theme of Palestinian dispossession, Shavit claims that he considers all of these atrocities supposedly committed by the Jews to be partially justified, since Jews really needed a homeland of their own, both to escape persecution in Europe and to avoid assimilation in the liberal democracies, such as England and the United States. In this way, Shavit is able to pose as a loyal Israeli while relentlessly slandering Israel. It is a very seductive, even innovative, kind of rhetorical hypocrisy. Shavit should have entitled his bookMy Betrayal of the Promised Land; the Triumph and Treachery of Ari Shavit. NOTES: 1.https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496064610&sr=1-1&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit#customerReviews;http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-ari-shavit. 2. See David Edens summary of the success of Shavits book inThe Times of Israel,http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-ari-shavit. For favorable reviews of the book, seehttps://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n19/nathan-thrall/feeling-good-about-feeling-bad;http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/my-promised-land-by-ari-shavit.html;https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/14/idea-israel-ilan-pappe-promised-land-ari-shavit-review;http://harvardkennedyschoolreview.com/book-review-of-my-promised-land-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-israel-by-ari-shavit/;https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/08/14/liberal-zionists/;http://www.arishavit.com/books/my-promised-land/;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10635882/My-Promised-Land-by-Ari-Shavit-review.html;http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/my-promised-land-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-israel;https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/tragedy-political-correctness-ari-shavit-confusion-zionist-liberal-left/;https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit&tag=googhydr-20&index=digital-text&hvadid=177276011443&hvpos=2t2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14551111597318695181&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9004924&hvtargid=kwd-67855113305&ref=pd_sl_2nr36js006_b;https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496064610&sr=1-1&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit;https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496064610&sr=1-1&keywords=my+promised+land+by+ari+shavit#customerReviews.For the HBO series in the making, seehttp://variety.com/2015/tv/news/hbo-israel-my-promised-land-ari-shavit-documentary-1201453453/. 3.https://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Betrayed-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300172346/ref=la_B001IR3L2I_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080884&sr=1-3 4. Other reliable sources for the history of Israels War of Independence, including the Palestinian Arabs who became refugees during it, include Natenel LorchsEdge of the Sword,https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Sword-Israels-Independence-1947-1949/dp/B0000CL7TH/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080006&sr=1-1&keywords=Israel+War+of+Independence+1948; Jon and David Kimche,Both Sides of the Hill,https://www.amazon.com/Both-Sides-Hill-Britain-Palestine/dp/B0000CKNCM/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080248&sr=1-6&keywords=Jon+Kimche, also published under the nameA Clash of Destinies,https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Destinies-Arab-Jewish-Founding-Stat/dp/B0014O2A54/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080248&sr=1-7&keywords=Jon+Kimche; Jon KimchesSeven Fallen Pillars in the Middle East,https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Fallen-Pillars-Middle-East/dp/B0006DHMSY/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496080514&sr=1-19&keywords=Jon+Kimche; Kenneth Bilbys New Star in the Middle East,https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Kenneth+Bilby+Israel&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3AKenneth+Bilby+Israel, and Edgar OBalancesArab-Israel War 1948.https://www.amazon.com/Arab-Israeli-War-1948-Edgar-OBalance/dp/B00UBAQ2LU/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496087887&sr=1-2&keywords=Edgar+O%27Balance. While these histories of course differ with each other about some details here and there, they are in agreement about all of the major causes and events of the war, and the context of the Palestinian refugee problem that was one its consequences. In this column, we have accurately summarized all of the main events described in these works. 5See Efraim KarshsFabricating Israeli History; the New Historians,is the best introduction to, and expose of, these counterfactual story-tellers masquerading as historians. (https://www.amazon.com/Fabricating-Israeli-History-Historians-Politics/dp/071468063X/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496092620&sr=1-7&keywords=efraim+karsh). The most widely read and popular of these pseudo-historians, prior to Shavits entry into the field, was Benny Morrislike Shavit, an Israeli citizen of British origin. Seehttps://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=benny+morris+books&sprefix=Benny+Morris%2Cstripbooks%2C156&crid=2X0FI23CI2JCFfor a list of Morriss misleading counterfactual histories. HisThe Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited,https://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Refugee-Problem-Revisited-Cambridge/dp/0521009677/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496082938&sr=1-1&keywords=benny+morris+books is the one that has inflicted the most damage on Israel. Other Israeli writers who are prime offenders at libeling their own nation are Ilan Pappe (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Illan+Pappe) and Tom Segev (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=tom+segev&sprefix=Tom+Segev%2Cstripbooks%2C159&crid=3D6JN7XB61PKE&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Atom+segev) . But the true pioneer of fabricating the false narrative of Israeli history is probably Walid Khalidi, an Arab scholar who has been a professor at Harvard for many years (;From Haven to Conquest,https://www.amazon.com/Haven-Conquest-Readings-Palestine-Anthology/dp/0887281559/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496082026&sr=1-5&keywords=Walid+Khalidi). 6. David Ben Gurion,Rebirth and Destiny of Israel,https://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-destiny-Israel-David-Ben-Gurion/dp/B0007DEAM4/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496162883&sr=1-26&keywords=David+Ben-Gurion Rachel Neuwirth is an internationally recognized political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy. John Landau is a freelance journalist, independent scholar, and longtime student of world history and international relations.

