PHOTO~~ COMMEMORATING HATRED

commemorating hatred

People gather in the capital’s Kikar Zion to remember the victims of the attack on the Tel Aviv gay center.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
 
  
Read about witness reports HERE.
Police looks to witnesses for lead into Tel Aviv gay center shooter

 

 
 
 
Video courtesy OF

TALK SHOW HOSTS TALK ON OBAMAPHOBIA

Satire or racism?
Politics of fear?
Islamophobia?
All of the above??
Just what message is the covertoon of the New Yorker magazine trying to convey? Listen HERE to what talk show hosts had to say….. needless to say, the above questions remain unanswered.
CNN published the following report regarding the situation…
The New Yorker cover published Sunday shows Barack and Michelle Obama with a flag burning in the fireplace.

The New Yorker cover published Sunday shows

Barack and Michelle Obama with a flag burning in the fireplace.

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign has sharply criticized The New Yorker magazine over the publication’s latest cover illustration, which appears to portray the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and his wife as terrorist enemies of the United States.

The cover, published Sunday, shows Obama in the Oval Office dressed in traditional Muslim attire. His wife, Michelle, wears an Afro hairstyle and has a machine gun slung over her back. An American flag can be seen burning in the fireplace, and a picture of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall.

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

David Remnick, the longtime editor of the highly-regarded publication, told CNN’s “The Situation Room” that he believes the ironic intent of the illustration will be clear to most Americans.

“The idea is to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas and their background and their politics. We’ve heard all of this nonsense about how they’re supposedly insufficiently patriotic or soft on terrorism,” the The New Yorker editor said.

“That somehow the fist bump is something that it’s not. And we try to put all of these images in one cover, and to satirize and shine a really harsh light on something that could be incredibly damaging.”

On Sunday evening Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it “tasteless and offensive.” Sen. John McCain said Monday it is “totally inappropriate.”

Obama refused to comment on the illustration Sunday.

Obama supporter and Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks Sr. on Monday called for a boycott of the magazine. Parks is a Democratic superdelegate from California.

“I think it’s outrageous that we’d have a cover that would depict racism, sexism, anti-religion, also anti-patriotism, and then on top of it to try to draw a conclusion that Mr. Obama has some sympathy toward terrorism,” Parks told CNN.

But Remnick, who has approved several provocative covers in the past — including a recent illustration of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appearing to solicit gay sex in a bathroom — says he isn’t concerned Americans will misunderstand the illustration.

“I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people, to be quite honest. Yes, there will be some people who will misunderstand it, not get it at first,” he said. “But here we are on television, discussing something that’s been a kind of subterranean theme in American politics, which is disgusting — these lies about Barack Obama, about Michelle Obama.

“And so in fact we’re not even satirizing the Obamas, we’re satirizing these rumors, the lies that have fed into the politics of fear.”

Remnick also defended his publication’s use of satire in general, likening it to the work of popular television hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. “If there’s no possibility for satire, if you always have to look for the joke that every — absolutely everyone will get, you won’t have Jon Stewart, you won’t have Stephen Colbert,” he said.

“Stephen Colbert goes on and mocks right-wing commentary by pretending to be a right-wing commentary. In a way this is Colbert in print.”

And not everyone finds the illustration over the top.

“Do you really believe that if you see this … cover, you’re going to say to yourself, ‘Oh, this is Barack and Michelle’?” conservative radio talk-show host Shelley Wynter asked. “This is satire. Anybody that looks at a drawing of a cartoon and wants to say, ‘This is what my presidential candidate is going to be like’ is already ridiculous and shouldn’t be voting.”

The cover is linked to a feature article about Obama’s formative political years in Chicago.

Liberal radio talk-show host Laura Flanders told CNN’s “American Morning” on Monday. “I think the Obama campaign made a misstep here. They should have come out strongly endorsing this cover.”

She said, “This isn’t a jab at them, terrorist or any other kind. This is a jab at the media. … It should be cause for our conversation to focus on the kind of fear mongering that the media and people on the right have engaged in.”

Conservative talk-show host Joe Pagliarulo agreed.

