Anti-Semitism. .... Or not?

[blackbear]

The 'New Anti-Semitism' and Nuclear War

by Jonathan Cook
The trajectory of a long-running campaign that gave birth this month to the preposterous all-party British parliamentary report into anti-Semitism in the UK can be traced back to intensive lobbying by the Israeli government that began more than four years ago, in early 2002.

At that time, as Ariel Sharon was shredding the tattered remains of the Oslo accords by re-invading West Bank towns handed over to the Palestinian Authority in his destructive rampage known as Operation Defensive Shield, he drafted the Israeli media into the fray. Local newspapers began endlessly highlighting concerns about the rise of a "new anti-Semitism," a theme that was rapidly and enthusiastically taken up by the muscular Zionist lobby in the U.S.

It was not the first time, of course, that Israel had called on American loyalists to help it out of trouble. In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein documents the advent of claims about a new anti-Semitism to Israel's lackluster performance in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. On that occasion, it was hoped, the charge of anti-Semitism could be deployed against critics to reduce pressure on Israel to return Sinai to Egypt and negotiate with the Palestinians.

Israel alerted the world to another wave of anti-Semitism in the early 1980s, just as it came under unprecedented criticism for its invasion and occupation of Lebanon. What distinguished the new anti-Semitism from traditional anti-Jewish racism of the kind that led to Germany's death camps, said its promoters, was that this time it embraced the progressive Left rather than the far Right.

The latest claims about anti-Semitism began life in the spring of 2002, with the English-language Web site of Israel's respected liberal daily newspaper, Ha'aretz, flagging for many months a special online supplement of articles on the "New Anti-Semitism," warning that the "age-old hatred" was being revived in Europe and America. The refrain was soon taken up the Jerusalem Post, a right-wing English-language newspaper regularly used by the Israeli establishment to shore up support for its policies among Diaspora Jews.

Like its precursors, argued Israel's apologists, the latest wave of anti-Semitism was the responsibility of progressive Western movements – though with a fresh twist. An ever present but largely latent Western anti-Semitism was being stoked into frenzy by the growing political and intellectual influence of extremist Muslim immigrants. The implication was that an unholy alliance had been spawned between the Left and militant Islam.

Such views were first aired by senior members of Sharon's cabinet. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post in November 2002, for example, Benjamin Netanyahu warned that latent anti-Semitism was again becoming active:

"In my view, there are many in Europe who oppose anti-Semitism, and many governments and leaders who oppose anti-Semitism, but the strain exists there. It is ignoring reality to say that it is not present. It has now been wedded to and stimulated by the more potent and more overt force of anti-Semitism, which is Islamic anti-Semitism coming from some of the Islamic minorities in European countries. This is often disguised as anti-Zionism."

Netanyahu proposed "lancing the boil" by beginning an aggressive public relations campaign of "self-defense." A month later Israel's president, Moshe Katsav, picked on the softest target of all, warning during a state visit that the fight against anti-Semitism must begin in Germany, where "voices of anti-Semitism can be heard."

But, as ever, the main target of the new anti-Semitism campaign were audiences in the U.S., Israel's generous patron. There, members of the Israel lobby were turning into a chorus of doom.

In the early stages of the campaign, the lobby's real motivation was not concealed: it wanted to smother a fledgling debate by American civil society, particularly the churches and universities, to divest – withdraw their substantial investments – from Israel in response to Operation Defensive Shield.

In October 2002, after Israel had effectively reoccupied the West Bank, the ever reliable Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, lumped in critics who were calling for divestment from Israel with the new anti-Semites. He urged a new body established by the Israeli government called the Forum for Coordinating the Struggle Against Anti-Semitism to articulate clearly "what we know in our hearts and guts: when that line [to anti-Semitism] is crossed."

A fortnight later Foxman had got into his stride, warning that Jews were more vulnerable than at any time since the Second World War. "I did not believe in my lifetime that I or we would be preoccupied on the level that we are, or [face] the intensity of anti-Semitism that we are experiencing," he told the Jerusalem Post.

Echoing Netanyahu's warning, Foxman added that the rapid spread of the new anti-Semitism had been made possible by the communications revolution, mainly the Internet, which was allowing Muslims to relay their hate messages across the world within seconds, infecting people around the globe.

It is now clear that Israel and its loyalists had three main goals in mind as they began their campaign. Two were familiar motives from previous attempts at highlighting a "new anti-Semitism." The third was new.

