Although Facebook’s ground rules officially prohibit bullying, harassment, and threatening language, last year it received numerous complaints about online incitement. On January 18, Facebook launched an initiative to prevent anti-Muslim hate speech on its German platform. But, according to a lawsuit filed in New York state court and a highly-publicized “experiment,”Facebook has no problem with anti-Jewish incitement.
Last October 20, the German daily Bildprinted a double-page newspaper spread documenting racist vitriol posted on Facebook against migrants. On November 10 – days before the Paris attacks – Hamburg prosecutors launched an investigation into Facebook for allegedly failing to remove racist postings. The investigation was reportedly motivated by concern over “how the country’s long-dormant far-right was using Facebook to mobilize” against the influx of refugees. In other words, it was motivated by concern over anti-Muslim and anti-Arab posts.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed to create a “safe environment” for Muslim users.
Perhaps stung by that criticism, mere days after two Muslims murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino, California, CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed that Facebook would “create a peaceful and safe environment” for Muslim users.
On January 18, Facebook launched a Europe-wide campaign to “thwart extremist postings.” This was part of an agreement it reached with Germany. Steps Facebook has taken include hiring the German company Bertelsmann to monitor and delete racist posts to its German platform and funding non-governmental organizations devoted to countering online extremism.
There was another Facebook-related headline on January 18. NBC News reported that Shurat HaDin (an Israeli NGO modeled on the Southern Poverty Law Center) was crowdsourcing to raise funds for an ad campaign. Entitled “Zuckerberg don’t kill us,” the campaign is part of an effort to pressure Facebook not to continue tolerating posts inciting Palestinians to kill Jews. The recent wave of Palestinian attacks had killed 29 Israelis and injured 289 as of January 18.
According to Shurat HaDin, Facebook actively assists people inciting murderous attacks against Jews to find others who are interested in acting on the hateful messages by offering friend, group, and event suggestions and targeting advertising based on people’s online “likes” and internet browsing history. What is more, Facebook often refuses to take down the inciting pages, claiming that they do not violate its “community standards.” Last October, Shurat HaDin filed a lawsuitagainst Facebook in New York state court, seeking to enjoin Facebook from allowing the incitement to continue.
Shurat HaDin demonstrated Facebook’s bias by conducting an online experiment. On December 28, it set up two Facebook pages, one filled with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel postings, the other with anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian postings. The NGO then ratcheted up the incitement level with parallel posts to both pages, ultimately calling for death to Jews and Arabs.
Then, Shurat HaDin simultaneously reported both pages to Facebook. The same day, Facebook closed the anti-Palestinian page, stating that it violated Facebook’s community standards.
And the page inciting violence against Jews? Initially, Facebook refused to shut it down. Instead, it sent a message reporting that the page did not violate Facebook’s rules. Only after Shurat HaDin reported what it had done and media picked up the story did Facebook change its tune and closethe page, claiming the page did indeed violate Facebook standards, and that the earlier message to the contrary had been a “mistake.”
Now Israel is working to build an international coalition to pressure social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to take greater responsibility for content posted on them. Ideas under discussion include developing legislation to prosecute social media platforms for failing to keep calls for violence and hateful materials off their platforms. The idea has reportedly gained traction in some European countries.
Where is Facebook’s initiative to prevent anti-Jewish incitement on its Israel platform? Why is Facebook responding so differently to complaints about incitement against Muslims and Jews? Is it too protective of Muslims, or too callous toward Jews? And how many times will its hypocrisy have to be exposed before it begins applying its “community standards” evenhandedly?
Johanna Markind is associate counselor at the Middle East Forum
In a step towards joining an Israel boycott, the U.S. is now requiring goods originating from the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria) to be labeled separately from products from the rest of Israel, following the European Union’s crackdown on products from the disputed territories.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has issued new mandates requiring that West Bank products not be marked “Israel,” citing a notice from the year 1997 that offers such instructions.
The memo from DHS, titled, “West Bank Country of Origin Marking Requirements,” reads:
“The purpose of this message is to provide guidance to the trade community regarding the country of origin marking requirements for goods that are manufactured in the West Bank.”
According to the instructions, “It is not acceptable to mark” goods from the West Bank as having been from “Israel,” “Made in Israel,” or from “Occupied Territories-Israel.”
In its statement, U.S. Customs threatens, “goods that are erroneously marked as products of Israel will be subject to an enforcement action carried out by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
“Goods entering the United States must conform to the U.S. marking statute and regulations promulgated thereunder,” the statement adds.
Groups advocating “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (BDS) against Israel have demanded separate labeling of Israeli goods from the West Bank and the Golan Heights as a step toward a total boycott of Israeli products.
Israel maintains that under international law, the West Bank is “disputed,” and not “occupied,” since there was no legitimate sovereign in the territory when Israel took control of it in self-defense after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.
Many of the products that will be affected are made within areas of the West Bank, such as the Etzion bloc, are likely to be part of Israel under any peace agreement.
The new instructions were published by DHS over the weekend, following complaints from Palestinian and fringe leftist outfits that the U.S. was not complying with a 1995 law that calls for the marking of goods from the West Bank, Israel National News reports.
In November, the European Union mandated the labeling of Israeli products from the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Critics, including presidential candidates, have argued the labeling of products only from “Israeli areas” of the West Bank, and not Palestinian-controlled territories, is a discriminatory and anti-Semitic act.
The EU now refuses to allow the label “Made in Israel” on products made anywhere outside of the pre-1967 lines.
Following the implementation of EU labeling mandates, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the actions an “exceptional and discriminatory step.”
“This will not advance peace; it will certainly not advance truth and justice,” he added.
Last week, the State Department effectively endorsed the anti-Israel labeling measures.
On Wednesday, to mark Holocaust Remembrance day, President Obama pledged to confront worldwide anti-Semitism:
“Here, tonight, we must confront the reality that around the world, anti-Semitism is on the rise. We cannot deny it,” he said from the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.
PJ Media, by Michael Van Der Galien, Nov. 21, 2015:
After the terrorist attacks in Paris, Canadian journalist and entrepreneur Ezra Levent hopped on a plane to France. His mission? To interview French Muslims about the attacks. He wanted to know their views: who committed these horrific attacks, does it have anything to do with islam, and does this mean France is at war? If so, a war against whom?
Now, Levant published a 20-minute video with highlights of these interviews. Although the conversations are in French, his organization Rebel Media put English subtitles below them. The results are both troubling and, in some way at least, reassuring.
Let me start with the reassuring part. Most French Muslims Levant talked to condemned the attacks. They made clear they don’t want to have anything to do with ISIS and don’t share the organization’s views and goals.
So far, so good.
However, many of them also said some things that are extremely troubling. For example, almost every single one of them said ISIS can’t possibly have anything to do with Islam. Muslims can’t kill innocent people, they say, so ISIS-terrorists aren’t Islamic.
Although that may make them feel better about their faith, the problem with that attitude is that it denies reality. If Radical Islam is to be defeated, non-extremist Muslims have to be honest with themselves about the problems within their faith. Sadly, many of them clearly aren’t prepared to do so.
What’s more, while condemning the attacks and claiming the terrorists can’t possibly be Islamic, many of the interviewees put the blame on… Jews.
And it’s not just Jews who are responsible for ISIS, say these ‘moderate’ French Muslims. No, when push comes to shove, it’s actually an American organization:
In other words, ISIS isn’t Islamic at all! Nope, as far as these enlightened adherents of the Islamic faith are concerned, the group is nothing more or less than a cabal of “really sick” Jews and their capitalist American friends:
As Levant points out in his video, the most troubling part of this is that the interviewee who made this statements doesn’t look like a radical Muslim at all. He’s not wearing traditional Arabic clothes, nor does he have a long beard. “He looks like a hipster”: an average guy and active participant in French society.
Yet his views are anti-American, anti-Semitic and, dare I say it, downright fundamentalist.
It would be one thing if the man who said this was the exception, but Levant’s video proves that not to be the case. Many other French Muslims – men who appear to be completely normal – share his ideas.
All in all, Levant says about half of the French Muslims he spoke to told him that ISIS was created by “the Jews” and America.
Their reasoning is simple: Muslims don’t kill other people, and especially not fellow Muslims. ISIS kills innocent people – and especially Muslims (in their eyes) – and so the group can’t possibly be Islamic. It’s as simple as 1+1=2.
On the other hand, these people are convinced that Jews do kill innocent people – and Muslims most of all.
