Posts

NYC POGROM: De Blasio’s Inspectors Flood Jewish Neighborhoods, Every Jewish School Visited

Dozens of schools were harassed by de Wilhelm Blasio’s jackboots, circa Berlin 1930s.

If inspectors were unable to access the building, the yeshivas were given a summons for a court appearance along with a $15,000 fine.

INSPECTORS FLOOD BORO PARK AND FLATBUSH: Every Yeshiva Being Visited Today

YWN has been inundated with reports of inspectors flooding the Flatbush and Boro Park “red zones” on Monday.

By: Yeshiva Today, October 19, 2020:

By 11:30AM, inspectors from the NYC Department of Buildings had already visited nearly two dozen Mosdos Hatorah.

Initial reports state that inspectors are asking to enter the buildings, and if denied, they are given a summons for a court appearance in a few months along with a $15,000 fine.

Highly credible sources tell YWN that the inspectors were provided a list from the State that has the names and addresses of every single Yeshiva, and were hoping to visit each one today.

YWN had no information if any Yeshivas were even open.

YWN has been inundated with reports of inspectors flooding the Flatbush and Boro Park “red zones” on Monday.

By 11:30AM, inspectors from the NYC Department of Buildings had already visited nearly two dozen Mosdos Hatorah.

Initial reports state that inspectors are asking to enter the buildings, and if denied, they are given a summons for a court appearance in a few months along with a $15,000 fine.

Highly credible sources tell YWN that the inspectors were provided a list from the State that has the names and addresses of every single Yeshiva, and were hoping to visit each one today.

YWN had no information if any Yeshivas were even open.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: Shocking Photos of Underage Girls in Biden’s Laptop, Incl. Relative — and He Was in Some of the Photos WITH HER

WATCH: President Donald Trump holding ‘Make America Great Again!’ rally in Erie, Pa. Tuesday

President Trump, Dozens of House GOPers Seek Special Counsel Probe of Hunter, Joe Biden

French Minister Demands Mosque Be Shut Down After Inciting To Murder

Cop BEAT BLOODY in Brutal Attack Livestreamed on Facebook

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Black Lives Matter Spray Paints “Free Palestine” Outside Kenosha Synagogue

As reported by Town Hall correspondent Julios Rosas, a Black Lives Matter rioter was caught on video spray painting Free Palestine on the driveway of the Beth Hillel Temple in Kenosha.

Beth Hillel, like a number of other leftist temples, is a despicable institution that had been pandering to the racist hate group and excusing the violence, but that doesn’t change what the graffiti says about the motives and mindset of BLM.

Nor is this an unusual event. It’s part of a pattern.

During the Los Angeles Black Lives Matter riots which targeted the Fairfax community and its large Orthodox Jewish population, Congregation Beth El on Beverly Blvd was spray painted with the hateful message, “F___ Israel”, and “Free Palestine”.

There’s a pattern. And the pattern is antisemitism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Amid Racial Turmoil, Kenosha Synagogue Defaced With ‘Free Palestine’ Graffiti

Rioters Left Behind a ‘War Zone’ That Residents Now Have to Clean Up

Birds of a Feather: Joe Biden, Democrats, and the Rioting Mob

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Jews Proudly Leaving the Democrat Party

In an American Thinker column titled Like trapped rats, Democrats and other leftists are starting to get nervous Andrea Widburg reports:

As I began writing tonight, I had a lot of tabs open.  Shall I write about the racist attack The Nation launched against black Trump-supporters?  Or should I write about Nancy Pelosi’s suddenly announcing that Biden shouldn’t demean himself by debating Trump?  And what about the Democrats who are openly admitting that Trump is running the better campaign?  And then there are the Jews proudly leaving the Democrat party — what about them?

As I contemplated three or four separate posts, one for each question, I realized that they are all actually the same post: Democrats are realizing that Biden’s early poll numbers were misleading and that Trump may well win.  Some respond like trapped rats with viciousness or frantic manipulations.  Others are feeling something akin to relief.  No matter the response, they’re recognizing the real possibility that Biden almost certainly won’t make it across the finish line.

Read more.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Five Democrat Mayors in Minnesota Endorse Trump

How Republicans will Benefit from America’s Demographic Transformation

White majority Protestant Christians on the way to becoming a minority


For decades now, one of the favourite talking points of America’s political analysts and pundits has been about the political and electoral transformation in the United States favouring the Democrats from an unstoppable diversification of the electorate due to immigration. Due to this trend, it is argued, the white majority Protestant Christian demography in the US will soon enter minority status.

A lot of evidence does support this view — after all, a major part of the reason why Democrats now own California is because of California’s transformation from the State of origin of Ronald Reagan to a majority Hispanic/Latino State. Democrats are even pointing to polls in Texas and Arizona to show how they can continue to make red states purple, then blue, thanks to demographic transformation.

But as this article is about to show you, that is only part of the picture. As a matter of fact, time and time again Democrats have naively assumed that the rising sleeping giant of minority voters will benefit them and only them. Prior to 2016, liberal media assumed a “beautiful brown wave” would come and that Latino voters would be loyal to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Democrats have won the Latino vote consistently with Clinton winning 66 percent of the Latino vote in 2016 and Obama earning 71 percent of the Latino electorate in 2012. Elsewhere, black and Asian voters have consistently voted Democrat, which made many pundits believe before 2016 that America was about to enter a one-party Democratic hegemony in the 21st century.

But the rise of the Latino population is not the only demographic transformation in America. Turns out, the Republicans will also get shots in their arm and electoral boosts from groups you might have never heard of: Hispanic Protestants (evangelicals in particular), Haredi Jews, the Amish and their other ultraconservative Anabaptist brethren. Their demographic futures may well take away the guaranteed Democratic hegemony and make things continuously competitive for the GOP. The end of Christian white America may be nigh, but red conservative America may actually never go away and even make a demographic comeback.

Hispanic Protestants

In August 2020, the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released a report which shocked the Twitterati. Titled: “Are Hispanic Americans warming up to Trump?”, it showed a President who is actually gaining in favourability in the Hispanic electorate. Even the PRRI said this was surprising, given the pandemic, Black Lives Matter and endless “Trump racist” scandals that the media has been broadcasting 24/7/365.

In the report, Trump’s favourability increased from 28 percent of all Hispanic Americans in 2019 (roughly consistent with the percentage of votes he received from Latino voters in 2016) to 36 percent in August 2020. What is most surprising, however, is that Trump actually has a near-majority favourability among one often-neglected but increasingly influential group: Hispanic Protestants. In the survey, his approval among Hispanic Protestants is 50 percent.

Other polls and previous results have consistently proved the correlation and plausibility of these results. In 2016, Trump received just 28 percent of all Hispanic votes, but he received 41 percent of the Latino evangelical Protestant vote. A recent poll in Texas came up with a similar result: Texas Hispanics prefer Biden over Trump, but when you break it down significant discrepancies emerge: Hispanic Catholics favour Biden 60.6 percent to 32.7 percent, but that gets completely reversed when Hispanic Protestants are surveyed: they favour Trump over Biden 51 percent to 24 percent. Hispanic Catholics have consistently helped Democrats get a majority of the Latino vote, with Catholic Latinos voting 75 percent to 21 percent for Obama in 2012 and 67 percent to 26 percent for Clinton, in stark contrast to evangelical Latinos’ preference for the Republican candidate.

So why does this matter, I hear you ask. Aren’t Hispanic Americans overwhelmingly Catholic? And a 41 percent or 51 percent favourability for Trump among evangelical Hispanics is surely nothing compared to the 82 percent of votes he would get from white evangelicals? Well, here’s where things get really interesting, so buckle up.

It turns out that Hispanic Catholics are no longer a majority of Latino Americans. According to Pew Research, 67 percent of Latino adults identified as Catholic as recently as 2010, but since then breathtaking demographic transformation has taken place, with the figure falling to 55 percent by 2014, and to only 47 percent by 2019. Meanwhile, Protestant Hispanics rose from 19 percent in the 2014 survey to 24 percent in 2019. This means evangelical Hispanics are gaining and converting at the direct expense of Catholics. This is a direct correlation with the trends across Latin America, with Pentecostalism gaining as the Catholic Church bleeds members, converting previously overwhelmingly Catholic countries into future Pentecostal and evangelical majority nations.

So what does a quarter of all US Hispanics being Protestant translate into? It translates into 4-5 percent of all Americans. It is also a growing and young demographic, unlike the ageing and shrinking white evangelicals. One in three Hispanic Protestants are under the age of 30 and the median age of Hispanic evangelicals is 37. White evangelicals have a median age of 55. And yet they remain overlooked in electoral politics; in the 2016 Pew analysis of how the faithful voted, Pew listed Jews, black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics but did not even include Hispanic Protestants. But guess what? Hispanic evangelicals are double the population of American Jews.

They also live in states that matter. Hispanic evangelicals are 6 percent of Florida’s population, 8 percent of the Texas population and 5 percent of Arizona’s population. The electoral importance of these states is pretty clear. Democrats have for years wanted to flip Texas and Arizona, with some polls claiming Joe Biden currently leading and one of their main hopes lying with the growing Hispanic population in both States.

But given the fact that Hispanics are converting to evangelical Protestantism and also assimilating into mainstream American society, those Democratic hopes are not guaranteed. These Latino evangelicals are socially conservative on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, but liberal on immigration, making them a swing vote which is currently more in favour of Trump than Biden, especially among Hispanic/Latino men. As Hispanic evangelicals expand demographically, the Hispanic/Latino solid blue voting bloc may even become purple, directly affecting elections well after Trump and Biden.

Haredi Jews

Ultra-orthodox Jews may not be the first thing to come to one’s mind when considering a future major Republican voting bloc. After all, seven out of 10 Jews in the US vote Democrat.  Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews also only currently consist of about 10 percent of the total Jewish population in the United States. But it is the future that counts and, in many ways, the future is already here.

