False Mondoweiss fund raiser written by 9/11 truther and Haider admirer
I usually ignore Mondoweiss, a 'progressive' blog written by two very sick self-proclaimed Jews. Unfortunately, a lot of other people don't ignore it. While their Technorati ratings are far lower than mine, Alexa shows that a lot more people read that blog than read this one.But this is too much to ignore regardless of whether you normally read the blog.
As reported here yesterday, the blog Mondoweiss first published, then rescinded without explanation, a fundraising plea falsely claiming the blog needed help because it was "under Israeli attack". When a regular reader who had seen the original version posted a sympathetic comment asking what form the Israeli attack on Mondoweiss had taken, an editor of the blog was forced to admit that the charge had been false, but failed to explain how it came to be published. The headline was changed to something innocuous and the fraud was forgotten. (Read here.)Here's a screen capture of the page in question (in its original form).
Continue reading here.Labels: blogosphere, Mondoweiss, progressives
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:38 AM
16 Comments:
Carl, I do post there under the name biorabbi. I post to counter the rank anti-semitism. No topic is out of bound, it's is a raging inferno of self-hating Jews and anti-semites, with the occasional 911 truther, Jihadist and neo-nazi thrown in.
False Mondoweiss fund raiser written by 9/11 truther and Haider admirer
I thought Alec Kinnear was Jewish? Isn’t he? What’s his stake in the conflict then? I know that Phil Weiss and Adam Horowitz are, though they are anti Zionists.
It’s not a given that this headline “Help Mondoweiss under Israeli attack” should automatically be understood to mean that Israel or Israeli activists had physically attacked Mondoweiss. Regular readers of Mondoweiss would have understood that it meant the onslaught of Israeli rightist propoganda. I don’t find that particularly newsworthy, though I can understand why the blog Adam Holland would. A cursory check reveals that Adam Holland does not link or endorse extremist or hate websites.
What is less clear however, is why Israel Matzav regards this as news. I see a link to Atlas Shrugs in the blogroll endorsements of Israel Matzav, as well as blog posts endorsing Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. They are both linked to Nazi supporting EDL through her SIOA.
So why is this newsworthy here? Why is Alec Kinnear's admiration of Haidar newsworthy here, when you endorse Pamela Geller and Atlas Shrugs? She supports the EDL is a Holocaust denier (Bosnian) and is a Slobodan Milosevic admirer.
Firstly, there was no "Bosnian Holocaust." There cannot be a Holocaust when about 10,000 people died.
But beyond that, I am not a Pamela Geller fan, and I think Robert Spencer is a smoother-talking version of Pam Geller. But nonetheless, though I think they are extremists, they are not Nazis, and they openly said that they don't support EDL if it degenerates into a Nazi organization.
You obviously like to deflect from the obviousness of the fact that Mondoweiss is an openly antisemitic blog. And there is no way to dress this up or make it acceptable, regardless of what Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer say or do not say.
What is even less clear is why Chayma, who doesn't think this is news, nonetheless feels inclined to write an essay on the subject!
Matt
I wrote an essay questioning why it's news on a site, that itself links to a hate mongering sites like Atlas Shrugs, and others. At least two sites in the right hand column are listed as hate sites with SPLC.
It's one thing for Adam Holland to questnion Mondoweiss, as one cannot accuse him of using a double standard, since he doesn't link to hate sites, but Israel Matzav does.
Red Tulips
I think they are extremists, they are not Nazis, and they openly said that they don't support EDL if it degenerates into a Nazi organization.
That's utter nonsense. The EDL's links to nazi's are well known. For what it's worth, Geller once said, she supports decriminalising denying the Holocaust in Europe.
You obviously like to deflect from the obviousness of the fact that Mondoweiss is an openly antisemitic blog.
No i'm not deflecting. I'm questioning why it's news here when the same policy is in place that Mondoweiss is accused of. If you can openly practice Islamophobia, then you claims of Anti Semitism elsewhere ring hollow.
Again: I'm not questioning why Adam Holland raised the issue, i'm questioning why it's raised here.
Besides, I'm toubled at the infernece that Alec Kinner is not Jewish.
Oh please. Chayma, "Islamophobia" is generally codeword for being an Islamorealist. It is an attempt to silence people who are open and honest in their criticism of a religion that should never be above criticism.
Yes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have gone beyond mere criticism, but the term "Islamophobia" is a misused term that has been used to libel good people who are simply seeking the truth, which is that the religion itself has a mainstream that preaches violence and a political Islam which supports the degradation of women/gays/minorities.
Is your problem that Carl in Jerusalem is a religious Jew, and so he lacks the ideological purity of an atheist to say that Islam is a religion which must be reformed or abolished for the sake of world peace?
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and even Bill Maher have been open and honest in their critique of Islam (in its current formation) as a threat to world civilization. They also criticize Christianity and Judaism (and all religions). But nonetheless, are they "Islamophobes" for simply stating the obvious?
Bottom line: I find the term "Islamophobia" to be an insult to my intelligence and honestly laughable. It is a throwback to the times of blasphemy laws. Richard Dawkins has given scathing criticisms of Christianity and Judaism, but somehow the "human rights" groups don't seem to care about that. They never criticize "Judeophobia" or "Christophobia." No...it's all about this made-up concern about criticism of Islam.
I have news for you: I am a proud criticizer of Islam. And that no more makes me a bigot than does criticism of communism or Nazism. Moreover, a healthy religion encourages criticism. It is a weak religion which runs away from honest and open critiques and then invents words to prevent honest criticism, such as "Islamophobia."
As far as EDL goes: I don't back them and I never did. But does that render Mondoweiss any better an organization? And Carl himself has not openly come out to support EDL. So the fact that someone he links to has supported EDL somehow impugns him?
Red Tulips
I have news for you: I am a proud criticizer of Islam. And that no more makes me a bigot than does criticism of communism or Nazism.
Prove your lack of bigotry by giving back everything you took from Islam. Start with the codification of the Talmud, that’s something you took from us. Then show me what Nazism and communism gave comparitively
Great Rabbis of the Muslim Empire by Dr. Ezra Chwat, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/1/Great%20Rabbis%20of%20the%20Muslim%20Empire
The new methods that developed in the vast Muslim Empire for the communication of knowledge and the codification of law were employed by the Rabbis in order to keep in contact with the ever-expanding Jewish Diaspora. Thus, they could preserve and sustain Talmudic Law, while creating new vistas of Jewish literature and thought which were instrumental in forming the structure of Judaism as it is today.
Codification
Yet, ironically, as the influence of the Babylonian academies spread, it became clear that the Talmud was simply too vast to transmit. To address this problem, the Geonim employed a technique newly developed in the Muslim world: codification.
Of the innovations that the rabbinic world inherited from the Muslim empire, this probably had the greatest impact.
Islamophobia is alive and well, and you know it though you can pretend otherwise. Geller and Spencer are part of the Islamophobia machine. Your statements comparing Islam to Nazism are absolutely riduculous coming from a Jew of all people. You bely a spectacular ignorance of your own and our history. Even Daniel Pipes and Mattiel Gunzel, wont agree with you, and they’re not exactly sympathetic Islam. In fact Daniel Pipes is known as an Islamophobe.
Richard Dawkins has given scathing criticisms of Christianity and Judaism, but somehow the "human rights" groups don't seem to care about that. They never criticize "Judeophobia" or "Christophobia." No...it's all about this made-up concern about criticism of Islam.
Dawkins is an atheist, I’m not an atheist. The OIC which represents every Muslim country on the planet has spoken out against both "Judeophobia" or "Christophobia." Get your facts straight next time.
As for Islam it will go from strength to strength, just as foretold, and we were foretold about those who would oppose it, (like yourself) and their fates. History has proven that. History is proving that. And History will continue to prove that.
Is your problem that Carl in Jerusalem is a religious Jew, and so he lacks the ideological purity of an atheist to say that Islam is a religion which must be reformed or abolished for the sake of world peace?
No. Attacking false religions and Prophets is not prohibited and encouraged in Judaism. Are you really this ignorant Red Tulips? Being a religious Jew doesn’t stop Geller, Schlussul, Aubrey Chernick, Kahane, and countless other Jewish far right Islamophboes saying that. It’s telling that whenver anyone wants funds for Islamophobia, their first port of call are far right Jewish Zionists. Geert wilders and Robert Spencer are thus funded.
My problem is that a site (Mondoweiss) was critiqued for being anti Semitic, when Islamophobia (Geller and Spencer have been sourced in postings) is endorsed here.
