The era of self-righteous indignation - and politically correct antisemitism

As the story of classified papers being discovered in Joe Biden's private residences snowballs, it is fun to watch the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. The people who are filled with anger at Biden were nonchalant when Donald Trump was found to have done the exact same thing, and those who were in the forefront of being angry at Trump are muted now.

It is fairly obvious that neither side really believes that national secrets that jeopardize the security of the United States were revealed in either case. Both episodes are excuses to score political points, to attack and injure the hated enemy. 

The classified papers are a prop, an excuse to act morally righteous. But there is no morality involved here - if there was, then there should be an identical response to both episodes. 

How many people have responded the same in both cases? I haven't seen any. (I don't want to downplay the seriousness of either situation - the laws are there for a reason - but it seems highly unlikely that in either case there was a malicious intent.)

The partisan nature of the responses to both episodes is proof that morality isn't the driver, but smugness. It isn't righteous indignation, it is self-righteous indignation. It isn't virtuous, it is virtue signaling. It is a message to the world - my political enemy is beneath contempt while  I am morally superior. He does despicable things that my side would never do (and if it does, it is completely different.)

The self-righteous indignation allows me to hate my opponent without the opprobrium normally associated with the emotion of hate.

It occurs to me that this same psyche is the norm for anti-Zionists. They claim to be righteous; they claim to be moral, they claim that their outrage is a reflection of their pristine values. But when it comes to Israel, the posturing is not merely to feel morally superior - it is to actively attack "Israelis" (meaning, today's eternal Jews) while wearing the mantle of morality.

It is politically acceptable antisemitism.

The proof is clear to those who care to open their eyes. The people who claim to be defending Palestinian rights do nothing to help Palestinian attain those rights. These moral posers don't support peace; they justify the most heinous terror attacks against Jews, they don't say a word about Palestinians being attacked or discriminated against in other Arab countries, they were silent when Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and Iraq and Libya. Palestinian lives matter - but only when Jews can be blamed. Otherwise, they are just cannon fodder to be placed in limbo until the final battle to destroy the Jewish state. 

Antisemitism has always had a measure of self-righteousness - attacking Jews was the most principled thing anyone could do. Martin Luther told  his followers to burn synagogues and Jewish schools, calling it "sharp mercy." Hitler framed Jews as a cancerous danger to Germany that must be excised - and that philosophy became part of mainstream German medical ethics. 

Morally sanctioned hate has an almost irresistible attraction. Imagine the psychic rewards of being not only allowed to but encouraged to express and act upon your worst instincts, assured that it is for the greater good! 

Jews become the focal point of hate for everything the self-righteous find reprehensible.  Climate change? US police brutality? Ocean pollution? Domestic abuse of women? Your favorite antisemite not getting the job he wanted? Anything and everything can and has been blamed on the Jews and Israel - and always couched in moral terms.

The more vicious your attacks, the more you are elevated within your circle. That's how Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh become heroes in the West.  

Today, when more people act smugly virtuous than ever before, Jews are again the target. As they have been for centuries.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Palestinian pundit says American Jews in politics, media and banking support Israel above the US, insists he isn't antisemitic

Attorney Ibrahim Shaban writes a regular column for Al Quds and often publishes about Palestinian issues in other media. 

Today he wrote an antisemitic piece for Al Quds which was picked up by other Arab media in which he takes it for granted that American Jews have dual loyalty to Israel. 

The phenomenon of American Jews who occupy high positions in successive American administrations raises questions about their loyalty to the American state or the Israeli state. 

The matter is not a rare phenomenon that occurs occasionally, but rather a rampant phenomenon that occurs frequently, but this phenomenon is rarely addressed, for fear of being accused of anti-Semitism, mainly, and the striking Jewish force.

A simple look at the new American administration explicitly [shows this issue.] Here is the proposed new US Secretary of State (Anthony Blinken) of Jewish descent, and he will take over the Middle East issue and the Palestinian issue mainly. And here is Mr. Ron Klein, the Jew, who has been proposed to take over the position of chief of staff of the White House, which has wide powers. And here is the husband of US Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Douglas Craig Imhoff, of similar origins. And here is Alejandro Majoras as a proposal for the US Department of Homeland Security. On the proposed list is Janet Yellen, incoming Treasury Secretary, and many more.

This administration followed the path of successive US administrations that preceded it, as if the American nation had not given birth and the American womb was sterile. As if the new and old American administration had not escaped the issue of dual loyalty to American Jews, it decided to ignore it and sweep it under the rug.

