Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Comix

Showing posts with label Comix. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

More and more EoZ cartoons

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Latest EoZ memes and comics

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Palestinians are Philistines, Canaanites, Jebusites, Arabs, and now Philistines again!

Ibrahim Abrash, writing in Palestinian news site Amad, says that Bezalel Smotrich is ignoring the Jewish Scripture when he says there were no such thing as the Palestinian people.

Because look at the many times that the Torah mentions Philistines and the Land of the Philistines!

It's been a while since Palestinians claimed to be Philistines. It was a common claim at the UN in the 1940s, when the Syrian representative stated, "The Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of the same inhabitants of that country of forty centuries ago who fought in the first campaign which the Jews waged against Palestine in the fifteenth century before Christ. In the Bible, they are called the Philistines. After about the thirteenth century, they adopted the Arabic language, which was later replaced by the Syrian language, a language closely related to the former. These people have not changed. They are the same people who were living there then. They have been there for forty centuries--since prehistoric times."

(Note his backhanded way of saying that Palestine is really a part of Greater Syria.)

The claim that Palestinians were Syrians became less popular as the term "philistine" in English is equated with narrow-mindedness and being uncultured.

The obvious next move was for Palestinians to claim to be Canaanites, because that way they can say that the Jews ethically cleansed them twice, and Canaanites were definitely in the bulk of the Land of Israel before the Jews.

But when Jerusalem became an issue, Palestinians suddenly became Jebusites, a people who have no independent known history outside the Torah. But they lived around Jerusalem, so therefore Palestinians must have been Jebusites.

Of course, the same Bible that says Jebusites existed says that they legally sold Jerusalem to King David.

Notice that there is never the slightest bit of historical, scientific, linguistic or cultural evidence for these contradictory and supposedly unbroken histories of Palestinians.

So now we are back to Philistines, since that is the most convenient lie for the current threat.

Any lie will do, as long as they counter Jews' claims.

Which reminds me of a recent comic of mine:

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Elder Comix: The brave As-a-Jews

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The timing of the current torrent of articles and posts about Harvard's Kennedy School denying a fellowship to Ken Roth is most curious.

According to the initial article that started this all off in The Nation, Roth was denied his fellowship in the end of July 2022.

It took nearly six months for this news to hit the media.

What happened during those six months? Why didn't Roth lash out at the time - why was he silent for so long?

The answer can be seen in his history at Human Rights Watch.

HRW would issue many reports about human rights abuses worldwide. But only a subset of them would be turned into media events - with much longer reports, behind-the-scenes partnerships with other organizations, embargoed reports to be released on specific days to coincide with their splashy press conferences, and lining up sympathetic reporters and media outlets to publish their articles at the times that would maximize the impact of the campaign.

A large proportion of these campaigns would be against Israel. Relatively minor issues with questionable human rights dimensions, such as the fact that Booking.com and AirBnB listed Jewish-owned properties in the territories, would be promoted far more than actual deadly attacks in Syria or elsewhere.

In short, Ken Roth has a lot of experience creating campaigns that greatly exaggerate what he considers Zionist crimes.

A real victim of a real injustice does not have the luxury of creating a campaign to gain maximum publicity. They need to cry out and hope that a sympathetic person of prominence will help them get the message out to the world. Most of them fail, and real victims of real crimes are almost never heard from.

Every employer can choose not to hire any person for any (legally valid) reason, and they don't have to explain themselves to the world. And a university choosing not to hire someone is in no way "violating academic freedom" - that would mean that they have to hire everyone, no matter how toxic their ideas or methods. Academic freedom applies to faculty members and students, no one else.

Here is an extensive definition of academic freedom. In no universe did Harvard's dean violate it.

In this case, all we know is the second-hand report that the reason for the decision was "anti-Israel bias" and "Roth’s tweets on Israel were of particular concern" - which no one can argue with! Any analysis of his own tweets, in his own words, proves Roth's bias beyond a doubt. This is why Roth and his defenders falsely claim that he wasn't chosen because he is a "critic of Israel," an absurd lie - there are plenty of critics of Israel at Harvard, including Stephen Walt himself, co-writer of the infamous Israel Lobby book, whose position includes the name of the supposed Harvard donor who (Massing guesses) didn't want Roth - yet he still holds that position 15 years after the book controversy.

If the rich Jews who fund Harvard have any say on the contents of Harvard's academic program, it sure isn't obvious how.