Haredi Jews have become the kingmakers in Israeli politics. Frustrating secular Israelis for decades, Haredi voting blocs in Israel yield extraordinary electoral and political power by voting strictly on the rabbi’s orders, repeatedly forcing Netanyahu and Israeli politics to swing to the right. That is why Israeli secular Jews have a deep frustration and resentment towards the Haredim. As the fastest growing demographic in Israel now and for the foreseeable future, the rise of Haredi politics in Israel is unstoppable. And in some parts of the United States, that might one day become a reality.

In 2013, Pew estimated that 10 percent of American Jews were Orthodox, with 3 percent being modern Orthodox and 7 percent being ultra-Orthodox (Haredi). But when you look at the youth population, the trends become mind-blowing. Due to the fact that Haredi Jews have fertility rates far higher than the average Jewish American (Pew estimated the Orthodox fertility rate to be 4.1 which included modern Orthodox Jews. Haredi Jews are likely to have even higher fertility at around 7.1 based on Israeli statistics. In 2013, 60 percent of all Jewish children in New York City were already Orthodox.

At this rate, these Orthodox Jews will go from the current one million to 3.5 million by the second half of this century. They will become the majority of Jews in America, which is projected to have a total population of 7.2 million in 2093, growing only because of Haredi Orthodox growth as other Jewish populations dwindle.

So what’s in it for the Republicans? Well, Haredi Jews vote distinctively differently from the generally liberal American Jewish population. And like in Israel, they do vote, and they vote in large blocs. In 2013, 57 percent of Orthodox Jews preferred the Republican Party.

But that was before the Democratic Party elected Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib (both accused of anti-Semitism) and well before Donald Trump came to the presidency and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Now, Haredi Jews prefer Donald Trump overwhelmingly. In 2020, 68 percent of Haredi Jews have a favourable view of Donald Trump. A total of 66 percent of Haredi will vote for him, completely contrasting themselves with the 70 percent of all Jews who vote Democrat.

This overwhelming conservatism among Haredi Jews is already reflected in local politics. Donald Trump’s home city of New York abhor him; he lost overwhelmingly there. But in parts of Brooklyn where huge populations of Haredi Jews live, he won overwhelmingly, making these areas red in an ocean of blue — 69 percent of Borough Park, Brooklyn (an overwhelmingly Haredi area) voted Republican in a borough that only voted 18 percent for Trump.

Moreover, Simcha Felder, the New York State Senator for the Borough Park area, is an Orthodox Jewish Democrat who regularly caucuses with Republicans. He is also a pro-lifer staunchly opposed to abortion, making him perhaps one of the only elected New York City Democrats who is pro-life in an age when the title  “pro-life Democrat” sounds like the ultimate oxymoron.

But that doesn’t matter, you might say, because the Haredis live in NYC which will always vote Democrat, right? Well, the Haredim are spreading out of Brooklyn. They are aggressively expanding in settlements across New Jersey and upstate New York and even in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio. Kiryas Joel, Lakewood and New Square are some of the youngest settlements in America in terms of the age of the local population, with Kiryas Joel having a median age of just 13.8.

In 2018, Kiryas Joel voted as a bloc for Republican Tom Basile in the New York State Senate Race, giving him 4,157 votes. In 2016, the “Trumpiest town” in all of New Jersey was the heavily Orthodox Jewish town of Lakewood, which voted 74.4 percent to 24.4 percent for Trump, giving him nearly 18,000 votes.

As a voting bloc, these towns will become pivotal in Congressional and local elections heavily favouring Republicans in deeply blue states. And when the populations of these towns are growing annually at 5 percent a year or more , a rapid shift in electoral demographics is going to take place very soon.

The Amish

Everyone has heard of the Amish. These pacifist Luddites who often reject electricity may be very much apart from the outside world of what they call “the English”, but they are on their way to massive demographic expansion. The Amish have maintained exponential population growth for over a century now, doubling every 19.63 years.

As a sect that rejects all forms of birth control, the Amish have near-natural fertility of 6-7 children, with some ultraconservatives having an average of nine children. Currently, there are around 350,000 Amish living in North America. At this rate, by the end of this century, there will be anything from 6 to 10 million Amish people in the United States and by mid-century they will already have reached over the million mark.

The Amish are naturally sympathetic to Republican conservatism as they are deeply religious and family oriented. Of course, one could raise the point that 350,000 Amish are a tiny minority in America and that the increased strength to millions will only arrive much later this century, meaning any contributions they will make to the Republican voting bank will remain minuscule for years to come.

Another huge caveat is that the Amish actually don’t vote that much due to their “separate from the outside world” doctrine. But Republicans are already looking to get the Amish vote out, from the group Bikers for Trump giving Amish Trump supporters a lift, to pro-Trump rallies in Pennsylvania, to an Amish political action committee registering and recruiting voters for Trump.

But here’s the interesting part: Amish people live in a few of the most important swing States of the United States, with 63 percent of all Amish people living in the three States of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. Pennsylvania and Ohio are key battleground States and often must-wins for any US presidential candidate. And the electoral margins are often razor thin (Trump only won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes). The world’s largest Amish settlements in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Holmes County, Ohio, may well hold the key to the White House if future elections boil down to one of these two States.

A few thousand Amish votes may be the only thing that makes the difference one day. It is already working out its power. In 2016, 1,019 Amish voters in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, voted out of an eligible 15,055. In the 1990s, less than 450 Amish even bothered to register. Moreover, Amish people are migrating to other key swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin in large numbers, making them a future potential voting bloc in these States too.

As it stands, the Republicans are bound to benefit greatly from the above demographic transformations. This extends well beyond Trump, regardless of whether he steps down in 2021 or 2025 and will continue for decades to come. They will not guarantee a electoral majority for the GOP, but will definitely guarantee that the GOP will not be a disappearing party of just “old white people”. On the contrary, the Republicans might have a bright electoral future ahead of them in some regions. The GOP is here to stay.

COLUMN BY

William Huang

William Huang is a product of the one-child policy as he is the only son in the family. Born and raised in China, it is only when he went overseas to study that he had an epiphany, realizing just how much… 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Heads-Up Jewish Americans–Democrats Are Your Enemies!

It’s quite simple for me, as it should be for all Jews, given the fact that in a world of about eight-billion people, we Jews are a miniscule 15 million, only about six-million in the United States, eight-million in Israel, and another one-million around the world. That is equivalent to the proverbial drop in the ocean.

A PRESSING IMPERATIVE

If we Jews and our supporters don’t aggressively address the pandemic of anti-Semitism that is galloping around the globe and exploding here in America, rampant on college campuses, aided and abetted by a craven media that gives credibility to career hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan and his ilk, and even contaminating the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress––with more floridly hate-Jews/hate-Israel Democrats than ever before in history––then we know from our tragic history that annihilation could be right around the corner.

Sadly the Democrat Party of old––of JFK, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Senator and VP Walter Mondale, et al––has vanished, replaced by Democrats like “the squad” who spew their poisonous hatred of Jews and Israel from the House of Representatives itself. Then there are those who remain thunderously silent––including elected Democrat Jews like Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, Jerrold Nadler, Eliot Engel, Adam Schiff, Richard Blumenthal, as well Democrat Representatives from Long Island––with a huge Jewish population––Tom Suozzi and Kathleen Rice.

Don’t be fooled by the boilerplate, politically correct press releases written by their aides. Once these statements are made public, these cowards go back to cowering before the radical leftists who now call the shots in the Democrat Party, most prominently the racists who continue to vent their anti-Semitic bile to this day.

WHERE DID ALL THE ADVOCATES GO?

Shockingly, most of the Jewish organizations that once supported and defended Jews in America abandoned those roles, having caved to their biggest donors’ conversion to a new religion called “Social Justice.” These are the quislings who “reach out” to––in essence, endorse––groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa and others that wantonly attack synagogues, Jewish businesses and ordinary Jewish citizens walking in their neighborhoods, and brazenly promote the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement to destroy Israel through economic strangulation.

For instance, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), founded in 1913, aggressively and successfully fulfilled its mission to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” until 102 years after its founding when, in 2015, Jonathan Greenblatt became the ADL’s national director and CEO. Greenblatt worked for three far-left regimes antagonistic to Israel––the Clinton Administration, the Obama fiasco, and the George Soros-funded Aspen Institute. Now, Mr. Greenblatt sounds deranged when he states that “only a small number” of the Black Lives Matter anarchy group don’t like Jews, when he knows full well––and Americans can see with their own eyes––that it is one of the most rabidly Jew- and Israel-loathing groups in the world!

According to columnist and author Rabbi Aryeh Spero, the ADL under Greenblatt “has betrayed its original mission of fighting anti-Semites by forging a new partnership with one of America’s most notorious anti-Semites, Al Sharpton.”

But the ADL is only one example out of nearly a dozen that I place in the category of turncoats against the Jewish people. [More on this in a future article].

AMERICA TO THE RESCUE

I have always felt safe in America, protected by the powerful principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, by the always-reliable police-and-fire departments in every community where I’ve lived, and by local, state and national leaders of both political parties who fought to preserve our extraordinary way of life through our country’s bedrock foundations of God, family, freedom and safety.

But with the advent of the well-organized, heavily financed emergence of the Jew-hating, Christian-hating, America-hating “Cancel Culture,” what can people do? Yes, they can call or write a letter or e-mail to their elected representative, for which they’ll get back a form letter written by an intern.

But a sure-fire cure for this downward plunge into the sewers of our body politic is to vote out every Democrat running for office. Not one of these America-loathing, anarchist-supporting people is worthy of representing either their constituents or America itself.

Just ask them. They will tell you that they “support” the terrorism––which they call “protests”––we’ve been witnessing for the last several weeks, that they want to raise your taxes, cut funding to the police and military that protect you and your children, institute the socialized medicine and education that have failed in every country they’ve ever been instituted, and enact the Big Government programs that “protect” you from cradle to grave.

November 3, 2020, could change your life forever. If you believe in self-preservation, be smart!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Race Relations Plummeted While Joe Biden Was Vice President Under Barack Obama

RELATED VIDEO: Questions Journalists Should Ask Biden – But Won’t.

Boston: “Day of Rage” Protesters Call for Violent Destruction of Israel

The Leftist-jihadist alliance on abundant display.

