Showing posts with label Linda Sarsour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Linda Sarsour. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

From Haaretz:
At the New York March for Racial Justice on Sunday, hundreds of New Yorkers, many of them Jewish Americans, gathered in solidarity with communities of color and protested against mass incarceration, police brutality, anti-immigration policies and systematic racism.

As the protestors gathered in anticipation of the march across Brooklyn Bridge, the three female organizers behind the Women’s March on Washington - Tamika D. Mallory, Carmen Perez, and Linda Sarsour - passionately urged the crowd to do more to fight white supremacy.

“It is not enough to be here," Sarsour said, adding that what matters is "whether we are doing it in our places of employment, public schools, churches and synagogues and mosques."

"One of the hardest things I have ever done is combating anti-black racism in the Arab-American community, challenging my own people on issues around racism, around anti-Semitism. That is my job to do, not your job to do."

Really? Because when an Arab American looked into Sarsour last year, it was found that she is indeed a racist herself:

 It turns out Sarsour is known to harbor an ugly racism towards African-Americans which makes her latching onto the BLM movement all the more galling. She rarely associated with or interacted with African-Americans (this explains why she views African-Americans through the prism of racist, media stereotypes) until the “activist” with political aspirations realized it can be to her benefit. Sarsour’s racism which she is now trying to hide is common knowledge among the Arab-American community in NY.
I would love to find a single article, tweet or shred of evidence that Sarsour has ever said a thing about antisemitsm to her Arab community. In fact, from that I can tell, she has no standing in the Arab-American community altogether. Her claim to fame is among the whites that she regularly disparages as being inherently racist.

I found an old tweet of Sarsour's that,  combined with what else we know about her, says a lot: “There’s no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is bigotry + power. The group that doesn’t have power can’t be racist.”


But Sarsour admits that she is (was) white, and enjoyed "white privilege."  before she put on her hijab.




Sarsour put on a hijab (even though she is not a religious Muslim) in order to deflect people from examining her own anti-black and antisemitic positions!

Because a white girl from Brooklyn who hates blacks is a white supremacist. But when she puts on a scarf she suddenly becomes a protected minority who, in her mind, cannot possibly be considered racist!

Now, the idea that Arabs cannot be racists and Sarsour's claims that she fights Arab racism are, of course, contradictory. But Sarsour changes her message depending on her audience at the time anyway.

Sarsour is a fraud. She is not considered a Muslim leader and she is not a person of color. Her hijab is political, not religious. (She eats on Ramadan, according to the article mentioned earlier.)  Her statements show her own hate for white people, for Jews and for anyone who believes that Jews are a nation that predates Islam. She has a known history of being a racist herself in her own community. But the media is too scared to call her on her lies, contradictions and play-acting, out of fear of being labeled "Islamophobic."

Which is what Sarsour has built her entire career on.





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Sunday, September 17, 2017


Ikhras is a website that is unapologetically anti-Israel, anti-USA and pro-terror. But it is dedicated to exposing Arab "activists" who they believe are really traitors to the cause by acting moderate and sucking up.

In his or her words:
 Ikhras was inspired by the Arab and Muslim “activists” and “representatives” that hijacked our identities and name for their own self-aggrandizement and in furtherance of personal ambitions unrelated to our communities’ agenda, interests, and well-being.  It was their collaboration that made this project necessary and now Ikhras is here to tell them they do not speak for us.  Ikhras adds its voice to those resisting US Imperialism and Zionism with a special focus on exposing, ridiculing and holding accountable House Arabs and House Muslims in the US, to borrow Malcolm X’s expression.
So Ikhras' critique of Linda Sarsour, written last year, is most interesting. Ikhras mostly attacks Sarsour for pretending to be against Palestinian terror and supporting Israel's right to exist, which Ikhras assures us is not the way most Palestinian Americans feel and Sarsour is only trying to get in the good graces of the powers that be.
Sarsour does not speak for Palestinians in NY, across the diaspora or under occupation, and her views do not reflect the Palestinian consensus or their national aspirations. She also does not represent the views of the larger Arab-American community. The political exigencies of running for NY City Council require Sarsour to pursue her amateurish version of a political triangulation strategy, posing as a champion of Palestine while reaffirming Israel’s “right to exist.” However, there are 11 Million Palestinians and over 300 Million Arabs who are not running for NY City Council in 2017. Their position and the position of the Palestinian and Arab-American communities remains unchanged. The structures and institutions of the Zionist entity created in 1948 must be fully dismantled, and all Palestinian refugees and their descendants have an inalienable right to return to their homes and lands of origin with full restitution of all their confiscated property in a single, unified, and liberated Palestine.
This passage about Sarsour accepting an Iftar dinner with Mayor DeBlasio is interesting, once you filter out the anti-Israel lies:
Framing herself as a radical champion of the people while working with the Muslim Democratic Club of New York to advance her career, she decided to maintain close ties to the Democratic Mayor. Later that same year, July 2014, Israel launched its third onslaught on Gaza since dismantling its illegal, Jewish-only colonies and occupation coordination centers and repositioning its occupation army outside the narrow coastal strip of Palestine. The massacre, which happened to coincide with the month of Ramadan, resulted in the wholesale slaughter of over 2100 defenseless Palestinian civilians. The same week de Blasio came out in support of the massacre he also extended an invitation to Sarsour to attend an “Iftar” at Gracie Mansion as the ostensible representative of the NY Muslim community. Sarsour accepted the invitation and as she sat down to enjoy her breaking of the fast (Sarsour does not fast and is hardly religious although she does invoke religion when it serves her purpose) the bombs were still falling on the children of Gaza. Sarsour later tweeted a picture of herself with de Blasio adding the words “honored to dine with Mayor de Blasio at Gracie Mansion.” At the time ikhras still maintained a cordial relationship with Sarsour and expressed directly to her our disappointment. She responded by saying she had to ignore it because she was trying to “play politics and its dirty” and she had “two campaigns [Muslim school holidays and NYPD intelligence practices] she needed to see through.” When we pressed her she became very defensive, said something indecipherable about an “inside out strategy”, and attacked other Palestinian “activists” (she used the quotes) and organizations. She specifically mentioned Al-Awda and Adalah suggesting they were not doing anything and that she cannot be expected to do it all herself. 
Sarsour is admitting that she is willing to lie and pretend to be someone she isn't in order to get her agendas pushed. Moreover, she has such a high opinion of herself that she doesn't want to work with other Palestinian activists, thinking her way is better.

Ikhras documents how Sarsour is a fake:
Former friends of Sarsour tell us ....She has also cultivated a public persona that those who knew her tell us is dramatically unlike the Sarsour they had encountered and previously worked with. Even Palestinian-Americans who do not know Sarsour personally recognize a caricature type quality to her public behavior. In what is apparently an attempt to adhere to some stereotypical Brooklynite image, complete with an exaggerated and pretentious accent, she now comes across as an Arab parody of Rosie Perez. 
And:
In September of 2014 Sarsour claimed she was the victim of a hate crime, but in the Brooklyn neighborhood where the alleged incident took place there is a consensus this was nothing but an attention-seeking hoax and media ploy. Sarsour claimed she was attacked by a man who hurled slurs and threatened to behead her. It turned out the alleged assailant was a well-known 45-year old mentally ill, local homeless man. ...We could not find a single person in the neighborhood who considered him a threat. Another interesting fact casts more doubt on Sarsour’s story. On the day of the alleged incident Sarsour had called the police before the alleged attack reporting the alleged assailant as a “suspicious person” as if he is unknown. This is rather strange given that the “suspicious person” was a regular fixture in the neighborhood well-known to Sarsour and the rest of the residents by name. In all likelihood, the homeless, neighborhood drunk was, as usual, making stupid comments and kicking around a trash can. Instead of providing him with a hot meal and helping him find shelter, Sarsour decided to exploit his presence near her office to fabricate a hate crime casting herself as the fearless defender of the community under attack for her work on our behalf.  Sarsour took to Twitter and Facebook assuring everyone she was doing fine, thanked them for their concern and condolences, and pledged to never be intimidated or back down. After all, she is tough and everybody knows you “don’t mess with Brooklyn.”...For Sarsour to exploit the current environment of Islamophobia and the very real dangers encountered by Muslim women wearing the hijab to engage in a publicity stunt is not only manipulative and unethical, but outright disgraceful. It also provides further insight into her motivations while revealing a complete lack of a moral compass.
And:
When Trayvon Martin was murdered Sarsour penned an article titled “My hijab is my hoodie” and declared herself “among the millions mourning the killing of Trayvon”, but had this young black youth been living in Sarsour’s neighborhood he would not have been allowed into her home or anywhere near her own kids and family. ...In our visit to NY we encountered a strong backlash against this aspect of Sarsour’s activities among those who know her best. It turns out Sarsour is known to harbor an ugly racism towards African-Americans which makes her latching onto the BLM movement all the more galling. She rarely associated with or interacted with African-Americans (this explains why she views African-Americans through the prism of racist, media stereotypes) until the “activist” with political aspirations realized it can be to her benefit. Sarsour’s racism which she is now trying to hide is common knowledge among the Arab-American community in NY...

And:
 In addition to a lack of conviction and principles, Sarsour has also demonstrated a very shallow understanding of her own favorite topics. Her knowledge of U.S. history, politics, and society does not extend beyond a Middle School curriculum and she approaches these subjects without any serious thought or critical analysis. Nevertheless, Sarsour has acquired important skills and abilities that have served her well. She has, for example, demonstrated an ability to memorize and regurgitate pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric and various slogans for specific causes. She has also been adept at exploiting her different identity markers such as Palestinian, Arab and Muslim, and depending on the topic or event, is capable of offering herself as a useful prop. She has also shown a great deal of skill in latching onto independent phenomena such as the BLM or a presidential campaign when she perceives it to serve her long-term interests.
Ikhras, in his or her radical pro-terror views, is probably more representative of how Arab Americans feel than Linda Sarsour. But a faker is a faker no matter what position you hold; I prefer people who tell the truth and Sarsour is only out to gain media attention for her own agenda.

The problem is, that faker is more effective politically. So she has to continue to be exposed.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, September 08, 2017




In 2015, the Census Bureau held public meetings asking about new categories for the 2020 census.

At one point a panel of "experts" was called upon to answer these questions:


Linda answered that for question 2, Middle Easterners should absolutely not be considered "white."

Here is her entire answer:

So I wanted to answer question number two, and this is more actually for what I would consider our community to really think about this. I'm having a hard time understanding where the context is coming from the perspective of our community. So as a social service provider thinking about what are we going to use this information for? Like I don't really care  about just counting how many people there are who are “MENA” it's how we utilize  this information that can be beneficial to our community. So the answer to number two  for me is no because we have to understand that the way that people respond is based  on the political context that we live in.

So in 2010 we actually started a national  campaign that probably made a lot more work to do for the census bureau - but we started  a campaign: “Check it right- you ain't White.” And we actually asked people to go into the “other” category and identify themselves as whatever, Yemeni, Arab-American, whatever they  wanted to say even though we knew eventually those others go back in the White category,  but seeing the response of more people wanting to fill out the census with the understanding  that they weren't White.  
So I'm very personally just for the - as folks are thinking about the feedback what benefit  do we get as a community from being White in the current political context as Arab-Americans  in the United States of America. Does it serve us right to call ourselves White and put ourselves back in the white box and then to think about, you know, for example when we look at accessing  federal - you know any types of federal support for example we lose out dramatically because  we don't have the separate category to say so we end up, even in the area where I live,  because of we’re “white” we're not seen as a priority area and for city or state or  federal funding.  So we really need to understand what we're saying and how it impacts the community on the ground. I'm just trying to push us more in a less academic conversation because I know there's a lot of academia in the room and a lot of researchers which is great and  wonderful and we need that, but really understanding what the implications of the data and how  it's going to be used to impact community.