Contrast this with the billions of dollars that pour into US universities from Saudi Arabia and especially Qatar, specifically to influence them politically.

For a wealthy, connected and privileged man like Ken Roth, it is not enough to just move on when he doesn't get a job and find the next one (which he did, at another Ivy League school.) He has to use all of his expertise to get revenge at the people who insulted him: the dean at Harvard and the rich Zionist Jews whom he believes (with zero proof!) were behind the decision.

Campaigns take time. Roth had to find a reporter and a media outlet that would maximize the impact of his newest attack on Zionist Jews. And he found both with Michael Massey, a reporter who defended Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book, and The Nation, which publishes outrageously anti-Israel articles that include boldfaced lies.

Roth made sure not only that they would promote his new jihad against the few Zionists left in academia - but that it would be a cover story.

Now the six month gap makes sense. Front page stories take time.

Note the irony of the illustration - Roth is the little guy, a victim of a God-like thumbs-down from Harvard. A little guy who has the connections to build a months-long campaign that gets him on the cover of The Nation!

The follow-on stories, some probably planted and the others naturally following what looks like news, were a fait accompli. So was his own account of the episode for The Guardian, where he again falsely claims that he didn't get the job "because of my criticism of Israel." That is not what The Nation reported.

He can't stop lying when it comes to Israel.

Roth, with half a million Twitter followers, has plenty of clout to do his own direct promotion as well. And he is tweeting about this as much as he used to tweet his monomaniacal anti-Israel campaigns.

And now he claims that this carefully choreographed campaign has created an "uproar." He's trying to make it self-fulfilling prophecy.

As with the AirBnB campaign, the Harvard story is based on an inversion of reality. Boycotting only Jewish-owned businesses really is discrimination, and not allowing universities full latitude in hiring staff is itself a violation of academic freedom.

Ken Roth is not the victim of an all-powerful Zionist lobby. He is a vindictive, pathetic yet extraordinarily privileged antisemite who has carefully plotted his revenge at the rich Jews whom he thinks sabotaged the only job in the world he felt was worthy of him.

And his actions today prove that Harvard was quite right in rejecting him.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Elder Comix: Cultural Appropriation is a one way street

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

12/29 Links Pt2: Understanding the upsurge in black attacks on Jews;

From Ian:

Understanding the upsurge in black attacks on Jews

The path of promoting Jew-hatred as a strategy for popularizing withdrawal into racial authenticity and ethnic isolationism is today still represented by Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and their myriad followers, including in the political, entertainment and professional athletic realms. It is also represented by significant segments of the Black Lives Matter leadership, elements of the black Hebrew Israelite movement, black college and university groups that have advocated segregation on campuses and others.

Black Americans who seek common cause with others and have spoken out against black antisemitism include academics and intellectuals like the Hoover Institute’s Thomas Sowell and Brown University’s Glenn Loury, various political figures on both sides of the aisle and numerous religious leaders, as well as prominent cultural and sports personalities.

Gates’ insight has implications beyond the issue of recent black antisemitism. For centuries, Jew-hatred has been used as a tool in political struggles between competing elites, with one or both sides attacking the other for being associated with or too tolerant of Jews.

In today’s America, this phenomenon is not confined to the black community. White advocates of the balkanization of America along racial and ethnic lines—whether on the far-left or the far-right—target Jews as champions of an integrationist ideal and defame Jews in order to discredit non-Jews who embrace that ideal.

For example, Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated color-blindness and integration, would be as unwelcome on many of today’s college campuses as would defenders of the Jewish community. But to attack King directly would still generally be frowned upon. The Jews are a much easier target, and maligning and attacking them is an indirect way for both white and black bigots to undermine King and his integrationist message, especially in light of King’s lifelong alliance with Jewish activists and leaders.

The American Jewish response to the rise in Jew-hatred has been piecemeal and weak. This is largely because the increased antisemitism—or at least that part of it that has made the greatest inroads in American society—is coming mainly from sources towards which many American Jews have long felt affinity and identification: Black Americans, too often conceived as a monolithic community; progressives; and educators, especially those staffing what has become the greatest institutional font of antisemitism in America, the campuses.