Fair Usage Law

June 13, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Roger Waters branded an anti-Semite over Israel boycott comments … – Tone Deaf

Roger Waters recently published an open letter to Radiohead, urging them to call off their Tel Aviv concert due to Israels treatment of the Palestinians. Yorke has since said he found the public, vitriolic nature of the letter extremely upsetting, to which Waters claimed he didnt wish for his comments to be taken as confrontational, despite being put in the public domain. Now a lobbying group named We Dont Need No Roger Waters have erected a petition on change.org which calls upon the boycotting of Waters until he disavows the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign which calls for such Israeli boycotts, and renounces antisemitism in all of its forms. The protest is strongly worded, and highlights what the petitioners say is an extensive history of espousing antisemitic conspiracy theories, speaking about the extraordinary power of the Jewish lobby and going so far as to compare Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. The petition also points out that at a 2013 concert, Waters appeared on stage in a Nazi-like uniform, with a pig-shaped balloon emblazoned with a Star of David and symbols of dictatorial regimes. Over a thousand people have signed the protest in the few two days. Read the full text of We Dont Need No Roger Waters statement, below. Roger Waters has been a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign within the cultural arena. He has lobbied countless artists to refuse to perform in Israel, while publicly criticizing others for doing so. In 2013, Waters appeared on stage in a Nazi-like uniform, with a pig-shaped balloon emblazoned with a Star of David and symbols of dictatorial regimes. Waters has an extensive history of espousing antisemitic conspiracy theories, speaking about the extraordinary power of the Jewish lobby and going so far as to compare Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. While Waters speaks about tear[ing] down wall[s], he is one of the leading musicians today erecting the very walls that hinder peace in the region and fuel hatred. This hatred not only affects the State of Israel, but Jewish communities worldwide, as well as all those who care about human rights and democratic principles. BDS leaders often claim that the purpose of the BDS movement is to champion Palestinian rights. However, this is highly misleading. As illustrated by extensive research and documentation, the objective of BDS is the complete elimination of the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It seeks not to condemn specific Israeli government policies, but to unjustly target Israelis, Jews, and all those worldwide who stand in support of the Jewish state. The tactics of utilizing immoral double standards and strategies of demonization and delegitimization are all expressions of contemporary antisemitism. Music is intended to transcend political barriers and promote cultural exchange, pluralism, and diversity. Instead, Roger Waters is promoting hate. We, the undersigned, therefore boycott Roger Waters until he renounces antisemitism in all of its forms, including the unjust boycott of the Jewish state.