Chayma,
Your comment about the codification of the Talmud is 100% irrelevant. I never said that Islam never contributed a single good thing to society. I acknowledge that there have been positive contributions of Islamic societies to this world (I am not sure how much of that is due to Islam, but that is another topic). I simply said that the mainstream of Islam preaches violence and intolerance, and unless Islam is either significantly reformed or abolished, it will remain a threat to mankind.
Your comment about the OIC almost made me spit out the food I was eating. Are you freaking kidding me? The OIC might have said a word - here or there - about "antisemitism and Christophobia," but they are the leading contributors to said antisemitism and Christophobia, via state-sponsored hate. So a few words here or there = laughable.
Islam going from strength to strength is also hilarious. Right now, Islamic civilization is experiencing a deep decline that has been hundreds of years in the making. Look at Islamic societies, and their standard of living, compared to non-Islamic societies. You cannot compare. Where are the innovations, the free thought, coming from Islamic societies? Sadly, it's barely a blip in the world. That's a "strength"??
Look, I feel bad for you. I see you are a Muslim and you obviously don't want to acknowledge the failing in Islamic societies, which surely is at least partially the result of interpretations of Islam that reject free thought and modernity.
In truth it is I, not you, who appears to advocate on behalf of the Muslim peoples. After all, lacking a revolution of ideas, lacking freedom of expression, lacking creativity and human rights, the Muslim peoples are wallowing in dire straits. I would think that you above all would be seeking some form of reform of your culture and religion.
Finally, yes, Spencer and Geller sometimes take things too far and can exaggerate what goes on in the world, get hysterical, as well as turn a blind eye when allies can be bigots themselves. I don't support them. But their harm is nothing compared to what goes on, daily, across the Islamic world, including widespread Holocaust denial and antisemitism, and widespread hate education. As an example, a Jew in the USA, let alone elsewhere, is far more likely to be on the receiving end of a hate crime than a Muslim is. So really, this fear of "Islamophobia" is misplaced, to say the least.
Red Tulips
Ignorance galore..don't parrot right wing propoganda to me, misrepresentation of facts, and just plain lies..the sad thing is you believe them..Too numerous for me to go into, and so many contradictions..here is but one
but they are the leading contributors to said antisemitism and Christophobia, via state-sponsored hate
contradicts this
As an example, a Jew in the USA, let alone elsewhere, is far more likely to be on the receiving end of a hate crime than a Muslim is.
from whom is the hate coming from in the USA? Certainly not from the OIC nor from American Muslims, and the rest of your post is full of the same nonsense and lies which you unwittingly think is the truth.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You lie, when you equate criticism of Islam as being Islamophobia. There are many people who criticise Islam who are not termed Islamophobic. The reason Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins and other atheists are not termed Islamophobic is because they are against religion per se, hence cannot be termed Islamophobic. There is consistency. Just one of your contradictory bloopers:
Yes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have gone beyond mere criticism,
then you contradict this with:
Moreover, a healthy religion encourages criticism. It is a weak religion which runs away from honest and open critiques and then invents words to prevent honest criticism, such as "Islamophobia."
your two statements are contradictory. How can Geller and Spencer go beyond mere criticism, and if they did, what else is it if not Islamophobia? if not, why are you objecting to it?
You make one statement and then contractict it. Just like everything else you said.
Don't ever assume to know countries you've never been to.
Check your facts Red Tulip and not just by your narrow definition of the economies of Muslim countries, Islam IS going from strength to strength.
By the way, there will be no "reformation" or whatever other word you used. We'll never do what others do, that is why there is no creature like the Muslim. We have a special relation with God, nobody else does.
Red Tulips
but they are the leading contributors to said antisemitism and Christophobia, via state-sponsored hate
Bring your proof. I want to see clear examples of the OIC promoting hatred.
Chayma,
Just curious. Have you ever been to Israel?
Carl
Have I ever been to Israel? Well, not yet.
I presume you are asking me because I mentioned to Red Tulips not to talk about countries she hasn't visited? Well that is not a fair comparison, it's clear she doesn't know what she's talking about. The biggest rogue nation on the planet is the USA. Economy wise, it has no economy, so what is she talking about, dissing the Muslim countries, when she is in a third world country herself?
I do not make sweeping generalisations about Israel. I know more about Israel and Judaism than she does about Islam, and not from propoganda either. It's clear her knowledge comes from biased, (probably American not reknowned for quality of information) sources.
My knowledge about Israel comes from the right sources,
kinda like this website:)
Joking....
Chayma,
Yes, that was exactly my point. You take Red Tulips to task for expressing opinions about countries she has (presumably) never visited.
And yet, you continually refer to Israel as an 'apartheid state,' a charge that you would understand is patently false were you to, for example, set foot in any Israeli hospital.
Were you in South Africa in the apartheid era? Do you have any idea what that was like? I have never been to South Africa - before, during or after apartheid - but I've seen detailed descriptions of how apartheid worked in South Africa and there is NO similarity between apartheid and what goes on in Israel. None.
I've done dozens of posts on this blog about Arabs being treated at Israeli hospitals. Literally dozens. Do you think that blacks were treated at white hospitals in apartheid South Africa? And by the way, not just Arabs from the disputed territories. Hundreds of Arabs from Jordan are treated here. It goes without saying that Israeli Arabs are treated here. Take a walk through any hospital and you will find that it is full of Arabs.
It's not just the hospitals, but for those of us who live and work among Jews, hospitals are one place where we come into contact with Arabs regularly.
Carl, I havn’t called Israel an apartheid nation. When did I say that? And when have I ever compared it to South Africa?
I have however said , that it has certain apartheid policies in the occupied territories, like the West Bank, and Gaza is not free despite the pullout. Collecltive punishment for a democratically elected entity is not a good reason for the blockade.
When people talk of Apartheid Israel, they generally don’t refer to Israeli’s internal population. They mean the occupied territories, where the population is neither independent nor Israeli. Since Israel calls itself a democracy, it has to be judged by democratic ideals.
Right wing Israeli extremists, like to talk of Europe being anti Israel, but they forget that since Israel calls itself a democracy they judge it by their own democracies. The anti boycott legislation that recently passed in the Knesset is a case in point. It goes against democratic ideals.
If Israel did not call itself a democracy she wouldn’t be villified for some of the things she does.
Maybe she should declare herself a theocracy, like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, then nobody would take exception to "democratic ideals" being violated :)
Chayma,
Only apartheid states have apartheid policies.
And many of the Arabs who are treated at Israeli hospitals are from what you call the 'occupied territories.'
Two examples:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/05/iraqis-reject-free-medical-treatment.html
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/02/physicians-heal-thyselves.html
Carl
Yes, I remember that time, there was some hoo haa about the Iraqi’s receiving treatment. The political climate as it was then, (and to an extent now) was such that it’s not surprising Israeli aid was rejected. Aside from the occupation, the reasons were partly because the Iraq war in the first place, It was seen as a neocon plot, and secondly people having being fed propoganda about Israelis taking organs from patients and such. As you’re aware a lot of such propoganda is encouraged by the despotic rulers, so that the people can focus their anger on other targets, There is a genuine case against the occupation, and then there is just plain propoganda and lies.
As for the British medical journals, I know that the British are anti Israel because of the occupation.
In one of those links you gave above, you expressed surprise at the Kurdish reaction. Well don’t be. Kurds are Sunni Muslims. It’s a testament to how little they understand the Muslim mind, that some Israeli’s think that just because Iraq was oppressing Kurds, they would turn a blind eye to the plight of their bretheren in Palestine, just because Israel was propping up the Kurds. Secondly, Israel’s relations with the Kurds was probably with some local leaders there. Did it have the backing of the Kurd populace? Not unlike the peace treaty that Jordan has with Israel, how many Jordanians support it? I know that most Egyptians and Jordanians want a resolution to the conflict before normalising relations with Israel.
Kurdistan’s biggest gift to humanity was Salah Uddin Al Ayubi, one of the greatest military generals in history :)
Only apartheid states have apartheid policies.
It isn't South African style apartheid, and despite the above, it doesn't alter the fact the occupied territories, are neither Palestinian nor Israeli. It's a form of apartheid, if not actual apartheid.
Either annexe and declare the whole territory Israel or split into two states. Colonal Gadaffi supports a one state solution, but he thinks it should be called "Israstine" :)
Post a Comment
<< Home