To summarize: ISIS “is an organization that follows the United States and the Jews.”
So, at best French Muslims are in denial about ISIS’ Islamic views, and at worst, they blame “the really sick Jews and Americans” for the rise of the organization and its attacks in Paris last week.
If it proves one thing it is that France has a massive Islamic problem on its hands.
Watch the video:
Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media talks to Marc Lebuis, who directs Point de Bascule Canada. This website investigates Muslim organizations and individuals and their terror.
Lebuis helps Ezra and his viewers understand the interviews Ezra conducted in Paris during his post-terror attack trip to France:
A new wave of terrorism is sweeping through the streets of Israel as innocent civilians now face the growing threat of a random stabbing by a Palestinian terrorist. There is a growing concern that this rise in violence is the beginning of a third Intifada.
In his recent address to the United Nations, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas spouted out a list of claimed Israeli violations of the Oslo Accords, which outlined a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, and then claimed that the accords would no longer bind the Palestinian Authority.
Mr. Abbas accused Israel of not committing to the agreement and went on to say that the Palestinian Authority “will not remain the only ones committed to the implementation of these agreements.” Mr. Abbas cited Israel’s refusal to “cease settlement activities” as a violation of the agreement. Many commentators parrot his settlement claims and continue to blame Israel for the breakdown of the accords.
However, despite the continuous bristling by Mr. Abbas over the presence of Israeli Jewish communities in the West Bank, their existence does not violate the accords. I repeat, the existence of Israeli Jewish communities in the West Bank does not violate the accords. There are no provisions in the Oslo accords that call for a cessation of Jewish communities in the region. Moreover, there is no international law that can bar a Jew from moving there if he chooses to do so. The arrangement, which was agreed upon by both parties, has always been that the status of these Jewish communities is to be determined through final status negotiations.
There have always been Jews living on that land. There has been a long and concerted effort over the years to falsely paint Jews as colonial occupiers with no connection to the land. However, the only time Jews have not lived in that area is during a 19-year period between 1948 and 1967, when the Egyptian and Trans-Jordanian governments (who were illegally occupying the land owing to the international community’s indifference) forced Jews out. Prior to that, the High Contracting Parties with legal stewardship over the area promised that land to the Jews, in recognition of their historic connection to the land.
The Palestinians, however, from its inception, never bound themselves to the agreement. The Palestinians have violated the agreement at every opportunity.
The agreements explicitly forbid the Palestinian Authority from conducting foreign relations (Article IX). Yet, for decades, Palestinians and their allies in the U.N. have been pushing resolutions through the body, bastardizing norms within international law to push their false narrative
Since the beginning of the accords, thePalestinian Authority has engaged repeatedly in diplomacy on every level. Every PA attack on Israel on the international scene and every attempt to change their status with the U.N. violated the agreement. In 2012, the Palestinians unilaterally sought an upgrade to their status at the U.N. In April, Mr. Abbas signed applications to join 15 international treaties and conventions, though they are flagrantly violating the vast majority of them.
Additionally, there are specific provisions in Oslo stating that the Palestinian Authority is obligated to abstain from hostile propaganda and the incitement of violence (Article XXII). Nonetheless, this behavior has been a constant since Oslo’s inception. For the past two decades, Palestinians not even tried to live up to this part of the agreement. They have regularly praised terrorists, such as Hamas’ chief bomb-maker, Yihya Ayyash, whom then-PA President Yasser Arafat honored in 1996 and called a martyr. Last year, Mr. Abbas‘ Fatah movement encouraged a “car intifada” and posted numerous cartoons and statements calling for this violence, which resulted in the ramming deaths of several people, including a three-month old baby girl. Additionally, recently released documents reveal that the Palestinian Authority has been paying millions to convicted Hamas terrorists for years.
These actions, plus countless others, are a direct and flagrant violation of the accords.
It would behoove the international community to realize that having Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank is neither a violation of the Oslo Accords, nor what is killing it. Rather, the fact that one side would rather encourage people to commit vehicular homicide or stab people than to have Jewish neighbors is what is killing Oslo.
Additionally, the international community needs to start seeing through Mr. Abbas‘ rhetoric and finally recognize that the Palestinians have been blatantly violating the accords since the day they were signed.
• Alex VanNess is the manager of public information at the Center for Security Policy.