This article will not be expanded to refer to all American Jews who held high positions in successive American administrations after World War II to the present day, as this indicates an inventory. The talk of Jared Kushner, Greenblatt, the Zionist Friedman and other aides of Donald Trump, is still buzzing in my ears. Before them was Dennis Ross' Jewish staff who served the days of Clinton and Obama in the late 1990s and the Camp David negotiations during the days of the late Abu Ammar and his famous position regarding the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

And here is Henry Kissinger, the American academic, deceitful Jew in the seventies, who manipulated Sadat and served Zionism with all his power in the 1973 war. There are many ambassadors, Jewish experts, and even doctors, who were recruited to serve Zionism under the banner of Judaism. Loyalty mixed, mingled, and American interest lost in the midst of dual loyalty.

Someone might say, the Jews are a cultured, liberal, educated and democratic group, so why is this strange, envy and jealousy of their appointment in the American administrations? Or do Muslims, Catholics, Hindus and Brahmins not enjoy such opportunities, and no one is surprised? Didn't Ilhan Omar of Somali origin and Rashida Talib of Palestinian origin succeed in the US congressional elections? Didn't people of Asian roots succeed in the US Congress? Wasn't Rima Dudin appointed to the legislative department in the White House in the incoming Biden administration? Absolutely, it is true, but the two matters are completely different.

There is no dispute that the Jewish community, regardless of its political leanings, holds high positions in the American community, in European society and outside official administrations. Many of the most prominent American lawyers are Jews, and among the most prominent American jurists are Jews, and law school graduates are Jews. Many of the owners of capital are Jews, and many of the print, audiovisual media are Jewish, and many university professors in the various colleges are Jews. But the Jews are not the same, some of them are liberal, some of them socialist, some of them are communists, and some of them are religious extremists, and some of them are secular and so on. Consequently, their positions are different on the issues at hand, but they converge greatly if the issue relates to Israel, its policies, and the Palestinians. Here emerges the issue of dual loyalty to America and Israel, and the extent of the attraction of the conflict around it.

The Jews occupy high positions and even participate in the American decision-making.  As for the [Muslim] names mentioned, they do not play a role at all in American politics, neither from near or far, in addition to the absence of a Palestinian Arab lobby that affects American policy. Even the Palestinian daughter of Dudin, whose work is secondary and far from creating American policy, and so is the Palestinian Rashida Tlaib. Add to that the fact the Jew has a state whose interests intersect with the interests of the United States of America and thus creates for him a problem of conflict of interests. Perhaps the case of the American spy Jonathan Pollard is still fresh in minds.

This happened in the recent past during the Camp David meeting at the end of the term of Democratic US President Clinton. Dennis Ross, the American Jew, vehemently objected to the position of the late Saeb Erekat regarding the alleged Temple. And President Clinton began to complain and incite against this basic Palestinian doctrinal, realistic, historical, and religious position and support Dennis Ross and the Protestant Christian mentality in general. Ross even asked Clinton to reference a book from the White House library that supported the details of the alleged temple. It is as though the American Jew will support the Israeli proposal in the end, even if it contradicts the American interest; rather he will prevail over it, even though he must basically prevail over the American interest and achieve international peace and security.

....Can we protest against the appointment of an American Jewish cabinet member, refuse to meet with him, or  boycott him, because of conflict of interest and double allegiance? An American Jew, whose Jewishness means he holds Israeli citizenship completely under Israeli law, also holds an American passport at the same time. Is this not only a contradiction, but a contradiction that must be avoided?

Neutrality, objectivity, and independence are conditions that must be met in every honest broker, so how can these conditions be fulfilled in a Jewish-American diplomat who is Israeli by default, even if he is a liberal or leftist? Or do these conditions apply to all peoples of the world except the Jews ?!

This is not anti-Semitism, but rather sheds light on the issue of conflict of interest, and the supposed dual loyalty of American Jews, regardless of their inclinations, and turning a blind eye to conflicts of interest.

One cannot serve two masters nor gather two swords in one sheath !!

One thing is certain: No Palestinian will publicly object to this antisemitism.

And it is articles like these that motivate anti-Zionist American Jews - leftists that Shaban throws into the same dual loyalty bucket -  to redouble their efforts to prove that they aren't like those other Jews, that Palestinians should love them because they are moral and pro-Palestinian and support terrorists like Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh and boycott Israel even more than Palestinians do.

---

---

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.