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Antisemitism – Algemeiner

A neo-Nazi rally. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. This article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute. All over the world antisemites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew-hater. This is especially so if the antisemite uses the cover of rabid hatred for the nation-state of the Jewish people. These bigots succeed in becoming accepted even praised not because of their antisemitism, but despite it. Increasingly, they are given a pass on their Jew-hatred because those who support them admire or share other aspects of what they represent. This implicit tolerance of antisemitism as long as it comes from someone whose other views are acceptable represents a dangerous new trend from both the Right andLeft. In the United States, the Trump election has brought hard-right antisemitism into public view, but the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Thoseon the Left who support left-wing antisemites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really antisemites. They are anti-Zionist is the excuse du jour. Those on the Right do essentially the same, saying, They are nationalists. Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that when analyzing and exposing these dangerous trends, a single standard of criticism must be directed at each. June 8, 2017 4:48 pm Generally speaking, extreme right-wing antisemitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe and among a relatively small group of alt-right Americans. But it also exists among those who self-identify as run-of-the-mill conservatives. Consider, for example, former presidential candidate and Reagan staffer, Pat Buchanan. The list of Buchanans anti-Jewish bigotry is exhaustive. Over the years, he has consistently blamed Jews for wide-ranging societal and political problems. In his criticism of the Iraq War, for example, Buchanan infamously quipped: There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East:the Israeli Defense Ministry and its Amen corner in the United States. He then singled out for rebuke only Jewish political figures and commentators, such as Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer and A.M. Rosenthal. He did not mention any of the vocal non-Jewish supporters of the war. Furthermore, Buchanan also said that the Israeli lobby would be responsible if President Obama decided to strike Iran, threatening that if it were to happen, Netanyahu and his Amen corner in Congress would face backlash worldwide. Buchanans sordid flirtation with Nazi revisionism is also well documented. Meanwhile, on university campuses the absurd concept of intersectionality which has become a code word for antisemitism is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation is a case in point. Since co-organizing the Womens March on Washington in January, Sarsour has become a feminist icon for so called progressives. This is the same Linda Sarsour who has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. Theres just no way around it. And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation), the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: I wish I could take away their vaginas. The irony is palpable. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour who is also a staunch BDS supporter cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does. Indeed, Sarsour has emerged as a champion of the hard-left. Both New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and Bernie Sanders have sought her endorsement. Moreover, Deputy DNC Chair, Keith Ellison who himself has a sordid history with antisemitism stemming from his association with Louis Farrakhan, a man whohas publicly boasted about his own Jew-hatred has come out in support of the bigoted Sarsour. When it comes to Ellison, an old idiom comes to mind: a man is known by the company he keeps. The same trend is detectable among the hard-left in Europe, particularly in Britain, which is days away from an election. The British Labour Party has now been hijacked by radical extremists on the Left, and is known for being soft on antisemitism. In a recent interview with a BBC reporter, Emma Barnett who happens to be Jewish Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn fumbled when answering a question about how much his proposed childcare policy would cost. Rather than critique Corbyn, Labour supporters viciously trolled the Jewish BBC reporter. Tweets such as these abounded: Allegations have surfaced that @Emmabarnett is a Zionist and Zionist Emma Barnett (family lived off brothels) attacks Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has also been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry himself. He has said in the past that the genocidal Hamas terrorist group should be removed from the UKs designated terror list and has called Hezbollah and Hamas (which are both vowed to the destruction of the nation-state of the Jewish people) my friends. (I recently wrote extensively on Corbyns association with some of Britains most notorious Holocaust deniers and antisemites.) Increasingly, antisemitic discourse is also seeping into the arts and academia. Consider the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bigotry of former Pink Floyd bassist, Roger Waters. A staunch supporter of the so-called BDS movement, Waters has said about the Palestinians that parallels with what went on in the 30s in Germany are so crushingly obvious. He also had a pig shape balloon with a Star of David on it at one of his concerts. And when asked about his aggressive effort to recruit people to join the BDS movement, Waters blamed the Jewish lobby, which he explained is extraordinarily powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry. In 2013, the ADL declared that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories had seeped into the totality of Waters views. Likewise, the marketplace of ideas on college campuses and within academic institutions has seen an embrace of antisemitism often disguised as anti-Zionism. Several years ago, I identified the dangerous trend of academics crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing Jew-hatred. This was in light of the disgraceful endorsement by a number of prominent academics, of an antisemitic book written by Gilad Arzmon a notorious Jew-hater who denies the Holocaust and attributed widespread economic troubles to a Zio-punch. When asked recently about the hullabaloo surrounding her CUNY address, Linda Sarsour disingenuously played the victim card, saying, Since the Womens March on Washington, once the right-wing saw a very prominent Muslim-American woman in a hijab who was a Palestinian who was resonating with a community in a very large way, they made it their mission to do everything they can to take my platform away. No, Ms. Sarsour. You are wrong. This is not a smear campaign by the right-wing, but rather, a show that people of goodwill reject your manifestations of bigotry. Those who tolerate antisemitism from those they otherwise admire would never accept other forms of bigotry, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. Its difficult to imagine Bernie Sanders campaigning for a socialist who didnt like black peopleor who was against gay marriage. But he is comfortable campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn, who has made a career out of condemning Zionists by which he means Jews. The growing tolerance for antisemitism by both the extreme Left and Right is quickly becoming mainstream. That is why it is so dangerous and must be exposed for what it is: complicity in and encouragement of the oldest form of bigotry. Shame on those who tolerate antisemitism when it comes from their side of the political spectrum. People on both sides of the aisle must have the same zero tolerance for antisemitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia. Decent people everywhere Jews and non-Jews must condemn with equal vigor all manifestations of bigotry whether they emanate from the hard alt-right or hard alt-left. I will continue to judge individuals on the basis of their own statements and actions, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter. Follow himon Twitter @AlanDersh andFacebook.