So my recommendation is that MENA that we are not White and also not be dwelling too much on the categories because at the end  of the day it's self-identification. I'm Palestinian, if I want to say I'm Black I'm Black - that’s on me, I can check whatever box. Getting into the nitty gritty there I don't think is really helpful for this discussion to kind of move us forward but for people to understand the  political context that we live in in 2015 and understanding the benefits of being White  or not White and understanding you know kind of maybe because I'm an activist but privilege  that comes with being White and not having the white privilege.  I mean these people really have to understand the deep impact this has by considering us being able to say I'm Palestinian but then still having to go and say I'm white, like, I'm personally not cool with that.  
Sarsour is saying that race is a choice. You can identify as whatever race you want - and Arabs should never be considered white because that way they lose out on the benefits of being a minority!

So much for "white privilege." Sarsour is arguing that Arabs should do everything they can to avoid being called "white."

Sarsour, who admits that she was "white" until she put on a hijab, would probably not be thrilled if Israelis in the US - or even Jews altogether - would identify as coming from the Middle East. Because along with her "Palestinian" identity comes the narrative that Jews never lived in the Middle East and are only latecomers.

(h/t Irene)

UPDATE: Irene found an old tweet from Sarsour where she claims she used to be "white" and benefited from "white privilege." But this video is all about her wanting herself and her community to be considered non-White - she admits, to gain more privileges and benefits!





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, September 04, 2017

On Friday I noted that  Linda Sarsour claimed to be a "woman of color" in this tweet where she tried to deflect criticism about her attempts to divert Hurricane Harvey aid funds for her pet political projects:


I made fun of her at the time, asking her if her wishing that she wanted to remove Ayyan Hirsi Ali's vagina if she was "smearing a woman of color."





Today I made a poster making fun of Sarsour's pretending to be a "person of color" while Jews of any color are always considered "white."




What I didn't realize is that the photo I used in this poster came from a video about hijab  published by Vox earlier this year, where Sarsour was featured. And in this video she says, explicitly, that before she put on her hijab she was just "some ordinary white girl from New York City." 




Sarsour magically changed from white to a "woman of color" in an instant!

She's the new Rachel Dolezal!

By the way, you are not allowed to criticize my blog anymore. I wear a yarmulka, which make me a "Jew of color" and therefore immune to criticism. At least by the logic of some people.





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, September 01, 2017

This story from earlier this week was widely reported:

Linda Sarsour seems unable to pass up any opportunity to make a quick buck, even at the expense of vulnerable Americans. Her latest target? Caring people all across the country who are looking for ways to help the hundreds of thousands of Texans who have lost everything as the result of Hurricane Harvey.

Sarsour recently requested donations for the Harvey Hurricane Relief Fund, which, on its face, sounds innocuous enough. But it turns out that this fund is, in fact, a thinly veiled front for leftist community organizing. From the fund’s website:

Together we will organize and advocate for our devastated communities, shining a spotlight on inequalities that emerge in the restoration of lives, livelihoods, and homes, amplifying the needs of hard-hit communities, and providing legal assistance for residents wrongfully denied government support. 

This is pure political activism, not a charitable quest to assist hurricane victims as they rebuild their lives. It’ll reroute the money not to actual charities such as the Texas Diaper Bank or the Houston Food Bank, but instead to the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund, a nonprofit that advances racial and economic justice through community and electoral organizing.”

On its Facebook page, the Project announced that all donations received “will only be used to organize in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.” In other words, not one cent of this money will be donated to people who have lost their cars, possessions, and even their entire homes. Instead it’ll be poured straight into the pockets of activists such as Sarsour as they continue their political posturing, dividing the country over race and “inequality” in the wake of Harvey’s devastation rather than focusing on the nonpartisan goal of helping Texans restore their community.

This week, Sarsour has also actively discouraged people from donating to the Red Cross, suggesting instead that they contribute to sundry political-activist organizations. Sarsour has already shown her willingness to use disunity to turn a profit. Now we know she’s willing to exploit disaster in the same way.
So how does Sarsour react when someone calls her on it?



Her critics are all woman-hating white supremacists!

This tweet tells you pretty much all you need to know about this despicable woman. Although I do wonder exactly what makes her a woman of color and not, say, Israeli women.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, July 24, 2017

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

As is by now widely known, it was Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who first used the vicious libel that Jews were threatening the Al Aqsa mosque to incite murderous violence in the 1920s. Husseini is now notorious as “Hitler’s Mufti” – and has even been described as “Hitler of the Holy Land” – but his legacy is alive and well: all over the Arab and Muslim world, political and religious leaders as well as the media are eager to invent ever new versions of Husseini’s libel when there are tensions around the place Muslims claim as Islam’s “third holiest” site, while ignoring, if not outright denying, that this is also Judaism’s most holy site.

So it is perhaps not surprising that “progressive” icon Linda Sarsour is happily joining in, sharing her version of the Al-Aqsa libel on Facebook. In recent days, she published two related posts.
On July 21, she wrote in part (full post archived here, original here):

“On this holy Friday, I pray for my Palestinian sisters and brothers, for Al Aqsa, for a free and liberated Palestine. Israeli government continues to collectively punish Palestinians and deny them entrance to Al Aqsa mosque, they are met with tear gas and rubber bullets and they still stand strong - they continue to show resolve and resilience as they pray in the thousands on the streets outside the gates in an act of non-violent resistance. Muslim Palestinians joined by their Christian Palestinian siblings.”

You see: Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians are just wonderful, pious and peaceful; whereas Israel – i.e. the world’s only Jewish state – is a brutal and cruel oppressor. But Linda Sarsour was simply lying, just as Husseini lied back in the 1920s. The Israeli government wasn’t denying Palestinians entrance to the Al Aqsa mosque; instead, Muslim leaders had called on Palestinians not to enter the site in protest against metal detectors that had been installed well away from the mosque, at the entrances to the Temple Mount, after three Arab-Israeli Muslims had used the mosque a week earlier to receive guns from an accomplice for a deadly terror attack targeting  Israeli police officers. Sarsour’s false claim that the “Israeli government continues to collectively punish Palestinians” was the only hint that might be construed as referring to this murderous terror attack – which Sarsour didn’t find worthwhile mentioning, let alone condemning.



Given that Sarsour never tires of emphasizing her religiosity, it is also noteworthy that she has apparently no problem with terrorists using the Al Aqsa mosque to get weapons; indeed, her enthusiastic support for the protests against the newly installed metal detectors and her failure to condemn the terror attack arguably amount to an implicit endorsement.