Read More

When The Media Extols Evil: Hitler, Farrakhan and Ahlam Tamimi (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On October 17, Natalie Hopkinson -- an associate professor at Howard University -- wrote a glowing opinion piece in The New York Times on antisemite Louis Farrakhan. Entitled The Women Behind the Million Man March, the article recounts the role played by Cora Masters Barry, wife of then DC Mayor Marion Barry, in mobilizing the women who played a significant role in the success of the march.

Hopkinson notes that

A key supporter of the event was Marion Barry, who had just returned to the Washington mayor’s office after a stint in federal prison. [emphasis added]

Nothing, however, is mentioned of Farrakhan's Jew-hatred and homophobia.

As Bari Weiss put it

If you read the oped and knew nothing about Farrakhan, you would think he was a gentleman.

When criticism was made of this whitewash of Farrakhan, Hopkinson responded by reminding her critics that she is a 'scholar':

But Hopkinson was just warming up, falling back on Black oppression and negating the oppression of others:

Rafael Medoff, the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, compares Hopkinson's depiction of Farrakhan with the New York Times interview that Anne O'Hare McCormick did in 1933, Hitler Seeks Jobs for All Germans.

Medoff points out that Hitler did not waste any time persecuting Germany's Jews once he took office:

During Hitler’s first months in power, there was extensive coverage in the American press of his anti-Jewish policies, such as the mass firing of Jews from their jobs, public burnings of books by Jewish authors, and sporadic anti-Semitic mob violence. To counter this negative attention, Hitler in July 1933 granted Anne O’Hare McCormick of the New York Times his first exclusive interview with an American reporter since becoming chancellor of Germany.

To her credit, McCormick did in fact take the opportunity to ask about Germany's treatment of its Jews -- but did not follow up when her subject replied:

"It is true we have made discriminatory laws, but they are directed not so much against the Jews as for the German people, to give equal economic opportunity to the majority.

"You say the Jews suffer, but so do millions of others. Why should not the Jews share the privations which burden the entire nation?

According to Medoff, unlike Hopkinson's devotion to Farrakhan, there is no indication that McCormick was actually sympathetic to her subject and his views.

But the fact remains that in both cases, favorable pieces in The New York Times contributed to positive images for their subjects -- and only McCormick bothered to attempt a balanced article.

These days, whitewashing hate -- especially hatred of Jews -- seems to be in style.

This month, Jordan deported terrorist Nizar Tamimi, husband of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind of the Sbarro massacre. He is now in Qatar. Meanwhile, Ahlam Tamimi, whom Jordan has refused to extradite to the US despite their extradition treaty, risks the possibility of being apprehended and being turned over to the US if she leaves to join her husband.

What is a terrorist to do?

You turn to the media -- in this case, the always obliging BBC, whose program 'Trending' featured a whitewashing of the terrorist couple by BBC Arabic’s Rania ‘Attar:

Not once during the entire 6 minutes of broadcast could one detect the slightest hint of criticism towards either of the two from BBC Arabic. The social media solidarity campaign supporting them was uncritically portrayed as a matter of freedom of speech for the weak and persecuted. No less notable were the selective omissions from the couple’s violent history: the programme referred to Ahlam as though she was merely “accused of involvement” in the Jerusalem bombing (despite her own public admission of the crime) and failed to mention the reason for Nizar’s imprisonment at all.

The programme, entitled “#Jordan: Ahlam_Tamimi_Your_Voice_is_Loud_and_Clear”, was hosted by BBC Arabic’s Rania ‘Attar; one of Trending’s regular presenters. Describing the Tamimis as “freed detainees from Israeli prisons”, ‘Attar told her audience how the two met in the halls of an Israeli military court, got engaged while in prison and married once they were both released in the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, against a background of sentimental pictures of their newfound life in Amman, Jordan.

The BBC host continued with the latest developments in the couple’s story, explaining that Jordan had not renewed “detainee” Nizar’s permit to reside in the kingdom with his wife (herself a Jordanian citizen), resulting in his expulsion to Qatar earlier this month. She then quoted Nizar’s brother Mahmoud who claimed that the decision to expel the husband was related to the American extradition request currently pending against his wife and that the family considers it an indirect Jordanian acquiescence to American dictates.