Obama administration allies lobbying in favor of a recently signed nuclear deal with Iran are smearing Jewish lawmakers and opponents of the accord with allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, rhetoric many view as anti-Semitic, according to allegations leveled by these individuals and groups.
Organizations close to the White House, including the pro-Tehran lobbying shop National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the liberal fringe group J Street, and the anti-war organization MoveOn, have come out to question the motivation of Jewish individuals who oppose the nuclear deal, which will provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief and lift longstanding restrictions on its ballistic missile program.
These allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, which many have identified as anti-Semitic, began almost immediately with the White House, which accused its critics of worrying more about Israel’s interests than the United States’.
The use of this rhetoric by the Obama administration and its allies is attracting concern among Jewish leaders, who worry the White House will pin the potential failure of the Iran deal on the American Jewish community.
In a July 21 interview, Obama said that shady “lobbyists” and people with “money” were working to kill the deal.
“I guarantee you, if people feel strongly about making sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, without us going to war, and that is expressed to Congress, then people will believe in that,” Obama told former Daily Show host Jon Stewart. “And the same is true on every single issue. If people are engaged, eventually the political system responds. Despite the money, despite the lobbyists, it still responds.”
Jewish publications questioned Obama’s rhetoric, with some accusing the president of using anti-Semitic “dog whistles,” a move that prominent detractors of Israel celebrated.
Obama engaged in similar rhetoric during July 15 speech about the deal in which he urged people to support the agreement “not based on lobbying, but based on what’s in the national interests of the United States of America.”
The rhetoric also has extended to what many view as implicit threats against Israel.
Obama reportedly told a group of Jewish leaders last week that rejection of the Iran deal will result in rockets falling on Tel Aviv.
Organizations close to the White House quickly latched onto this rhetoric and have taken aim at Democratic Jewish lawmakers who have come out against the deal.
NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of Tehran and the regime, explicitly accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) of being more loyal to Israel than America.
Reza Marashi, a NIAC flack, took to Twitter to accuse Schumer of “putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.”
In addition to Schumer, Democratic Jewish Reps. Brad Sherman (Calif.) and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) also have come out against the deal.
J Street, an anti-Israel group that has described itself as the Obama administration’s “blocking back,” also questioned the motives of those Jewish lawmakers opposing the accord.
“Opposing the #IranDeal against recs of top scientists, Israeli & US security experts, 100+ ex-diplomats can’t plausibly be a policy decision,” J Street official Dylan Williams pontificated on Twitter over the weekend.
The Daily Kospublished a cartoon over the weekend that accused Schumer of being a “traitor” who is more loyal to Israel than the U.S.
On Sunday, the White House aligned dark money group CREDO Action, the political arm of CREDO Mobile, teamed with the Democrats.com to accuse Schumer of being a traitorous “warmonger” who is betraying his country.
In mid-July, when the deal was first announced, White House ally MoveOn blasted an email to its members headlined “47 traitors.”
In the note, MoveOn wrote: “We have just 60 days to stop the so-called ‘47 traitors’ and hawkish Democrats from killing this deal.”
Jewish leaders said the rhetoric from the Obama administration and its allies has crossed a line into anti-Semitic territory.
“There is a Yiddish word for all this—Shanda—an outrage,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which works to combat global anti-Semitism.
“I grew up during the Cold War, when Democrats and Republicans and the various presidents debated and argued life and death issues involving nuclear arms and the Soviet Union and the nexus with trade an human rights issues, including the fate of Soviet Jewry and the Kremlin’s anti-Semitism,” Cooper said.
“Those were hard fought debates on existential issues,” Cooper said. “I don’t recall such gutter politics. I don’t fear the crock of dual loyalty; I am ashamed by those who cannot bring facts to the table so they attempt to bully.”
“Well, this American Jew won’t be bullied and I am grateful that Senator Schumer and millions of other American Jews won’t be cowered,” Cooper said.
Another senior official with a prominent pro-Israel organization told the Washington Free Beacon that the anti-Semitic rhetoric is “likely to get worse.”
“The unacceptable rhetoric from the pro-deal camp has strayed into open anti-Semitism last week, but what’s really worrying is that it’s likely to get worse,” said Omri Ceren, managing director at The Israel Project. “We’re less than halfway through the congressional review period. You’ve already got White House validators from the pro-Iran lobby tweeting about traitorous Jews and White House supporters from the grassroots publishing cartoons of perfidious Jews.
“What are they going to do for an encore?” Ceren asked.
I am a Christian. Catholic, to be specific. But that has not always been the case.
While walking through Times Square in the spring of 2006, I happened to glance at the headlines streaming by on the ticker. Al-Qaeda had bombed Iraq’s Al-Askari Shrine, one of the holiest sites in Shi’a Islam.
The news made me nauseous. I had read plenty of news articles reporting sectarian violence, especially after the Sept. 11 attacks. But this particular story was the last straw: I vowed to never call myself a Muslim again.
After that day, I began to consider all religions poisonous. I saw them as just another excuse to divide humanity into “us” vs. “them.” Religion was for stupid people; it was just a means to control them. Little did I know that I would be baptized in a Christian church just one short year later.
Although I formally disavowed Islam after the Al-Askari bombing, I could hardly have called myself a practicing Muslim during the months leading up to that event. In fact, my faith had been waning for a number of years. There were many moments in which I could feel my beliefs eroding, but one in particular stands out.
The setting itself was rather mundane: I was in the passenger seat of a car. Someone very close to me, a bookish type and a Muslim, had mentioned the Banu Qurayza in passing. He went on to explain that the Banu Qurayza was a Jewish tribe in Medina that had fallen victim to a wholesale massacre under Muhammad’s direct orders. As a child, I had been indoctrinated to revere Muhammad. But in this otherwise ordinary moment, I wondered for the first time how a spiritual genius could act so ruthlessly. I tried to explain it away by considering the circumstances, but that only spawned more questions. Why would a perfect person’s actions need to be justified?
As I was only 16 or 17 at the time, I kept my questions to myself. After all, I could get in trouble for doubting Muhammad’s integrity. But the deed had been done. Those unsettling seeds of doubt had been planted.
Only in retrospect did I realize that I had been surrounded by the legacy of the Banu Qurayza Massacre throughout my entire childhood. The mosque my family attended in North Carolina was heavily influenced by the Salafi Movement (an extremist undertaking that passes for official doctrine in Saudi Arabia), as are countless mosques across the United States. My own family was moderate, but there were very few alternative places of worship for Muslims in Raleigh. Khutbas (the equivalent of a sermon or homily) during the Friday prayer service were often obsessed with politics. The tone was typically anti-American – even venomously so. In 2005, during the last khutba I ever attended at that Raleigh mosque, the speaker publicly criticized the American government for preventing young Muslims from serving jihad in Iraq.
But there was one country that we hated above all: Israel. The Jews were the penultimate “them.”
As a child, I was taught that Israel’s founding could be summarized as the Jews’ migrating en masse after the Second World War, expelling the Palestinians from their homes and wreaking havoc on every neighboring nation. I frequently heard calls for justice against Israel. Many in the Muslim community, especially those in leadership, were migrants who probably never met a Jew before they moved to America. But that did not deter them from painting an ugly picture for us, the Muslim youth, of sadistic Israeli soldiers in the West Bank; of Baruch Goldstein; of the Israel Defense Forces viciously attacking neighboring nations without warrant or regard for collateral damage.
We were often told about how the Jewish-controlled media lied to the public and of how Jewish lobbyists bribed and manipulated our government. Our family friends often shared wild conspiracy theories. One of my favorites was that the Jews (which make up approximately 15 million people worldwide) were in the planning stages of genocide against Muslims (a billion and a half people). One Pakistani man actually told me that he admired Adolf Hitler for having killed so many Jews.
We impressionable young people heard these sentiments everywhere: from our Sunday school teachers to our family friends; at the mosque and in our close friends’ homes. They were ubiquitous, and we believed them.
Bigoted statements from the mouths of fellow Muslims were just as commonplace in Michigan, where I went to college, as they were back home. I myself even once joked, “Come on. Don’t be a Jew!” to a fellow Muslim student when he left a rather miniscule tip at a restaurant (my jab worked: he ended up leaving a much better tip). My prejudice resonated with him.
I believe that what saved me was the fact that I always felt more affinity for my country than for my family’s faith. When I was 6, I cried and cried when my mother broke the news to me that the Russians had beaten the United States in the race to outer space. The demonizing of our country during Sunday school and the Friday khutbas – with the thinly veiled message that I could not be both patriotic and pious – went a long way toward the undoing of my faith. My country – the United States of America – made it clear that I could practice any faith, but my faith demanded that I hate my country. In the end, it was an easy choice.