This is especially true since Sarsour followed up her first post with another that merely repeated what she had already said, but was posted a day after a Palestinian terrorist had slaughtered three members of a family at their home. Again, Sarsour pointedly ignored the horrific massacre (and of course the fact that Palestinians were proudly celebrating it); and as in her previous post, she also preferred to ignore the fact that the protests were not all as peaceful as she claimed, but escalated into violent riots.

Yet, Sarsour posted an image of Palestinians kneeling in prayer in a street, and wrote (archived):

 “This is resilience. This is perseverance. This is faith. This is commitment. This is inspiration. This is Palestine. Denied access to pray at Al Aqsa Mosque in their own homeland, Palestinians pray on the streets in an act of non-violent resistance. They are met with tear gas and rubber bullets. But you still can’t keep them from God. While the world powers continue to turn a blind eye to the blatant injustice against and the suffering of the Palestinian people, they remain steadfast and teach us life, determination and patience. Palestine will be free, it’s not a question of if, its when. Long live Palestine!”

Interestingly, one of her followers challenged her about her lie that the Palestinians were denied access to the Al Aqsa mosque, asking where this had been reported and pointing out that a link she provided in response did not support her claim. Sarsour was clearly upset and replied:

“it sounds like you are justifying the current situation. The point is that the Palestinian people are engaging in mass non-violent civil disobedience to bring awareness to the longstanding brutal military occupation and the increased control over Jerusalem which is still international terrain. Israeli govt continues to violate the human rights of Palestinians and denies them religious freedom.”

But as Sarsour knows full well, the only people being denied religious freedom in Jerusalem are Christians and Jews who want to visit the Temple Mount: due to the rules set by the Muslim authorities that Israel left in charge of the Temple Mount plaza in 1967, non-Muslims can visit only at severely restricted hours and are strictly forbidden from praying and performing any religious ritual.
Interestingly enough, this time around, Sarsour’s lies and her studied silence about Palestinian violence and terror attacks were widely noted. Even Ha’aretz found it newsworthy and published an article under the title “Linda Sarsour Praises Non-violent Palestinian Resistance, Fails to Mention West Bank Attack” – which could be read as: Linda Sarsour is a hypocrite and liar who tries hard to whitewash Palestinian violence and terrorism.

But the man now known as “Hitler’s Mufti” would surely applaud her: on Facebook, she has more than 184K followers – which means that her posts praising Palestinian “resistance” reach a fairly wide audience. And the way she tries to whitewash Palestinian terrorism reminds me of what the mufti said in an interview in September 1929, shortly after he had incited the notorious Hebron massacre and the subsequent Arab violence, which left 133 Jews dead:

“When politely told that world opinion is holding him personally responsible and partially guilty for the savagery and unspeakable assaults, the Mufti smiled and with a sweeping gesture, showing delicate manicured hands, he declared: ‘My hands are clean, I declare before God. Moreover, it is untrue that the world is siding with the Jews. Telegrams are pouring in from all parts of the world expressing sympathy and offering to help the Palestine Arabs. We have telegrams from Moscow, also the Paris and Berlin branches of the Anti-Imperialist League. We are further assured of the solidarity of the entire Moslem world and have actually offers of armies to help us if necessary. Help is unnecessary. We will win through an economic boycott.’”

As it happens, Linda Sarsour is of course also for an economic boycott.

And as it happens, in 1929, many Jewish homes in Hebron looked pretty much like the home of the family who was attacked by a Palestinian terrorist last Friday evening.






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Thursday, July 20, 2017




I have seen young people and older people too, who are good democratic liberals, lovers of peace and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest reasons. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face to face with men of real commitment, which they themselves lack. And commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts.
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, p. 221


Bloom was writing in the 1980's, basing himself on his experiences on college campuses in the 1960's.

Today, we witness a more nuanced approach, where "activists" under the banner of "human rights" use their halo -- some times as a shield, other times as a hammer -- preaching about commitment to high ideals and human values, while appealing to people's baser instincts.

Linda Sarsour is one such "activist." The deserving cause of the Muslim rights in America apparently cannot be achieved unless Islamophobic and alt-right villians can be revealed and attacked in order to increase her audience and galvanize it into action.

Lahav Harkov and Petra Marquardt-Bigman, among others have examined Sarsours hateful statements and tweets and have written about what they reveal about her. Yet despite what Sarsour says, not matter how nasty she may get, her self-proclaimed dedication to human rights suffices for the media to raise her on a pedestal -- and protect her from criticism.

Not that this is surprising.
We have seen this before.

In April, The New York Times came out with an Op-Ed entitled,Why We Are on Hunger Strike in Israel’s Prisons, by Marwan Barghouti, described as "a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian." It was only later, in reaction to criticism, that the paper decided to describe Barghouti more fully in a correction:
This article explained the writer’s prison sentence but neglected to provide sufficient context by stating the offenses of which he was convicted. They were five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization. Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy. [emphasis added]
photo
Marwan Barghouti. Credit: BDalim, Wikipedia


Not content, The New York Times came out with an article about Marwan Barghouti's wife: Fadwa Barghouti is the unflappable voice of a jailed Palestinian freedom fighter -- this despite the admission in the piece that
Reflecting on that time, Fadwa repeats over and over that Marwan never killed with his own hands. He led, she says, but he never killed. [emphasis added]
The New York Times is similarly glowing about Sarsour, proclaiming: Linda Sarsour Is a Brooklyn Homegirl in a Hijab:
She has emerged in the last few years not only as one of the city’s, and the country’s, most vocal young Muslim-American advocates, but also as a potential — and rare Arab-American — candidate for office.
photo
Linda Sarsour. Credit: Wikipedia

Again, The New York Times is more interested in her commitment as a "vocal young Muslim-American advocate" than it is interested in what she actually says and how she says it. The most controversial thing it quotes her saying is a gratuitous swipe at Israel:
Then, last summer, Mr. Brown was killed in Ferguson. “I was sitting here in Brooklyn,” Ms. Sarsour said, “and heard he’d gotten shot and was lying in the street for four and a half hours. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. This happened in the United States of America? You hear about that happening in Palestine.’
The New York Times does not mention her attacks on critics, such as Sarsour's tasteless tweet threating to take away the vagina of female genital mutilation survivor Hirsi Ali.



