Celebs Who Remind The World 'Jews Aren’t So Easy To F–k With Anymore'
In today’s era of hatred against the State of Israel becoming increasingly mainstream, there still remain those celebrities who speak truth to power.Type B Holocaust denial is the one to fear
This week, rock-star David Draiman noted he was removing his Twitter account after constant harassment from “unpleasant, anti-Semitic 'internet trolls.” Draiman went on to note that,
The mainstream media's biased, libelous, and often erroneous portrayal of Israel in the current conflict has fuelled a wave of anti-Semitism, the likes of which I have not witnessed in my lifetime. Well done [news networks], you've set the stage for a new holocaust.
Draiman – himself the son of Holocaust survivors – continued:
Maybe you'd be happy/satisfied when the extremist nutbags you defend so much, who eagerly martyr their own children. Who chant for the death of all Jews, not just the Israeli's, and who's ethics, morals, & values stand diametrically opposed to your own liberal views of freedom of religion, gay marriage, pro-choice, and even democracy itself, strip the region of the only bastion of true liberty that exists in the region. Well guess what? Never again. Jews aren't so easy to f–k with anymore."
In that case here is another Type A preacher who’ll never mark Holocaust Remembrance Day. Ali Khamenei, ultimate ruler of Iran, speaks with more finesse, but he and the cleric of Jeddah belong together. "Observe that no one in Europe dares to speak about the Holocaust even though it's not clear what the reality is about it, whether it even has a reality, or how it may have happened."Flaw In U.S. Policy: Even PLO Recognizes Israel’s Right To West Jerusalem
What is it about Type A deniers that turns one off? Surely they’re too blunt. “Over-the-top” some might say. They’re good for a titter – unless you’re a Noam Chomsky or a Norman Finkelstein, or even a Harold Pinter, who all flirt with crude deniers. We rank and file people, on the other hand, like being pitched in subtle and flattering terms: Eve’s serpent would have a good chance. We’d pay more attention to a feeling or a noble voice -- to a voice like that of David Ward, a British MP.
“I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians …on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza… The suffering by the Jews has not transformed their views on how others should be treated."
Ward is a Type B denier. For clarity sake he shall not go alone. What better companion for Mr. Ward MP than a fellow denier in a suit. Here is Andrew Wilkie of Nuffield College, Oxford. “I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians.”
Attend closely. Type B deniers are sly. Observe how Ward and Wilkie contrive to kill two birds in one foul shot. A) They demonize Israel – “atrocities and gross abuses on Palestinians”; B) they downplay the Holocaust – “persecution and treatment.” After all, lots of people in the world are persecuted and treated appallingly. Yet many live to tell the tale. Persecution and treatment are worlds away from genocide, the methodical mass extermination of six million Jews, not sparing the newborn. Notice further how victimhood is shifted. Jews don’t suffer atrocities, they commit them. We’re invited to think that Nazi Germany treated Jews like third-class citizens: denied them rights and opportunities; deprived them of the basics; imprisoned them without trial; worked them for long hours at low pay; subjected them to curfews and check points; left Jews to cope with cramped conditions and bad food; locked up or eliminated troublemakers. ‘Treatment’ and ‘persecution’ -- even when appalling or unbelievable -- convey no hint of Holocaust elements. Type B deniers don’t want us to think of Jews worked to death; exterminated by factory methods; mowed down village by village, town by town; slaughtered in fits of fury.
The U.S. position on Jerusalem also contradicts the Obama White House’s own controversial stance on the peace process. The White House has endorsed a Palestinian demand that the 1948-1967 cease-fire line that separated sovereign Israeli territory from the Jordanian-occupied West Bank and “East Jerusalem” should serve as the presumptive border of a new Palestinian state in all negotiations, with Palestine acquiring sovereignty over all the territory illegally occupied by Jordan, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. But when it comes to Israel and Jerusalem, says the White House, the cease-fire line should be forgotten and presumptive Israeli sovereignty should be erased.
Historically, the anti-Israel position of the U.S. on Jerusalem developed without any connection to the Israel-PLO peace negotiations that began in 1993. The U.S. never recognized Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, even in 1948, when Israel’s War of Independence left parts of Jerusalem in Israeli hands. When Israel declared Jerusalem (“West Jerusalem”) its capital in 1949, the U.S. refused to recognize it, even though international law makes states the sole determinants of their own capital. Indeed, for decades the U.S. lobbied foreign countries to move their embassies out of Jerusalem. To this day, the U.S. embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv, notwithstanding a law mandating the embassy’s move to Jerusalem.
As time has passed, U.S. hostility on Jerusalem has remained constant, while the excuses for the hostility have changed.
Defenders of the U.S. policy on Jerusalem like the fact that it gives the PLO a veto on Israeli rights pending a peace deal. But a more honest appraisal shows that the policy allows bureaucratic opponents of the Jewish state to harm U.S. credibility and foreign policy interests.