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Is Richard Gere a conman or a mensch in Norman? – RTE.ie

Updated / Thursday, 8 Jun 2017 18:37 Richard Gere is excellent in this clever little moral of a film about a New York fixer who finds himself dangerously out of his depth. “Youre a drowning man trying to wave at an ocean liner.” This is how Norman Opopenheimers nephew describes his uncle in this curious little film from first time director Joseph Cedar. Its one of many well-turned phrases in an understated character study about a boyishly enthusiastic New York fixer played by Richard Gere. But is this nephew, played by the always great Michael Sheen, really Normans nephew? Nothing can be sure about Norman Oppenheimer. He is a small time operator and a man who desperately wants to be seen as a power broker behind the scenes. He tries to bring together the great (and rich) of society for the greater good but also, of course, for his own advancement.Is Norman a conman or is he actually a mensch? As he quips afterhis nephews rueful admonishment, “Im a good swimmer.” He is certainly a survivor with the tenacity of Pep Le Pew. He picks his way around the fringes of New York’s upper echelons- with his mobile phone as his office – trying to find an angle on everything and just when it looks like hes hit rock bottom for good, he meets a struggling Israeli politician, played with suavity byLior Ashkenazi. Three years later and this politico has become Prime Minister of Israel and things begin to look up for our likeable but untrustworthy loser. Norman is soon seen as a mysterious confidante to the new PM but he becomes caught up in the slippery nexus between the US Jewish lobby and Israeli politics. As a director, Joseph Cedar owes something to the style of Woody Allen but hisuse ofcertain framing devices and techniques can be jarring (montages, split screen) and while some might find the ending overly neat, as a study in vanityand our need to fit in, Norman is quietly excellent. Its also another example of how Gere is going through a brilliant third act in his long and distinguished career. Alan Corr @corralan