Next it was explained what had triggered the social media campaign which gave the programme its hashtag-style name. Last Tuesday a radio host was supposedly documented censoring Tamimi as she was on air, making her plea to King ‘Abdullah II to let her husband back into Jordan. The Jordanian-Palestinian solidarity campaign which followed used the hashtag “#Ahlam_Tamimi_Your_Voice_is_Loud_and_Clear”. Among the many comments shown, ‘Attar featured those that praised Tamimi as a woman “of great value” and “honour”, whose story should be heard by “everyone”.

The host concluded the programme with a full, uncensored video of Ahlam Tamimi addressing the King for a second time. Only afterwards were viewers made aware of what ‘Attar referred to as “the main landmarks of Ahlam’s life”, with the following statements being used to elaborate on her terrorist activity:

“First woman to join al-Qassam battalions, Hamas’s military wing […]

“She was accused of involvement in the ‘Sbarro’ restaurant bombing in Jerusalem […]

“In 2013, American Department of Justice ranked her on the list of ‘most dangerous wanted terrorists’, under the accusation of conspiring to kill Americans in the ‘Sbarro’ restaurant bombing in Jerusalem”

While the program was first broadcast on October 8th, protests against the program finally led to its being removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on October 16th and from the BBC Arabic website itself on October 19th.

A BBC spokesperson later told The Jewish News:

Following an editorial review we found that this segment was in breach of our editorial guidelines and we removed the clip from our digital platforms last week. We accept that the segment should not have been shown and apologise for the offence caused.

This example of BBC moral deafness is matched only by Sarah Montague, the presenter of BBC’s Radio 4 Today program. Back on August 12, 2001, Montague called Arnold Roth -- whose daughter was one of Tamimi's victims. The family was sitting Shiva.

Montague asked whether Roth would be willing to come onto Radio 4 Today by phone the following morning to be in a two-sided interview with a man called al-Masri, the father of the human bomb [who carried out the Sbarro massacre]. This would enable the audience to hear “the two sides” of the atrocity. [emphasis added]

Two sides?

Only if you believe that a terrorist who targets children in a pizzeria is another man's freedom fighter.

But how about if you just hijack airplanes?

On August 29, 1969, Leila Khaled was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the terrorist group that hijacked TWA Flight 840 from Rome to Tel Aviv, diverting it to Damascus.

On September 6, 1970, Leila Khaled and an accomplice, attempted to hijack El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York City as part of a series of almost simultaneous hijackings carried out by the PFLP:

Soon after takeoff, [pilot Uri] Bar-Lev and his co-pilot got word that two terrorists were hijacking the plane. They had shot and gravely wounded an El Al flight attendant and had put a gun to the head of another, demanding to be let into the cockpit, which Bar-Lev had immediately locked.

Bar-Lev saved the passengers by putting the plane into a steep dive. Khaled was captured -- and later released by Great Britain in a hostage exchange.

Fast-forward to 2020.

On September 23, Leila Khaled was scheduled to give a talk at San Francisco State University, entitled “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance.” Khaled was helpfully described as a "Palestinian feminist, militant and leader."

In the end, the talk was stopped by Zoom and Facebook, right at the point where Khaled said "people have the right to fight those who occupy their land by any means possible, including weapons," and despite multiple attempts to hold the talk online since then, so far it has continued to be (mostly) blocked.

Associate professor Rabab Abdulhadi, director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative (AMED) was to be the moderator -- and at this point, Abdulhadi's comments defending having a terrorist speak to the students is predictable:

Abdulhadi claimed the outrage over her invitation to Khaled was manufactured by the "Israel Lobby Industry," and said opposition to her was "catering to donors, catering to the right-wing agenda and catering to Islamophobia." Abdulhadi doubled down on her comments later on in the video, stating that the university president "only talked to Zionists, only talked to one brand."

"The university is participating in a very discriminatory, racist, defamatory, smearing campaign by the Zionist bullies and their right-wing, neoliberal and wealthy allies," Abdulhadi said. She also claimed the talk with Khaled was only canceled because of the university's desire to retain wealthy Jewish donors, alleging the school's president told donors she would "crush the Palestinians" and "crush AMED studies."

The reason for the opposition to giving a podium to a terrorist is stated in a September 17 letter from 86 organizations, a letter Abdulhadi avoids addressing:

We fully acknowledge that faculty members like Prof. Abdulhadi have every right, as private citizens, to express anti-Zionist views and engage in anti-Zionist activism. However, we believe Abdulhadi's continuous and intentional use of her SFSU position and the name and resources of the University to indoctrinate students with her own personal animus towards the Jewish state and its supporters and to promote anti-Israel activism, does not constitute a legitimate use of academic freedom, but an abuse of it.

The full letter points to a few of Abdulhadi's AMED activities, such as:

In 2013, AMED co-sponsored an on-campus event that involved students using stencils to create placards and T-shirts with the image of a keffiyeh-clad Leila Khaled holding an AK-47 rifle accompanied by the message, “Resistance is Not Terrorism,” and other stencils with the message, “My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers.” In the wake of public outrage over the event’s unambiguous lionizing of a convicted terrorist and promotion of terrorism against Israel, Prof. Abdulhadi defended the event as a legitimate use of academic freedom. [emphasis added]

The BBC's fawning coverage of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi and Abdulhadi's manipulation of terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled as a resistant icon is reminiscent of the episode of Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted in 1970 and imprisoned in Israel for 10 years for the supermarket bombing in Jerusalem which killed 2 Hebrew University students --  Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner. 

Odeh later lied about her conviction when she entered the US and was eventually convicted of immigration fraud and deported from the US -- but not before she became a cause celebre and described by The Rasmea Defense Committee as an “icon of the Palestine liberation movement.”

It is one thing to give Hitler a pass, or to whitewash Farrakhan -- but in the case of Ahlam Tamimi, BBC Arabic deliberately hid facts from its audience, such as Tamimi's pride when she actually admitted to the murder of innocent schoolchildren.

 And in the cases of Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh, there is an attempt to go a step further and to not only use terrorists to energize protest against Israel but also use their public appearances to encourage outright hatred.

Taken in the context of the increase in antisemitic rhetoric from within the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the rise in the number of antisemitic attacks by radicals on both the right and the left, Jews will continue to be a target in the US.

---

---

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.

Read More

Female terrorists are so progressive!

San Francisco State University will be hosting a Zoom event called “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice and Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled,” on September 23.

Leila Khaled, of course, is the PFLP terrorist who hijacked planes in 1969 and 1970. Her image with a machine gun is ubiquitous at lots of leftist rallies.

The PFLP, which she is still involved with, was behind the murder of 17-year old Rina Shnerb last year. 

But no progressive groups march with photos of Rina Shnerb. They fetishize female terrorists, not female Jewish victims of terror.

Khaled is not the only heroine of the progressive crowd. They love Rasmea Odeh, responsible for the murder of two people. Also a PFLP member, Odeh has admitted that she was involved in bombing attacks against civilians.  and fought to have photo-ops with her before she was deported from the US.

Odeh, a violent terrorist, was treated like a rock star by the supposedly anti-violent BDSers.

Palestinian "moderates" have been the originators of this mindset where female terrorists are role models. The Miftah NGO, which is headed by Hanan Ashrawi and is in the forefront of Palestinian feminism, has multiple articles in Arabic that praise female suicide bombers as role models - and they had English articles praising female suicide bombers as well before I exposed them.

Palestinian women have also participated in the resistance. As the conflict grew more intense and young men were recruited to carry out military operations against Israeli targets, several young women also decided to join the ranks of the resistance movement. In January 2002, 28-year-old nurse Wafa Idrees, detonated a bomb in Jerusalem’s Jaffa Street, killing one Israeli and injuring 150 others. She was also killed in the blast.

This marked the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause. Over the next two years, seven other women carried out similar operations, the most deadly of which was carried out by Hanadi Jaradat, a 29-year-old attorney from Jenin. Hanadi detonated explosives strapped to her body in a busy Haifa restaurant, killing 19 Israelis and injuring 50 others.

The "moderate" PLO has become a cult of sorts for Dalal Mughrabi, responsible for murdering 38 civilians. Numerous institutions are named after her and her likeness can be seen all over Palestinian towns. 

And "moderate" Jordan has been sheltering another celebrity female terrorist, Ahlam Tamimi, who murdered 15 civilians including seven children. 

It appears that the "progressive" Left in the West has embraced the idea of female terrorists as role models. It is this immoral and disgusting thinking that is behind a university effectively honoring a terrorist as if she can teach students something about life, and behind prominent American and European progressives literally embracing a murderer.

---

---

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.

Read More

You Just Might Be An Antisemite If....

If the Star of David on Israel's flag upsets you but the crescent, crosses and other religious symbols on more than 60 other flags doesn't bother you, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that the Palestinian Arabs, who never thought of themselves as a nation until the mid-20th century, have more of a claim to nationhood than Jews who have been a nation for 3000 years, you just might be an antisemite.

If you deny that the Jewish people are a nation altogether, you just might be an antisemite.

If the idea of a Jewish state feels vaguely racist to you but the idea of an Arab or Muslim state doesn't, you might be an antisemite.

If Israel is the only nation you ever call an "apartheid state," you just might be an antisemite.

If you get a thrill comparing Israelis to Nazis, you just might  be an antisemite.

If you think "Zionists" control Congress, or the banks, or Hollywood, you just might  be an antisemite.

If you believe that it is a moral duty to boycott Israeli Jews but not Israeli Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that Ashkenazic Jews are descended from Khazars and have no Middle East ancestry, you just might be an antisemite.

If you ever claimed Israel steals organs from Palestinians, you just might  be an antisemite.

If you think Israel is behind the coronavirus, you just might be an antisemite.

If you aren't Muslim but refer to Jewish shrines like the Temple Mount, Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs by their Muslim names that came centuries later,  you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that Israel poisons Palestinian wells, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that Israel intends to take over all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, you just might be an antisemite.

If you cannot to bring yourself to write the word Israel without scare quotes,  you just might be an antisemite.

If you want to see the only Jewish state replaced with another Arab state, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim to be pro-Palestinian but ignore how Palestinians have been and continue to be treated by Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you say you are against occupation but never said a word about any occupation that cannot be blamed on Israel you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that Israel does moral things to cover up for immoral crimes, you just might be an antisemite.

If Jews must pass a test of being anti-Israel for you to allow them to speak publicly, you just might be an antisemite.

If you've ever called someone a "Zionist" as an insult, you just might be an antisemite.

If you are offended by the lyrics of Hatikva but have no problem with the Palestinian national anthem that extols violence and vengeance, you just might be an antisemite.

If you regard Leila Khaled, Rasmea Odeh and Dalal Mughrabi as feminist role models, you just might be an antisemite.

If the idea of Jews respectfully visiting their holiest spots makes you angry, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that terrorism against Jewish targets is sometimes justified, you just may be an antisemite.

If there are any parts of the world that you believe Jews should not be allowed to live, you just might be an antisemite.

---

---

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.

Read More

More proof that American "pro-Palestinian" groups really support terror

From the U.S. Palestinian Community Network:

Oakland – Activists with the Bay Area Rasmea Defense Committee have chained themselves to doors of the federal courthouse in Oakland to protest the conviction and imprisonment of 67 year-old Palestinian community organizer, Rasmea Odeh. Supporters are also rallying in front of the federal building, condemning what they call a politically motivated trial targeting Odeh because of her role as an outspoken Palestinian leader and activist. Odeh was convicted on Monday, November 10th in a Detroit federal court of knowingly lying on her immigration application, even though she maintains that she did not understand the questions on the application.

The main basis for Odeh’s conviction was that she had allegedly falsely answered “No” to a question asking whether she had ever been arrested or imprisoned. The government claimed that Odeh failed to disclose that she had been convicted by the Israeli government of participating in “terrorism,” even though this conviction in a military court lacked due process and was the result of a forced confession made after she was repeatedly tortured and raped by Israeli military authorities.

“The only reason Rasmea was imprisoned in Israel was because she was tortured, sexually assaulted, threatened with death and ultimately forced to confess to charges she didn’t commit,” says Hatem Abudayyeh, spokesman for the Rasmea Defense Committee. “Now, more than 40 years later, and after 9 years of living here with US citizenship, she’s being made to re-live her trauma and is wrongly imprisoned once again.”

As we've discussed previously, there is no question that Rasmeah Odeh planned and carried out a murderous terror attack. The same film where Rasmea claims that she was tortured is the one where her relative and fellow bomber Ayesha Odeh describes how they planned and implemented the attack, saying that Rasmeah was more involved than she was:

"Rasmeah Odeh was more involved than I was [in the grocery store bombing] ... I only got involved during the preparation of explosives. We wanted to place two bombs to blow up consecutively. I suggested to have the second bomb go off five or six minutes after the first bomb so that those who get killed in it would be members of the army and secret service, but it did not explode. They diffused it 20 seconds before it exploded."

There is no question that the many activists who pretend that Odeh is innocent are very aware of this video confession by her friend - not only a confession, but a proud confession!

Which means that these "pro-Palestinian" groups in the US really support bombing supermarkets crowded with Jewish shoppers.

(Why they decided to protest in Oakland for a conviction in Detroit is interesting in itself....)

Read More