It was not until I was in my early 20s that I bothered to learn the other side of the story: that Jews had been migrating to Israel for several decades (without much controversy) prior to Israel’s founding (and raising the standard of living for everyone in the region). About the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan that Israel accepted and that Arab states rejected. About how many of Israel’s Arab neighbors had exacerbated the Palestinian issue during their failed 1948 invasion. That the Six-Day War was a legitimate, preemptive strike. About the wild contrast between citizens’ rights under the Israeli government and in the PLO-administered regions. About the very generous concessions the Israeli government had been willing to make in exchange for recognition. That Israel had served as a haven for Jews across the world, particularly the Soviet-controlled states. About how Yasser Arafat and the PLO had repeatedly stalled the peace process. About the great lengths the IDF went to protect the Christian community in Lebanon. That some Muslims actually served in the IDF.
The fact that Israel was a stable democracy surrounded on all sides by tyrants bent on its destruction made me begin to feel something very foreign for this tiny state that did everything it could to survive: sympathy.
It is difficult to gauge how far such intolerant attitudes against Israel and the United States permeate the Muslim community, both here and abroad. After all, who in Islam will honestly answer a survey on anti-Semitic attitudes? I am certain that such venomous attitudes are alarmingly high, and may very well be in the majority among Muslims.
For that reason, my support for Israel relies more heavily on subjectivity than objectivity. It took me years to realize what all of the “demands for justice” really were: hatred parading itself as justice. It is very important to respect other people’s faith – but never their hatred.
Only one nation in the entire Middle East provides its citizens with a true democratic government. Although anti-Semitism is very much alive today, only one nation welcomes all of those who suffer because of it.
The very existence of Israel raises important questions: Are we willing to stand up for the beliefs in basic human dignity that we hold dear? Do we truly seek to transcend one of the most ancient, and most virulent, historical prejudices of our collective history? And if the answer to these questions is “yes,” our support for Israel is paramount.
In her new book, Living History: On the Front Lines for Israel and the Jews 2003-2015, best-selling author, lecturer, columnist and retired psychotherapist Dr. Phyllis Chesler explores the growth of the anti-Israel campus movement and the alliance of leftist academic intellectuals with leaders of anti-Semitic Islamist movements in the East.
Speaking to Breitbart News via email, Chesler expands on the “cognitive war” being waged against Israel and the West, the startling growth of leftist pro-Palestinian movements on campus, and the nature and appeal of the anti-Israel “death cult” that has taken advantage of young college students looking to empathize with the oppressed.
Q: The book is a series of essays from the past twelve years that gives the reader a wide breadth of how expansive the propaganda war, as you call it in the book, against the state of Israel is. It covers everything from your first experiences with the anti-Israel movement on campus to events as recent as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on the Iranian nuclear talks earlier this year. My first question to you is a simple one: why this compilation of essays now?
A: I wanted to preserve these representative and strengthened essays as a legacy and for widespread use on campuses and at organizations and conferences. This is a reliable and accessible way of both remembering and teaching the coming generations about what has been happening globally in terms of the Orwellian defamation of Jewish Israel and of Western civilizational values.
Q: How has the anti-Israel movement on campus grown in the past decade, in your estimation, and what can pro-Israel students and activists do to stem that growth?
A: The Soviet-era Arab League, Saudi and Qatari money, Palestinian propaganda groups, Muslim Brotherhood student groups, human rights groups, and the United Nations, have been working on demonizing Israel for the last 35-60 years. Professors, think tanks, Middle East Studies programs, films,student conferences—with the strong backing of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine and what has become an “Islamophobia” industry—have forcefully indoctrinated American students (and the media) into believing that the earth is flat. Now, anyone who does not hew to such politically correct Junk Science, will be physically intimidated, jeered, cursed, economically punished, censored, and possibly fired. What to do? First, we must admit that a Cognitive War was declared long ago and, second, that it is a war we simply refused to fight. Worse, it is a war in which we collaborated against ourselves. Now, we must seize courage in both hands and commit ourselves to this battle for the next one hundred years.