“I think this could be a very positive thing for the Obama campaign,” Pagliarulo said. “I think they’ve got to embrace this and say ‘Look, there are rumors out there.’ I talk to people every day, like Laura does. People really do believe … that he’s a Muslim. They believe he was sworn in on the Quran. They believe that his wife is unpatriotic and so is he.”

Conservative talk-show host and CNN contributor Bill Bennett said he understands why the Obama campaign is upset with the cover. “The New Yorker blew this,” he said. “It has a distinguished history and great writing. I read The New Yorker occasionally. But it was tasteless and stupid. The intellectuals missed it … and it backfired on them. If I were the Obama campaign, I would be furious at these people.”

But Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville defended the magazine’s cover choice as satire in its “ultimate form.”

“I don’t know what the big deal is,” he said.

JERUSALEM RABBIS ENDORSE RACISM AS KOSHER

In order for a restaurant or coffee shop to be certified as kosher in Israel, the owner has to pay a set monthly fee to the City’s Rabbinical Office. They then receive a certificate of kashrut that is prominently displayed. Along with the certificate, they also get the ‘services’ of a person who pops in unannounced to make sure all is being done according to Jewish Law. Fine….. no problem there…

BUT…. when they start digging up archaic laws written by racist rabbis centuries ago problems might arise.

Today it happened. The Jerusalem office in charge of Kashrut decided to enforce the following….

Foods prohibited by Rabbinic law independent of any direct Biblical basis

Certain foods were prohibited because Rabbis, as the spiritual guardians of the Jewish Community, felt that eating these foods may be harmful or affect the spiritual purity of the Jewish people, not because of any direct problem with eating that food. Among these foods are: Bishul Akum – non-Jewish cooking:
One may not eat food cooked by a non-Jew. Rabbis feared that this may precipitate an inappropriately close personal relationship between Jew and non-Jew.

Pas Akum – non-Jewish bread:
Similarly, Rabbis prohibited eating bread baked by a non-Jew.

Source


‘May precipitate an inappropriately close personal relationship between Jew and non-Jew.’ HEAVEN FORBID!!!!! This might lead to friendships and God forbid to peace itself…..

The ‘worst’ possible scenario to these people can be read in the following….

Israel warns girls not to “sleep with enemy”

Israel’s Haaretz TV has a story about a new program in one Israeli city that warns Jewish girls not to date Israeli Bedouin boys.

The southern Israeli city is pushing the program in schools by using a video called “Sleeping with the Enemy.”

The Haaretz video shows a Kiryat Gat city representative warning girls not to take part in dating Bedouin boys – something he calls “abnormal.


ABNORMAL???? Meaning racism is NORMAL???? And, needless to say, this all comes about by eating food cooked by a non Jew…


So…. getting back to the beginning, what are the rabbis trying to do? They started by approaching the owners of local eateries in various Jerusalem neighbourhoods informing them that they will no longer be issued certificates of kashrut if they employed Arabs to do the cooking for them. Three out of three such places in my own neighbourhood informed them that they will not adhere to their ridiculous demands and reminded them that quite a hefty price is paid monthly for those very certificates…..

Bottom line is, Who says money can’t talk???? Even when it comes to combating racism!

As an interesting side note, when I ‘Googled’ ‘Non Jew cooking for Jews’ to find the ‘laws in question…. the following is what appeared….

Google

An explanation of our search results.

If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew.” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.

HOLLYWOOD AND THE ARABS

Photo © by Bud Korotzer

How Hollywood Portrays Arabs
by Remi Kanazi

I love Adam Sandler. From Billy Madison to Happy Gilmore to the Chanukah Song, the predecessor of the Superbad generation has effortlessly conquered the domain of slapstick comedy and inappropriate jokes. But damn you Scuba Steve! If you’re going to propagate misinformation about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, do it quietly—or at least in your non-comedic life.

You Don’t Mess With the Zohan, Sandler’s new flick, takes Hollywood chicanery and stereotypes that denigrate Arabs to an unprecedented level—surpassing hit flicks like the Kingdom, the Siege, and every Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris movie that came before it. I group Zohan with other shamelessly racist action movies because a film should at least be minutely funny to be categorized as a comedy. For the Sandler diehards and hilarity-loving skeptics, I should clearly state: using race and prejudices to engender laughter is not the problem. Mel Brooks and the creators of South Park exploit stereotypes far beyond anything Sandler has ever done, but unlike Zohan, I don’t think insidious propaganda and underlying racism drive their comedy. After all, if this hebetudinous clunker was just comedy, Sandler and company wouldn’t have, as the New York Times reported, sought out Arab actors to give the movie “legitimacy.” Their search was successful and a few token Arabs showed their presence to innocuously inform the public that it is okay to vilify the crazy towel-headed terrorists once again.

What makes this movie even worse than many of the unfavorable movies made post-9/11 is Zohan’s disarming presentation; it is a comedic approach to understanding the inner workings of the substandard Arab people. Like the job stealing Mexicans, the liquor store robbing Blacks, and the HIV infested gays, negative stereotypes in Zohan strip down the Arab people to RPG wielding animals that senselessly thirst for Jewish blood.

From the start of the film, Sandler’s character, Zohan, is positioned as the altruistic hero—an Israeli Mossad agent who reluctantly kills Palestinian “terrorists,” while forgoing his real dream: to cut hair in the US for Paul Mitchell. Zohan is “brave,” “lovable,” and “funny,” and even his stereotypical chauvinism is eaten up by women (and men) throughout the movie—including his eventual Palestinian love interest, Dalia.

Compounded with played out, corny penis gags, the Israeli narrative is interwoven into the fabric of the film, including propagandistic reminiscences by Zohan’s father who recalls the oft-repeated myth of being surrounded “on all sides” by powerful enemies during the Six Day War—a war in which Israel preemptively struck and dominated those “enemies.” In line with Israeli and Western intelligence, Israel won the war in six days (and five hours, as Zohan’s father dutifully reminds us)—so much for existential threats and heroic narratives. Other historical revisions include a reference in a verbal battle between a Palestinian and Israeli shop owner, in which the Palestinian proclaimed, “Give it up, like you gave up the Gaza Strip!” This biting taunt, while not as blatant as the common stereotype, infers that Israel “gave up” the Gaza Strip and further insinuates that Israel had claim to it. The “humorous” jeer glosses over the glaring reality: Israel still occupies Gaza’s borders, airspace, imports and exports, and has economically strangulated and suffocated 1.4 million Palestinians in the world’s largest open-air prison.

But rewriting history (and regurgitating jokes from 1996) is hardly the movie’s worst crime. The portrayal of Palestinians as ugly, dirty, incompetent, stupid, goat loving terrorists was jammed down the viewer’s throat more times than Zohan’s lame hummus jokes. It becomes obvious to the audience why these good looking, suave, kindhearted Israelis have to kill these evil Palestinian “terrorists”—because they hate Jews more than they hate soap. The most egregious grievance by a Palestinian “terrorist” throughout the film was the stealing of a pet goat. Israel has killed more than 4,000 Palestinians since the start of the second intifada, including nearly a 1000 children, yet the main gripe of these rabid “terrorists” is a stereotypical love for hillside animals. This “inoffensive” scenario is the equivalent of a scene in a Hollywood “comedy” made by a Palestinian filmmaker stereotypically portraying Jews as pissed off about being sent to Auschwitz because they found out that Hitler was going to make them pay for the train ride.

A particular scene in Zohan went beyond comprehension: Sandler’s casting agency rounded up a handful of children to play Palestinians throwing rocks at Zohan. What does Zohan do in response to the actions of these soon-to-be terrorists? He gleefully catches the stones and turns them into the equivalent of a balloon animal. One is supposed to toss aside any arising sensitivities and overlook the many instances Israeli snipers and soldiers have shot Palestinian children in the head or taken their eyes out with rubber bullets because of these rocks Zohan takes with a smile. The posturing of the noble and affable Mossad agent is a slick attempt to humanize Israel and make the Mossad (an outfit that has engaged in countless operations of state terrorism) look like the valiant GI Joe force in the Middle East combating jihadi thugs in the name of good. But Sandler’s character is not only a hero, he’s also a humanitarian. There are multiple scenes where Zohan informs the audience that Israelis do their best to minimize the loss of innocent Palestinian life, when an examination of the conflict by Israeli human rights organizations exposes quite the opposite.

