Friday, May 13, 2016

From Ian:

Anti-Semitism Is Not Like Other Forms of Prejudice
Reviewing an exhibit on anti-Semitism between the world wars at the New-York Historical Society, and another at the Center for Jewish History on the Nazis’ despoliation of Jewish property in Berlin, Edward Rothstein considers what makes hatred of Jews different from other hatreds:
Nazi analogies are too regularly invoked to simplify argument; and anti-Semitism is too often generalized, treated as another variety of racism. [But] I am struck by how singular anti-Semitism is, how cunning the Nazi use of it was, and how different it is from racism, with which it is often confused.
Of course, the Nazis calculatedly turned Judaism into a racial matter. . . . But if race can be an element of anti-Semitism, it is not the main point. For the Nazis it was an indicator of connection and collusion. Is there any other form of group hatred so preoccupied with conspiracy? The Jew, in this view, has hidden powers. The Jew is capable of imposing the Versailles treaty, devaluing currency, and manipulating commerce. . . .
These beliefs might seem beyond contemporary imagining. Yet today similar assertions have attached themselves to Israel—a Jew among nations. Arab media regularly invoke Nazi caricatures and references. Recently, the former mayor of London Ken Livingstone also suggested that Zionism and Nazism shared support from Hitler—adding to a string of comments by Labor leaders caricaturing Israel as uniquely satanic.
But there is no need to look so far afield. At Oberlin College, . . . [a] professor . . . accused “Rothschild-led banksters” of “implementing the World War III option” by shooting down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine; and she attacked Jews and the Mossad for funding Islamic State. Such accusations are taken from Der Stürmer’s play book. . . . The Oberlin professor, unrepentant, has treated accusations of anti-Semitism as attempts to silence her by the very conspiracy she was drawing attention to.
Clearly, the virus thrives. No exaggerated Nazi analogies are needed to reveal the similarities.
Why Political Prisoners Matter
Today, May 12, marks the 40th anniversary of the Moscow Helsinki Group, a human rights organization created to monitor the Soviet Union’s compliance with the Helsinki Accords. In marking this milestone we can do no better than to remind ourselves and the world of the group’s ongoing relevance to those fighting for human rights today.
At the time of their signing, the Helsinki Accords met with quite a bit of skepticism among Western politicians about their likely effect on Soviet behavior. For dissidents, on the other hand, the reaction went beyond skepticism: To us, the agreement represented a clear betrayal by Western powers, who had given Moscow everything it wanted in exchange for empty promises. Since the end of World War II, the Soviet Union had wanted the world to recognize the Baltic Republics, which it had obtained from Hitler, as its own; the Helsinki Accords made this a reality. For years the Soviet Union had wanted Eastern Europe to remain as its protectorate; the Helsinki signatories agreed. And despite these imperialistic policies, the Soviet Union wanted economic cooperation with the West; once again, its negotiating partners gave in.
The aim of the accords was to improve relations between the Communist bloc and Western countries, and to that end it established terms of cooperation between the signatories on various political and economic matters. Yet its provisions were non-binding, and the so-called “third basket” in particular—which obliged parties to respect their citizens’ basic rights—promised to become part of yet another never-ending debate between Soviets and the West about the relativity of their respective values.
It was clear to us dissidents that there was little point in trying to convince the Soviet Union to accept an international standard for human rights, let alone abide by one. Our goal was instead to press Western governments to take Soviet rights abuses seriously.
For this, what was needed most of all was a shared understanding among the agreement’s Western signatories of what constituted a violation.
Melanie Phillips: From zero to hero in Londonistan
Those wondering whether Britain now “gets it” about the threat from Islamic extremism or whether it is still a weak link in the West’s defense chain would do well to look at the election last week of Sadiq Khan as London’s mayor.
During the campaign, several people from the Prime Minister David Cameron downward expressed anxiety about Khan’s past associations with Islamists. Britain’s defense secretary, Michael Fallon, suggested that London would be in more danger from extremists if Khan was in charge (a claim he later softened under pressure).
A strange thing then happened. Khan’s election ricocheted the new mayor and former Labour MP from zero to hero. Those who expressed extremism concerns have been denounced as racists (their attackers appear to think Islam is a race, but let’s put that to one side).
To a Labour Party utterly frantic over its calamitously inept, ultra-leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn, Khan became overnight the man of the moment for winning power and doing so by attacking Corbyn from the Right.
No matter that Khan did this in a ruthless maneuver to neutralize the fact that he had actually nominated Corbyn for Labour leader. There’s now even excited talk that Khan could become leader himself.
Journalist Ibrahim Issa: Londoners Elected a Muslim Mayor, But No Christian Governor in Egypt


  • Friday, May 13, 2016
  • Elder of Ziyon
From the Louwman Museum in the Hague:



More information about Josef Ganz is here.

The New York Times had the story in 2012 based on a book that was published on Ganz's life:
The story of Josef Ganz is the result of more than five years of research by Paul Schilperoord, a Dutch technology journalist who is studying industrial design in Italy. The trove of documents and photographs he assembled form the basis of “The Extraordinary Life of Josef Ganz: The Jewish Engineer Behind Hitler’s Volkswagen” (RVP Publishers, 2011).

The book provides a picture of the automotive culture in Germany between the wars, with many small, struggling companies. Published in English for the first time in November, the work had previously been available in Dutch, Portuguese and German.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Schilperoord addressed the book’s challenge to the standard history — that Hitler hired Ferdinand Porsche, who was known as one of Germany’s most successful automobile engineers from his work on military vehicles during World War I, to design and build his Strength Through Joy car. The Strength Through Joy movement was a Nazi enterprise that organized worker recreation programs, sponsoring sports and vacations.

Mr. Schilperoord said that before World War II the word Volkswagen was so common as to be a cliché. “People’s car” in Germany in the 1930s was like “personal computer” in the United States in the 1980s. Inspired by Henry Ford, many young engineers sought to build transportation for the many.

Ganz was one. Ganz wrote for the magazine Motor-Kritik, which faulted German cars as antiquated and often unsafe, while he also consulted on engineering matters for automakers. He held a number of patents for suspension, steering and other systems.

Ganz advocated a people’s car with an air-cooled engine placed at the rear, based on a backbone-type frame and using independent suspension at both ends. He was a friend of Paul Jaray, an aeronautical pioneer, and pushed for Jaray’s streamlined body designs whose shape resembled what is now known as the Beetle.

Ganz promoted these ideas as a journalist. As part of the press gaggle covering the new chancellor’s visit, Mr. Schilperoord said, “He probably stood a few meters from Hitler at the 1933 Berlin auto show.”

But little more than a year later, according to Mr. Schilperoord, Ganz was arrested by the Gestapo, removed from his magazine job because he was Jewish and driven from the country. Ganz felt his life was in danger in Germany and Switzerland, where he settled.
(h/t and photos by El Sid)


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, May 13, 2016
  • Elder of Ziyon


From a new poll by An Najah University in Nablus:

Do you support or reject the creation of a confederation with Jordan on the basis of two independent states with strong institutional relations?


Total

West Bank
Gaza Strip
I support
42.3
52.6
24.4
I reject
39.3
39.9
38.4
No opinion/I do not know
18.4
7.5
37.2
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0

Yes, it says "two independent states" but it sure seems like this might be a possible direction for peace one day down the line.

The poll is also notable for what it didn't ask:

 Do you support or reject the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders as a final solution for the Palestinian cause?


Total

West Bank
Gaza Strip
Yes
43.7
44.8
41.8
No
51.6
52.0
50.8
No opinion/I do not know
4.7
3.1
7.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0

 Do you support or reject the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with some land exchange as a final solution for the Palestinian cause?

Total

West Bank
Gaza Strip
Yes
23.1
27.1
16.2
No
72.3
68.4
79.2
No opinion/I do not know
4.5
4.5
4.6
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0

Do you support or reject the creation of a binational state for both Arabs and Jews as a final solution for the Palestinian cause?

Total

West Bank
Gaza Strip
Yes
19.5
23.3
13.0
No
76.2
73.7
80.6
No opinion/I do not know
4.3
3.0
6.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0


If they would have asked "Do you support or reject the creation of a Palestinian state from the river to the sea as a final solution for the Palestinian cause?" the numbers would have been much higher.

These questions were also instructive:

Do think that some of the measures that the Palestinian security apparatuses execute have reduced the attacks against Israeli targets?

Total

West Bank
Gaza Strip
Yes
57.6
59.1
55.0
No
31.0
32.3
28.6
No opinion/I do not know
11.4
8.6
16.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0

Do you support or reject the measures that the Palestinian security apparatuses impose to curb the operations of the Palestinian youth against Israeli targets?

Total

West Bank
Gaza Strip
I support
28.9
37.7
13.8
I reject
62.7
55.4
75.2
No opinion/I do not know
8.4
7.0
11.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0

They agree that the PA has helped clamp down on terror against Jews - and they don't like it. This is despite the fact that this poll showed a slight preference for an non-armed intifada than one that is armed. 

(h/t L. King)



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

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

Search2

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 20 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:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive