No one blinked - Netanyahu canceled meeting with German FM Gabriel
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel went ahead with this meetings with extreme anti-Israel groups B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence (and another one to boot) and Prime Minister Netanyahu followed through on his threat to cancel his meeting with Gabriel.
Netanyahu's office said the prime minister wouldn't meet with foreign
dignitaries who meet "groups that slander IDF soldiers as war
criminals," referring to Breaking the Silence, a whistleblower group
critical of Israeli military actions in the West Bank.
The German minister, Sigmar Gabriel, was set to meet with members of
the organization during his visit to Israel and said Netanyahu's
cancellation was "relatively surprising" since such meetings were
"rather standard" for foreign diplomats.
Gabriel said he didn't want to be turned into "a plaything for
Israeli domestic politics," using unusually frank language in light of
the sensitive nature of Israel-Germany ties.
Israel and Germany have had a long, close and complicated
relationship. Israel was established in 1948 in the wake of the
Holocaust, when Nazi Germany killed 6 million Jews. The countries only
established diplomatic relations in 1965.
Today, Germany is a key Israeli trade partner and ally in Europe, and
assumes responsibility for the crimes committed during the Holocaust.
Both Gabriel and former president Joachim Gauck took part in Holocaust
memorial events in Israel on Monday.
When he met with Rivlin, Gabriel
called the Holocaust "the most criminal action we did in the history of
humankind."
But tensions occasionally flare up over Israeli policies toward the
Palestinians, as well as settlement construction in the occupied West
Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem. Germany, along with most of the
international community, considers Israeli settlements illegal.
...
Netanyahu's office said that foreign dignitaries are welcome to meet
with civil society representatives, but that the prime minister "will
not meet with those who lend legitimacy to organizations that call for
the criminalization of Israeli soldiers."
But Germany more than any other country appears to be obsessed with financing the establishment of a 'Palestinian state,' and many ordinary Germans appear to be determined to
finish the job that Adolph Hitler started. This is from a 2013 review of Tuvia Tenenboim's
I Sleep in Hitler's Room.
Then, Tuvia and Isi schlepped their sacks full of
laughs and chutzpah and important ideas from one German city to another.
He had not intended to write about Jews at all. He had been
commissioned to write about Germany Today. “But the subject of Jews and
Israel kept coming up. It turned out to be a German obsession. Everyone
wanted to talk about it, fight about it.”
According
to Tuvia, the Turks and Muslims in Germany hate Jews. But so do the
Germans. “At least the Muslims are open about it. The Germans deny and
deny and then fly into a rage.” The German peace-loving, progressive
left - including “the feminists who believe in women’s liberation,” -
is colluding with Muslims who veil their women, keep them in the
kitchen, and refuse them prayer access in the mosque.
“The Germans can’t look at themselves in the mirror.”
I (and others) have written about the nature of
European Jew-hatred for many years now, especially about why Europeans
are ostensibly embracing the violent and hostile “Semites” among them
after having murdered six million of their assimilated or non-violent
“Semites.” European Jew-hatred still expresses itself by taking the
“Palestinian” side against the evil, Nazi Israeli Jews. They can feel
guilt-free, superior—even justified in having murdered so many Jews.
“They
don’t know the names of their own political leaders, but they hang
photos of Mahmud Abbas in their offices and march for Palestine. They do
not care about what Putin did in Chechnya. They care only about
Palestine.”
Tuvia took this message across
Germany. The young people of Germany wanted to hear him speak and
crowded the auditoriums. And they bought his book in record numbers. He
told them: “Hitler understood the Germans. He said: You hate them (the
Jews). Okay. Let’s kill them. Let’s act on what we believe.”
I'd bet that Gabriel thinks the same way. If the shoe fits....
Labels: Adolph Hitler, B'Tselem, Binyamin Netanyahu, Breaking the Silence, German anti-Semitism, Nazis
A Hillary supporter on why comparisons of Trump to Hitler are dangerous
The tweet above, among others, have unfortunately enabled comparisons of Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler. No matter whom we support in the US Presidential election, those comparisons are repugnant and dangerous. This was posted to Facebook by a longtime friend who supports Hillary Clinton. Since I have some readers who unfortunately still support Hillary, please at least take this to heart.
I feel the need to put this thought on my wall again. I'm seeing more
and more posts and articles analogizing Trump to Hitler. This is a very
disturbing trend for many reasons. Here's just one: we're now starting
to encounter a generation that has not met and will not meet anyone who
lived through WW-II (much less the Holocaust). When they ask 'what was
Hitler like?' and your answer [via your posts] is "Hitler was like
Trump" ask yourself will those kids understand the enormity of the evil
perpetuated by the Nazis if this is the comparison you're implanting in
their impressionable minds? Trump is bad, yes, Trump is a danger, yes,
Trump [may be] [is] a Fascist (Mussolini-style), but he is NOT a Nazi
and he is NOT Hitler. Making this comparison cheapens the evil
perpetuated by and done in the name of Der Fuehrer. [Rant over.]