Other stereotypes saturate the movie. The Palestinian salon that Zohan gets a job at is described as a dump, Palestinians constantly cheer for the “terrorists,” a crowd of Palestinians applaud the death of “heroic” Zohan (which he faked), and the “terrorists” are so stupid and illiterate that they purchase Neosporin instead of liquid nitrogen to make their bomb to kill Zohan. There is no distinction made between Hezbollah, Hamas, jihadists, and terrorist sexcapading sheiks. Furthermore, the film conveniently illustrates how Israelis in the US, as “fellow” natives of the Middle East, suffer the same discrimination and tribulations as Arabs in a post-911 world. Oddly, Israelis are passed off as “brown” and “other” like the Arabs in the film, yet Zohan’s parents look like European Ashkenazi Jews. Moreover, while Israelis are shown as native hummus loving Middle Easterners, Zohan’s family is portrayed distinctively differently from the backwards Arabs. Zohan’s parents are sweet, comforting, reasonable and accepting from beginning to end, not rigid like their Arab counterparts. Even when Zohan finally captures Dalia’s heart, his parents show up in America and warmly embrace their relationship without question—while Dalia and others resist the notion of a courtship between the two and tells Zohan that her family would never accept him. Ah, if only all Arabs could just get to know Israelis and see how kind, generous, and amorous they all are, the sooner we could all sit in a circle singing Kumbaya over s’mores and unfunny Zohan hummus jokes.

The worst dialogue throughout this 102 minute laughless action flick is made by Dalia (played by Emmanuelle Chriqui), Zohan’s eventual Palestinian love interest. She serves at the omnipotent propagandist—blaming the troubles of the conflict on “extremists” and “hate” on both sides. She endlessly and vaguely laments about how much “hate” there is “over there,” and describes to Zohan that things are “different here.” As any knowledgeable American knows, Palestinians and Israelis love each other here in the US; they frequently have bake sales together; they form sit-ins for blind coexistence on college campuses; and have Palestinian/Israeli karaoke nights where they sing their favorite Beatles tunes like Give Peace a Chance. What Sandler, and co-writers Judd Apatow and Robert Smigel, fail to understand is that before there was Hamas, Yasser Arafat, Fatah, the PLO, or any resistance movement, there was the dispossession of the Palestinian people, whereby 780,000 indigenous Palestinians were displaced from their homeland by Jewish gangs and terror groups. Flash forward 60 years and the Palestinian people are living in squalor in demolished towns and refugee camps enduring a 40 year occupation that strangulates their economy and diminishes any semblance of normalcy or a proper life. What we are to believe by watching this film is that if everyone would just stop “hating” (which Israelis are depicted as clearly willing to do, while Palestinians resist it vehemently) Israelis and Palestinians could effortlessly live together in harmony. But “hate” has little to do with a conflict rooted in a people’s desire for basic human rights and an end to oppression.

In the end, everything ends up happy and joyful: Zohan gets the girl, he saves the block from a conniving mall developer, and the “terrorists” stop terrorizing. But the jovial ending left a sour taste in my mouth. As nearly a dozen “nameless” Palestinians were killed by innocent and heroic Israeli soldiers last week and another report of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza went unnoticed in the US press, people were laughing all over the country at how stupid, feeble, violent and backwards Arabs are. A diehard Sandler fan proclaimed: “He’s making it for 13 year old boys. It’s Critic Proof.” That’s what scares me most of all.

Source

ARE YOU A PARASKEVIDEKATRIAPHOBIC?

Do you even know what one is?

‘Paraskevidekatriaphobics have a morbid fear of Friday the 13th, which falls at least once a year and sometimes three times, and will be dreading 2009, the next triple whammy year…’ Taken FROM

The question I have is WHY???
Of all the problems facing humanity today, why is this concept such a big deal? The number 13 in general is considered unlucky by many people.. I have been in buildings that had no 13th floor, hotels that did not have a Room 13….

WHY???

Could we call this a form of madness or is there a reason for this?
Michael Rivero of What Really Happened suggests that….

Friday the 13th is the day (in 1307) when all the Knights Templars were arrested on the orders of France’s King Philip IV. The superstitition about Friday 13th derives from that incident.

Newer entries »