“‘Day of Rage’ Protesters in Boston Chant Anti-Israel, Pro-Hamas Slogans, Call for Intifada,” by Jackson Richman, JNS, July 3, 2020:

Tensions brewed at “Day of Rage” rallies and vehicle caravans nationwide on July 1, protesting Israel’s plans to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria, more commonly known as the West Bank. The name refers to times when Palestinians riot and hurl rocks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, most recently near the border with the Gaza Strip.

Approximately 300 people associated with BDS Boston—a coalition of far-left anti-Israel organizations—chanted Hamas slogans on Wednesday night in front of the offices of the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Community Relations Council in the Massachusetts capital.

The BDS organizers said that they were protesting police brutality in the aftermath of the killing of African-American George Floyd, 46, on May 25 in the custody of Minneapolis police.

“The protesters hijacked legitimate outrage over the death of George Floyd to justify an ugly display of hostility towards Israel and Jewish organizations on the streets of Boston,” said Dexter Van Zile, an analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, or CAMERA, which is based in Boston. “This wasn’t about changing American police policies, but about coarsening and brutalizing the discourse around Israel and Jews through the exploitation of black suffering.”

CAMERA staff filmed the rally. A speaker for BDS Boston is on video leading the large crowd in the Hamas chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which is a call for the replacement of Israel with a majority-Arab Muslim country.

At other times, the crowd can be heard loudly chanting “Intifada, Intifada,” the name of violent Palestinian uprisings. Hamas is a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

“Kaffiyeh-wearing college students and mostly middle-class white activists with Palestinian flags were shouting for the violent elimination of the world’s only Jewish state,” said Van Zile. “Think about that: They’re chanting eliminationist rhetoric outside the offices of mainstream American Jewish organizations—a fact that shows that this wasn’t simply about Israel, but about Jews as Jews.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

No, They’re Not Stupid: Why Leftists Destroyed A Statue of an Elk in Portland

Iranian media producer: “Slogan of all free-minded, free-spirited people across the world is: ‘Death to America!’”

Lawsuit says Qatar recruited former CIA agents to hack prominent Republican activist

Germany: Muslim migrant who raped elderly woman had his asylum application rejected in 1999, yet never left

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Members of Congress and Their Highly Selective Indignation

Stephen Flatow notes that a letter signed several weeks ago by 60 members of Congress shocks the conscience, or should. Here is his story :

Did you hear the shocking news? Sixty Congress members just signed a letter demanding that the Federal government stop the dismantling of any illegally built homes that have been built by Arabs. But they did not object to Israel’s continuing policy of dismantling illegally built Jewish homes.

The letter demanded that the American government not allow American-made equipment it supplied to Israel to be used in what they called “the ongoing home demolitions” of Arab homes. There was no mention in the letter of the Israeli government’s dismantling of Jewish homes and settlements it deemed “illegal.” Nor was there any mention of the demolition of houses belonging to the families of terrorists as an effective way to discourage would-be terrorists.

Who would have thought that in this day and age, members of Congress would stoop so low as to make policy recommendations based on the idea that one specific ethnic group should be targeted?

We were supposed to have given up the old practice of making policies based on the color of people’s skin, rather than the content of their character. Images of George Wallace standing in that schoolhouse door were supposed to be just a bad memory. Yet here we are, in 2020, with 60 Democrats signing a letter that echoes the attitudes of those dark times.

J Street played a major role in organizing the Congressional letter. In a December 10 press release, the group announced that “J Street supporters across the country are contacting the offices of their members of Congress and urging them to sign on to this important and timely letter.”

The letter was sent to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on March 16, bearing the signatures of 60 members of Congress, all Democrats. They urged the US government to prevent Israel from using American-made equipment in “the ongoing home demolitions and forcible transfer of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank.”

The letter’s reference to “Palestinian civilians” indicates that J Street misled the members of Congress. Evidently, the J Streeters did not explain to potential signatories that house demolitions in Israel are not based on the race, religion, or ethnicity of the homeowners.

Israeli courts authorize dismantling illegally built homes on the basis of whether the homes were built illegally. The Israeli government does not have a policy of demolishing Palestinian homes. If it did, it would be doing quite a poor job of it, since 99.9% of Palestinian homes are still standing!

Both Jews and Arabs in the West Bank have illegally built homes. Some are on “state and waste” lands that are owned by the Israeli government, and from which permission for such building had not been obtained. In some cases Jewish settlers have wrongly claimed – as was the case with the settlement at Amona — to have bought the land they built on from Palestinians, claims that did not stand up in court. Individual houses, owned by Arabs and Jews – though mostly by the former – have been pulled down when the builders violated building codes so egregiously that only demolishment would discourage them, and warn others, from continuing to flout the law.

Clearly, J Street never informed these members of Congress that the Israeli government has been demolishing illegally built Jewish homes too.

On October 24, Israeli bulldozers destroyed two housing structures in the unauthorized Jewish community of Shevah Ha’aretz, near the town of Yitzhar. On November 26, the government sent tractors to level a Jewish housing structure near the community of Bat Ayin and to plow over an adjacent olive grove that had been planted by Israeli Jews and their Christian Zionist supporters. On January 15, the bulldozers were active in Yitzhar, destroying two more Jewish homes that were built illegally.

Had you heard or read about this Israeli destruction at Shevah Ha’aretz, near Bet Ayin, and at Yitzhar of Jewish houses that had been built illegally? No, of course not. It’s not something the Times or the Post or the BBC or any other part of the mainstream media would want brought to your attention. And while we hear constantly about the destruction of “Palestinian” olive trees by mad-dog Jewish settlers, have you ever heard of Israeli tractors plowing over an olive grove planted by Jews that the government considered “illegal”? No, you never have, until just now.

So why didn’t the Congressional letter ask Secretary Pompeo to make sure that no American-made bulldozers were used to smash those Jewish homes?

There are two possible answers.

One would be that those members of Congress are a bunch of racists who care only about the demolition of homes owned by one ethnic group and don’t care about the ones owned by another ethnic group.

But I don’t believe that. I believe that the signatories, except for a few die-hard Israel-haters such as Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, are simply unaware of the reality on the ground in Judea and Samaria. They are unaware because J Street misled them. J Street led them to think that the Israeli government has a racist policy of targeting Arab houses.Comment:

The Israeli government demolishes with equal firmness both Arab and Jewish houses that have been built illegally, or that for security reasons needs to be demolished. Some Arab homes have been built on state or waste land the Palestinians did not own. In other cases, demolitions may be carried out to enforce building codes and regulations that have been repeatedly flouted. The IDF also carries out house demolitions as a counter-insurgency measure to impede or halt militant operations. An Arab house may have been strategically built just above an Israeli settlement, from where those in the house could do the most damage to Jewish civilians living below. That could be grounds for its demolition.

House demolitions are also carried out to discourage terrorism. The demolition of houses belonging to the families of convicted terrorists is used both to punish terrorists and to deter future would-be terrorists, who might not want their families to suffer. As a policy, it seems to have worked, in significantly decreasing Palestinian terrorist attacks.

If J Street had fully informed these 60 Congresspeople about the situation, then the entire premise of the anti-Israel letter would have collapsed.

Racism has no place on Capitol Hill. There should be no discrimination between houses owned by Arabs or Jews, whites or blacks, or any other racial or ethnic groups.

J Street, the so-called “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, should be ashamed of itself.

In 2005, the Israeli government demolished many houses of Israeli settlers who were transferred in accordance with the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said this was done by request of the Palestinian Authorities.

In addition to removing all traces of the Israeli settlements in Gaza, as demanded by the Palestinians, who might have used for their own purposes both the residential housing and the greenhouses left intact by Israelis, were they not so consumed with hate, Israel has routinely demolished “illegal” buildings put up by settlers in the West Bank — that is, “illegal” because their builders had failed to obtain permission from the Israeli state. Sometimes entire outposts have been demolished, if the Israeli government determines they were built “illegally.” Yet very little attention is given to these Israeli actions in the world media, for it would not do to deflect attention from what so many see as the only outrage, that committed by those oppressive Israelis, in destroying structures put up by the inoffensive Palestinians.

When Israel tears down “illegal” buildings or settlements put up by Jews, it does so either because the land on which the settlement was built turns out, according to scrupulous investigation by the Israeli officials, to be owned by Palestinians, or it is state land on which the Israeli government had refused to give permission for Jews to build. It may, for security reasons, want to prevent new Israeli settlements to be built too perilously close to Arab villages – given the enormous effort that might be necessary to defend their inhabitants in case of hostilities. Some settlements or outposts may actually weaken the state if they are likely to prove hellishly difficult to defend.

The government of Israel has not hesitated to remove settlers, and demolish their settlements if, after judicial decisions and appeals that go all the way up to the Supreme Court, they are given the go-ahead. Israeli decisions to demolish Arab structures are also subject to the same judgements and appeals.

In February 2017, Israeli forces began an operation to evacuate settlers from the West Bank outpost of Amona after the Supreme Court stated that it must be demolished by 8 February. According to the Supreme Court the outpost had been built on private Palestinian land settlers claimed they had bought; the land had been declared a “closed military area” by the government.

At Amona, it took thousands of Border Police to subdue a crowd of 10,000, who had come from all over Israel to protest the decision. But the sight of Israeli police violently subduing fellow Jews who were protesting the demolishment of Jewish homes did not make it to Western media; it didn’t fit the story that the media likes to present of ruthless Israelis demolishing, for no conceivable reason, Arab houses.