The first aim, and possibly the best understood, was to stifle all criticism of Israel, particularly in the U.S. During the course of 2003 it became increasingly apparent to journalists like myself that the American media, and soon much of the European media, was growing shy of printing even the mild criticism of Israel it usually allowed. By the time Israel began stepping up the pace of construction of its monstrous wall across the West Bank in spring 2003, editors were reluctant to touch the story.

As the fourth estate fell silent, so did many of the progressive voices in our universities and churches. Divestment was entirely removed from the agenda. McCarthyite organizations like Campus Watch helped enforce the reign of intimidation. Academics who stood their ground, like Columbia University's Joseph Massad, attracted the vindictive attention of new activist groups like the David Project.

A second, less noticed, goal was an urgent desire to prevent any slippage in the numbers of Jews inside Israel that might benefit the Palestinians as the two ethnic groups approached demographic parity in the area know to Israelis as Greater Israel and to Palestinians as historic Palestine.

Demography had been a long-standing obsession of the Zionist movement: during the 1948 war, the Israeli army terrorized away or forcibly removed some 80 percent of the Palestinians living inside the borders of what became Israel to guarantee its new status as a Jewish state.

But by the turn of the millennium, following Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, and the rapid growth of the oppressed Palestinian populations both in the occupied territories and inside Israel, demography had been pushed to the top of Israel's policy agenda again.

During the second Intifada, as the Palestinians fought back against Israel's war machine with a wave of suicide bombs on buses in major Israeli cities, Sharon's government feared that well-off Israeli Jews might start to regard Europe and America as a safer bet than Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. The danger was that the demographic battle might be lost as Israeli Jews emigrated.

By suggesting that Europe in particular had become a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, it was hoped that Israeli Jews, many of whom have more than one passport, would be afraid to leave. A survey by the Jewish Agency taken as early as May 2002 showed, for example, that 84 percent of Israelis believed anti-Semitism had again become a serious threat to world Jewry.

At the same time, Israeli politicians concentrated their attention on the two European countries with the largest Jewish populations, Britain and France, both of which also have significant numbers of immigrant Muslims. They highlighted a supposed rise in anti-Semitism in these two countries in the hope of attracting their Jewish populations to Israel.

In France, for example, peculiar anti-Semitic attacks were given plenty of media coverage: from a senior rabbi who was stabbed (apparently by himself, as it later turned out) to a young woman attacked on a train by anti-Semitic thugs (except, as it later emerged, she was not Jewish and she faked the assault).

Sharon took advantage of the manufactured climate of fear in July 2004 to claim that France was in the grip of "the wildest anti-Semitism," urging French Jews to come to Israel.

The third goal, however, had not seen before. It tied the rise of a new anti-Semitism to the increase of Islamic fundamentalism in the West, implying that Muslim extremists were asserting an ideological control over Western thinking. It chimed well with the post 9/11 atmosphere.

In this spirit, American Jewish academics such as Daniel Goldhagen characterized anti-Semitism as constantly "evolving." In a piece entitled "The Globalization of Anti-Semitism" published in the American Jewish weekly Forward in May 2003, Goldhagen argued that Europe had exported its classical racist anti-Semitism to the Arab world, which in turn was re-infecting the West.

"Then the Arab countries re-exported the new hybrid demonology back to Europe and, using the United Nations and other international institutions, to other countries around the world. In Germany, France, Great Britain, and elsewhere, today's intensive anti-Semitic expression and agitation uses old tropes once applied to local Jews – charges of sowing disorder, wanting to subjugate others – with new content overwhelmingly directed at Jews outside their countries."

This theory of a "free-floating" contagion of hatred toward Jews, being spread by Arabs and their sympathizers through the Internet, media, and international bodies, found many admirers. The British neoconservative journalist Melanie Philips claimed popularly, if ludicrously, that British identity was being subverted and pushed out by an Islamic identity that was turning her country into a capital of terror, "Londonistan."

This final goal of the proponents of "the new anti-Semitism" was so successful because it could be easily conflated with other ideas associated with America's War on Terror, such as the clash of civilizations. If it was "us" versus "them," then the new anti-Semitism posited from the outset that the Jews were on the side of the angels. It fell to the Christian West to decide whether to make a pact with good (Judaism, Israel, civilization) or evil (Islam, Osama bin Laden, Londonistan).

We are far from reaching the end of this treacherous road, both because the White House is bankrupt of policy initiatives apart from its War on Terror, and because Israel's place is for the moment assured at the heart of the U.S. administration's neoconservative agenda.

That was made clear last week when Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, added yet another layer of lethal mischief to the neoconservative spin machine as it gears up to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu compared Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler.

"Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first. Therefore from that perspective, it is much more dangerous," Netanyahu told Israel's anti-terrorism policymakers.

Netanyahu's implication was transparent: Iran is looking for another Final Solution, this one targeting Israel as well as world Jewry. The moment of reckoning is near at hand, according to Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, who claims against all the evidence that Iran is only months away from possessing nuclear weapons.

"International terrorism is a mistaken term," Netanyahu added, "not because it doesn't exist, but because the problem is international militant Islam. That is the movement … that operates terror on the international level, and that is the movement that is preparing the ultimate terror, nuclear terrorism."

Faced with the evil designs of the "Islamic fascists," such as those in Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal – and the nuclear holocaust Israel can and appears prepared to unleash – may be presented as the civilized world's salvation.

Don't forget the pipeline or even the protocols.

[blackbear]

Ten questions to the Zionists
by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L
Dean of Nitra Yeshiva and author of min hametzar

(Published by the author in 1948 and reprinted many times)
1.
IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

2.
IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

3.
IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid

4.
IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

5.
IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.

6.
IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

7.
IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

8.
IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"

9.
IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

10.
IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

There are additional similar questions to be asked of these atheist degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", but for the time being let them respond to the ten questions.

These Zionist "statesmen" with their great foresight, sought to bring an end two two-thousand years of Divinely ordained Jewish subservience and political tractability. With their offensive militancy, they fanned the fires of anti-Semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew-hatred between Nazi-Germany and the surrounding countries.

These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

The Zionist "statesmen" have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like England, and against masses of hundreds of millions of Arabs.

AND THESE SAME ZIONIST "STATESMEN" HEEDLESSLY PUSH THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF ANOTHER TOTAL WAR - REVOLVING ENTIRELY AROUND THE HOLY LAND.

What may befall the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, of the Arab crescent, Europe, or the USA; is of no concern to these Zionist leaders. The rising anti-Semitism in the Western World is the product of their "statesmanship".

Under the guise of "love of Israel", the Zionist "statesmen" seduced many Jews to replace devotion to the Torah and its Sages with devotion to the scoundrel who founded Zionism. It is of no little significance that Herzl originally sought conversion of the Jews as a solution to the problems of the Diaspora. When he realized that this was not acceptable to the Jewish masses, he contrived Zionism as a satisfactory alternative!

A look into history reveals that this very same type of "statesmen" opposed the call of Jeremiah the prophet to yield to the minions of Nebuchadnezzar at the destruction of the first Temple. Five centuries later, Rabbi Yochonon Ben Zakai appealed to the people to surrender to Titus the Roman to avoid bloodshed. The "statesmen" rejected this appeal, and the second Temple was destroyed by the Romans. --- And now for the past fifty years, the Zionist "statesmen" rebuff the leadership of our Sages; and continue in their policy of fomenting anti-Semitism. When will they stop?? Must every Jew in America also suffer?? - Even the Nazi monsters had more sense, and gave up their war before all Germany was destroyed. The Zionist "statesmen" ridicule the sacred oath which the Creator placed upon the Jews in the Diaspora. Our Torah, in Tractate Ksubos, folio 111, specifies that the Creator, blessed be He, swore the Jews not to occupy the Holy Land by force, even if it appears that they have the force to do so; and not rebel against the Nations. And the Creator warned that if His oath be desecrated, Jewish flesh would be "open property", like the animals in the forest!! These are words of our Torah; and these concepts have been cited in Maimonides' "Igeres Teimon", "Be'er HaGola", "Ahavas Yehonosson", and in "Toras Moshe" of the Chasam Sofer.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.

Yidden - merciful sons of merciful fathers - how much longer must holy Jewish blood continue to be shed??

The only solution is:

The Jewish people must reject, outright, a "Jewish State".

The Jewish people should accept the US compromise.

We must depose the atheist-Zionist "statesmen" from their role as Jewish leaders, and return to the faithful leadership of our sages.

We beseech the Nations to open all doors to immigration - not only the doors of Palestine.

Peaceful, non-Zionist religious personalities in Palestine, (particularly from the native population) and their counterparts in the Diaspora, should engage in responsible, face-to face negotiations on behalf of the Jewish people, with the British and the Arabs; with an aim of amicable settlement of the Palestine issue.



Every Jew is obliged to pray to the Blessed creator, for in Him lies all our strength. Let us bear in mind that our prayers be forthright. One should not entreat the Creator to provide a banquet on Yom Kippur, and one can not perform a ritual ablution with a dead bug in his hand. Similarly, we should avoid the untenable position of the robber who prays for Divine help in carrying out his crime. We should pray that Zionism and its fruits vanish from the Earth, and that we be redeemed by the Messiah with dispatch.

A prisoner is released only when he has served his time, or if he is pardoned by the President for good behavior. If he attempts escape and is apprehended, his term is lengthened, besides the beating he receives when he is caught.

Faithful Jews- for over three and one-half thousand years, in all parts of the world, through all trials, our grandfathers and grandmothers marched through seas of blood and tears in order to keep the Faith of the Torah unswervingly. If we have compassion for ourselves, for our women and children, and for the Jewish people, we will maintain our golden legacy today. We have been sentenced to exile by the King of Kings because of our sins. The eternal blessed be He, has decreed that we accept the exile with humble gratitude until the time comes, or until we merit His pardon through repentance if we seek to end the exile with force, G-d will catch us, as our sages have forewarned, and our sentence becomes longer and more difficult.

Many times in the past have segments of our people been defrauded by false messiahs - but none of the false messiahs has been as fallacious and delusory as the lie of Zionism. With our historical experience as our guide, no retribution has been or will be greater than the retribution for giving credence to Zionism. If we wish our exile-sentence commuted, we must appeal through repentance; and through total physical and spiritual observance of the Sabbath, laws of family purity, and study of Torah.

Let it be clearly understood that never in Jewish history (even in the time of Jeroboam or Achav) have such hostile atheists stood at the helm of he Jewish people as today.

How can we plead to the Almighty for mercy while we tolerate these vile, "wicked" leaders as spokesmen! Beloved brothers - let us cleanse our ranks and cleanse our midst; let us entreat the Almighty through prayer, repentance, and fulfillment of mitzvos that He alone redeem us, immediately.


http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/tenquestions.cfm

[Rory Winter]

Thank you, Blackbear, for these very interesting posts.

[blackbear]

Judaists vs. Islamists?
Chris Moore – September 29, 2006

In their cynical attempts to spark World War III against what they call Islamofascism, neocon ideologues have engaged in a consistent modus operandi. They routinely take anecdotal incidents of Muslim outbursts in reaction to offensive, provocative remarks made by Western leaders or in Western media, and then use those outbursts to propagate glittering generalities about the entire Islamic creed—generalities that would not be tolerated in Western civil society if they were directed at any other religious group.

Take, for example, Charles Krauthammer’s latest Washington Post column, one in a long line of propaganda pieces designed to advance the public impression that Islam is inherently violent. Following the pope’s ill-timed quotation of a Byzantine emperor’s remark that the primary message in Muhammed’s teachings was the “evil and inhuman command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” Krauthammer cites a grand total of three sets of incidents touched off by the comment to prove that “Islamists” are murderous. None of the incidents Krauthammer cites resulted in a death, and only one—a series of attacks on churches in the Israeli occupied territories—resulted in property damage. And this in a religion of 1.3 billion adherents.

“How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I’ll kill you for it,” is how Krauthammer characterizes the general Islamic reaction. And as Krauthammer sees it, it’s all part of a pattern of “intimidation.” “First, Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Quran-flushing at Guantánamo. Then the Danish cartoons.” And now this.

To Krauthammer, the handful of incidents listed above prove that “It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout "God is Great" as they slit the throats of infidels… and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.”

Ignoring altogether Krauthammer’s absurd generalizations about a billion and a half people based on the actions of perhaps a few thousand of them over the span of 20 years (he had to reach all the way back to the 1988 contretemps over Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses to find one of the examples on his list), what about Krauthammer’s other contention, that Islam is the ultimate “violent purveyor of monotheistic religion”? If Krauthammer can make generalizations about Muslims (pardon me, “Islamists”) based on the actions of a few thousand of them over 20 years, then isn’t it fair to make generalizations about Judaists (the Jewish equivalent to the word Islamists) based on the actions of the officially Jewish state of Israel?

Does Judaism violently purvey its brand of monotheistic religion on behalf of Jews? The current and historical behavior of Zionism (which in practice is Jewish nationalism) certainly suggests so.

In fact, just weeks ago, in what it claimed were retaliatory attacks for the cross-border skirmish that resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers, the Jewish state engaged in a destructive bombing campaign and incursion into Lebanon that killed some 1,000 civilians, created over 1 million Lebanese refugees and damaged Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure on what Amnesty International reports was a “catastrophic scale.”

“Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments,” Amnesty said.

And as a sadistic calling card, the Israelis left behind hundreds of unexploded, U.S.-made cluster bombs that are likely to plague Lebanese civilians for years. “The United Nations estimates that Israel dropped or fired some 1,800 cluster bombs during its war with Hezbollah, the vast majority during the final three days when a cease-fire was imminent. Those bombs contained more than 1 million bomblets, many of which failed to explode and remain a menace to civilians,” reports the Washington Times.

Even the head of an Israeli rocket unit described his own government’s wartime conduct as “insane and monstrous.”

Apparently, collective punishment of thousands of non-Jews under the pretext of “Jewish security” has become commonplace for the Israeli government, which in June destroyed a power plant that supplied electricity to more than half of the Gaza Strip's 1.3 million residents following the captivity of one of its soldiers by Palestinian militants. The soldier’s abduction was in retaliation for Israel’s assassination of a Palestinian resistance leader and the killi ng of six members of a family on a Gaza beach during an Israeli shelling. Some analysts believe the shelling was a deliberate provocation designed to incite Palestinian reprisals.

Such Israeli government provocations are commonplace, and the degree to which retaliation will likely take place is studied well in advance—a calculated cost-benefit analysis that directly contradicts its professed concern for every Jewish life.

As Israeli writer Bradley Burston puts it: “Our chosen means of self-defense - incursions, body searches, discriminatory laws and regulations, refusal to recognize, refusal to negotiate, raids and bombings, house demolitions, imprisonments without trial, building walls through villages and over farmers' fields, kidnappings and assassinations of leaders - directly act upon the Palestinians' every humiliation nerve.”

Obvously, the Israeli government is well aware of this. But it proceeds with its deliberate strategy of retaliation-generating oppression anyway.

So based on the Krauthammer rules, what are the generalizations we can make about Judaist? That they are sadistic? That they are vengeful? That they believe in collective punishment? That they are experts in the science of fomenting wars? That they collectively relish the Mossad’s dark motto, “By way of deception, thou shalt do war?”

Let’s take it a step further. Based on the fact that the Jewish state has race laws that institutionally discriminate against non-Jews, the fact that its principles of discrimination are sanctioned and subsidized by the U.S. government due to the efforts of Zionist partisans scattered across America, and the fact that the Israeli government was one of the staunchest allies of the apartheid-era South African government, can we conclude that worldwide Judaists are racist bigots who support a global system of imposed racialism? Can we conclude that hierarchical Zionism is the model for a fledgling totalitarian caste system that will place Judaists on top, render Muslims as untouchables and systematically murder, marginalize and terrorize those who oppose it the way it has murdered, marginalized and terrorized the Palestinians for the last 50 years?

Such generalizations, if ever allowed in the mainstream Western press, would be widely condemned as “anti-Semitic” and derided as “conspiracy theories.” Yet here is Jewish nationalist Charles Krauthammer, in one of the most prominent, influential and widely read newspapers in the entire world, systematically making gross generalizations about 1.3 billion Muslims based on the actions of a handful—without a whisper of controversy.

But Krauthammer doesn’t stop there. He also has the chutzpah to claim that it is the “Islamic mobs” that enjoy the double standard.

“In today’s world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders,” he writes.

Well, he has it partially right. Religious sensitivity is a one-way street. Jewish nationalists and Christian Zionists can endlessly engage in innuendo about the threat that the entirety of Islam poses to the West through clever rhetorical devices like Islamism and Islamofascism, but when their opponents seek to play by the same set of rules that they themselves established and make reference to Judeofascism and the threat that that totalitarian movement poses to the West, they are considered beyond the pale.

Anti-Islamofascists, who are comprised of Christians, Jews, the secular, and even some Muslims, argue that Islamofascism refers merely to militant Islam. Fine. If the growing anti-Judeofascist movement, which is also comprised of representative from all of those groups, stipulates that Judeofascism is merely a reference to militant, racialist Zionism, will the term be accepted in mainstream media the way Islamofascism is? Will it be tolerated in civil discourse the way Islamofascism is? And what about the word Islamists? Will its equivalent—the word Judaists—be allowed in the pages of the Washington Post any time soon? Somehow I doubt it.

For as long as possible, mainstream media will continue to keep Americans in the dark about a nefarious ideology right under their noses that is doing everything in its power to engage them in World War III on behalf of its dark vision of State-enforced racialism—and then has the temerity to portray itself as the victim of intolerance and the embodiment of liberal Western values. Chutzpah, indeed.

The hypocrisy is rank—and ultimately untenable.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5241

Don't forget the pipeline !