The increasingly heated division between Americans who advocate balkanization and those who champion integration will likely grow even more intense, and the ever-increasing use of Jew-hatred as a weapon of the former against the latter will grow more ingrained and uglier. Gates’ observations cast a light on this reality. If American Jews wish to stem the rising antisemitism, they must cast aside their preconceptions, take a clear-eyed look at their situation and join with others who embrace the integrationist ideal in pushing back against those who would tear the nation apart and weaponize Jew-hatred as a means to that end.

Will Biden follow through on his pledge to combat antisemitism?

President Biden could better the Trump record by entrenching the Executive Order in the Code of Federal Regulations, further fleshing it out. Biden might also use the occasion to solidify protections for other ethno-religious groups, such as Arab Muslims, Coptic Christians and Sikhs. This would be a welcome addition.

Each of the last three administrations have built upon work done by their predecessors. During the George W. Bush administration, the Office for Civil Rights recognized that Jewish students enjoy legal protection under Title VI. The Obama administration affirmed the Bush policy, embellishing it with clarifying guidance. The Trump administration affirmed the Bush-Obama rules and, in addition, provided that federal agencies will use the Working Definition when appropriate.

The importance of maintaining IHRA cannot be overstated. Without this definition, OCR was long rudderless in its efforts to address a form of hate which it simply did not understand. And absent such a formal definition, the agency was unable to handle systemic campus antisemitism cases for nearly a decade and a half following the initial 2004 guidance.

Under the current OCR guidance, which includes IHRA, Assistant Secretary Catharine Lhamon has commendably opened several important cases involving systemic antisemitism, including the Brandeis Center’s cases Brooklyn College, the University of Vermont and the University of Southern California.

Whatever Biden does, he should not diminish use of the Working Definition by pairing it with a lesser standard. The controversial Jerusalem Definition, which some left-wing activists advocate, has been criticized for defining anti-Semitism too narrowly, misunderstanding Jewish experience and inadvertently giving cover to antisemites. It is hardly a substitute for the internationally agreed-upon standard, and its usage would significantly undermine civil rights enforcement.

President Biden’s words are strong, but his administration’s actions do not always match. Earlier this month, the Biden administration botched its presentation of federal hate crimes data. Nationwide underreporting has plummeted so far this year, especially in areas with high Jewish populations, that the FBI data mischaracterizes last year’s record spike in anti-Semitism as if it didn’t occur—falsely suggesting a decrease. Mistakes can happen. But it is hard to excuse the administration’s failure to correct these errors, now or in the future.

The stakes are high. President Biden has correctly identified the seriousness of confronting anti-Semitism. Now his administration needs to deliver a strong regulation to ensure, in his words, that evil will not win and hate will not prevail.

It’s Time to Apply ‘Broken Windows’ Thinking to Antisemitism

In another incident, this one online, Jewish students at Texas A&M University contacted us in November 2022 about posts on a Snapchat story that included crass references to the Holocaust, and defense of the murderers who perpetrated the Holocaust. The post stated, “we should’ve let the ‘ant exterminator’ do his job back in WW2,” — a reference to Hitler and the Holocaust.

This Snapchat group can only be accessed with a Texas A&M student email address. Our organization, at the request of and together with students, wrote to the administration, noting the various university policies that were being violated by this egregious display of antisemitism. The university couldn’t be bothered to respond — something inconceivable if the hate was directed at almost any other identity group. So we are bringing the story to broader attention.

Some might ask why go to such efforts over one mezuzah or a Snapchat story?

One of the reasons hate crime laws exist is because when one sees a fellow member of one’s racial, ethnic or religious group targeted with a hate crime, it makes every member of that group also feel fearful and targeted. Part of the justification for hate crime laws is the impact of this specific type of crime on the broader community. When a Jewish person learns that their neighbor’s mezuzah has been vandalized, they are not just upset that this happened to another Jew, but may also worry about their own safety.

As the director of StandWithUs’ legal team, I believe we must act in the spirit of the “broken windows” theory. There are some situations where going after “the worst, first” is necessary and appropriate. But as a general rule, we should consistently and vigorously go after the “small” antisemitic crimes with as much force as the headline-grabbing crimes. If we do not show that we are actively concerned, monitoring, and responding with vigilance and strength to all types of anti-Jewish hate, we likely will see hate crimes increase, antisemites grow emboldened, anti-Jewish bigotry normalize, and the overall environment worsen. If we show antisemites that they won’t get away with vandalizing mezuzahs or Snapchat hate, it is far more likely that we will never have to confront a wave of far more severe antisemitism.