Perhaps some of those 60 Democratic Congressmen will take the time to find out more about the reasons for Israel’s demolishment of Jewish settlers’ houses, demolishments about which they appear not to have heard, which might provide them with a more nuanced view of the matter. And then they should have the decency to listen to the Israeli government’s explanation of the reasons for its demolition of a handful of Arab homes – an infinitesimal number, though you wouldn’t think so from the mainstream media reports — including gross violations of building codes, and erecting structures — without permission — on state and waste lands. Finally, the Congressmen should understand that demolishing the family homes of terrorists in order both to punish them and to discourage other would-be terrorists, does, in fact, work. It took the Israelis quite a while to fully comprehend, but now they do. They know that given their merciless and relentless enemy, there is no point in gentle persuasion or observing Marquess of Queensberry rules. This is the Middle East.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR slams General for “revolting promotion of the anti-Muslim trope that Muslim youth in UK engage in sex crimes”

Netherlands: Man who murdered pro-freedom politician Pim Fortuyn “to protect Muslims” is a free man, no supervision

Germany bans Hizballah activity and designates it a terror organization, raids mosques

Canada: Mississauga amends noise bylaw to allow Islamic call to prayer

Islam prohibits suicide — or so the world has been told for far too long

Denmark: Authorities carry out “co-ordinated police action” to thwart “terror attack with militant Islamic motive”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Muslim cleric: Jews more dangerous than AIDS and coronavirus, jihad is the cure [Video]

“Jews are more dangerous than AIDS, coronavirus, cholera and all the diseases of this world. If you want to be saved from these deadly diseases, we should all remember jihad.”

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil. They are bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Find out more of why Muslim clerics such as Ahmad Al-Shahrouri feel free to spew this paranoid hatred in The Palestinian Delusion.

“Jordanian Islamic Scholar Ahmad Al-Shahrouri: The Jews Are More Dangerous Than Coronavirus, AIDS, and Cholera; Jihad Purifies Our Bodies and Souls, Can Save People from These Diseases,” MEMRI, March 8, 2020:

Jordanian Islamic scholar Ahmad Al-Shahrouri said in a March 8 episode of his show on Yarmouk TV – a Jordanian TV channel affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood – that the Jews are more dangerous than coronavirus, AIDS, cholera, and every disease in the world. He also said that to be saved from these illnesses, one should remember the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jihad, which he explained is a means of purification of one’s soul and body. Sheikh Al-Shahrouri added that being saved from coronavirus serves to give one the honor of liberating the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Shahrouri is a professor of shari’a at Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan and serves as the imam of the university’s mosque.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona: Muslim lied to FBI about aiding jihadi who attacked Garland Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest

U of Michigan: Jewish student is censured as “Islamophobic” for accurate pro-Israel statements, despite apologizing

Muslims attack International Women’s Day marchers in Kyrgyzstan and Turkey, as well as Pakistan

Georgetown University’s Fake Islamic Pluralism

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: ‘The two-state solution is a myth’

Order The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas: Muslim migrant imprisoned on jihad terror charges recruited fellow prisoners for the Islamic State

Texas: Muslim convenience store operator called for slaughter of infidels, recruited for the Islamic State

‘We Are Never Going to Get the U.S. Military Out of Afghanistan’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The New York Times Has a Jewish Problem by Hugh Fitzgerald

An editor at the New York Times has recently apologized for having written several anti-Semitic and racist tweets. Tom Wright-Piersanti is a senior staff editor at the Times. In the years 2008-2010, Wright-Piersanti wrote several offensive tweets, which were uncovered  by the website Breitbart.

On New Years’ Day 2010, Wright-Piersanti tweeted, “I was going to say ‘Crappy Jew Year,’ but one of my resolutions is to be less anti-Semitic. So… HAPPY Jew Year. You Jews.”

The previous month, during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, Wright-Piersanti shared a picture of a car with a lit menorah on its roof and wrote, “Who called the Jew-police?”

“I have deleted tweets from a decade ago that are offensive,” Wright-Piersanti tweeted  after the Breitbart article was published. “I am deeply sorry.”

He also mocked Native Americans, and Afro-Americans, for which no doubt he is also “deeply sorry.”

Amazing how “deeply sorry” people are about so many things the minute they are found out, but not one minute earlier. Perhaps he is “deeply sorry” only because those tweets came to light. They were not just “offensive,” but disgusting. In any event, Wright-Piersanti apparently needn’t worry about his job. As of this writing, he’s still at the New York Times, a paper that has a Jewish, and latterly an Israeli, problem. It recently published two antisemitic cartoons in its international edition. The more offensive of the two depicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a guide dog (a dachshund) wearing a Star of David collar and leading President Donald Trump, who is wearing a black kippah. Anyone of sense would have seen this cartoon as antisemitic, save apparently the editor at the Times who approved the cartoon. And the Times, just like Wright-Piersanti, said it was “deeply sorry.” Yes, it was “deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon” that appeared in its international print edition. And the Times has decided to stop publishing cartoons from non-staff members. It has also said that it will also overhaul its bias training to have an emphasis on antisemitism, according to an internal note from the Times’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger. What about training on how to bring a modicum of fairness to reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or would that be asking too much?

The Times has had a “Jewish problem” ever since Hitler came to power in 1933. So let’s go back to the 1930s and 1940s, before there was even an Israel for the Times to be anti-Israel about, to see how, and to ask why, the most influential paper in the world, owned by Jews, paid so little attention to the murderous threat of Hitler and the Nazis as it grew throughout the 1930s. It was precisely because the paper was owned by Jews, who were determined not to have their paper be thought of as an organ of special pleading about Jewish suffering, that the New York Times failed so miserably, in its under-reporting of the Holocaust and the antisemitic crimes during the 1930s that led up to its final, murderous efflorescence. In her brilliant Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper, Laurel Leff notes that Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who became the publisher in 1936 (though he was effectively the publisher from 1933, because of the illness of the previous publisher, Adolph Ochs) and continued in that post until 1961, at the most critical period for the Jews of Europe, had studiously refrained from having anything to do with Jewish organizations or causes. He (Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the Times) refused to donate to the United Jewish Appeal or the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. He wrote in 1934, “I am a non-Zionist because the Jew, in seeking a homeland of his own, seems to me to be giving up something of infinitely greater value of the world. … I look askance at any movement which assists in making the peacemaker among nations merely a national Distribution Committee, favoring instead the National Missions of the Presbyterian Church.” In 1948, he wrote, “I know of no difference in my way of life than in that of any Unitarian.”

Sulzberger was committed to an odd definition of journalistic balance. The Times refused to run letters to the editor that attacked the rise of antisemitism in Germany, so that it would not also have to offer space to those supporting antisemitism.

Instead of speaking of Jewish refugees, Times editorials tended to speak of German refugees. Arthur Hays Sulzberger refused to intervene with American officials to get a visa for a cousin, Fritz Sulzberger, advising him in 1938 to stay in Germany. So indifferent was he to what was going on in Germany, apparently, that he thought as late as 1938 that Jews should remain in Germany and ride out the storm. His misreading of reality was astonishing. By that year, it should have been clear that staying in Germany amounted to a death sentence. In 1933, Jews had been discharged from all universities, and then from all civil service jobs. Long before Kristallnacht, there were boycotts of Jewish shops, Jews were attacked, even beaten to death, on the street, Nazi rallies were held where Jews were hysterically denounced; a phrase from a 19th-century antisemite, Heinrich Treitschke, was recycled  for use by the Nazis: “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!“(“The Jews are our misfortune”).

Yet in 1938, the publisher of the New York Times was advising a relative to remain in Germany. A. H. Sulzberger didn’t want to hear about all the atrocities German Jews were enduring. And he didn’t want his paper to make too much of such things either.

The threat to Jews was always minimized by the Times. Early in the war, the Times ran a campaign of nine editorials and three front-page stories that urged Congress to allow British families to send their children to safety in America, but made no such campaign on behalf of the Jews. Those British children might have been in danger from V-2 rockets, if they lived in the East End of London, but the Jews in Nazi-occupied countries faced certain death if they were not brought to America. The New York Times – under Arthur Hays Sulzberger – didn’t care enough to call for their admission.

Nor did the Times think helping Jews find refuge from the Nazis outside of America was a cause to promote in its editorials. When the British issued the White Paper of 1939, restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine to 15,000 a year for five years, the Times ran an editorial praising the move as necessary “to save the homeland itself from overpopulation as well as from an increasingly violent resistance on the part of the Arabs.” That White Paper effectively kept hundreds of thousands of Jews, who might have escaped from Europe in time, from being admitted to Mandatory Palestine. Churchill thundered against it as unjust and cruel. But not according to the New York Times; its editors thought the White Paper was perfectly correct in permitting no more than 15,000 Jews a year to find refuge in Palestine from the Nazis. Otherwise, the editorial absurdly claimed, Mandatory Palestine would be “overpopulated.” On what basis did the Times editors make that claim? Israel now has a population that is six times the population of Mandatory Palestine in 1939, and it is still not overpopulated. And the Times actually thought that it was preferable in 1939 to keep Jews in Europe, where they were almost certain to be killed, in order not to anger the Arabs in Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine’s provisions, that required Great Britain, as the Mandatory authority, to “facilitate” Jewish immigration and “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land,” were to be ignored so as not to upset the local Arabs.

Arthur Hays Sulzberger lived among, and wanted to be accepted by, other people of great wealth, including many non-Jews, and he did not wish to be thought of as caring too much for the fate of Europe’s or Palestine’s — Jews. In that he succeeded, and for that he deserves endless obloquy in the history books. Assimilated and anti-Zionist, he instructed his editors to downplay news about the suffering of Europe’s Jews so that the newspaper would not appear to be too concerned with Jewish matters. He was a horrible man.

There was very little reporting in the Times on the rising antisemitism in Nazi Germany all through the 1930s. Atrocities against Jews in Germany, which began in the streets soon after Hitler took power in 1933, were mentioned intermittently, almost always in a few paragraphs deep inside the paper. Even Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938, when Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were demolished by Nazi attackers using sledgehammers, received less treatment in the New York Times than it did in many other newspapers around the world. The rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany and Austria and the Sudetenland. Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed; 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Hundreds of Jews were murdered, often beaten to death by mobs. This had no visible effect on the editorial and reporting policies set down by Arthur Hays Sulzberger.

Why did this underreporting at the Times matter so much? It mattered because it had a direct effect on the sense of urgency among American Jews, and on the attitude in the government about rescuing Jews from the Nazis.