Meanwhile, The Washington Post ran an article in February, March catapults Muslim American into national spotlight and social-media crosshairs describing her as "one of the highest-profile Muslim American activists in the country" who "despite a barrage of hateful messages and violent threats targeting her on social media" has "continued a punishing schedule of activism as she has sought to bring her heightened profile, and a new sense of what is possible, to a range of resistance movements that are developing in the first weeks of President Trump’s administration."

As Petra Marquardt-Bigman writes, the Washington Post article:
allows Sarsour to airily dismiss a vile tweet she posted in 2011 fantasizing about Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali “asking 4 an a$$ whippin’” and expressing the “wish” to “take their vaginas away” because “they don’t deserve to be women.” All Sarsour has to do now is to shrug off her vicious outburst as “stupid” and to dismiss it as simply a reflection of her being “a brash New Yorker.” An open threat against Brigitte Gabriel also posted by Sarsour remained unmentioned
The Washington Post is nothing if not consistent.

Just as The Washington Post frames Sarsour's critics as reacting to her rise in the public eye, when Sarsour spoke about jihad against the White House, the headline did not address the provocative term but rather the reaction to it: Muslim activist Linda Sarsour’s reference to ‘jihad’ draws conservative wrath.

Lee Smith noted that Sansour did something sensationalist, and then played the victim -- aided by The Washington Post.

More importantly, Smith notes Sarsour's message to the American Muslim community which the media ignored:
“You can count on me,” she told an audience of American Muslims, “to use my voice to stand up, not only to people outside our community who are repressing our communities, but those inside our communities who aid and abet the oppressors outside our community.”
Right, it’s a threat. If you don’t see things like she does, even if you’re Muslim, then you’re in for it— Linda Sarsour is watching. Linda Sarsour has your name.
James Kirchick writes that the whitewashing of Sarsour in the media is common. She uses the term "Islamophobia" as a catchall phrase to tar her critics, and the media plays along:
The point of the term “Islamophobia” as used by Sarsour and her sympathizers is very often a self-interested and dishonest one—namely, to delegitimize critics by lumping them in with fringe racists and bigots. “Feminist activist Linda Sarsour has become one of the far right’s favorite targets,” declares Newsweek. The Times, meanwhile, characterizes her “critics” as “a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right.” All this is being done in an effort to excuse Sarsour’s own extremism.
But even when the media plays along, there appear to be limits.

This week, the Women’s March came out with a tweet celebrating the birthday of Assata Shakur, the black militant who killed a New Jersey state trooper in a 1973 shootout. She later broke out of prison and escaped to Cuba in 1984, where she remains on the FBI's “most wanted terrorists” list. Not content with the one tweet, the group then came out with a series of tweets defending what they had done.

Jake Tapper criticized them.



In response, Sarsour lashed out:


Alexander Nazaryan of Newsweek reported
But the criticism leveled on Tuesday against Tapper by liberal activist and Women’s March co-founder Linda Sarsour has struck many as malicious, misguided and unjustified, though others defended her ferocity...Sarsour chose to respond by branding Tapper a member of the alt-right, a loosely defined movement that includes nativists, nationalists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes and anti-establishment meme warriors. Under no definition of the term, however, would Tapper, who is Jewish and a long-standing member of the Beltway media-political nexus, belong in that category.
In the long term this is not going to have an effect on Sarsour's tactics, nor on the attitude of the liberal media.

But it was refreshing to see the media's blinders momentarily removed.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, July 10, 2017


If you are a Trump supporter, Linda Sarsour is a dream come true: no matter how outrageous her views and statements are, the mainstream media will always rush to defend this leader of the “resistance” by dutifully echoing her self-serving claims that her critics are evil right-wingers motivated by Islamophobia and other vile resentments. In the process, being left-wing – let alone progressive – is redefined in ways that will be unpalatable to many reasonable left-leaning people (like me!). While few who identify as center-left might ever consider supporting Trump, the cult of Linda Sarsour will surely help many understand why a lot of Americans used their vote to express disgust with the liberal elites.

Sarsour’s latest achievement is making it somehow “progressive” to call on Muslims to engage in “jihad” against Trump and his administration. Calling for “jihad” these days is, as far as Sarsour’s apologists are concerned, an entirely harmless thing – after all, Sarsour just meant a “jihad” of political activism fueled by the perpetual outrage she so often advocates…

But we should actually all agree with Sarsour and her fans that the context matters, because tellingly, many of her defenders preferred NOT to link to the video that shows Sarsour’s relevant remarks in full. So let’s check out the truly shocking context of her call for “jihad” during her keynote address at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Early on in her speech (at around 3.45), Sarsour emphasized her conviction that “we are on this earth to please Allah and only Allah.” She repeated this theme towards the end of her speech (after 20.00):

“Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community; it is not to assimilate and to please any other people and authority. […] And our top priority, even higher than all those [other] priorities, is to please Allah and only Allah.”

As Sarsour explained, she came to this insight thanks to her greatly admired “mentor, motivator, encourager” Siraj Wahhaj (who was in the audience). According to Wikipedia, Siraj Wahhaj is “an African-American imam of Al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, New York and the leader of The Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA).” Born Jeffrey Kearse, Wahhaj converted to Islam as a young man and joined the Nation of Islam, where it was acceptable to voice his belief that “white people are devils.” He eventually became a Sunni Muslim and “has made statements in support of Islamic laws over liberal democracy.” He has endorsed sharia punishments such as stoning for adultery and mutilation for theft and has expressed the view that “Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen.”

Given the admiration Sarsour professed to feel for Wahhaj and the fact that she indicated he also admires her, it’s perhaps time to wonder what exactly she means when she so often emphasizes that she is “unapologetically Muslim”.

Unfortunately, the small part of her speech that her defenders quote as the relevant context for her call to wage “jihad” against Trump and his administration is hardly reassuring given that Sarsour depicts the US as a country where minorities suffer terrible oppression under the cruel rule of “fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes.”