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Screenshot All over the world anti-Semites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew hater. This is especially so if the anti-Semite uses the cover of rabid hatred for the nation-state of the Jewish people. These bigots succeed in becoming accepted even praised not because of their anti-Semitism, but despite it. Increasingly, they are given a pass on their Jew-hatred because those who support them admire or share other aspects of what they represent. This implicit tolerance of anti-Semitism as long as it comes from someone whose other views are acceptable represents a dangerous new trend from both the right and left. In the United States, although there has been hard-right anti-Semitism for decades, the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Those on the left who support left-wing anti-Semites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really anti-Semites. They are anti-Zionist is the excuse du jour. Those on the right do essentially the same: they are nationalists. Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that when analyzing and exposing these dangerous trends, a single standard of criticism must be directed at each. Generally speaking, extreme right-wing anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe and among a relatively small group of alt-right Americans. But it also exists among those who self-identify as run-of-the-mill conservatives. Consider, for example, former presidential candidate and Reagan staffer, Pat Buchanan. The list of Buchanans anti-Jewish bigotry is exhaustive. Over the years, he has consistently blamed Jews for wide-ranging societal and political problems. In his criticism of the Iraq War, for example, Buchanan infamously quipped: There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States. He then singled out for rebuke only Jewish political figures and commentators such as Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer and A.M. Rosenthal. Buchanan did not mention any of the vocal non-Jewish supporters of the war. Furthermore, Buchanan also said that the Israeli lobby would be responsible if President Obama decided to strike Iran, threatening that if it were to happen, Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress would face backlash worldwide. Buchanans sordid flirtation with Nazi revisionism is also well documented. Meanwhile, on university campuses, the absurd concept of intersectionality which has become a code word for anti-Semitism is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist, Linda Sarsour who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation is a case in point. A co-organizer of the Womens March on Washington in January, she has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. Theres just no way around it. And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation) the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: I wish I could take away their vaginas. The irony is breathtaking. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour who is also a staunch supporter of trying to destroy Israel economically cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does. Sarsour supports Islamic religious law, Sharia. If taken literally, this would presumably mean that she also supports punishing homosexuality by death; amputation for theft; death by stoning for adultery (which can include being raped); women being valued at half the worth of a man, being flogged for drinking alcohol, and above all, slavery (see here, here and here). Yet, Sarsour has emerged as a champion of the hard-left. Both New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and Bernie Sanders have sought her endorsement. Moreover, Deputy DNC Chair, Keith Ellison who himself has a sordid history with anti-Semitism, stemming from his association with Louis Farrakhan (who publicly boasted about his own Jew hatred) has come out in support of the bigoted Sarsour. When it comes to Ellison, an old idiom comes to mind: a man is known by the company he keeps. The same trend is detectable among the hard-left in Europe, particularly in Britain, which is days away from an election. The British Labour Party has now been hijacked by radical extremists on the left, and is known for being soft on anti-Semitism. In a recent interview with a BBC reporter, Emma Barnett who happens to be Jewish Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn fumbled when answering a question about how much his proposed childcare policy would cost. Rather than critique Corbyn, Labour supporters viciously trolled the Jewish BBC reporter. Tweets such as these abounded: Allegations have surfaced that @Emmabarnett is a Zionist and Zionist Emma Barnett (family lived off brothels) attacks Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has also been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry himself. He has said in the past that the genocidal Hamas terrorist group should be removed from the UKs designated terror list, and has called Hezbollah and Hamas (which are both vowed to the destruction of the nation-state of the Jewish people) my friends. (I recently wrote extensively on Corbyns association with some of Britains most notorious Holocaust-deniers and anti-Semites.) Increasingly, anti-Semitic discourse is also seeping into the arts and academia. Consider the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bigotry of former Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters. A staunch supporter of the so-called BDS movement, Waters has said about the Palestinians that parallels with what went on in the 30s in Germany are so crushingly obvious. He also had a pig-shaped balloon with a Star of David on it at one of his concerts. And when asked about his aggressive effort to recruit people to join the BDS, Waters blamed the Jewish lobby, which he explained is extraordinary powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry. In 2013, the ADL declared that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories had seeped into the totality of Waters views. Likewise, the marketplace of ideas on university campuses and within academic institutions has seen an embrace of anti-Semitism often disguised as anti-Zionism. Several years ago, I identified the dangerous trend of academics crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing Jew-hatred. This was in light of the disgraceful endorsement by a number of prominent academics of an anti-Semitic book written by Gilad Atzmon a notorious Jew-hater who denies the Holocaust and attributed widespread economic troubles to a Zio-punch. When asked recently about the hullabaloo surrounding her CUNY address, Linda Sarsour disingenuously played the victim card: since the Womens March on Washington, once the right-wing saw a very prominent Muslim-American woman in a hijab who was a Palestinian who was resonating with a community in a very large way, they made it their mission to do everything they can to take my platform away. No, Ms. Sarsour. You are wrong. This is not a smear campaign by the right-wing, but rather, a show that people of goodwill reject your manifestations of bigotry. Those who tolerate anti-Semitism from those they otherwise admire would never accept other forms of bigotry, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. Its difficult to imagine Bernie Sanders campaigning for a socialist who didnt like black people or who was against gay marriage. But he is comfortable campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn, who has made a career out of condemning Zionists by which he means Jews. The growing tolerance for anti-Semitism by both the extreme left and right is quickly becoming mainstream. That is why it is so dangerous and must be exposed for what it is: complicity in, and encouragement of, the oldest form of bigotry. Shame on those who tolerate anti-Semitism when it comes from their side of the political spectrum. People on both sides of the aisle must have the same zero tolerance for anti-Semitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia. Decent people everywhere Jews and non-Jews must condemn with equal vigor all manifestations of bigotry whether they emanate from the hard alt-right or hard alt-left. I will continue to judge individuals on the basis of their own statements and actions, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from.

Fair Usage Law

June 7, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  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."