When the Holocaust began in earnest, and news about the roundups of Jews sent to concentration camps – labor and death camps were distinguished, though in the “labor camps” the inmates were often worked to death — managed to filter out, the New York Times continued to give such reports a few paragraphs deep within the paper. It did the same with reports from the Eastern Front, about the gassing of Jews in the mobile gas vans, about the mass shootings right on the edge of open pits into which those killed would topple. The paper never connected the dots of the Nazi efforts to exterminate the Jews of Europe, never presented it as part of a comprehensive genocidal plan. Its coverage of the murders of six million Jews was absurdly small, given the world-shattering size of the atrocity; this “Jewish news” from Europe was most often covered in a few paragraphs in the back; more attention was given in the Times to business, movies, golf championships, and racing news than to the Holocaust. Sulzberger, the publisher, was not haunted by what was going on in Europe. He gave his own attention to such pleasures as vacationing at Knollwood on Saranac Lake, in the Adirondacks. Knollwood was an enclave consisting of seven or eight luxurious “rustic cottages” that belonged to leading members of “Our Crowd,” that is, the assimilated and rich German Jews of New York, members of the Harmonie Club, families who had arrived in the 19th century from Germany and looked down on the recent Jewish arrivals from Eastern Europe. They were glad to host a celebrity refugee from Germany – Einstein went twice to Knollwood, and his photograph is still on display in one of the “cottages” – but didn’t want to be unduly bothered with unpleasant news from Europe. And Sulzberger was one of them.

That failure by the New York Times to report adequately throughout the 1930s on the growing danger to Germany’s Jews was not without consequences, as shall be discussed tomorrow.

PART 2

Under-reporting by the New York Times on Nazi antisemitism, and the deliberate placement of such abridged stories deep inside the paper, had terrible consequences for the Jews of Europe. First, American Jews who relied on the Times for their information, in that pre-television era, had no clear idea of the extent of the antisemitic horrors being perpetrated, and how, as the Nazi war machine extended German rule over much of Europe, Jews trapped in those occupied lands were being systematically slaughtered – gassed in camps or mobile vans, shot, burned alive, worked deliberately to death — in the Endlosung, or Final Solution to the “Jewish problem.” Had they been better informed, and in a timelier fashion, American Jews — properly alarmed — would have made much greater efforts to rescue their relatives, and other Jews, too. They would have sent money, and money given to bribe the right rat in the right office might mean that life-saving visas could be acquired, both for exit and entrance. That money could also pay for transportation out of Nazi-occupied Europe, and for the services of passeurs who could smuggle Jews into such safe havens as Switzerland or Spain or Turkey. Such sums from America could prove useful for desperate Jews, too, in other ways — to pay for lodging, food, and transport – if they were on the run. Suppose that the New York Times had all through the 1930s, instead of scanting on its coverage of Jews in Germany, devoted many pages to their situation, culminating in Kristallnacht? Suppose the Times had reproduced the pages of Der Stürmer, published photographs of burned-out synagogues, reported on Jews who had been fired from their jobs, had their shops destroyed, were beaten to death on the streets of Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt, Nuremberg? What if the readers of the Times, the “newspaper of record,” had learned early on about the first camps that opened, at Dachau and Buchenwald? What if the Times publisher had been someone who thought the Nazi persecution and murder of Europe’s Jews was, after the world war itself, the most important story in the world, and did everything he could to make sure it was given the prominence it deserved? Between the outbreak of World War II, on September 3, 1939, and its end on September 2, 1945, there were 2,190 days. What if there had been a Times story about Europe’s Jews on every single one of those 2,190 days? Surely American Jews, and not only Jews, would have done much more, if they had been properly informed. They could have held rallies, raised money, pressured their Congressmen to open the gates to Jewish refugees – damn the peacetime quotas! — and made the rescue of Europe’s Jews, those that had not yet been killed, a central  issue, a moral and political issue, a campaign issue.

Had more been known, and known earlier about the German murders, then many Jews (but not only Jews) in America would have gone all out to rally support in Washington, enlisting the aid of those who, such as Senator Robert Wagner of New York, already were aware of what was going on in Germany. The Roosevelt Administration might then have been persuaded to pressure the British, who knew they would need American aid and goodwill in the mighty contest to come, to end the their illegitimate blockade that prevented Jews from reaching Palestine. Had American Jews been better informed by the powerful New York Times, the paper they relied on, more of them might have mobilized their financial power, and found ways to send money to Jewish organizations in Europe, for distribution to those trying to escape. Some Jews might have evaded the British blockade and entered Palestine. It is too often forgotten that ships could still leave from the Rumanian port of Constanta, on the Black Sea, throughout the war. And money could ensure that harbor masters looked the other way as ships left their ports with their human cargo. Jews might then have made it, if they had the money to buy the right visas and to pay for that transport, all the way to North Africa, where Vichy French officials were not able to police the populace as easily as they did in France itself. It was possible for Jewish refugees to disappear from view in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, where hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews lived and could help them. Franco’s Spain, though Fascist, was another place Jewish refugees would not be harmed, but they needed money both to buy their entry visas, and to live on while searching for work. Turkey was another possibility, a place where some Jews found refuge, and many more might have, had they had sufficient means for travel, entry visas, living expenses. The most famous German literary scholar of the 20th century, Erich Auerbach, a Jew who had fled Nazi Germany in 1935, wrote his masterpiece Mimesis while living securely in Istanbul during the war. Some Jews managed to get to Egypt, and from there they went through the Sinai Desert, by motorcar or horse or camel or even on foot, pedibus calcantibus, and made it — despite the British blockade — to Palestine.

All these conceivable avenues of escape required money, not just for transportation, and food and lodging while on the run, but always for bribes to the right rat in the right office who – for a price — could supply the right papers. Had the antisemitic attacks in Germany in the 1930s, and the first news of mass murdering of Jews in the camps, been fully reported on by the New York Times,  American Jews would surely have raised huge sums and sent money to those in peril. Money could buy lives: the Cuban president, Federico Laredo Bru, who prevented the German Jews on the ship St. Louis from disembarking at Havana in May 1939, forcing the ship, with its Jewish passengers, to then try American and Canadian ports, where the ship was turned away. Ultimately the St. Louis returned to Germany, and the would-be refugees were imprisoned by the Nazis and many, of course, were then killed. The Cuban president might have changed his mind had he been offered enough money. And had the chorus of rage and pity for the refugees  been heard loud enough in Washington, perhaps the St. Louis would have been permitted to dock at an American port, and its desperate human cargo permitted to disembark. But the Times did not make clear what the inexorable fate for those refugees would be; the chorus never became loud enough. Washington, shamefully, failed to act.

Second, the under-reporting of the Holocaust by the Times also affected official Washington. Few American politicians in the late 1930s realized the full extent of the antisemitic persecution by the Nazis. Had the antisemitic attacks, had Kristallnacht and then the beginning of the mass roundups for the camps been extensively covered, there might have been more calls from Congress to admit Jewish refugees. And those in the government who opposed the admission of Jewish refugees, who met with little opposition, could more effectively have been countered. Instead, the State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, the antisemitic Breckenridge Long, who had been put in charge of all matters related to war refugees, did everything he could to prevent Jews from being admitted to the U.S. Ultimately, the effect of the immigration policies set by Long’s department was that, during American involvement in the war, ninety percent of the quota places available to immigrants from countries under German and Italian control were never filled. If they had been, an additional 190,000 people could have escaped the atrocities being committed by the Nazis. Had the New York Times reported fully and truthfully on the Nazi murders, it is even possible that political pressure from Congress would have forced the dismissal of Breckenridge Long, and thereby not just hundreds of thousands of Jews could have filled the refugee quotas for Germany and Italy that had been closed to them, but other Jews might have been helped by an American government now willing to expand its refugee program beyond the quotas set earlier, for those in the greatest peril – i.e., Jews in Europe. The American government might also have used its influence to persuade other countries in this hemisphere – Mexico, Brazil – to take in Jewish refugees.  The Americans also could have used their ships to transport desperate  refugees from European ports. In the Dominican Republic, where the dictator Rafael Trujillo said he would welcome Jews to the city of Sosua where, he believed, they would help build the country’s economy, only several thousand could take advantage of this offer; there were not enough vessels to transport the Jews eager to resettle.

The New York Times has never adequately examined its own role in reporting on the antisemitism of the 1930s and the mass-murdering of Jews in the 1940s known as the Holocaust. The paper has reported on Laurel Leff’s study, Buried With the Times, and recognized the truth of the indictment she presents. But that is not enough. The Times should dedicate an entire issue, or more if necessary, of its Sunday Magazine to a thorough self-study, quoting in their entirety the Times reports (and where they were placed in the paper) on the attacks on German Jews throughout the 1930s, including Kristallnacht on November 9-10, 1938, and then, it should also reprint those those articles — where there were any – which it published about the Holocaust itself. How did the Times cover the roundup of Jews at the Vel d’Hiv in Paris, of the reports by Jan Karski, who had learned in detail about the death camps in Poland, had visited the Warsaw Ghetto, and who came to Washington to inform President Roosevelt about what he had seen and heard? On July 28, 1943, Karski personally met with President Franklin Roosevelt in the Oval Office, telling him about the situation in Poland and becoming the first eyewitness to tell him about the Jewish Holocaust and the Warsaw Ghetto. During their meeting, Roosevelt asked about the condition of horses in Poland. According to Karski, Roosevelt did not ask one question about the Jews.

How was the farce of the “model camp” at Theresienstadt (the camp where the Nazis showed “happy, healthy Jews” with their orchestra, and painting classes, to visiting Red Cross personnel) presented in the pages of the Times? What did it let its readers know about the numbers of Jews being sent to the death camps of Auschwitz, Belzec, Treblinka, and what exactly happened in those camps?  The Times has a duty not merely to endorse Laurel Leff’s study, but to show how badly it covered the Holocaust by reprinting what it reported at the time.