Sarsour was no doubt delighted when her defenders rushed to post articles claiming that “the right freaked out” about her call for “jihad” because “they don’t know what it means.” The problem with the argument that Sarsour’s evil right-wing critics don’t know what “jihad” really means is that it focuses on complex and contentious theological debates among Muslim scholars while conveniently ignoring centuries of Muslim imperialism, starting with Islam’s founder Muhammad, who has been politely described as “Islam’s first great general and the leader of a successful insurgency.” Less politely, Muhammad has been called a “warlord” – and if you don’t like what Sam Harris has to say on the topic, you can turn to the immensely influential “Global Mufti” Yusuf Qaradawi, who once explained:

“Allah wanted Muhammad’s life to be a model. For instance, if we examine the question of marriage, he who has one wife can follow the Prophet Muhammed since most of the time Muhammad lived with one woman; whoever has more than one wife can also [follow Muhammad’s example]. He who marries a virgin, he who marries a non-virgin… He who marries a young woman, he who marries an old woman [all can follow Muhammad’s example]. … Similarly, Allah has also made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion.”

And the very first time Muhammad fought a bloody “jihad” for the religion he founded, he justified it with exactly the kind of threats that US Muslims face according to Linda Sarsour. Sarsour’s speech was full of alarming hints about the dangers threatening Muslims in America, where “fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes [are] ruling in the White House.” She issued an impassioned call for Muslim unity in the face of threats from the “Islamophobia industry” (after 10.00) and even went so far as to assert: “Unity is about survival for the Muslim community.” She also invoked the scenario of “a potentially horrific time that could come if we as a community are not united as one ummah as we are supposed to be.” Sarsour insisted that Muslims were unprepared for “the potential chaos” that the Trump administration might inflict on them and asserted that Trump was determined to test how much US Muslims “can endure.”

It is also noteworthy that in the wake of the controversy that erupted after her call for “jihad” against the Trump administration, Sarsour tried to claim that “the majority of Muslims” and “experts” would not misunderstand what she meant when she encouraged “jihad”.



Unfortunately, this is a very shaky claim given that throughout Islamic history, the kind of threats that US Muslims face according to Sarsour have been used to justify “jihad” as understood by most of Sarsour’s critics. It is no coincidence that “the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare.”

There seem to be very little reliable data on how “the majority of Muslims” nowadays understand jihad. Gallup once asked the question in a survey conducted in 2002 and admitted rather reluctantly that “a significant minority” of the responses “did include some reference to ‘sacrificing one’s life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause,’ or ‘fighting against the opponents of Islam’” and that in some of the countries surveyed, responses like these even constituted “the single most identifiable pattern.”
But there are a lot of reliable surveys showing that hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world supported Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and believe that “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.”




It is hardly encouraging that support for this kind of jihadi terrorism dropped most dramatically in countries where Muslims learned the hard way that they themselves could become targets when some of their fellow Muslims feel they are not sufficiently pious.

Moreover, given that Sarsour often emphasizes her Palestinian identity, it’s rather dismal to contemplate what kind of “jihad” was popular among the majority of Palestinian Muslims in the first years after 9/11.

Last but not least, it seems doubtful that there is much reason to cheer when it turns out that “only” eight percent of American Muslims think that suicide bombings targeting civilians in defense of Islam are often or at least sometimes justified, while another five percent feel they are “rarely” justified. To be sure, 81 percent of US Muslims told pollsters such acts of terrorism can never be justified, but if Sarsour is right and there are about five million Muslim Americans, the results from the cited 2013 survey would mean that 50.000 US Muslims think suicide bombings of civilians in defense of Islam are often justified; another 350.000 feel such acts of terrorism are sometimes justified, while an additional 250.000 see them as rarely justified.

Furthermore, given Linda Sarsour’s frequent efforts to mobilize young Muslims, the alarming results of a Pew poll published ten years ago are particularly noteworthy:

“the survey finds that younger Muslim Americans – those under age 30 – are both much more religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism than are older Muslim Americans. Younger Muslim Americans report attending services at a mosque more frequently than do older Muslims. And a greater percentage of younger Muslims in the U.S. think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than primarily as Americans (60% vs. 41% among Muslim Americans ages 30 and older). Moreover, more than twice as many Muslim Americans under age 30 as older Muslims believe that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam (15% vs. 6%).”

Sarsour has worked as a Muslim community organizer for some 15 years, and as her rhetoric shows, she is encouraging the trend to more religiosity and less assimilation while studiously avoiding any criticism of the extremism that has been espoused by a not inconsiderable number of young US Muslims. Instead, she advocates enthusiastically for a convicted murderous terrorist like Rasmea Odeh and preaches perpetual outrage while calling for “jihad” without acknowledging what jihadist have wrought just in the 21st century.

Lee Smith put it best in a Tablet post:


“The reality is that the debate over Islamic semantics has already been resolved—not in American newsrooms or the partisan halls of US politics, but on the killing fields of the Middle East. The people who are cutting each other’s heads off on both sides of the sectarian divide across Syria and Iraq, crucifying civilians, making sex slaves of women and children, and indulging in other inhuman depredations, have justified the murder of their co-religionists and others according to the logic of jihad. By all means, feel free to challenge that particular interpretation of the word, but at least have the decency to acknowledge your intervention comes in the context of nearly half a million dead.”



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Sunday, July 09, 2017



Linda Sarsour recently stirred up a great deal of attention when she gave a speech where she called for "jihad" against Donald Trump but made it clear that she was not referring to anything violent. As reported in the Washington Post:

In her speech, Sarsour told a story from Islamic scripture about a man who once asked Muhammad, the founder of Islam, “What is the best form of jihad, or struggle?
“And our beloved prophet … said to him, ‘A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad,'”
Sarsour said.
“I hope that … when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”
As Lee Smith noted, Sarsour knew exactly what she was saying by using the word "jihad" here, to paint those who are offended at the term as bigots.

I am a bit more interested in her story about Mohammed's use of the term.

The source for that story is a fairly obscure hadith, Musnad Aḥmad 18449. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal merits only a small mention in Wikipedia; although the author was an early influential Muslim theologian, the veracity of his hadiths are sometimes suspect by other Muslims.

More interestingly, there is a much more famous story about Mohammed and the definition of jihad (from the English translation of the Book of Jihad):

A man asked the Prophet: What is Jihad? He (s.a.w)
replied: “To fight against the disbelievers when you
meet them (on the battlefield).” The man asked: “What
kind of Jihad is the highest?” He (s.a.w) replied: “The
person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood”
Yet another quote from Mohammed on jihad is this one:
The Messenger of Allah was asked about the best jihad. He said: "The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled."
Wikipedia's article on Jihad notes that while the use of the word to refer to non-violent actions was used in some very early sources, its use was often unambiguously violent:
Of the 199 references to jihad in perhaps the most standard collection of hadith—Bukhari—all assume that jihad means warfare.[31]
Sarsour's cynical use of "jihad" is being amplified by her Muslim admirers such as the equally deceptive Dalia Mogahed who tweeted "What's #YourJihad? Maybe it's working for an America for All. Maybe it's just loving your kids. #IStandWithLinda."

This is a deliberate effort to water down the meaning of the word "jihad" to make it appear to be a liberal value. In no way is that true; even the expansive definition of "greater Jihad" refers to striving or struggle to be a better person, "loving your kids" should not be a struggle for most people.

Sarsour, taking advantage of the controversy, tweeted that "My work is CRYSTAL CLEAR as an activist rooted in Kingian non-violence." It would be most illuminating to ask her is she is therefore against jihad as holy war altogether, which everyone agrees is one of its meanings. As an avowed believing Muslim, Sarsour cannot possibly say that. It would also be interesting to ask Sarsour if she condemns the use of the word "jihad" by Palestinian terror groups like Islamic Jihad, let alone if she unequivocally condemns their use of violence, since she she claims to be so "Kingian."

There is literally no way Sarsour could condemn Palestinian jihad or the concept of violent jihad altogether. Those are bound up in her identity as a Muslim and as a descendant of Palestinians who define Israel as a place that must be destroyed by any means possible.

In this sense, the word "jihad" can be loosely compared to the word "crusade." The analogy is far from exact, because the current use of "crusade" in English vernacular is wholly outside of any Christian religious connotation except by scholars, while "jihad" is clearly used by millions of ordinary Muslims today to refer primarily to holy war.  Yet when the word "crusade" is used today, Muslims take offense - how dare the speaker invoke a word that has such negative connotations to Muslims? But the word "jihad" is, by any yardstick, much more offensive, and Sarsour is deliberately using it to demonize her opponents.






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, May 29, 2017


On June 1, the City University of New York (CUNY) will honor Linda Sarsour by hosting her as a speaker at the commencement ceremony of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. While Sarsour has been described as “an arsonist in our midst,” criticism of the decision to invite the controversial activist was firmly rejected by CUNY chancellor James B. Milliken, who wrote that Sarsour was chosen “because of her involvement in public health issues in New York City and her position as a leader on women’s issues, including her role as co-chair of the recent Women’s March in Washington.” The chancellor also highlighted that “Ms. Sarsour has been recognized by President Obama at the White House as a ‘Champion of Change’ and was recently named one of Time magazine’s 100 leaders and Fortune magazine’s 50 global leaders.”

In short, as far as CUNY is concerned, it is fully justified to ignore all criticism of Sarsour and to present her as a role model for the university’s graduates.

As Michael D. Cohen of the Simon Wiesenthal Center acknowledged when he recently denounced Sarsour as “an arsonist in our midst,” she is “a brilliant tactician who manipulates the media to gain attention and sympathy for her cause.” One might add that the media love to be manipulated by her, without asking tough questions about what exactly Sarsour’s “cause” is and how she pursues it.
During one of the recent controversies, Sarsour declared that she wants to be judged by her own words, but it is abundantly clear that she also wants people to ignore plenty of her own words that actually tell us a lot about Sarsour’s “cause” and her activism.

So let’s look at a small sample of those of Sarsour’s own words that are arguably very revealing, even though she will lash out at anybody who quotes them to her.

Indeed, Sarsour was recently recorded berating a student who asked her about her notorious tweet from 2011, when she declared that prominent women’s right activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and strident Islam critic Brigitte Gabriel “don’t deserve to be women;” therefore, Sarsour wished she “could take their vaginas away.” If we take Sarsour’s response to the student who asked about this tweet seriously, White men (capital W, please!) have no business being disturbed by her vile outburst – an answer that reflects the divisive identity politics Sarsour often employs when it suits her, while calling for unity and solidarity when this seems more opportune.

But as the Dartmouth students who enthusiastically applauded Sarsour’s put-down of their impertinent White male fellow student illustrated, many people are all too willing to ignore an obscene six-year-old tweet posted when Sarsour was almost 31 – not, as she falsely claimed, in her twenties. Moreover, in spring 2011, Sarsour reportedly already served as director of the Arab American Association of New York; she was also about to be named “a fellow at the NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service Women of Color Policy Network” and boasted about her excellent access to the Obama administration.   

And soon enough, Sarsour would also boast about being victorious over Hirsi Ali. In fall 2012, Sarsour was still jealously wondering “What does Ayaan Hirsi Ali got that I ain’t got? Front page covers and shit. #MuslimRage;” but by the spring of 2014, Sarsour was able to celebrate a blow against her nemesis, and she jubilantly announced on Twitter: “Online activism WINS again. @BrandeisU does the right thing and rescinds honorary degree 2 hatemonger Ayaan Hirsi Ali;” she also added: “Hats off 2 @BrandeisU 4 rescinding honorary degree 2 Ayaan Hirsi Ali. U have restored integrity of your institution;” and she thanked the university’s president: “Thank you @PresidentFred for making the right choice today and rescinding honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. We are all very grateful.”




Isn’t it deeply ironic that CUNY would so strongly defend its decision to honor Sarsour who celebrated so enthusiastically when she and other activists succeeded in denying a similar honor to Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Sarsour’s “#MuslimRage” was apparently not diminished by the fact that Hirsi Ali established a foundation that has been working since 2007 “to end honor violence [including Female Genital Mutilation] that shames, hurts or kills thousands of women and girls in the US each year, and puts millions more at risk;” the foundation also promotes “the belief that there is no culture, tradition or religion that justifies violence against women and girls.”

But very different from Hirsi Ali, Sarsour is eager to defend the conservative traditions of Muslim societies, even when they are clearly harmful to women. Sarsour has asserted that “shariah law is reasonable,” ignoring the widespread and well-documented human rights abuses committed in Muslim majority states in the name of sharia. Sarsour has even gone so far as to praise Saudi Arabia – where women are completely dependent on the whims of their male guardians: “10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

Since Sarsour often emphasizes her Palestinian Muslim identity, it is also interesting to note how Palestinians view sharia. As documented in a Pew survey from 2013, 89% of Palestinians want sharia law; 66% endorse the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion; 76% support mutilation as a punishment for theft, and a shocking 84% want adulterers stoned to death. The survey also shows that less than half (about 45%) of Palestinian Muslims reject so-called “honor killings” as never justified, and 87% insist that a wife must always obey her husband.

Given that CUNY has explicitly stated that they want to honor Sarsour as a “leader on women’s issues,” it is also noteworthy that she has repeatedly defended arranged marriages like her own, in which her parents married her off at the age of 17. In late 2007, Sarsour told Al Arabiya News: “Every year, we see more than a hundred arranged marriages in our community alone […] In our community […] you not only have to find a spouse who is Arab and Muslim; that person also needs to be Palestinian and from the same village as you.” According to the reporter, “Women like Linda accept being set-up because they don’t really believe in ‘love story weddings’.” And as Sarsour reportedly added to explain the benefits of arranged marriages: “If I fight with my husband, I can always run to my father because he is the one who chose him for me.”

But Sarsour has also defended the practice recently: in an interview with the Mecca Post on March 8, 2017, which begins with a related question, Sarsour answered by asserting: “I feel I have become mature much earlier in life than may be other sisters who are still in high school or in college.”
Well, maybe CUNY should start a “Sarsour Program for Arranged Marriages” to benefit female students in their last year of high school?

The Mecca Post interview with Sarsour includes also plenty of other interesting material. She dismisses her critics as “right wing supremacists” who “engaged in alternative facts and false accusations” and asserts that “there really is nothing that they said that really is true.” She also confidently claims Jesus was “a Palestinian Jewish refugee” who is “very co-essential to us Muslims” but misunderstood by many “who call themselves Christians.” She then proceeds to press Islam’s founder into the service of her agenda, breathlessly describing Muhammad as her “inspiration”:

“he was an activist he was a human rights activist, he stood up for the poor, he wanted to stand up against tyrants and oppressors, he loved animals he loved earth and taking care of the earth, he talked about environmental justice […] He talked about racial justice, and uplifting people regardless of what colour their skin was. […] I also think about Islamophobia now, the man who experienced the most Islamophobia they did not call it Islamophobia 1400 years ago was our beloved Prophet (SAW).”

One really is left to wonder if Sarsour is too naïve to realize that if she transforms Islam’s founder into a 21st century social justice warrior, she ultimately legitimizes those who employ the norms of our time to denounce him for his marriage to an underage girl (which was then common and unfortunately remains accepted in some countries); similarly, by the standards of our time, the supremely successful warlord, who founded not just a faith, but also an empire, committed numerous atrocities.

But when it comes to anything that has to do with Islam, Sarsour is an ardent advocate of double standards. She will denounce Hirsi Ali as a “hatemonger” while uncritically embracing a group like the Nation of Islam (NOI), which, according to the the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “has maintained a consistent record of anti-Semitism and racism since its founding in the 1930s.” The ADL considers veteran NOI leader Louis Farrakhan as “the leading anti-Semite in America;” the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) provided a similarly unequivocal condemnation, denouncing “the deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric” of Farrakhan and other NOI leaders, whose conduct “earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of organized hate.”

Yet, in 2012, Sarsour embraced the NOI as “an integral part” of “the history of Islam in America,” emphasizing that “Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Nation of Islam - we are #Muslim, we are all part of one ummah, one family. #Islam.” Two years later, Sarsour insisted that it was not possible to “learn or teach about the history of Islam in America without talking about the Nation of Islam (NOI).”



As I have recently documented, Sarsour joined two other leading activists at a major rally organized by Farrakhan and his associates in 2015, where she delivered a strident speech that echoed Farrakhan’s antisemitic efforts to blame Jews for problems and hardships experienced by African-Americans. Sarsour also seems to share some of Farrakhan’s bigoted views on the malignant Jewish influence in America, even though she often claims that she firmly opposes antisemitism. In this context it is important to realize that Sarsour apparently does not accept common definitions of antisemitism and has instead endorsed (#73) the truly Orwellian re-definition that veteran anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah published in fall 2012, reflecting his preposterous view that Zionism is “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism in existence today” and that support for Zionism “is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”

Perhaps CUNY doesn’t care much about Sarsour’s pronounced hostility to the world’s only Jewish state, but one would think they should care about this scene which happened in New York and was witnessed by Michael D. Cohen of the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

“Last September, I stood along with many of my colleagues at a New York City Council Public Hearing on that body’s resolution to officially condemn the BDS movement — a hearing at which all those in favor, including myself, were shouted down as “Jewish pigs” and “Zionist filth” from provocateurs strategically placed in the audience. It was Linda Sarsour who was at the forefront — manipulating the camera shots and sound bites. It was Linda Sarsour who sat for hours listening with great satisfaction to the libelous rants and screamed obscenities alleging that Israelis murder Palestinian babies. It was Sarsour who nodded approvingly and congratulated individuals who were kicked out of the hearing room for being out of order, for walking in front of individuals providing testimony in support of the resolution, and for shouting down our supporters with anti-Semitic slurs — all in the name of protecting free speech.”


So much more material could be cited to show how little Sarsour deserves to be held up as a role model for graduates of a respected American university, but let me just conclude with this: when Sarsour addresses her audience at the commencement ceremony of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy and says she is honored to do so, remember that she also recently said she was “honored” to share a stage with convicted terrorist murderer and confessed US immigration fraudster Rasmea Odeh.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive