START THE WEEK WITH A NEW TOON ~~ THE ISLAMOPHOBIC COURTROOM

Image by Carlos Latuff

Toon of the Day: Double Standards in the Application of the Law

Toon of the Day: Double Standards in the Application of the Law

#JeSuisStupidCharlie

The hate continues ….

Charlie Hebdo depicts Arab migrants as beast-like creatures that are out of control. This is racist. Plain & simple.  FROM

Charlie Hebdo depicts Arab migrants as beast-like creatures that are out of control. This is racist. Plain & simple.
FROM

#JeSuisToujoursCharlie ~~ ONE YEAR LATER IN TOONS

All images by Carlos Latuff

*

CYGsfubWQAEuHiQ

*

CYGsq4RWQAABT5P

*

CYGtMsjWQAImdMS

*

IN PHOTOS ~~ NO TO RACISM, NO TO TRUMP!

200+ people gathered at Trump Towers, Manhattan,  under the slogan “Stop Trump” and his Fascist, Racist, anti-immigrant calls in his presidential campaign

Photos © by Bud Korotzer

nt7

*

nt1

*

nt2

*

nt3

*

nt4

*

nt5

*

nt6

*

nt8

*

nt9

*

nt11

*

nt10

*

nt12

*

nt13

Video of the demo ….

#SettlersPeaceProcess ~~ KILLING MUHAMMAD IN SONG

This video shows a group of Israelis from the Kiryat Arba settlement “playing hate songs through a loud speaker to residents of the Hebron neighborhood of Jabal Johar.

Israeli settlers blast “Muhammad is dead” song at Palestinians

The song heard in the video, filmed by Mai Dana on 11 October, includes the repeated refrain “Muhammad is dead” – disparaging the prophet. Its lyrics say:

He is no prophet
Just another Arab
He has a moustache with fleas
And he eats goat cheese
He is a construction laborer
Even when he’s fasting on Ramadan
And he has an orange ID card
Muhammad is gay and the son of a prostitute.

The video shows many settlers, including young children, laughing, singing and pumping their fists as the music blasts.

The song refers to the Israeli-issued ID – which used to come in an orange-colored case – carried by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank which restricts their movements, in contrast to settlers who can go where they please.

In other words, the settler song celebrates apartheid.

At least one of the young men repeatedly shouts “whore” in Arabic in the direction of the camera.

“These antics continued in the presence of a soldier and police officers who took no action to stop them,” B’Tselem adds. “During the incident, settlers threw rocks at the neighborhood.”

The “Muhammad is dead” song is regularly chanted by Israelis during frequent “Death to the Arabs” marches.

This video illustrates the levels of open incitement and harassment against Palestinians by Israeli settlers, with the full collusion of the army of occupation.

This is especially so in Hebron, whose Palestinian population is bearing the brunt of Israel’s violent crackdown in the occupied West Bank.

At least one of the two Israeli youths arrested in the burning alive of the Dawabsha family last summer is from a Hebron-area settlement.

Kiryat Arba is also the settlement which hosts the gravesite marker honoring Baruch Goldstein, the Brooklyn settler who massacred 29 Palestinian men and boys during Ramadan prayers at Hebron’s Ibrahimi mosque in 1994.

The video also brings to mind the words of Tommy Lapid, the late former chair of Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust memorial. He likened the routine harassment of Palestinians by Israeli settlers in Hebron to the anti-Semitism of pre-World War II Europe.

“It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora bitter before they began to kill us,” he said in 2007, “but persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn.”

Dena Shunra provided translation.

These are the same animals that admit to killing Jesus

Jewish Settlers: “We killed Jesus; we’re proud of it!”

ISLAMOPHOBES CRITICAL OF TRUMP’S ANTI MUSLIM STANCE

ADL says that Trump’s declaration calling on preventing Muslims from entering the US is “deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values”; Trump tweets he will visit Israel by end of year.

Image by Carlos Latuff

Image by Carlos Latuff

 

Jewish Groups Blast Donald Trump Plan To Bar Muslims
JTA

Jewish groups blasted Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for his proposal to block all Muslims from entering the United States.

“A plan that singles out Muslims and denies them entry to the U.S. based on their religion is deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement Monday evening, hours after Trump, a real estate billionaire and reality TV star, issued his call.

“In the Jewish community, we know all too well what can happen when a particular religious group is singled out for stereotyping and scapegoating,” Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL’s CEO said. “We also know that this country must not give into fear by turning its back on its fundamental values, even at a time of great crisis.”

The American Jewish Committee’s director of policy, Jason Isaacson, noted the timing of Trump’s statement, which called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statee,” coincident with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.

“As Jews who are now observing Hanukkah, a holiday that celebrates a small religious minority’s right to live unmolested, we are deeply disturbed by the nativist racism inherent in the candidate’s latest remarks,” Isaacson said. “You don’t need to go back to the Hanukkah story to see the horrific results of religious persecution; religious stereotyping of this sort has been tried often, inevitably with disastrous results.”

Trump in his press release alluded to the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., last week of 14 people by a couple apparently radicalized by the Islamic State terrorist group.

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension,” he said.” Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Other Jewish groups condemning the comments included J Street, Bend the Arc, the National Jewish Democratic Council and JAC, a Jewish political action committee.

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller sounded a different note.

Speaking to Fox News she said she agrees with Trump’s suggestion and blasted Obama’s response to the shooting in San Bernardino.

“There is no natural right to enter the United States,” she said.

 

From New York Daily News

From New York Daily News

#BanMuslims ~~ TRUMP’S PROPOSAL IS DANGEROUS BUT NOT FAR OUTSIDE US MAINSTREAM

Given that an ISIS attack in Paris just helped fuel the sweeping election victory of an actually fascist party in France, it’s a bit mystifying how someone can be so sanguine about the likelihood of a Trump victory in the U.S. In fact, with a couple of even low-level ISIS attacks successfully carried out on American soil, it’s not at all hard to imagine. But Trump does not need to win, or even get close to winning, for his rhetoric and the movement that he’s stoking to be dangerous in the extreme.

 Image by Carlos Latuff

Image by Carlos Latuff

Donald Trump’s “Ban Muslims” Proposal Is Wildly Dangerous but Not Far Outside the US Mainstream

By Glenn Greenwald

ours after a new poll revealed that he’s trailing Ted Cruz in Iowa, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump issued a statement advocating “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what’s going on.” His spokesperson later clarified that this exclusion even includes Muslim-American citizens who are currently outside the U.S. On first glance, it seems accurate to view this, in the words of The Guardian, as “arguably the most extreme proposal to come from any U.S. presidential candidate in decades.”

Some comfortable journalists, however, quickly insisted that people were overreacting. “Before everyone gives up on the republic, remember that not even a single American has yet cast a vote for Trump,”said New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. The New York Daily News Opinion Page Editor Josh Greenman was similarly blithe: “It’s a proposal to keep Muslims out of the U.S., made in a primary, being roundly condemned. We are a long way from internment camps.”

Given that an ISIS attack in Paris just helped fuel the sweeping election victory of an actually fascist party in France, it’s a bit mystifying how someone can be so sanguine about the likelihood of a Trump victory in the U.S. In fact, with a couple of even low-level ISIS attacks successfully carried out on American soil, it’s not at all hard to imagine. But Trump does not need to win, or even get close to winning, for his rhetoric and the movement that he’s stoking to be dangerous in the extreme.

Professional political analysts have underestimated Trump’s impact by failing to take into account his massive, long-standing cultural celebrity, which commands the attention of large numbers of Americans who usually ignore politics (which happens to be the majority of the population), which in turn generates enormous, highly charged crowds pulsating with grievance and rage. That means that even if he fails to win a single state, he’s powerfully poisoning public discourse about multiple marginalized minority groups: in particular inciting and inflaming what was already volatile anti-Muslim animosity in the U.S.

As The Atlantic‘s Matt Ford put it yesterday: “The immediate danger isn’t Trump’s actual policy, but the bigotry and violence that it both legitimizes and encourages.” Muslim Americans (and, for that matter, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans) don’t have the luxury that people like Douthat and Greenman have to be so dismissive. That’s what Al Jazeera’s Sana Saeed meant when she said that she’s “tired of people telling us to not be afraid – Trump may not win but his words will last & there are people who support” the bile he’s spewing.

All that said, it’s important not to treat Trump as some radical aberration. He’s essentially the American id, simply channeling pervasive sentiments unadorned with the typical diplomatic and PR niceties designed to prettify the prevailing mentality. He didn’t propose banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. because it’s grounded in some fringe, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. He proposed it in part to commandeer media attention so as to distract attention away from his rivals and from that latest Iowa poll, but he also proposed it because he knows there is widespread anti-Muslim fear and hatred in the U.S. Whatever else you want to say about him, Trump is a skillful entertainer, and good entertainers – like good fascist demagogues – know their audience.

Trump’s proposal yesterday, though a new low, is not that far afield from what other credible GOP presidential candidates previously proposed. Jeb Bush previously urged that the U.S. be wary of Syrian Muslim refugees but eagerly accept “proven Christians.” Ted Cruz advocated an outright ban on Syrian Muslim refugees and then introduced a bill to bar refugees from multiple predominantly Muslim countries unless they’re Christians. Ben Carson argued that no Muslim could be President because their beliefs are anathema to constitutional principles. Those proposals are more limited than what Trump advocated yesterday, but they’re hardly in a different universe; they’re grounded in the same principle that Muslims are uniquely dangerous and antithetical to American values.

Lest liberals become self-satisfied about all this, this obsession with demonizing Muslims is by no means confined to the GOP presidential field. Residing – or so they claim – outside the far-right and Fox News swamps, there’s a sprawling cottage industry of pundits, academics, authors, TV hosts, think tanks, and“anti-extremist” activist groups devoted primarily to one idea: that Islam is supremely dangerous and Muslims pose the greatest threat. Beloved Democratic General Wesley Clark, while on MSNBC earlier this year,explicitly called for “camps” for radicalized American Muslims. CNN’s role in all this is legion.

These are the people who have laid the rancid intellectual groundwork in which Trump and his movement are now festering. Just yesterday, The Daily Beast‘s supremely loyal Democratic partisan columnist Michael Tomasky – who in 2013 instructed us all to celebrate the Egyptian military coup of the brutal tyrant Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because it got rid of the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood –repulsively demanded that American Muslims first prove they are loyal and can be trusted before they are “given” their rights.

Praising Obama (as always), this time for saying that religious fundamentalism is “a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse,” Tomasky wrote that “if anything Obama should have been more emphatic about this. He should now go around to Muslim communities in Detroit and Chicago and the Bay Area and upstate New York and give a speech that tells them: If you want to be treated with less suspicion, then you have to make that happen. That would be real leadership, and a real service.” The liberal pundit added: “That doesn’t mean just reading them their rights. It also means reading them their responsibilities.”

The imposition of this sort of collective responsibility – telling Muslims, as CNN anchors did after the Paris attacks, that they are all legitimately regarded with suspicion when individual Muslims engage in violence – is unthinkable for almost any other group. Indeed, it’s the defining hallmark of bigotry: imputing the bad acts of individuals to all members of a group or to the group itself. But it’s commonplace when it comes to discussions of Muslims.

It’s not hard to see why this demagoguery is so effective, why it spreads so easily and rapidly. Tribalism is a potent component of human nature, one of the most primitive and instinctive drives. Stoking it is and always has been easy. It’s particularly easy to do in an overwhelmingly Christian country that has spent 14 years and counting waging a relentless, seemingly endless war in predominantly Muslim countries and which touts Israel as its closest ally. Numerous factions have all sorts of lurking incentives to demonize Muslims as the greatest menace, and Trump has simply become an unusually unrestrained vehicle for expressing all of that and an unusually aggressive exploiter of it, but he is not its creator nor its prime mover.

All of this preexists Trump’s candidacy and is fueled by a wide array of groups with all sorts of cultural, religious, ideological, financial and tribalistic motives for isolating and demonizing Muslims. Trump is not an outlier, and it’s dangerous to treat him as one.

As for the American media, I hope nobody harbors any hope that they’re going to be some sort of backstop preventing the emergence of dangerous extremism. They simply do not see that as their role. For most of them, a posture of “neutrality” and “opinion-free” blankness are the highest values. Here, for instance, was CNN anchor and dynastic prince Chris Cuomo last night vehemently scorning the suggestion that the U.S. media has any role to play in sounding the alarm balls on Trump’s growing fascism:

In Cuomo’s TV-journalism-trained mind, Trump’s call for the complete exclusion of all Muslims from the U.S. is nothing more than “a suggestion that perhaps offends certain sensibilities,” and it’s not for him or other journalists to “strike him down.” When people objected, he said: “Characterize? Hmm. Test him on the implications, bring on other opinions and analyze the potential…that’s the job.” In response to an angry individual denouncing Trump’s extremism, Cuomo added (emphasis added): “Absolutely. That’s your role in voting. Accept and reject. Your role, not mine.”

Here’s what Mark Halperin – whose little-watched Bloomberg TV show was just picked up by an increasingly desperate MSNBC – had to say about Trump’s announcement:

No matter how extreme and menacing Trump becomes, that’s all one can expect from large sectors of the U.S. media: cowardly neutrality, feigned analytical objectivity (how will Trump’s fascism play with New Hampshire independents?) as an excuse for not taking any sort of stand. We are indeed a long, long way away from Edward R. Murrow’s sustained, continuous, unapologetic denunciations of Joseph McCarthy.

So by all means: unleash the contempt and the righteous indignation for Trump. It’s well-deserved. But that should not obscure everything that led to this moment, nor exonerate those who for years have been spewing unadorned anti-Muslim animus from multiple corners and under various banners. They’re more subtle and diplomatic (and thus more insidious) than Trump, but they’re reading from the same script.

* * * * *

Shortly before this article was published this morning, Cuomo re-appeared on Twitter and apparently had a change of heart from last night’s proclamation. Faced with a tidal wave of anger over his posture of neutrality, he did a complete reversal, seemingly thanking his critics by writing: “Thank you for stepping up and saying is not about sensitivities or PC but core American values.” He added: “We have crossed a line in campaign and it deserves attention.” He then basically spent the whole morning atoning for last night’s statement by arguing that Trump’s “ban Muslim” policy is a “defining moment” and telling people they “should be angry.” Sometimes, social media shaming works.

On a different note: Trump gave a speech last night in South Carolina where he defended his “Ban Muslims” proposal. Speaking on an aircraft carrier underneath a suspended bomber jet (picture, above), Trump added a new policy proposal about internet freedom that provoked substantial anger and mockery:

We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.

As Trevor Timm noted, Trump’s statement – both in substance and even words – was strikingly similar to what Hillary Clinton said the day before while delivering a foreign policy address at the Brookings Institution:

We’re going to have to have more support from our friends in the technology world to deny online space. Just as we have to destroy [ISIS’s] would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space. And this is complicated. You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating.

Again, it’s easy and fun for elites to mock and scorn Trump. But he knows what he’s doing, and he’s not speaking to those elites. He specifically knows that what he’s saying will find a large, enthusiastic audience because of the ideas that have been mainstreamed in the U.S. for many years now: by political and media figures widely respected in the same elite circles that patronizingly mock Trump and his supporters.

The always-smart Teju Cole with a related but somewhat different point, a crucial one:

Click on LINK to see Tweets

#WarOnIslam ~~ DONALD TRUMP JOINS IN

war-on-islam

There are Catholic churches where it is known that young boys are assaulted by their priests ….

There are synagogues where money laundering and organ sales are taking place ….

No Presidential candidate has made an issue of the above or threatened to shut down such establishments

lMbSCMf

Trump ‘would consider’ closing down some mosques

Republican presidential candidate says he would consider closing some mosques with radical leadership if elected president.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Monday he would consider closing some mosques in America with radical leadership because of the Paris attacks if he were elected president.

“I would hate to do it, but it’s something that you’re going to have to strongly consider,” he was quoted by The Associated Press as having said in an interview.

Trump and his rivals have been working to articulate how they would respond to Friday’s attacks, claimed by the Islamic State (ISIS), which killed 129 people and left hundreds wounded.

Trump, who has been pushing for a more aggressive response, also said Americans must reassess some of their civil liberties in response to growing threats from ISIS.

“We have to be much tougher,” he said in another interview, according toAP. “We are going to have to give up certain privileges that we’ve always had.”

“Surveillance took a big turn over the last 48 hours,” he added. “48 hours ago everybody was saying, ‘Well we want our freedoms, we don’t want this to happen.’ And now, all of sudden, people are saying, ‘Hey listen, you can listen to my phone conversations.’”

That surveillance should include intelligence-gathering in and around mosques, said Trump.

“Well you’re going to have to watch and study the mosques because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques,” he stated.

He also criticized President Barack Obama for not moving earlier to destroy the ISIS sites that France bombed over the weekend. He said the U.S. should be going more aggressively after the group’s oil and financing and pressing other countries to intensify their fighting against the radicals.

Trump’s comments came as the governors of several American states spoke out against Obama’s plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. in 2016. At least one of the terrorists behind the attacks in Paris apparently entered Europe via Greece as a Syrian “refugee”.

The move, which began with Alabama and Michigan, quickly spread to other states, and by Monday evening, the governors of 24 states announced they would refuse refugees.

Source

TIMELY TOON ~~ WHAT IF I WERE A CHRISTIAN?

What if the Syrian refugees were Christian …. would the gates open for them?

Image by Carlos Latuff

Image by Carlos Latuff

SHOW AND TELL BECOMES HELL FOR MUSLIM STUDENT

Remember the days of ‘Show and Tell’ from your early school years? Bet you never saw anything like this …

'Show and Tell' is supposed to be fun ... not hell

‘Show and Tell’ is supposed to be fun … not hell

Fearmongering isn’t Christian. Apologize for Ahmed’s arrest.

When a Muslim 9th grader brought his homemade clock, a circuit board wired to a digital display, to school in Irving, Texas, he was led out in handcuffs for creating a “hoax bomb.” Ahmed Mohamed now says he’ll never bring one of his inventions to school again.

This story has gone viral over the last 24 hours, and people are pointing fingers at Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne — a right-wing extremist who gives speeches at churches about how Muslims are “infiltrating” her suburban Texas community.

Mayor Van Duyne has misused Christianity to create a climate of fear and Islamophobia, and now that climate has resulted in the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for the crime of using his God-given gifts of curiosity and inventiveness.

The mayor needs to hear that fellow Christians are ashamed of her Islamophobia. And both Ahmed and everyone who stands with him needs to see how many Christians will stand up when our faith is twisted to promote intolerance.

Sign the petition: (Click HERE)

Read THIS updated report from Mondoweiss

#IStandWithAhmed: Story of Muslim-American teenager arrested for bringing clock to school goes viral (Updated)

 

And see the Twitter Page HERE

#IStandWithAhmed shows America at its best, and worst

 

911 SPOOFS

All of the following images by Carlos Latuff

This is the first cartoon I made just after watching the WTC burning in September 11, 2001

This is the first cartoon I made just after watching the WTC burning in September 11, 2001

*

This is the cartoon I made 10 years after the WTC attacks in September 11, 2001

This is the cartoon I made 10 years after the WTC attacks in September 11, 2001

*

Muslims after the WTC attack in September 11, 2001

Muslims after the WTC attack in September 11, 2001

*

And a timely quote …

“In the 80’s they used to blame Russians for everything. Now they blame the Muslims. In the near future they will blame both”

AN OPEN LETTER TO PAMELA GELLER (ASSUMING SHE CAN READ)

Seeing as she enjoys cartoons so much, this is done in a style she can easily identify with …. but one where lives are not at risk (which she also enjoys).

By Katie Miranda AT

By Katie Miranda AT

 

#JeSuisPamelaGeller (NOT)

For and Against…

Probably the most hated woman in America today …. making Hilary Clinton a mere second ….

Probably the most hated woman in America today …. making Hilary Clinton a mere second ….

Against…

Art Spiegelman Blasts ‘Racist’ Pamela Geller Group

 Cover of the graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegelman.  Description of book HERE from Wikipedia

Cover of the graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegelman.
Description of book HERE from Wikipedia

Art Spiegelman, the cartoonist best known for his “Maus” graphic novel about the Holocaust, called the group that sponsored a contest in Texas for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed a “racist organization.”

Two gunmen attempted to shoot participants at the suburban Dallas cartoon contest Sunday, but police stopped them, killing the assailants in the process. Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for the Sunday attack.

In an interview with Time about an award the PEN writers’ group gave France’s Charlie Hebdo magazine in defiance of protests by some PEN members, Spiegelman said the American Freedom Defense Initiative, founded and led by New York-based blogger Pamela Geller, is “exactly the nightmare version that the writers who were protesting the PEN award thought Charlie was.”

In January, two gunmen stormed Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office, killing 11 people and injuring 11 others. The Charlie Hebdo shooting occurred three days before another gunman held shoppers hostage at the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket, killing four.

Geller, Spiegelman said, “is intentionally trying to start war of culture with Islam by saying that all Muslims are terrorists under the surface, and we’re going to prove it.”

In addition to the cartoon contest, Geller’s group has also put out controversial anti-Muslim ads on public transportation in several U.S. cities.

While noting that Geller and her organization deserve free-speech protection, it does not, unlike Charlie Hebdo, deserve a “courage award.”

Spiegelman’s “Maus” was recently pulled from Russian booksellers because it features a swastika on the cover.

From JTA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 For…

Meet Robert Shillman, the Tech Mogul Who Funds Pamela Geller’s Anti-Islam Push

Robert Shillman heads a publicly traded American technology company called Cognex Corp with a market value of $4 billion. He also says he is a big supporter of last Sunday’s Prophet Mohammad cartoon contest in Texas that was attacked by two gunmen who opened fire before being shot dead by police.

In a telephone interview with Reuters from his home near San Diego, California, Shillman said America’s free speech is under threat. He added that violent attacks on such events are making people fearful and prone to self censorship. Many Muslims regard depictions of the prophet – such as the caricatures displayed at the event – as offensive and against the religion’s teachings.

“It was a terrorist attack on the American way of life,” says Shillman, who says he isn’t anti-Muslim.

Shillman said he remains a director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, whose Jihad Watch website helped organize the cartoon event in a Dallas suburb with activist Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks what it describes as extremist groups, has called the Freedom Center’s founder, the right-wing commentator David Horowitz, “the godfather of the anti-Muslim Movement.” The Freedom Center says it “combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values.”

The SPLC also calls Geller’s AFDI a hate group because of the way it talks about and depicts Muslims.

Horowitz, in an email, called Shillman “an American hero” who is entirely transparent in his agenda. Horowitz also said the SPLC couldn’t produce one statement of his own that was anti-Muslim.

Geller did not return messages seeking comment.

PARIS ATTACK

Sunday’s attack had some echoes of the January assault on the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that left 12 dead in what was said to be revenge for its cartoons of the prophet.

As founder of Natick, Massachusetts-based Cognex, which makes machine vision products that help automate manufacturing, Shillman says he is more outspoken than a typical U.S. corporate leader. “Most CEOs are hired guns and their future depends on what their boards think of them. I don’t give a f—-.”

The Freedom Center, whose P.O. Box address is in Sherman Oaks, California, runs several blogs and websites, including the online FrontPage Magazine and Jihad Watch. Shillman has funded four fellowships for journalists who have have worked on the FrontPage, which is the center’s online journal for news and political commentary. He declined to comment when asked if he helped pay for the cartoon contest.

Shillman, who grew up in Boston, says he is an admirer of Geller for her defense of free speech and American democracy. “Blaming Pamela Geller for inciting violence is like blaming a victim of rape for wearing high heels,” he said.

Dr. Bob, as he calls himself, has the additional title of chief culture officer at Cognex, whose stock has produced a 373 percent return over the past five years. Shillman calls Cognex’s 1,300 employees Cognoids and rewards those who reach certain long-service milestones with trips to any one of the Wonders of the World. On their birthdays, U.S. employees get a cake delivered to their homes.

For years, Shillman – who owns about 5 percent of the company’s shares – has foregone millions of dollars in salary, bonus and stock options. Cognex donates the money to charity.

Anthony Sun, lead director on the Cognex board, could not be reached for comment.

FUNDS PRO-ISRAEL GROUPS

Shillman has in the past withdrawn support from organizations whose behavior he disagrees with. In 2002, he pulled funding from WBUR, a National Public Radio station in Boston, for what he perceived as anti-Israel sentiment.

His Shillman Foundation has funded a number of conservative and pro-Israeli groups, including the Zionist Organization of America. The ZOA has targeted both academics it perceives have been teaching anti-Israel doctrine and Palestine student groups accused of intimidating Jewish students on U.S. campuses, including a campaign at Shillman’s alma mater, Northeastern University in Boston.

Shillman is an emeritus trustee at the university and has given it substantial amounts of money, including $3 million for a classroom building that was then named after him.

From Reuters

IT TAKES MORE THAN ISLAMOPHOBIA TO BE PRO ISRAEL

Pamela Geller’s antics are an embarrassment to zionist groups

Indeed, mainstream pro-Israel groups like Anti-Defamation League have condemned Geller and the anti-Islam message of the Philly bus ad.

Daughter of Satan

Daughter of Satan

I found an interesting read on the pages of UK Media Watch, formerly called CIF Watch. They are the mouthpiece for British zionism and finally found something worthwhile to mouth off about. I’m pretty sure you will find it of interest as well ….

Guardian/AP falsely describes org founded by Pamela Geller as a ‘pro-Israel group’

Pamela Geller peddles in conspiracy theories, makes common cause with extremists, and advances hyperbolic, divisive and extremely misleading narratives about the so-called threat of “Islamization” of the United States. Geller was even bannedfrom entering the UK by Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, “on the grounds that her statements may foster hatred and provoke violence due to her extreme views”.

Here’s just one example of the kind of vitriol found on her blog.

“Obama is a third worlder and a coward. He will do nothing but beat up on our friends to appease his Islamic overlords.”
— Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 13, 2010

Geller has also reportedly claimed that “President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X, that Obama was once involved with a “crack whore.”

On April 1st, the Guardian published an Associated Press (AP) report on an anti-Islam bus ad campaign in Philadelphia sponsored by one of Geller’s groups.

Here’s the ad.

american_freedom_defense_initiative_c0-53-640-426_s561x327

In the headline of the Guardian article (Hitler ads from pro-Israel group begin running on Philadelphia transit buses), and in the text,  Geller’s American Freedom Initiative is characterized as a “pro-Israel group”.

Here’s the opening passage of the article.

The ads from the pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative will appear on 84 buses. One features a 1941 photograph of Hitler and supporter Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a Palestinian Arab nationalist.

However, if you look at site in question (and other sites affiliated with Geller and her campaign), they don’t claim to be “pro-Israel” groups. Their focus is clearly on opposing Islam and putatively championing “free-speech“.

Here’s the mission statement of American Freedom Defense Initiative:

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is a new organization launched by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Our objective is to go on the offensive when legal, academic, legislative, cultural, sociological, and political actions are taken to dismantle our basic freedoms and values.

AFDI acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials, the mainstream media, and others in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, the ever-encroaching and unconstitutional power of the federal government, and the rapidly moving attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people.

Indeed, mainstream pro-Israel groups like Anti-Defamation League have condemned Geller and the anti-Islam message of the Philly bus ad.

Though Geller supports Israel, that position alone doesn’t warrant characterizing her movement as a “pro-Israel” group. The Guardian article unfairly smears pro-Israel groups by associating them with Geller’s extreme views, and we urge editors to revise the text and headline accordingly.

US DISTRICT COURT BANS PRO PALESTINIAN ADS ON SEATTLE BUSES

A victory for Islamophobes

THIS is allowed

While

County officials in Seattle can prohibit an advertisement criticizing Israeli policies toward Palestinians from appearing on local buses without violating constitutional protections on free speech, a U.S. appeals court said on Wednesday.

Too true to be legal?

Too true to be legal?

Seattle Wins Right To Ban ‘Israeli War Crimes’ Bus Ads

Court Rules No Free Speech Violation at Stake

From Reuters VIA

County officials in Seattle can prohibit an advertisement criticizing Israeli policies toward Palestinians from appearing on local buses without violating constitutional protections on free speech, a U.S. appeals court said on Wednesday.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found that Kings County acted reasonably when it barred the ad, which sparked threats of vandalism and violence that could have endangered passengers.

Neither a Kings County spokesman nor a representative for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation, which challenged the ban, was immediately available for comment.

In 2010, a non-profit group opposed to U.S. support for Israel proposed a bus ad that read: “ISRAELI WAR CRIMES YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK,” along with a website address. The county originally flagged the ad as controversial, but decided it did not violate bus advertising policy and approved it.

After a local news broadcast about the impending ad, officials faced a public furor. Photos depicting dead or injured bus passengers appeared under the door of a transportation authority service center, the ruling said.

The county eventually rejected that ad, along with others proposed by pro-Israel groups. The pro-Palestinian Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign sued, and a judge in a lower court sided with the county.

“Because the county simultaneously rejected all of the proposed ads on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – from opposing viewpoints – no reasonable jury could find that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination,” 9th Circuit Judge Paul Watford wrote on Wednesday.

In dissent, Judge Morgan Christen said that while safety is a concern, “it also may be that the county inappropriately bowed to a ‘heckler’s veto’ and suppressed speech that should have been protected.”

She said the case should have been sent back to the lower court for more fact-finding.

#JeSuisIslamophobe ~~ ISLAMOPHOBIA NOT INCLUDED IN NEW FRENCH ANTI HATE LEGISLATION

French president François Hollande has said his government will soon announce a raft of tough criminal laws to crack down on anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia and Holocaust denial.

That’s fine, but what about Islamophobia?

Except in France?

Except in France?

France must treat online “anti-Semitism” like child pornography, president says

LESSONS FROM CHARLIE

YzWjm7q

A magazine can make a point of printing anti-Muslim mockery in response to threats because it knows that freedom of speech (and of the press) will be vociferously defended by the elites of Europe when the target is Muslim, whereas anti-Jewish cartoons will generate harsh condemnations.

Latuff's Spoof

Latuff’s Spoofs

charlie-hebdo-islamophobie-antisemitisme-carlos-latuff-2

It All Depends on Whose Symbols are Mocked: Lessons From Charlie Hebdo

By Kristoffer Larsson

More than a month has passed since the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris. How should we understand this dreadful massacre? That if you insult a minority that then a few individuals within that group might come after you? Or is it perhaps much worse than that, as some will have us believe, and that freedom of speech is under threat?

Demonstrations were held throughout France supposedly in defence of freedom of speech. As many writers have pointed out, the demonstration in Paris was attended by world leaders that—to put it mildly—don’t seem to find freedom of speech all that important in their own countries. One of the survivors of the shooting, Laurent Léger, lambasted the hypocrisy of Western governments who pretended to stand up for freedom of speech. In fact, France seized the opportunity to crack down on ‘hate speech’.

But the world leaders’ presence, despite their faulty records, is nonetheless understandable; they attended the demonstration to express their commiseration, and that’s perfectly fine.

Yet, the ‘freedom of speech’ aspect bothers me. It is an attempt to take this shooting out of its political context, to describe it as a story of two young Muslims who saw a cartoon, and got so angry that they decided to kill eleven people.

The fact of the matter is that the two terrorists didn’t care about freedom of speech (or lack thereof) in France. They were radicalized by the U.S.-led Western interventions in the Muslim world, and in their frustration over the endless killing that’s going on there, they decided to exact vengeance. In their eyes, Charlie Hebdo was a perfectly logical target because it had become a symbol of anti-Muslim mockery.

The message the perpetrators wanted to send is clear: if you continue to attack us, then you’ll pay for it. For a long, long time the West has been able to carry out bombing campaigns, invasions and occupations, stage coups d’état and targeted killings in other parts of the world, without fear of revenge attacks at home. Not so anymore.

Reducing the Charlie Hebdo shooting to a question of freedom of speech is convenient because it allows us to ignore the misery caused by Western interventionism, which ultimately led to the Jihadist resurgence. Massacres and shootings carried out by Muslims, like the ones we saw in France, are now an everyday occurrence in countries that have been ‘blessed’ with Western intervention. Though Islamist groups carry out occasional terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Europe, it is in the Mideast where most of their victims are to be found – and the greater majority of their victims there are Muslim. This is the ‘New Middle East’ that the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration envisioned when they plotted the Iraq War.

But this is not the only reason for my skepticism towards the ‘we must stand up for freedom of speech’ crowd. Although this is a right that must be defended, it is important to do so without being hypocritical. Charlie Hebdo mocked Islamic figures, and when they were criticized and threatened for doing it, they made a point of not backing down. Instead, they kept publishing such cartoons, which they have every right to do. While this may seem admirable, or even heroic, the magazine doesn’t always stand its ground.

In 2008 Charlie Hebdo was criticized for ridiculing Judaism. Though the magazine had stood up for freedom of the press when it came to mocking Islam, in that case cartoonist Siné was asked by his editor Philippe Val to apologize. When Siné refused, Val sacked him. Siné also received a death threat on a website run by the Jewish Defence League (JDL). There is clearly a double standard being employed by Charlie Hebdo, and it’s not alone.

A similar incident occurred at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which published the infamous prophet Muhammad cartoons. An Iranian newspaper said that in response it would hold a contest with cartoons mocking the Holocaust as an analogous – and offensive – way to test the limits of freedom of speech. The culture editor at Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, likely not wanting to be seen as a hypocrite, said he would consider publishing these cartoons. Upon hearing this, however, Jyllands-Posten’s editor-in-chief, Carsten Juste, declared that his paper would publish the cartoons “in no circumstances,” called the Iranian contest a “tasteless media stunt” (unlike his own provocation, I suppose) and urged Rose to “take a vacation.” The editor of the newspaper’s Sunday edition, Jens Kaiser, had a few years earlier turned down cartoons of Jesus’ resurrection, telling the cartoonist that they would “provoke an outcry,” although he later said the real reason was because the drawings were sub-par.

Blatant hypocrisy, or unintended bias? To many Muslims this double standard is hard to grasp, and it makes them feel even more outraged. However, there is an explanation for it.

It is important to understand that the criticism stems from different sources. When anti-Muslim cartoons are published, it is mostly the Muslim community that objects. The reaction under these circumstances from what one can call our ‘elites’ – politicians, editors, journalists, mavericks, etc. – is that no matter the content, freedom of speech must be defended at all cost. This elite responds very differently, however, to cartoons containing anti-Jewish mockery: all of a sudden, the content does matter. It is then characterized as a question of ‘hate speech’, not freedom of speech.

The Iranian newspaper chose to focus on a subject it knows to be a Western taboo. In a number of European countries Holocaust denial has even been criminalized (France included), yet you don’t see newspapers publishing texts that question the Holocaust to test the boundaries of freedom of speech. (If anything threatens freedom of speech, it is government-imposed restrictions of this kind.) The issue is so sensitive that even publicly defending the right to question the Holocaust is often regarded as support for Holocaust deniers, and those who occasionally dare to do so invariably make sure to emphasize their utter dislike for the people whose rights they are defending.

Around 50 million people perished in World War II, including millions of Jews. It was a huge disaster, not least for Europe. European school children of today are taught about the anti-Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Nazi regime and how it enabled the extermination of European Jews. They are taught that anti-Jewish hatred and propaganda is dangerous because we know what it ultimately leads to genocide.

This is why many Europeans (including our elites) respond emotionally to what they perceive as being anti-Semitic, while they don’t respond as emotionally to other forms of racist propaganda, including Islamophobia. This is the reason for the double standard. To oppose anti-Semitism is a value of the elite, and editors that act in violation of this value will be treated like outcasts. A magazine can make a point of printing anti-Muslim mockery in response to threats because it knows that freedom of speech (and of the press) will be vociferously defended by the elites of Europe when the target is Muslim, whereas anti-Jewish cartoons will generate harsh condemnations.

So when Charlie Hebdo or Jyllands-Posten mocks Islam, they are not really testing the boundaries of freedom of speech. And when an Iranian newspaper mocks the Holocaust, it’s not doing so either. If challenging taboos was their purpose, then the Iranian newspaper would publish anti-Islamic cartoons and Europeans magazines would run articles questioning the Holocaust.

What about anti-Christian satire then? If a ‘Christian’ newspaper in the West mocks Christianity it would not cause much fuss because it is no longer a taboo. But if a group such as ISIS did so while persecuting Christians, it would not be regarded as satire.

In short, context matters. That’s why we should not expect the publication of anti-Muslim cartoons while Muslim countries are being bombed and invaded to be perceived as harmless, just like the anti-Semitic cartoons published in Der Sturmer in hindsight cannot be presented to the world as ‘testing the boundaries of freedom of speech’.

After the massacre in Egypt in August 2014, that claimed the lives of maybe 1,000 people that protested against the Sisi regime, Charlie Hebdo mocked the victims by putting a cartoon on the cover of a Muslim man being shot. The text reads: “The Koran is shit, it doesn’t stop the bullets.” After the Charlie Hebdo shooting someone manipulated the cartoon and changed the text to: “Charlie Hebdo is shit, it doesn’t stop the bullets.” It would have been a suitable cover for the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the tragic shooting, and I’m sure the victims would have appreciated the satire.

 

Source

*

Read HERE how the zionists ‘defend’ ‘Freedom of Speech’ in Israel

Obviously, nothing was learnt from the above

High Court lifts ban on Liberman’s Charlie Hebdo stunt

As part of election campaign, Yisrael Beytenu plans to distribute free copies of French satirical magazine

VIDEO OF RACISM IN THE AIR GONE VIRAL

All over a lousy chocolate bar … Sell her the chocolate, what is she an Arab?

Leave it to Israeli tourists, known for their rudeness and arrogance abroad to pull a stunt like this …..

Big story going viral on Facebook and in the Israeli press about a vulgar and racist exchange between some Israeli passengers and a flight attendant on an Israir Airlines flight to Varna, Bulgaria.

Translation follows video presentation

Passenger 1: You will sell me Chocolate. Do you understand? You are my worker, I paid money for you.

Flight attendant: I am not your worker. You would die before I can be your worker 

Passenger 1: I want the chocolate. Why wouldn’t you sell me the chocolate. I want the chocolate. What is that. I want the chocolate 

Flight attendant: If you think you’re raising your voice and being a little bit more violent so most probably you won’t achieve what you want

Passenger 2: Sister of Passenger 1 from the other side of the aisle: Sell her the chocolate, what is she an Arab? F**your  god (Arabic curse), sell her the chocolate! Do you hear?She paid for her plane ticket sell her the chocolate! Yalla (Another Arabic word)

Lower your tone fast! Sell her the chocolate fast!Ya peace of trash! What is that he is not selling her chocolate? A peace of trash ! You will not sell my sister chocolate.

At this point, the flight attendant approach the sister and told her??Remember my words, To “Varna”(Bulgaria)  you will not arrive 

A third passenger sitting next to passenger 1 joined  by a string of curses toward flight attendant. 

 

Translation courtesy Reem Khamis-Dakwar

Via

21 YEARS LATER ~~ #JeSuisHebroni

Twenty one years ago this week terror struck out in Hebron. Thirty Palestinians at prayer were slaughtered by one Judeo nazi. There were no solidarity marches, there were no massive outcries in the Western Press, after all, the dead were only Palestinians. Instead there were graveside ceremonies glorifying the terrorist and his acts. Twenty one years later a compatriot of the terrorist is a candidate for the Knesset

ISRAEL MUST HANG ITS COLLECTIVE HEAD IN SHAME!

The following is by far the best account of the massacre itself. It was originally posted seven years ago…..

21 Years of Lessons after Al-Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre – A Memorial History for the 30 Palestinian Martyrs

The story:

The dawn of Friday 15 Ramadan 1414 a.h. / 25 February 1994 marked the first of three massacres perpetrated by Israeli settlers accompanied by the Israeli Army. There were more than 30 martyrs and 270 injured. The main massacre took place while the victims were performing al- Fajr (Dawn) Prayer at Al Ibrahimi mosque.


(Al-Ibrahimi Mosque – Al-Khalil, Occupied Palestine)

At 05:00 on February 25, around eight hundred Palestinian Muslims passed through the east gate of Al-Ibrahimi mosque to participate in al-Fajr prayer, the first of the five daily Islamic prayers. At that time of the holy month of Ramadan, there were many people who flocked the Ibrahimi Mosque to perform their prayers. The mosque was under Israeli Army guard.


That same day, a Jewish American Zionist physician decided to materialize the dream of the typical Zionist movement of annihilating the Arab existence in Palestine. Dr. Baruch Goldstein prepared for the move. It was during Ramadan when Dr. Goldstein decided to execute his old plan of vengeance.

Goldstein passed two army checkpoints at the dawn of February 25, 1994 from the northeastern gate of the mosque near privy. That privy could be the reason why Goldstein decided on that gate because he, probably, received his contemplation about Arabs from the Rabbis of Kach in Kiryat Arab where the Arabs were described as the demons of the privy. The privy of the mosque is important not only because it has two Israeli army checkpoints on its nearby mosque’s gate, but also because it is surrounded by Israeli army posts from the east and army patrols in the west. So Goldstein was acting from the deepest parts of the Zionistic ideology in liquidating the demons.

Goldstein was carrying his IMI Galil assault rifle, four magazines of ammunition, which held 35 bullets each and hand grenades. He thought about the best moment to execute the plan, maximize the number of casualties and secure the escape or rescue. The best moment, of course, was when the Muslim worshipers knelt on the floor with their backs towards Goldstein.

It was first a hand grenade that he threw among the worshipers causing casualties, confusion, and possibly an invitation to the Israeli soldiers in the halls and outside of the mosque to intervene for rescue. And in no time, the automatic massacre took place with the same kind of mercy that other Zionists like Goldstein shows all the time toward Arabs.

Standing in front of the only exit from the mosque and positioned to the rear of the Muslim worshipers, he opened fire with the weapon, killing 29 people and injuring more than 125. He was eventually overwhelmed by survivors, who beat him to death.

An eyewitness said that when Goldstein was executing the massacre and people attacked him, there was a soldier who attempted to come closer to the scene. But instead of “rescuing” Dr. Goldstein, the Israeli soldier shot his bullets in the air and then escaped from the inside eastern door of the northern hall to the previously known “women praying area.” In the opinion of the eyewitness, the soldier could have rescued Goldstein by killing 5 or 10 more Palestinians, but it appeared that his personal safety was above any blood value.

Al Ibrahimi massacre (a.k.a Hebron massacre) is not the last one. Muslims and Jews are and will remain candidates for victimization. But the cause will always be the same: “The Nazi style laws of the Zionists occupation in Palestine.”

Reports after the massacre were inevitably highly confused. In particular, there was uncertainty about whether Goldstein had acted alone; it was reported that eyewitnesses had seen “another man, dressed as a soldier, handing him ammunition.” The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said that the attack was the work of up to 12 men, including Israeli troops. However, Israeli Army denied that and confirmed that Goldstein had acted alone without the assistance or connivance of the Israeli guards posted at the mosque.

News of the massacre immediately led to riots in Hebron (Al-Khalil in Arabic) and the rest of the occupied territories. Additional Palestinian Muslims were crushed to death in the panic to flee the mosque and in rioting that followed.

Now that was history, a bloody history that marked Feb 25 of every year with memorials of the Palestinian Martyrs massacred that day for nothing but being Palestinians. So, what are the lessons learned from this?

First we will look at the ideology behind this massacre (and all the Zionist massacres), then how it is treated among Zionists. And last but not least, how does the media look at Zionist (terrorists) and how do they handle such massacres compared to other terrorist acts and massacres.

Prof. Israel Shahak wrote – The Ideology Behind Hebron Massacre:

The sympathy which Baruch Goldstein enjoys among the Gush Emunim, whose influence is more pervasive than that of the Kahanists, can only be explained by a shared ideology. However, Gush Emunim leaders enjoy Rabin’s friendship and strong influence in wide circles of the Israeli and diaspora Jewish communities. Therefore it is their version of this ideology which is more important. Gush Emunim’s thinking assumes the imminence of the coming of the Messiah, when the Jews, aided by God, will triumph over the Gentiles. Consequently, all current political developments call be interpreted by those in the know as destined either to bring this end nearer or postpone it. Jewish sins, the worst of them being lack of faith in Gush Emunim ideology, can postpone but not alter the predestined course of Redemption. The two world wars, the Holocaust and other calamitous events of modern history serve as stock examples of such a curative punishment for Jewish sins. Such explanations can go into a lot of specific detail. The rabbi of Kiryat Arba, Dov Lior (who attended Goldstein’s funeral and praised him), blamed Israel’s relative failure in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon on the lack of faith manifested through signing a peace treaty with Egypt and “returning the inheritance of our ancestors [i.e Sinai] to strangers”.[…]

The fundamental tenet of Gush Emunim’s thinking is the assumption that the Jewish people are “peculiar”. Lustick discusses this tenet in terms of their denial of the classical Zionist claim that only by undergoing “a process of normalisation”, by emigrating to Palestine and forming a Jewish state there, can the Jews become like any other nation. But for them this “is the original delusion of the secular Zionists”, because they measured that “normality” by applying non-Jewish standards. According to Gush Emunim, “Jews are not and cannot be a normal people”, because “their eternal uniqueness” is “the result of the covenant God made with them at Mount Sinai”. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of their leaders, “while God requires other normal nations to abide by abstract codes of ‘justice and righteousness’, such laws do not apply to Jews”.

Harkabi quotes Rabbi Israel Ariel, who says that “a Jew who kills a non-Jew is exempt from human judgement, and has not violated the prohibition of murder”. The Gush Emunim rabbis have indeed reiterated that Jews who kill Arabs should be free from all punishment. Harkabi also quotes Rabbi Aviner, Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook and Rabbi Ariel, all three of whom say Arabs living in Palestine are thieves because since the land was once Jewish, all property to be found on that land “really” belongs to the Jews. In the original Hebrew version of his book Harkabi expresses his shock at finding this out. “I never imagined that Israelis would so interpret the concept of the historical right.”

Gush Emunim’s plans for governing non-Jews in Israel are also based on “theological” principles. According to Rabbi Aviner; “Is there a difference between punishing an Arab child and an Arab adult for disturbance of our peace? Punishments can be inflicted on Jewish boys below the age of 13 and Jewish girls below the age of 12…But this rule applies to Jews alone, not to Gentiles. Thus any Gentile, no matter how little, should be punished for any crime he commits.” From this dictum, it is only a short step to slaughtering Arab children.

Even Israel’s Supreme Court compared Kahane to the German Nazis. The prominent Orthodox dissident, Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz, said that the mass murder in Hebron was a consequence of “Judeo-Nazism”. But Gush Emunim’s ideology is no less like that of the Nazis than Kahane’s.

Celebrating the Hebron massacre:

Why do we hate them?

When you see the Israelis and Zionists from different parties and sections of the Israeli society, including their army, as well from around the world, gathering annually at the grave of Baruch Goldstein to celebrate the anniversary of his massacre of Muslim worshipers in Al-Khalil (Hebron), how can you but “LOVE” them?

Here is a sample of the news stories from BBC –Graveside party celebrates Hebron massacre (21 March, 2000):

Militant Jews have gathered at the grave of Baruch Goldstein to celebrate the sixth anniversary of his massacre of Muslim worshippers in Hebron.

The celebrants dressed up as the gunman, wearing army uniforms, doctor’s coats and fake beards.

Goldstein, an immigrant from New York City, had been a physician in the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba.

Waving semi-automatic weapons in the air, the celebrants danced, sang and read prayers around his grave.

“We decided to make a big party on the day he was murdered by Arabs,” said Baruch Marzel, one of about 40 celebrants.

The tribute was a macabre twist on the Jewish festival of Purim, when it is a custom to dress in costume and celebrate.

Massacre in mosque

In 1994 on Purim, Goldstein stormed a mosque and fired on praying Muslims in the West Bank city’s Tomb of the Patriarchs – a shrine sacred to both Muslims and Jews.

Twenty-nine people died in the attack, and the angry crowd lynched Goldstein in retaliation.

Israeli extremists continue to pay homage at his grave in the nearby Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, where a marble plaque reads: “To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel.”

About 10,000 people had visited the grave since the massacre, Mr Marzel said.

Note: the above news story is ten years old.

Not only that. The Israeli government allocated a special site for the grave, in the Tourist Park in Kiryat Arba settlement. Over the years, the grave has become a site of pilgrimage. Tens of thousand people from all over the world go to pray and honor this terrorist memory. The local religious council of Kiryat Arba settlement declared the grave site a cemetery. During the Feast of Purim, Goldstein friends celebrate the feast near his grave to honor him, in appreciation of what he did!

Last but not least, on the biased media side, Leon T. Hadar wrote:

Following the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and the arrest of several Muslims who were charged with the crime, the American media were flooded with news stories, analyses and commentaries that warned of the coming “Islamic threat.” “Investigative reporters” and “terrorism experts” alleged on television talk shows and op-ed pages that the accused perpetrators of the bombing were part of an “Islamic terrorism network” coordinated by Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, or other Middle Eastern bogeymen.
[…]
Contrast those reactions with the media’s response to the massacre in Hebron. No analyst suggested that the event reflected the emergence of a global “Jewish threat. ” No terrorism expert was invited to discuss on “Nightline” or the “MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour” the rise of a “global Zionist terrorism” organization manipulated, say, by the Israeli Mossad. No scholar alleged that the massacre by a Jewish settler suggested that Western and Jewish values were somehow incompatible.

If one really had wanted to apply the journalistic methods that were used in the case of the World Trade Center bombing, it would not have been so difficult, after reviewing the biography of Rabbi Meir Kahane by Robert I. Friedman, to point to the strong ties between Baruch Goldstein and the other “fanatics” in the Jewish settlements and members of the Israeli political establishment, especially in the Likud party. One could even have reminded American readers that Kiryat Arba, where Goldstein resided, was actually the brainchild of a pre-1977 Labor government.

Any analysis of public statements and writings by some of the major political and spiritual leaders of the Jewish settlers, including the rabbis who head the movement, would reveal a fanatical hatred and racist attitudes toward non-Jews in general, and Arabs and Palestinians in particular.

Instead, most journalists and analysts adopted the official Israeli line and described the massacre as an “isolated” case of Jewish “extremism,” an act of a “lone gunman,” a “lunatic,” a “madman” who does not represent Israeli society or, for that matter, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. Journalists, like the Israeli government, stressed that killing of innocent civilians violates the moral tenets of Judaism.

The above was originally posted by Haitam Sabbah seven years ago.

AMERICAN MEDIA GUILTY OF MURDER BY COMPLICITY

Western, especially American, reactions to this week’s cold-blooded murder of three innocent Muslim college students in North Carolina have been grossly inadequate.
 
Major American news networks, have, more or less, treated the monstrous crime as a passing banality. Critical questions that ought to be asked were never asked, which means the stage is set for the perpetration of the next act of murder targeting Muslims.

The media is also culprit  in the N. Carolina Triple murder

By Khalid Amayreh in Occupied Palestine
*

Western, especially American, reactions to this week’s cold-blooded murder of three innocent Muslim college students in North Carolina have been grossly inadequate.

Major American news networks, have, more or less, treated the monstrous crime as a passing banality. Critical questions that ought to be asked were never asked, which means the stage is set for the perpetration of the next act of murder targeting Muslims.

True, the alleged murderer was detained by the police. However, the American media was also culprit in this crime and bears an important part of the blame for its occurrence.

The unrelenting Islamphobic discourse, that we keep hearing and watching in the U.S., does make the perpetration of such a crime inevitable. It would be dishonest to claim otherwise.

This is not a far-fetched analysis of an “isolated incident” as some pundits might be prompted to argue. In the final analysis, anti-Muslim racism in the United States has assumed phenomenal proportions due to the constant defamation of Islam and Muslims by a brashly hostile media.

Needless to say, this hate-mongering has caused many Americans to lump all Muslims in one basket. Thus, all Muslims, near and distant, are portrayed as carbon copies or at least potential carbon copies or prototypes of Osama Bin Laden or Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi.

But this portrayal is actually incorrect. The vast majority of Muslims, I would say 99.99% are normal and peaceful people who are, like most Americans, busy making a decent living, raising their kids, supporting their families, and trying to make ends meet.

I strongly believe that this fact is well known to most media editors who probably choose to ignore it for reasons having to do with cultural bigotry  against Muslims.

In other words, this is not an expression of ignorance of the truth but rather a malicious and reckless disregard of it. Yes, it is an expression of willful dishonesty by much of the American media. And that is a real problem.

Of course, we cannot lump all American media in one negative category. Newspapers such as the Christian Science Monitor can’t be considered a carbon copy of the New York post or the New Republic.

But, unfortunately, the level-headed press has been reduced to a faint voice in a deep valley in a jungle of gung-ho media outlets where the dearth of honesty is conspicuous.

None the less, being “ignorantly dishonest” is not an excuse. In the final analysis, maligning a religious or ethnic community will sooner or later lead to murder or mass murder. We don’t have to go back many decades to demonstrate the evil power of incitement, especially when the targeted audience is uninformed, misinformed or dis-informed.

The recent genocidal episodes in Mynamar and the Republic of Central Africa are hair-raising examples of what public incitement could do. The same thing can be said about Bosnia.

We also do know that the holocaust didn’t start with Auschwitz or other concentration camps. It rather started with Mein Kampf and other expressions of hatred for Jews.

Where is the outrage?

The murderous killing of three young,  innocent American Muslims is by no means an isolated incident or thunder on a clear day. It is rather the inevitable effect of an undeniable cause and the cause is the affronting anti-Islamic messages that we keep watching on Fox News and so-called “Christian” TV programs.

That is why responsibility for spilling the blood of the three innocent victims in North Carolina doesn’t solely lie with the direct killer, but also with a morally callous media that made the killing inevitable.

I am not auggesting that press freedom ought to be restricted. However, a free press must also be a responsible press.

But a responsible press can’t be truly responsible unless it is well-informed and well-aware of the facts. Otherwise, the press, whether knowingly or unknowingly, would succumb to the Steve Emerson syndrom  whereby citizens are spoon-fed half-truths, disinformation and pure lies by charlatans presented as “experts” on Islam.

As a Muslim and journalist who, by  the way, studied and lived long in the United States, I am appalled by the lack of western indignation at crimes against Muslims in general, whether in the West itself, or indeed, in Palestine and other places.

This is moral hypocrisy in broad daylight. It is outrageous and therefore unacceptable. We are all human beings, created by the same God. We should be equal. Our blood should be equal. Our lives should be equal.

The fact that we are not equal in reality is not the result of an ineluctable fate. It is rather the result of the prevalence of an evil minset  which keeps pushing our world to the abyss.

Will we wake up before it is too late?

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,256 other followers