Indeed. I don't think he's a fascist either, and I'm voting for him even though I would rather have seen a different Republican nominee. But in any event, those of you who compare Trump to Hitler are cheapening the Holocaust. Let your conscience deal with that.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, US presidential campaign 2016
Political correctness on American college campuses is manifest anti-Semitism, but can it be fought?
Nearly thirty years ago, I had a business trip to San Francisco that required me to spend the Sabbath in the Bay Area. I only knew one Orthodox Jew in the area: Someone from the class behind me in both high school and college (Columbia) was at the time the rabbi in Berkeley. He arranged for me to stay with one of his congregants - he was in the process of leaving the community to move on to 'bigger' things. I won't mention his name because I'm still friends with many of his relatives, but that Sabbath was a real eye-opener. My friend had become what we would today term 'anti-Israel' and a 'Jewish anti-Semite.'
I was floored.
What I'm about to describe was probably inevitable. The fight for 'safe spaces,' BDS and political correctness on American college campuses has morphed into blatant anti-Semitism. The role that prominent Leftist Jews has played in making this happen will not shield them from the monster they created. See Germany (which will be insulted if you say so, but remains anti-Semitic more than 70 years after Hitler's death) and Stalinist Russia. Different campuses are at different stages, but most American college campuses appear to be heading inexorably toward anti-Semitic group think.
This report that I saw on Facebook comes from a current student at my alma mater, Bir Zeit on the Hudson.
Rochman is describing a university course calling for the 'elimination' of Israel taught by what we would call an 'as a Jew' (someone who uses the accident of his birth to permit him to blatantly incite to anti-Semitism) using terms not much different from the terms that Hitler used to describe the elimination of Jews 70 years ago. As I have mentioned several times in the past couple of months, the role of Germany in financing the
continued prominence of the 'Palestinians' in world affairs reflects the continued anti-Semitism in Germany (I am now reading an earlier book by Tuvia Tenenboim about anti-Semitism in Germany today - that book's publication was nearly blocked!).
Let's start with what should be obvious: Being 'anti-Israel' or subjecting Israel to double standards in 2016 is no different than being anti-Semitic in the 1940's. Saying you're 'only against Israel' but 'not against Jews' is putting a politically correct cover on an ancient hatred.
At Berkeley, the cradle of the false distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, things have
only gotten worse. This article discusses a 'for credit' course on the Berkeley college campus.
According to Tammi Rossman-Benjamin,
co-founder of the AMCHA Initiative — which combats, monitors and
documents antisemitism at institutions of higher education in America —
the course in question, titled “Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis,” is a “classic example of antisemitic anti-Zionism.”
“Based upon the syllabus, the class
treats Israel as a settler colonial state and Zionism and Israel as
illegitimate,” Rossman-Benjamin told The Algemeiner,
adding that “a goal of the class appears to be talking about ways to
decolonize Palestine, which essentially means to eliminate the Jewish
state.”
“This is clear eliminationist
anti-Zionism, which is not just criticism of Israel, but opposition
to the existence of the Jewish state with efforts to eliminate that
state,” she said.
Lily Greenberg Call, a Jewish UC
Berkeley student who serves as a CAMERA Fellow and is the co-vice
president of the campus group Bears for Israel, told The Algemeiner that she became “very upset” after seeing posters advertising the class.
“It’s one thing to have a political
group like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) on campus, but
teaching material that is so biased and factually inaccurate in a
classroom setting violates academic integrity,” she said.
“Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis” is being offered as a “DeCal” course,
which is part of a program of student-run classes that falls under the
jurisdiction of UC Berkeley’s Academic Senate. According to a
description of the course — which acknowledges “contentious” material
will be taught — the class will:
…[E]xamine key historical developments that have taken
place in Palestine, from the 1880s to the present, through the lens of
settler colonialism…we will explore the connection between Zionism and
settler colonialism, and the ways in which it has manifested, and
continues to manifest, in Palestine. Lastly, drawing upon literature on
decolonization, we will explore the possibilities of a decolonized
Palestine, one in which justice is realized for all its peoples and
equality is not only espoused, but practiced.
Students are also required to attend at least one event, on or off campus, “relating to Palestine.”
The faculty sponsor of the course, Dr. Hatem Bazian,
is the co-founder of SJP and a major supporter of the US Campaign for
the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI). Bazian is a
former fundraising speaker for the anti-Israel organization KindHearts,
which was shut down by the US government in 2006 for its alleged ties to
Hamas.
You might think there's nothing wrong with that because college campuses are supposed to facilitate 'the free exchange of ideas.' But that's not what's going on here.
According to Rossman-Benjamin, “You
just need to take a look at the instructor, facilitator, authors of the
reading materials and listed guest speakers to see that the course is
biased and presents an egregious framework against Israel.” Furthermore,
she noted, “Not one reading or guest lecturer isn’t a virulent
anti-Zionist, absolutely opposed to the existence of the state of Israel
and supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.”
Reading material includes selections
from works by anti-Zionist Israeli historian Ilan Pappe; the late Edward
Said, a fierce Israel critic; and Saree Makdisi, an advocate of the
elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Also, there are testimonies
from the controversial and widely debunked Israeli group Breaking the Silence.
“As seen from the syllabus, the class
doesn’t look at Israel and ask if it is a settler colonial state or if
Zionism is a legitimate ideology,” Rossman-Benjamin said. “The starting
point is that it is illegitimate. This is completely one-sided and has a
clear anti-Zionist bent, to the extent that it opposes the existence of
the Jewish state.”
And if you still think this course is anything other than a 'safe space' for anti-Semitic rants....
She also told The Algemeiner
that she finds it “concerning” that the course has “a strict
no-technology policy — no phones, voice recordings or photographs —
which makes me worried that some of the content will be inherently
anti-Israel and as such, the facilitators don’t want to make it public
in any way.”
By the way, if you pay taxes to the State of California, you're supporting this.
Is there any way to fight back? Here's one promising story from
Miriam Elman, an Associate Professor at Syracuse University.
A brief recap: [Israeli Filmmaker Shimon] Dotan [of New York University's Graduate School of Journalism] was invited by a University of Nebraska colleague to screen the film at SU. A tenured professor in SU’s Religion Department, M. Gail Hamner, then rescinded the invitation on account of warnings from colleagues that the “BDS faction on campus will make matters very unpleasant” for her and Dotan if he came. Bottom line: Hamner was reluctant to bring Dotan to the conference because she felt intimidated by a faculty caucus who wouldn’t be happy about the screening of a well-received Israeli film.
SU responded admirably by reasserting the university’s commitment to free speech and its opposition to “any boycott of Israeli academic institutions or faculty.” An invitation to Dotan to present his film at a later time this year was also extended. On her part, Hamner issued an apology and reaffirmed her own support for academic freedom. To my mind, this rings hollow. A true defender of campus free speech actively solicits diverse viewpoints, and doesn’t surrender to peer pressure to conform. Still, Hamner’s expression of regret seems sincere and heartfelt.
All’s well that ends well? Not quite. Lingering questions remain: did Hamner have to “vouch” in the same way for other films in the conference – or was it just the product of an Israeli national that required special scrutiny? Are a group of anti-Israel colleagues exercising subtle veto power when it comes to academic programming related to Israel?
To get answers to these questions, and assess the magnitude of the problem, I and other SU faculty are now urging the administration to undertake a comprehensive and transparent investigation. Supported by the Academic Engagement Network, a new national organization committed to opposing BDS on campuses and to preserving academic freedom and free speech, we believe that only a full exploration as to why Dotan’s invitation was withdrawn will both lay this incident to rest and ensure that something like it won’t happen again.
This inquiry shouldn’t be construed as a witch hunt, nor is it likely to reveal a campus awash in anti-Israel animus. SU is generally a welcoming place for Israeli scholars and students. An exploration of the matter may also show that Hamner panicked unnecessarily and that her fears of the “BDS faction” were overblown. But it’s possible too that the inquiry will uncover more evidence of stealth boycotting.
Three lessons about these silent boycotts and how to defeat them can be learned from my university’s “Dotan Affair.”
First, administrators need to recognize that just because their schools are on record opposing academic boycotts of Israel doesn’t mean that individual faculty members are adhering to that institutional policy in their personal instructional practices. Administrators must make school policy crystal clear, but they also have to institute mechanisms to ensure that faculty members comply with it.
Second, the case highlights that successfully confronting silent boycotting ultimately depends on whether individual faculty are willing to take a stand. Like all bullies, stealth boycotters get away with their bigotry and intimidation because most faculty aren’t as honest and forthright as Hamner was about the pressures they’re facing, and because the vast majority of professors prefer to do their research and teaching and hesitate getting involved in "campus politics." The now multiplying anti-BDS organizations operating on campus are going to have to figure out a way to incentivize more faculty to engage proactively – and get those feeling cowed by BDS harassment to go public.
Lastly, the “Dotan Affair” shows that BDS, which bills itself as a human rights movement aimed at ending the Israeli "occupation," is in fact pure racist hatred, from which even famous anti-occupation, progressives Israelis – like Shimon Dotan – aren’t immune. To put a stop to stealth boycotting on campus and prevent more Israeli scholars from being privately shut out of academia, Zionists from across the political spectrum – left, center, and right – will need to fight together to ensure that all their voices can be heard on campus.
This battle is far from over. But I sure would not want my children or grandchildren on an American college campus today.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, BDS, Bir Zeit on the Hudson, Columbia, German anti-Semitism, Germany, Jewish anti-Semitism, University of California at Berkeley
Jeffrey Goldberg admits what Obama and Kerry still don't get
You walk away from reading this piece by Jeffrey Goldberg - in which he asks President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Kerry about their views on Iranian anti-Semitism - thinking that
Obama and Kerry are naive fools.
A few days ago, I spoke with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry about the politics of the Iran deal (you can find the full interview here),
and at one point in our conversation I put to Kerry what I thought
was—to be honest—something of a gimme question: “Do you believe that
Iranian leaders sincerely seek the elimination of the Jewish state?”
Kerry responded provocatively—provocatively, that is, if you
understand Iranian leaders, and in particular the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the way I understand them: as people
theologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Quotes such as this one
from Khamenei help lead me to this conclusion: “This barbaric,
wolflike, and infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no
cure but to be annihilated.” The supreme leader does not specialize in
nuance. (Here
is a long list of statements made by Iranian leaders concerning their
desire to bring about an end to Jewish sovereignty in any part of the
ancestral Jewish homeland.)
Kerry’s
stated understanding of the regime’s anti-Semitism is somewhat
different from mine. He told me, “I think they have a fundamental
ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether
or not that translates into active steps, to quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know
…”
He paused, and so I filled in the blank: “Wipe it off the map.”
Kerry continued, “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen
anything that says to me—they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed
at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t
make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed
on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we
have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to
get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”
Kerry’s understanding, in shorthand: Iran is dangerous to Israel at
this moment (he repeated the term “at this moment” in his next
statement, in fact); Iran has had plenty of opportunity to hurt Israel
but has chosen not to; and, finally, the answer to the question
concerning the true intentions of Iran’s leaders when it comes to Israel
is unknowable, and also irrelevant to the current discussion.
And Kerry almost looks clairvoyant compared with what Obama told Goldberg.
“Well, we’ve discussed this before,
Jeffrey,” the president said. “I take what the supreme leader says
seriously. I think his ideology is steeped with anti-Semitism, and if he
could, without catastrophic costs, inflict great harm on Israel, I’m
confident that he would. But as I said, I think, the last time we spoke,
it is possible for leaders or regimes to be cruel, bigoted, twisted in
their worldviews and still make rational calculations with respect to
their limits and their self-preservation.”
In the May interview, I asked him to help me understand a seemingly
contradictory set of ideas he has advanced relating to Iran. I noted
that he himself has stated publicly that the regime is infected with an
anti-Semitic worldview, and that those who are infected with such a
worldview generally do not grapple well with cause-and-effect in
international politics and economics, and cannot be counted on to
interpret reality correctly. I then asked how he squares these two
observations with a third observation he has made: that the regime in
Tehran is in many ways capable of behaving according to its rational
self-interest, as American politicians understand the notion of rational
self-interest.
His answer: “Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist,
doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t
preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy
afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about
how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is
anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other
considerations. You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism,
Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders—and there were deep
strains of anti-Semitism in this country—”
Here I interrupted him: “And they make irrational decisions.”
He continued: “They may make irrational decisions with respect to
discrimination, with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as
an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may
pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest. But the
costs here are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the
Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to
ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for
whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions
represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve
represents. And so I think it is not at all contradictory to say that
there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but that
they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of
legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get
themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in,
and on that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to
strike an agreement on their nuclear program.”
Except that there is no 'military option' (and no one ever believed Obama would be the one to employ it anyway) and if Obama gets his way there will be no sanctions. And by the way, what was Hitler - a 'community organizer'?
I made a decision on the spot—later partially regretted—not to deploy the H-bomb just then because I am a) very mindful of Godwin’s Law;
b) I don’t believe the Iranian regime is the modern-day equivalent of
the Nazi regime, in part because the Nazi regime is without peer; and c)
the invocation of Hitler’s name in these matters tends to set teeth too
much on edge. In retrospect, though, I should have raised it, because
Hitler is the perfect, but not singular, example of a world leader who
made decisions that seemed, to his adversaries, deeply irrational except
if you understood his desire to wipe out the Jews of Europe as an
actual overriding policy goal, a raison d’etre of his rule.
Anti-Semitism was not simply an “organizing tool” for him. And if you’re
paying attention, you will see that bringing about the end of the
sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East is a paramount political and
theological mission of the Iranian regime.
And so I was glad that Obama acknowledged the supreme leader’s
heartfelt anti-Semitism, and I’m glad that he understands that the
supreme leader seeks to do great harm to Israel. I suppose I part with
the president’s analysis on the question of exactly how much pain the
supreme leader believes Iran should absorb on behalf of this goal. Obama
believes the Iranian leadership will check its behavior in order to
avoid potentially catastrophic fallout. He may be right, but I would
like to see his administration place slightly less faith in the idea of
regime rationality.
Of course, there's a more cynical view of this - which I have alluded to many times, but with which I believe that Goldberg himself would take issue. That view holds that Obama is an anti-Semite (you can tell a
man by the
company that he
keeps) and that Kerry
may well
be one as well. It's already been stated in polite society that Obama at least has a
blind spot for anti-Semitism. In that view, Obama and Kerry are lulling much of the United States into complacency when they know full well Iran's desire to destroy the Jewish state.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, anti-Semitism, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, Islamic anti-Semitism, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry
Dershowitz: There were better options on Iran - Obama gave them away
Yes, he's even lost Democratic stalwart Alan Dershowitz. President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep telling us that there were 'no better options available' to their sellout to Iran. But Alan Dershowitz - an all-in Democrat - says there were better options, but
Obama gave them away.
The reality is that there were always alternatives, though they
became less realistic as the negotiations progressed. We could have
stuck to the original redlines – non-negotiable demands – from the
beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities
rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to
hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically
designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on
missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to
gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the
international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear
arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines
agreed to will allow Iranians to believe — and proclaim — they will soon
be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism.
Instead,
we caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a
deal to implement President Obama’s world vision and to enhance his
legacy.
This approach to the deal — surrendering leverage from
the outset — violated the most basic principles of negotiation 101. We
were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and their
ayatollah checkmated our president.
But the real losers were those
countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in
the negotiations. Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the
exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by
it, since they did not have a vote.
The deal was imposed on them, in
much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on
Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not
have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni
neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a
nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony
over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates,
Hezbollah and Hamas. Those groups would become even more aggressive
under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Alan Dershowitz, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Neville Chamberlain, P 5+1
Iran one-ups Hitler
Aren't you glad that Hussein Obama is welcoming them back into the international community?
What could go wrong?
Labels: Adolph Hitler, anti-Semitism, Iranian nuclear threat
What she didn't report....
In all fairness, she reported that the 'Palestinians' called the pro-Israel demonstrators
child killers. Was she afraid of a hot button? Why 'things I shouldn't tweet'?
Labels: Adolph Hitler, anti-Israel media bias, child killer
Let the sun shine on Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Heh.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Obama's Best Friend Forever: 'Israel is worse than Hitler'
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Hussein Obama's closest friend in the Middle East, told a campaign rally on Saturday that
Israel is worse than Hitler (Hat Tip:
Joshua I).
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused Israel of "barbarism that surpasses Hitler" during its ground invasion of Gaza.
Erdogan
made the comment during a campaign speech Saturday in the Black Sea
port city of Ordu. He is running for the presidency in elections next
month.
He has been speaking out strongly against Israel during its offensive against Hamas
militants in Gaza, which has killed more than 300 Palestinians. He
accuses Israel of using disproportionate force and has said the
operation there has derailed efforts to normalize Turkish-Israeli ties.
One of my children came home tonight and said that on the bus home, they played a recording of Erdogan speaking. Although none of my children know Turkish, that child said that Erdogan was screaming and that he sounded like he was crazy.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, Operation Protective Edge, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish obsession with Israel
Trending 'Palestinian' hashtag: #HitlerWasRight
The 'Palestinians' have a long history (see above) of throwing their lot in with the Nazis. They're doing it again. The hashtag
#HitlerWasRight is unabashedly trending as a result of its promotion by 'Palestinians' on Twitter.
The hashtag began to trend yesterday.
...
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, anti-Semitism, Gaza, Hamas, Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, myth of moderate Palestinian, Nazis, Twitter
If you're in Washington DC today, you might have seen this
Pam Geller does it again.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Islamic anti-Semitism, Koran, Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini
Video: European Parliament Vice President calls customs officials Nazis, shouts Heil Hitler at Frankfurt Airport
I would love to see video of the actual incident....
European Parliament Vice President Jacek Protasiewicz, who is Polish, made a drunken scene at Frankfurt's airport on Wednesday, calling customs officials Nazis and shouting at them "Heil Hitler," according to reports in the German media.
Let's go to the videotape.
More after the video (which is a Polish news report).
According to German daily Bild, the Polish politician
disembarked from a plane at the airport, visibly drunk, and then caught
the attention of customs officials when he stole a man's baggage cart
and sprinted toward the exit.
When the officials asked Protasiewicz for identification, he began to
hurl insults at them, calling them names such as "Hitler" and "Nazi,"
asking them, "Were you ever in Auschwitz?" Bild reported.
The
German daily quoted an eyewitness as saying "the man appeared to be
very drunk when he shouted in English that he was from the EU."
Police were then called to the scene, forcibly removing Protasiewicz in handcuffs when he refused to accompany them peacefully.
The
German daily noted that Protasiewicz enjoys immunity as a member of the
European Parliament and is therefore unlikely to face prosecution.
Polish
news portal RMF 24 quoted Protasiewicz as denying being drunk and
explaining that he was responding to the rude behavior of a Frankfurt
Airport official.
Protasiewicz said that he showed the official
his documentation upon request. "When he saw my diplomatic passport, he
was displeased that he could not demonstrate his power over me, a
passenger from Eastern Europe. Giving me the passport he used the word
"raus" [out]. This word worked on me a bit like a red rag to a bull. I'm
still from the generation that remembers the atmosphere of post-war
[Europe] and "raus" in Poland is associated with German arrogance, not
with a polite civil servant.
According to Protasiewicz, he
explained to the customs official that "raus" in Poland has associations
like "Heil Hitler." He continued: "This upset the officer. He started
to push me, so I said to him that before using force, let him consider
Auschwitz. Auschwitz, because it is the best lesson in humility."
When
asked about reports that he was drunkenly staggering and stammering,
Protasiewicz claimed that he has only had one glass of wine on the
plane.
Must have been an awfully big glass....
Those Europeans... they're so dignified....
Labels: Adolph Hitler, European Parliament, European Union, Nazis
London Holocaust Day speaker admires Hitler, hates Jews
I'd like you all to meet Hassan Farooq. Farooq was a Holocaust Day speaker in London in 2013.
Let's go to the videotape.
But a British organization called Stand for Peace has done an investigation into Mr. Farouq and has found some
very disturbing things.
Hassan Farooq is a a “senior member” of the Newham Dawah Team, an East
London-based organisation which attempts to spread the message of
Islam. Newham Dawah Team is part of the Islamic Education and Research
Academy (iERA) Network, and its officials regularly liaise with iERA officials such as Abdurraheem Green. The iERA is an extremist Salafi group, some of whose officials have been banned from the UK. Abdurraheem Green talks of a Jewish “stench” and advocates the killing of homosexuals.
Here are some choice tweets from Mr. Farooq's Twitter account.
There's much more
here and
here.
I'm sure there's an explanation for why this guy was allowed to be a speaker at a Holocaust Memorial... right?
Labels: Adolph Hitler, British anti-Semitism, British Muslims, Londonistan, Muslim anti-Semitism
What socialism means
Kitty Werthmann is a WW2 survivor. She is 87 years old and is President
of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. Werthmann lived under Nazi rule through
the war, and strongly feels the need to warn Americans about the
horrors of socialism. Werthmann said that Adolf Hitler spoke just like
an American politician. She says: When the people fear the government,
that's tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that's
Liberty! Sighting Switzerland's policy where citizens are required to
own guns, Hitler did not attempt to invade the country and it has not
been involved in a war for 600 years. Kitty advocates: 'Keep your guns.
Keep your guns, and buy more guns! and stock up on ammo because: "What
good is a gun without ammunition?"
Let's go to the videotape. More comments after the video.
What bothered me about this video is that there is no mention of Jews - the word "Jew" isn't even spoken. There's one small reference at the end that claims that they didn't know about the concentration camps - let's say I find that difficult to believe.
The Austrians are masters at turning themselves into Hitler's victims when in fact they were quite complicit in the slaughter of Jews.
While her depiction of socialism may be (and probably is) accurate, her failure to acknowledge the special role of Jews as Hitler's victims left a bad taste in my mouth.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Austria, Barack Hussein Obama, Nazis, socialism
The Brits favored Chamberlain's Czech policy in 1938 too
A newly-released poll shows that
Americans favor the P 5+1 agreement with Iran by a 2-1 margin.
According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans
support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in
Geneva, and 22 percent oppose it.
While indicating little trust
among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a
strong desire to avoid new US military entanglements after long, costly
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Iran deal fails, 49
percent want the United States to increase sanctions and 31 percent
think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want US
military force to be used against Iran.
The survey's results suggest that a US public weary of war could help bolster Obama's push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.
The poll's conclusions are
startlingly similar to British polls taken around the time of Neville Chamberlain's September 1938 agreement with Adolph Hitler over Czechoslovakia.
Public opinion in 1938 seemed reasonably in favour of Neville Chamberlain and what was later to be termed appeasement when he returned with "peace in our time" after the September 1938 Munich Agreement. Opinion polls appear to show that the majority of the nation was in support of the stance taken by Chamberlain.
"Should Britain promise assistance to Czechoslovakia if Germany acts as it did towards Austria?" (Asked March 1938)
Yes: 33%
No: 43%
No opinion: 24%
"Hitler says that he has no more territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?" (Asked October 1938)
Yes: 7%
No: 93%
"Which of these views comes closest to your views of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement?" (Asked February 1939)
1. It is a policy that will ultimately lead to a lasting peace in Europe: 28%
2. It will keep us out of war until we have time to rearm: 46%
3. It is bringing war nearer by whetting the appetite of the dictators: 24%
4. No opinion: 2%
On March 16, 1939, Hitler invaded the half of Czechoslovakia that was not ceded to him. That (finally) changed British public opinion:
Is the British government right in following a policy giving guarantees to preserve the independence of small European states? (Asked April 1939)
Yes: 83%
No: 17%
Here in Israel we have no delusions (from the first link).
In Israel, a Channel 2 poll conducted Tuesday night showed that a
majority of Israelis backed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent criticism
of the Obama administration’s Iranian policy, with 58% saying the
criticism was justified, and 28% saying it was not.
In addition, most Israelis – 60% – said that the agreement endangered Israel, while 25% said it did not.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli polls, Neville Chamberlain, P 5+1, polls
'I happen to trust Herr Hitler'
In his biography, Chaim Weizmann relates the story of a visit to his home by Jan Masaryk, the son of the founder and first President of the Czech Republic, shortly after Masaryk had visited Neville Chamberlain to try to convince him not to abandon his country to Hitler. Here's
part of what Weizmann reported.
For a while he was silent, then he turned to
us and, pointing to the little dog he had brought with him, said:
‘That’s all I have left, and believe me, I am ashamed to look him in the
eyes.’Once he had broken the silence he went on talking, and
what he told us was terrible to listen to. He had had a conversation
that morning with the Prime Minister, and had taxed him with the
deliberate betrayal of Czechoslovakia. ‘Mr. Chamberlain sat absolutely
unmoved. When I had finished he said: “Mr. Masaryk, you happen to
believe in Dr. Benes, I happen to trust Herr Hitler.”’ There was nothing
left for Masaryk but to get up and leave the room.
A great democratic country, a
magnificent army and a superb munition plant had been delivered to the
future conqueror of Europe, and a people which had fought valiantly for
its freedom was betrayed by the democracies. It was cold
comfort to us to reflect that the misfortunes which had befallen
Czechoslovakia were in a way more poignant than those we faced – at
least for the moment. We could not tell what the future held in store
for us; we only knew that we had little to expect in the way of sympathy
or action from the Western democracies.
Emphasis added by Brian of London.
Read the whole thing.
It could happen again, God forbid.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Neville Chamberlain
Is this the ultimate lie?
At a 'cultural event' in London, we see what may be the ultimate lie perpetrated by Muslims: They're now claiming to be
victims of the Nazis.
There can be no ambiguity in what the artist is claiming here: Jews,
gays, and ... Muslims (dressed in concentration camp outfits) were equal
victims of the Nazi holocaust. The myth of Muslim victimhood and
'Islamaphobia' is one that is now constantly pushed not just by the
Muslim Brotherhood, but even more so by their useful idiot leftist
allies, like the 'guerilla artist' here. To cast Muslims as equal
victims when they were actually
among the most enthusiastic participants in the Nazi persecution of Jews
takes the
myth of Muslim victimhood to a whole new level; and as with
most Muslim propaganda it is a perfect inversion of reality.
Hitler was actually inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood's antisemitism and the Palestinian leader Haj Amin al Husseini
was a key ally of Hitler who helped set up Hitler's Muslim SS division,
who were active in murdering Jews in Eastern Europe. Hitler promised
al Husseini that he would be allowed to carry out the murder of every
Jew in Palestine once the Nazis advanced there, and al Husseini had
drawn up detailed plans of the execution programme. And, of course,
Arab countries such as Iraq were formally allies of Nazi Germany.
Anyway, just to makes sure that nobody can be in any doubt where the
'guerilla artist' Ego Leonard's true sympathies lie he was also
exhibiting a print showing that the Arabs - with the ubiquitous large
key - have been the true owners of the land of Palestine 'since the time
of Jesus' (a good quality image of this print can be seen on the
artist's website here).
Much more about the real relationship between Muslims and Nazis
here (including video) and
here.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Islamophobia, Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Muslim anti-Semitism, Nazi-Islamist connection
Hitler's bodyguard dies, wife may have been Jewish
Rochus Misch, who was one of Adolph Hitler's two bodyguards, has died at the age of 96.
YNet publishes excerpts of a
fascinating interview (via AP) which apparently dates to the mid-90's.
Misch and comrade
Johannes Hentschel accompanied Hitler almost everywhere he went,
including his Alpine retreat in Berchtesgaden and his forward "Wolf's
Lair" headquarters.
He lived between the Fuehrer's apartments in the New Reich
Chancellery and the home in a working-class Berlin neighborhood that he
kept until his death.
"He was a wonderful boss," Misch said. "I lived with him for
five years. We were the closest people who worked with him ... we were
always there. Hitler was never without us day and night."
In the last days of Hitler's life, Misch followed him to live
underground, protected by the so-called Fuehrerbunker's heavily
reinforced concrete ceilings and walls.
"Hentschel ran the lights, air and water and I did the
telephones – there was nobody else," he said. "When someone would come
downstairs we couldn't even offer them a place to sit. It was far too
small."
After the Soviet assault began, Misch remembered generals and
Nazi brass coming and going as they tried desperately to cobble together
a defense of the capital with the ragtag remains of the German
military.
He recalled that on April 22, two days before two Soviet armies
completed their encirclement of the city, Hitler said: "That's it. The
war is lost. Everybody can go."
"Everyone except those who still had jobs to do like us – we had
to stay," Misch said. "The lights, water, telephone ... those had to be
kept going but everybody else was allowed to go and almost all were
gone immediately."
However, Hitler clung to a report – false, as it turned out –
that the Western Allies had called upon Germany to hold Berlin for two
more weeks against the Soviets so that they could battle communism
together.
"He still believed in a union between West and East," Misch
said. "Hitler liked England – except for (then-Prime Minister Winston)
Churchill -- and didn't think that a people like the English would bind
themselves with the communists to crush Germany."
If you can stand more of this sycophant,
read the whole thing.
The New York Times adds a couple of pieces that aren't in the AP account. One is the
murder of the six Goebbels children by their mother (Magda and Joseph Goebbels committed suicide shortly thereafter), and the other is this little tidbit.
Mr. Misch’s wife, Gerda, whom he married in 1942, died in 1997. In 2009, the BBC
quoted their daughter, Brigitta Jacob-Engelken, as saying that she had
been told by her maternal grandmother that Gerda Misch was originally
Jewish.
“He is still saying, ‘No, I won’t believe that!’ ” Ms. Jacob-Engelken,
describing her father, then 92, told the BBC. “But I know it from my
grandma.”
Ms. Jacob-Engelken, an architect who lives in Germany and who has long
been estranged from her father, is among his survivors. According to the
BBC report, Ms. Jacob-Engelken learned Hebrew and lived for a time on
an Israeli kibbutz. In Germany, her work has included the restoration of
local synagogues.
Hmmm.
For the record, like all good Germans of that era, Misch claims that he didn't know anything about the murder of six million Jews. Misch is probably being roasted even as you read this....
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Holocaust, World War II
Kerry warns of Munich moment
This is rich on so many levels. US Secretary of State John Kerry warns of a '
Munich moment' if Congress votes against attacking Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry
told House Democrats that the United States faced a "Munich moment" in
deciding whether to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by
the Syrian government, Politico reported on Monday.
According to the Politico report, in a
70-minute conference call on Monday afternoon, Kerry derided Syrian
President Bashar Assad as a "two-bit dictator" who will "continue to act
with impunity," and he urged lawmakers to back President Barack Obama's
plan for "limited, narrow" strikes against the Assad regime, Democratic
sources on the call told the news web site.
Kerry's derisive comments on Assad and his
reference to the 1938 Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, signal the White House's resolve to
get Congress on board Obama's plan to punish Assad for his use of
chemical weapons.
Did Churchill seek a (not required) vote of Parliament before he started to go after Germany? How long did it take for him to disavow Chamberlain's policies of appeasement? Churchill was
railing against Hitler in the 1930's while Kerry....
and Obama.... was at least smart enough not to have his picture taken with Assad....
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Neville Chamberlain