Take, for example, the story published in the paper on July 29, 1942, about the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto. The story bore the headline “Warsaw Fears Extermination” instead of “Jews in Warsaw Fear Extermination.” It was published on Page 14, and was not even a stand-alone story; it consisted of a handful of paragraphs next to an ad for Emerson spinet pianos. The Times should reprint that story in all its nauseating brevity. It should reprint the other stories in the Times – the handful of disjointed reports, a few paragraphs here or there, about the labor camps, and the death camps, about the mobile gassing vans, about the Jews burned alive, about the mass shootings of Jews on the Eastern Front. And it should list the many examples of anti-Jewish “actions” that were known at the time, but that the Times chose to ignore altogether.

In 1944, for another example of minimizing Holocaust news at the paper concerns how it reported on Hungarian Jews. The Nazi regime, in its death throes, set about deporting to the concentration camps the Jews of Hungary, the last large group of European Jews who had remained mostly untouched by Hitler’s extermination campaign. In July 1944, the Times published an article of only four column inches citing “authoritative information” that 400,000 Hungarian Jews had already been forcibly transported to their deaths and an additional 350,000 were to be killed in the next few weeks. It ran on page 12.

Only four column inches, on page 12, were devoted to the fate – the murder — of 750,000 Hungarian Jews. What if the story had been on page 1, and given not four column inches but fifty, or one hundred column inches? What if there had been photographs of Hungarian Jews, starving and exhausted, waiting to be transported to the death camps? Surely there would have been a furor in Washington, and a renewal of previous appeals for the American Air Force in Europe to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz, to save the 350,000 Jews who had not yet been killed but soon would be? Such a suggestion, to save Jews from mass murder, had been made months before about a different group of Jews, and had been rejected by Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy as too “disruptive to the war effort.” Perhaps with more coverage of the Hungarian Jews in the Times, instead of a handful of paragraphs on page 12, McCloy would this time have been forced to agree.

Neil Lewis damningly notes:

From a journalistic standpoint, it is perplexing, if not stupefying, years later to see how the Times covered the attempted annihilation of European Jewry. The paper published many articles, several of which recounted precisely the horror of what was happening, while at the same time egregiously underplaying them—even given the context that much else was occurring because most of the world was at war. Thus, the historic horror was never meaningfully conveyed because it was reported only in unrelated bits and pieces, and relegated to inside pages.

Lewis is too mild in his criticism here. It is not true that the Times “published many articles” about the Holocaust. And certainly not the thousands the subject deserved.

It would be salutary for the New York Times to begin its inquest into its own journalistic performance with a sincere mea culpa. Something like this:: “Between 1939 and 1945, the New York Times published more than 23,000 front-page stories. Of those, 11,500 were about World War II. Twenty-six were about the Holocaust. Now we will show you exactly what was reported by the paper, and what was minimized, or downplayed, and what was ignored. And we will attempt to tell you why.”

That is the reckoning with its past that the New York Times owes to posterity.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

California Readies New Anti-Semitic Curriculum for High School Students

Why Is The Young Turks’ Hasan Piker Such a Jerk?

Boston: ISIS Beheading Plotter’s Conviction Overturned by Obama-Appointed Judge

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

INTO THE FRAY: The imperative for incentivized Arab migration & the emerging inevitability of the Humanitarian Paradigm

Once inconceivable, the dismantling of UNRWA; the naturalization of stateless Palestinian residents in Arab countries; and the emigration of Palestinians from Judea-Samaria & Gaza are slowly emerging as realistic outcomes

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth – Sherlock Holmes, in “The Sign of the Four”.

Over a quarter-century ago (in 1992) , I warned of the consequences—for both Jew and Arab—if Israel were to evacuate Gaza.

I cautioned: “…the inevitable implications of Israeli withdrawal can be ignored only at great peril to Israelis and Arabs alike”, observing:“…no measure whether the total [Israeli] annexation or total [Israeli] withdrawal can be reconciled with either Israel’s security needs or the welfare of the Arab population there.” Accordingly, I concluded that the only viable and durable policy was the resettlement and rehabilitation of the non-belligerent Gazans elsewhere—and I underscored: “this was not a call for a forcibly imposed racist “transfer” by Israel, but rather…a humane and historically imperative enterprise”.

Confusing economic enhancement with “ethnic cleansing”

Today, after a more than a decade-and-a-half of bloody confrontations, including three large scale military engagements—imposed on Israel to protect its civilian population from predicted assaults—and a fourth appearing increasingly inevitable; with the Gazans awash in untreated sewage, with their sources of drinking water polluted, and with perennial power outages, my predictions appear to have turned out to be lamentably precise.

Perversely, earlier this month I was excoriated for…being proven right—and my fact-based professional assessment as a political scientist that, because of the overtly unremitting enmity of the Gazans towards the Jewish state: “Eventually there will either be Arabs in Gaza or Jews in the Negev. In the long run, there will not be both”, was denounced as a call for ethnic cleansing.

Of course, my detractors conveniently ignore that, time and time again, I have called for providing generous relocation grants to help the hapless non-belligerent Gazans find more prosperous and secure lives for themselves elsewhere, in third party countries, outside the “circle of violence”; and to extricate themselves from the stranglehold of the cruel, corrupt cliques who have led them astray from debacle to disaster for decades.

Confusing an unequivocal call for economic enhancement with one for “ethnic cleansing”, they apparently believe—in their “infinite benevolence and wisdom”—that compelling the Gazans to languish in their current conditions is somehow more humane.

But, more on these wildly unfounded recriminations against me perhaps in a future column.

A tripartite plan

Several years after my 1992 article, I extended the idea of incentivized emigration to the Arab population in Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the “West Bank”) and in 2004 I formulated a tripartite plan (The Humanitarian Paradigm) for the comprehensive resolution—or rather the dissolution of the “Palestinian problem”, which include the following components:

The first was the dismantling of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), an anomalous UN entity, charged with dealing exclusively with the Palestinian-Arab diaspora (a.k.a. Palestinian “refugees”), displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars with Israel. As I pointed out back then, because of its anomalous definition of who is considered a “refugee” (which extends to the descendants of those originally displaced), and its anomalous mandate (which precludes resettling them anywhere but in the country from which they were displaced), UNRWA is an organization which (a) perpetuates (rather than resolves) the predicament of the stateless Palestinian “refugees”; (b) perpetuates (rather than dissipates) the Palestinian-Arab narrative of “return” to pre-1948 Israel. Accordingly, the continued existence of UNRWA is an insurmountable obstacle to any resolution of the “Palestinian problem”—and hence its dismantling—or at least, radical restructuring—is an imperative precondition for progress toward any such resolution.

The second component was the launch of an international campaign to induce the Arab countries to desist from what is essentially a policy of ethnic discrimination against the Palestinian diaspora, resident in them for decades, and to grant its members citizenship—rather than keeping them in a perpetual state of stateless “refugees”, as a political weapon with which to bludgeon Israel. To date, any such move is prohibited by the mandate of the Arab League.

A tripartite plan (cont.)

The reasoning behind this prohibition was made clear in a 2004 LA Times interview with Hisham Youssef, then-spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, who admitted that Palestinians live “in very bad conditions,” but maintained that the official policy on denying Palestinians citizenship in the counties of decades-long residence is meant “to preserve their Palestinian identity.” According to Youssef: “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine.”

The significance of this is clear.

The nations comprising the Arab League are prepared to subordinate the improvement of the dire humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians, resident throughout the Arab world, to the political goal of preserving the “Right of Return” — i.e. using them as a pawn to effect the elimination of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.

It is to the annulment of this pernicious policy that international pressure must be directed.

The thirdand arguably the most controversial—element was to offer the non-belligerent Arab residents in Judea-Samaria generous relocation grants to provide them and their families an opportunity to seek a better and safer future in third-party host-nations, than that which almost inevitably awaits them—if they stay where they are.

Atomization & de-politicization

To overcome potential resistance to accepting the relocation/rehabilitation grants, I stipulated two elements regarding the manner in which the funding activity is to be carried out: (a) the atomization of implementation of the grant payments; (b) the de-politicization of the context in which they are made.

(a) Atomization: This implies that the envisaged compensation will be offered directly to individual family heads/breadwinners—not through any Arab collective (whether state or sub-state organization), who may have a vested interest in impeding its payment. Accordingly, no agreement with any Arab collective is required for the implementation of payment to the recipients—merely the accumulated consent of fate-stricken individuals, striving to improve their lot.

(b) De-politicization: The incentivized emigration initiative is not cast as a political endeavor but rather a humanitarian one. This reflects a sober recognition that, after decades of effort, involving the expenditure of huge political capital and economic resources, there is no political formula for the resolution of the conflict. Accordingly, efforts should be channeled into dissipating the humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs, which the insoluble political impasse has precipitated.

These two elements–direct payments to individuals and the downplaying of the political nature of the relocation/rehabilitation grants and the emphasis on the humanitarian component are designed to circumvent—or at least attenuate—any claims that acceptance of the funds would in some way entail an affront to—real or imagined—national sentiments.

Once inconceivable, now slowly materializing

For many years, advocating these three elements—the dismantling (or at least the radical restructuring) of UNRWA; the naturalization of the Palestinian diaspora resident in Arab countries as citizens; and the emigration of Palestinian-Arabs from Judea-Samaria and Gaza—seemed hopelessly unrealistic.

However today, all three are slowly but inexorably materializing before our eyes in a manner that would have appeared inconceivable only a few years ago.

Of course, a major catalyst for this nascent metamorphosis has been the Trump administration.

The US administration has—despite hitherto unexplained and inexplicable Israeli reluctance—exposed the fraudulent fiasco of UNRWA. As its erstwhile biggest benefactor, the US has retracted all funding from the organization. But more importantly, it has focused a glaring spotlight on the myth of the “Palestinian refugees” and the spectacularly inflated number of such alleged “refugees”—which even include those who have long acquired citizenship of some other country!

This salutary US initiative has the potential to rescind the recognition of the bulk of the Palestinian diaspora as “refugees”. Thus, even if they continue to receive international aid to help ameliorate their humanitarian situation, this will not be as potential returnees to their alleged homeland in Israel.

Once the Palestinian diaspora is stripped of its fraudulent refugee status, the door is then open to settling them in third party countries other than their claimed homeland,  and to their naturalization as citizens of these counties.

Naturalization of Palestinian diaspora in countries of residence

In this regard, the Trump administration has reportedly undertaken an important initiative–see here; here; and here. According to these reports, President Trump has informed several Arab countries that, at the start of 2019, he will disclose a citizenship plan for Palestinian refugees living in those countries. 

Significantly, Palestinian sources told the news outlet: “Trump informed several Arab countries that the plan will include Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.” According to these sources: “the big surprise will be that these countries have already agreed to naturalize Palestinian refugees.” Moreover, it was reported that senior US officials are expected to seriously raise an American initiative with several Arab countries—including stipulation of the tools to implement it, the number of refugees, the required expenses, and the logistics demanded from hosting countries for supervising the process of “naturalization of refugees”.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of such an initiative, which coincides precisely with the second element in the foregoing tripartite plan. For, it has the potential to remove the ominous overhang of a five million strong (and counting) Palestinian diaspora that threatens to inundate the Jewish state and nullify its ability to function as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

As such, the Israeli government and all pro-Zionist entities should strive to ensure its implementation.

Emigration: The preferred option of the Palestinians?

As for the third element of the tripartite plan, emigration of the Palestinian population to third-party countries, there is rapidly accumulating evidence that emigration is emerging as an increasingly sought-after option. Indeed, earlier this month, Israeli mainstream media highlighted the desire to leave Gaza in order to seek a better life elsewhere. For example, the popular website, YNetnews, ran a piece entitled, Gaza suffers from brain drain as young professionals look for better life, with the Hebrew version appearing a few days previously, headlined The flight from Gaza: What Hamas is trying to conceal from the media. Likewise, the KAN Channel ran a program reporting very similar realities (January 13).

These items come on the heels of a spate of previous articles that describe the widespread clamor among Gazans to find alternative places of abode—see for example For Young Palestinians, There’s Only One Way Out of Gaza (Haaretz) ; Thousands Abandon Blockaded Strip as Egypt Opens Crossing  (Alaraby); As Egypt Opens Gaza Border, A Harsh Reality is Laid Bare (Haaretz); and How Turkey Has Become the Palestinian Promised Land (Haaretz).

The Ynetnews piece describes the fervor to leave: “Leaving Gaza is expensive, particularly for the residents of the impoverished coastal enclave…The demand is high, and the waiting list to leave is long…Those wishing to cut short their wait must pay for a place on a special list, which is run by a private firm in Gaza…The price for a place on this special list is $1,500—a fortune for the average resident of Gaza…”

It would appear then, that the only thing preventing a mass exodus from Gaza is…money. Which is precisely what the tripartite plan proposes providing.

Let their people go: A slogan for April’s elections?

There is, of course, little reason to believe that, if Israel were to leave Judea-Samaria, what happened in Gaza would not happen there. After all, the preponderance of professional opinion appears to hold that, if the IDF were to evacuate Judea-Samaria, it would likely fall to elements very similar to those that seized power in Gaza—and the area would quickly be transformed into a mega-Gaza-like entity, on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv—with all the attendant perils that would entail.

Sadly however, despite its clear strategic and ethical advantages over other policy proposals, few in the Israeli political system have dared to adopt incentivized emigration as part of their platform. The notable exception is Moshe Feiglin and his Zehut party –and, to certain extent, Bezalel Smotrich, the newly elected head of the National Union faction in the Jewish Home Party, previously headed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett.

It is, however, time for the idea of incentivized emigration to be embraced by the mainstream parties as the only viable policy paradigm that can ensure the continued survival of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It is time for the mainstream to adopt an election slogan that sounds a clarion call to “Let their people go”.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Cole Keister on Unsplash.

History the World Chooses to Forget

The Second World War is over and much of Europe is a wasteland. Millions of displaced persons roam the ravaged landscape in the wake of German Nazi devastation. Millions more are dead but none of the citizens of Europe have suffered disproportionally more than its Jewish remnant.

At the beginning of 1933, when Hitler assumed power by exploiting the democratic process, which he then castoff with the acquiescence of the German populace and the industrial, military, government complex, there were in the world some 18,000,000 members of the Jewish faith.

By the war’s end in 1945, there were barely 12 million Jews left. The one third who had fallen under German occupation and their European fascist allies had been beaten, starved, gassed and systematically exterminated; including one and half million children.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, might have been saved and allowed to find refuge in their ancestral and biblical homeland of Israel, but for a document known as the White Paper.

This unilateral act was created by the British government in 1939 under the premiership of the arch appeaser and self-righteous Neville Chamberlain – he who had come back from meeting Hitler with a piece of paper fluttering in the wind, announcing “peace in our time.”

The Land in which Jews had established their biblical and post-biblical patrimony since time immemorial was then known by its geographical term, Palestine; a name resurrected by the British Mandatory government, which had been awarded the Mandate over the territory by the League of Nations in 1922.

This was the name imposed upon ancient Jewish Judea by the Roman emperor, Hadrian, after he had defeated the second Jewish revolt against Rome’s pitiless occupation in the year 135 AD.

Hadrian chose to rename Judea (the name from which the word Jew derives) – Philistia after the Jews’ hated biblical enemy the Philistines – a sea people originating from Crete who became extinct over a thousand years earlier.

And here it is vital to understand that at no time throughout recorded history has there ever been an independent sovereign state called Palestine: Certainly never an Arab state.

That 1939 White Paper was produced by the Chamberlain government in an act of capitulation to the pro-Nazi Arabs who demanded that Jewish immigration into the Jews’ ancestral homeland be prevented. The White Paper was never submitted for approval to the Council of the League of Nations.

Thus Britain limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 people for five years, after which it would cease altogether. The pernicious influence of Arab oil also played a part in Britain’s decision.

World War Two broke out in September, 1939 and lasted five years. This was the five year death sentence for 6,000,000 Jews in German occupied Europe who were barred by Britain from rescue in Palestine.

The British Mandatory government controlling Palestine shut the gates of the territory for the duration of the war and after to Jews attempting to flee the German Nazi juggernaut of death.

Britain, which rose in anger at the use of brute German force in Poland, alas did not hesitate to use force against Jewish refugees clamoring to escape from the horrors of the German Reich.

It is interesting to note that the lie to Chamberlain’s fear of Arab hostility and oil blackmail was given earlier by British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Malcolm McDonald.

In a House of Commons debate on November 24, 1938 he was obliged to admit the advantages to the local Arabs of any additional Jewish immigration to the long established existing Jewish community in the territory. He said:

“The Arabs cannot say that the Jews are driving them out of the country. If not a single Jew had come to Palestine after 1918, I believe that the Arab population would still have been around 600,000 at which it had been stable under Turkish rule.

It is because the Jews who have come to Palestine bring with them modern health services and other advances that Arabs who would have been dead are alive today and that Arab children who would have never drawn breath have been born and grown strong.”

The League of Nations grant to Britain of the Palestine Mandate was given with the express purpose of incorporating into it the earlier British government’s 1917 Balfour Declaration facilitating the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Furthermore, the British were instructed to “use their best endeavors to facilitate Jewish immigration.” Tragically the White Paper and the subsequent British blockade against Jews fleeing the Holocaust in whatever ships they could find – usually unseaworthy hulks – was a betrayal of all such earlier commitments.

In November, 1941, two ships – the Pacific and the Milos – arrived in Haifa with 1,771 Jewish refugees. The human cargo was forcibly herded aboard another ship, the S.S. Patria and ordered to sail by the British authorities to the then unhealthy tropical island of Mauritius where the hapless refugees would be interned.

While still docked in Haifa, a mysterious explosion ripped through the ship and 250 passengers were killed. Interestingly of the Jewish survivors, 82 young men immediately volunteered for service in the British army despite the suffering they had endured.

Similarly, another ship, the Darien arrived also at Haifa carrying some 793 Jews from Rumania and Bulgaria fleeing the Nazi death machine. Half were skilled workers and farmers eager to contribute to defeating civilization’s nemesis: Hitler. The British Command in Palestine placed them in a prison camp where five of them went insane.

And then there was the searing tragedy of the Struma. Writing in her powerful blog, Sarah Honig recounts the appalling treatment meted out to the Jewish refugees on the unseaworthy craft by Britain, Turkey and an unfeeling world. She writes about the floating coffin as follows:

“The Struma was a 115 year old leaking Danube River cattle barge. Some 769 Jewish refugees, including many young men fit for work or army service, were on board. So were some two hundred women and 70 children.”

Ms. Honig continues:

“The ordeal of these hapless refugees began in December, 1941 and ended on February 23, 1942 in front of a watching but unfeeling world. On December 12, the unseaworthy hulk entered the harbor at Istanbul, Turkey. It had no fuel or water left on board. Britain pressed the Turkish officials NOT to let any of the Jews leave the crippled hulk. A sign with the word “Help” was suspended over the ship’s side but in vain.”

On February 15, the British announced they’d make an exception in the case of Struma children aged 11 to 16, but the British authorities denied entry to the other children, including babies. All could have been allowed into Mandatory Palestine.

No doubt Hitler and the Nazi High Command, watching intently at a world caring nothing for the Jews on the Struma, were encouraged to pursue with even greater ferocity their extermination of European Jewry. The same demonic attitude that much of the world displayed towards the friendless Jews on that floating coffin is repeated today as it shrugs off the never ending Arab and Muslim aggression the embattled Jewish state endures day after day.

Only when Israel, goaded beyond endurance, fights back to defend its people does much of the world suddenly take notice and display its endemic anti-Israel hostility.

Ms. Honig continues:

“On February 23, the Turks ordered the Struma to leave the port and head out into the open sea but not before truncheon wielding Turkish policeman had viciously clubbed the frightened and desperate passengers. Despite resistance from the refugees, the anchor was cut, the Struma was towed out and was left paralyzed, to drift precariously without supplies or a drop of fuel.”

Finally the following day an explosion tore the ship apart. While the surviving passengers struggled to hold onto anything that still floated, a Soviet submarine torpedoed the stricken barge and it sank immediately in the Black Sea. As Sarah Honig writes:

“It is estimated that as many as 500 were killed outright by the blast. The rest flailed feebly in the waves, till they expired of wounds, fatigue and hypothermia.”

Tragically the British nation, which had risked its life to prevent the triumph of Nazi Germany, chose to deny refuge and sovereignty to the Nazis’ first victims.

Contrast the horrific manner in which those true Jewish refugees were treated with that of  the millions of Muslims welcomed into Europe who then wreak violence and rapine upon their European rescuers.

The Unkindest Cut

Perhaps there are no longer many who know the name Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant pastor, most famous for his poem, as follows:

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

          Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

         And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Neimoeller, an anti-communist, supported the Nazis until the churches were placed under Nazi control. He then founded the Pastors’ Emergency League, on September 11, 1933, to unite German evangelical theologians, pastors and church office-holders against Aryanism. He was tried and imprisoned for seven months, followed by seven years in concentration camps. Freed after the war, he became president of the Protestant church in Hesse and Nassau (1947- 1964), and president of the World Council of Churches in the 1960s, against which he would speak out now, given the opportunity.

The World Council of Churches, founded in 1948 and headquartered in Geneva, and its 350 mostly Protestant and Orthodox churches and some evangelical membership, overtly expressed concern for the safety of the Jewish people, but clandestinely began promoting a lethal anti-Israel agenda aimed at delegitimizing Israel in the Middle East conflict. Instead of worrying about Israelis’ being blown up by homicidal bombers during the Second Intifada (2000-2005), the group justified the Palestinian violence and vilified Israel’s self-defense. They established the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) and the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum (PIEF) to end Israel’s “occupation,” aware that this action would eventually deprive the Jewish people of their own homeland.

With their hostility clearly focused on Israel, the Council sends activists to the West Bank to confront Israeli soldiers and settlers, while also repudiating the Arab aggression toward Israel and the Jews. So, they denounce anti-Semitism for public consumption, but individual members nevertheless continue their demonizing rhetoric against Israel.  And there is more (there always is): They avoid denouncing Muslim anti-Semitism and Muslim assassinations of Christians.

Interestingly, when the Provisional Committee prepared to create the WCC in Amsterdam, in 1948, they guaranteed full Church rights to Christians of Jewish descent, and expressed remorse to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust along with gratitude to the Christians who had sheltered them. In fact, they even acknowledged that the Church had contributed to anti-Semitism – but they would consider Israel’s sovereignty. Not only did the WCC not support the creation of a Jewish state, but they attempted to delegitimize the entire concept.  They determined it best to not offend the Muslims who sought a second Holocaust. Recognizing the rights of Jewish converts to Christianity was an easy decision, but the rights of Jews to live in their own country remained problematical.

The PLO’s terror attacks in the early 1970s, as well as the Lod Airport massacre that left 26 dead and scores injured, and other Palestinian kidnappings and murders of Israelis, were also met with the Council’s benign condemnation, as though the Palestinians were striving for “human rights,” and not the annihilation of the entire state of Israel. Hijackings, once called “reckless acts of anarchy that disregard human rights” were now excused as “something not so bad because nobody got killed.”

The massacre of the Israeli Olympic team by the PLO in September 1972 was termed “senseless terrorism.” Rather than condemn the Palestinians’ heinous acts and demand the criminals be prosecuted, the WCC general secretary expressed consternation at the “senseless (!)” deaths of the Israelis, their abductors and the German officials – as though the “sacrificed lives” were not only equal but could have made sense given different circumstances. The suggestion is grotesque. He condemned Israel not to respond with reprisals, which thereafter became their modus operandi.

Contrary to its title, the UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, became a dedication to hate against Israel. Although the WCC claimed to disapprove of some of the statements, it nevertheless supported the document.

In 2004, they eulogized Arafat upon his death as a leader who recognized true justice, peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis. The WCC disregarded his massacres of Jews and Christians, the terrorism despite the Oslo Accords, and the billions of dollars in aid that was never used to improve Palestinian lives.

In February 2005, the WCC joined the American Protestant churches in the Presbyterian Church’s (USA) divestment campaign against Israel, blaming Israel’s occupation for the violence, not Palestinian aggression or the companies that profit from that aggression. The group also directed their blame against Israel for boarding the Mavi Marmara flotilla that was carrying jihadists and armaments to Gaza in June 2016, despite videos that showed the passengers to be the violent aggressors.

The WCC was quick to condemn Israel’s invasion into Lebanon in 1984, but protected the identity of the earlier massacres by the PLO and Christian Phalangists in the 1970s and 1980s, and the PLO’s massacres in Lebanon (1982). They also maintained their silence about the Palestinians’ horrific atrocities and executions of the Maronites (Roman Catholics) in January 1976.

The World Council of Churches no longer stands for democracy and Christianity – if it ever did without Niemoeller. In a world that has grown more dangerous, with fanatical terrorists and unstoppable migrants overcoming countries from which the indigenous populations are fleeing,  the WCC has declared its affinity for the enemy, those who threaten to establish a caliphate at Buckingham Palace, at the White House, and throughout Europe and Asia.  Statements issued by the Central Community of the WCC in response to brutal attacks against Christians refrain from naming the Islamic attackers.  Rather, they criticize Israel and silence those who dare defame Islam.

It is no surprise for Israel to be vilified by the followers of Islam, because Islam, like Nazism, is the antithesis of Judaism and they could never co-exist.  But when the Council of churches joins the accusers, it is the unkindest cut of all. Such action is foolhardy and self-defeating as the integrity of the Church’s theology requires the existence of Israel and the Jews, but the reverse is not true.  If it were possible to remove Judaism, Christianity would suffer the same fate thereafter.  Islam’s declared purpose is global conquest.  Pastor Niemoeller’s words ring as true today.

Like the tail-devouring Ouroboros, the WCC has turned on itself, and should no longer be able to rely on our citizens’ taxes and generosity to support the Palestinian Authority and the armed jihadists who seek Jewish and Christian destruction.  Isaiah 5:20: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.

(With appreciation to Dexter Van Zile, “Broadcasting a Lethal Narrative: The World Council of Churches and Israel,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

VIDEO: The Muhammad Code

Prolific author, Howard Bloom has written a masterful, scholarly, yet readable book about the leader of all Muslims, the one they call, Prophet Muhammad. In his book, “The Muhammad Code,”
Bloom unlocks the key to why Muslims hate Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims and why Islam is in a perpetual state of war to establish a global leader, the Caliph, to bring in world domination by Islam. Bloom, a writer trained in the sciences, pulls no punches as he simply explains Islamic doctrine as taught by Muhammad and subsequent Muslim leaders.

This book is a must-read for anyone who wants a clear, dispassionate analysis of the leader of a movement that has become the greatest threat to global peace and security.

Stay tuned for more episodes with Howard Bloom and a deeper look at some of his shocking findings.

TheMuhammadCode-cover-15NOV2016-768x1152ABOUT THE MUHAMMAD CODE

The Muhammad Code is based entirely on Islamic sources: the Quran, the Hadith, Ibn Ishaq, al Tabari, and lives of Muhammad written for Moslem eyes only by Islamic religious leaders, Islamic scholars, and Islamic journalists. The Muhammad Code tells one of the most important and riveting stories in history. The hidden story behind the headlines from shock-spots in Asia, Africa, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And the inner secrets of the mosque down the street.

If you are a Moslem and you want to be righteous, just, and pure, you are required to follow in the footsteps of Muhammad. What kind of footsteps did Muhammad leave you? His example as the commander of 65 military campaigns. His example as a participant in 27 of those battles. His example as the architect of ethnic expulsions and genocides.

Explains Osama bin Laden, Muhammad was “a Prophet of Conquest.” And Pakistan’s Universal Sunnah Foundation agrees. It says proudly that under Muhammad’s generalship, “Islam spread on an average of 822 square kilometres per day.” Behind that conquest is an astonishing story. The story of Muhammad’s life as a militant. The story of Muhammad’s two favorite tools of war, “deceit” (deception) and “terror.” The story that led to the assembly of the biggest empire in human history…an empire eleven times the size of the conquests of Alexander the Great, five times the size of the Roman Empire, and seven times the size of the United States.

The Muhammad Code is the story of how Muhammad laid out a simple goal–seizing the entire world. A goal so dependent on violence that one of Muhammad’s leading modern interpreters, Islamic Revolutionary Iran’s founding father, the Ayatollah Khomeini, says proudly that “Islam has obliterated many tribes.” The Muhammad Code tells a story unknown in the West, the story that led the Ayatollah to declare that, “Moslems have no alternative… to an armed holy war Inflatable Tropical Island Bouncer wholesale. …Holy war means the conquest of all non Moslem territories. …It will …be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other.”

If you want to know the story of Muhammad’s ten years as a militant, read The Muhammad Code. It is more than just amazing. It is a story whose aftershocks are quaking your life.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers who wish to learn more about Howard Bloom may visit his web site: http://howardbloom.net/

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

“It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.”

The Obama administration will leave behind a long, long record of dishonesty and betrayal.

“White House On Defense After Being Exposed as Architect of Anti-Israel U.N. Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 29, 2016:

Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Monday that Vice President Joe Biden phoned Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the resolution. While the White House issued multiple denials, further reports from Israel and Europe have confirmed a phone call between the leaders did in fact take place.

It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.

White House National Security Council official Ned Price described such a meeting as a “total fabrication,” despite public documents highlighting the powwow between Kerry and Erekat.

One senior Obama administration official who spoke to the Free Beacon said the White House did not help draft the resolution, as Israeli leaders have suggested in recent days.

“We’ve been entirely clear that this was an Egyptian resolution,” said the official, explaining that the effort did not originate with the White House. Reports of a meeting between Kerry, Erekat, and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice are not correct, the official said.

However, these claims have been disputed by multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record about the situation.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

As with the meeting between Kerry and Erekat, the phone call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been confirmed multiple times by a plethora of sources in the United States, Israel, and Europe following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Obama administration initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

The administration has not yet addressed the discrepancy between its own narrative and that being revealed in the press….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guinea President: “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Islam is a religion of peace.”

Spain: Snipers and armed police to guard public areas amid jihad terror fears