Q: Is there a notable distinction to be made between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli activism? If so, where is the line, and how should supporters of Israel approach each?
A: Currently, there is no longer any difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. In the distant past, an honorable theoretical discussion could be had about whether the long-persecuted Jews would ultimately benefit from a state “like any other state,” which some believed would absolve Jews from their God-given mission of being a “light unto the nations.” What kind of Jewish state Israel should be has been appropriately discussed and argued. It still remains a more than lively discussion. But now, there are those, including some Jews, who believe that if Israel cannot be perfect, it does not deserve to exist; that Israel has caused the existential danger it now finds itself in; that even though Israel is surrounded by enemies (not only geographically but also theologically, ideologically, economically, internationally, militarily, and by the Biggest Lies ever, etc.), Israel-alone should still be judged by standards that one never applies to Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Hamas, Fatah, ISIS, and Boko Haram.
In 2002, I, and a mere handful of others, stated that anti-Zionism is partly what anti-Semitism is now about. I also stated that a Perfect Storm was coming our way (both Israel’s and America’s). That Storm is an alliance between western, politically correct intelligentsia and Islam. It took others about a decade to begin stating this as well.
Q: One of the most striking things for me about the book is how many topics it covers and, in turn, the way it highlights how versatile the left can be in hijacking any topic to bash Israel, from feminism to sports to theater and the performing arts. How much effort should supporters of Israel spend fighting in the political realm vs. combatting opponents in other venues that are not traditionally political? Is any one of these– entertainment, sports, international law, social justice– not getting as much attention from the pro-Israel movement as it should?
A: Israel needs a global “Iron Dome” to defend itself against the all-out cognitive war that is currently being waged against it. I spell out some specific ideas in a lecture that I am working on. I have also made many cogent suggestions over the years (some are contained in this book), which have never been tried or funded. Israel’s supporters need to do everything, simultaneously, and we need to understand that we are coming from behind. However, that is also how our patriarch Jacob/Israel once approached crises and battles. We have the talent, we do not have the money. Arab and European governments have funded our Big Lie opponents for more than half a century. Funders must now do likewise. And we need team players working in concert. We exist.
Q: You are among one of the most unabashed feminists at the forefront of the pro-Israel movement. A young, politically conscious American woman reading or watching only liberal mainstream media would have a difficult time believing you can be both feminist and a hawk on foreign policy or, as you mention in “The Brownshirts of Our Time,” feminist and pro-Israel. What do you say to those that can’t see where the two ideologies meet?
A: I am a civil libertarian and a free thinker. I am not an ideologue. I am in service to original ideas—but we live at a moment in history when ideology trumps independent thinking and when celebrity trumps all. Thus, I oppose totalitarianism, fascism, and barbaric misogyny. I cannot make common cause with those who have been trained to demean the West and to celebrate all other cultures as both “equal” to and “oppressed” by the West. I once lived in the Islamic world and I move in Muslim (dissident) circles to this day. Therefore, unlike most Western feminists, I understand the nature of Islamic gender and religious apartheid—and I oppose it. I also understand that the history of Muslim leaders has been one of imperialism, colonialism, conversion by the sword, anti-black racism, slavery, persecution of infidels, and the gross subordination of women. I do not share the same need for sacrificial atonement that so many feminists currently display.
I lived in a polygamous household in Kabul and disagree with pseudo-feminists in the West who believe we should consider this cultural practice in a “relativist” way. I also saw my first burqas in Kabul and view them as a dangerous human rights violation and a health hazard. I also learned a little about family-initiated femicide, aka honor or horror killings, and know they are not at all like Western domestic violence.
Q: Given that Israel is the most female- and LGBT-friendly nation in the Middle East, should there be a responsibility among the feminist and LGBT rights movements to support Israel?
I also know that despite many flaws, Israel is the most democratic and liberal nation in the Middle East; it towers above any Arab or Muslim country in terms of rule by law, freedom from censorship, women’s rights, gay rights, and Arab Muslim and Arab Christian rights. It also has the most ethical army in the world. In short, I know that the world’s view of Israel is “upside down” and I mean to right it.
Q:What do you think is the appeal of the pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist movement on campus to young people who otherwise share socially liberal values incompatible with the ideals of groups like Hamas?
A: It is, essentially, a death cult appeal but one couched in the language of empathy for the suffering oppressed. It demands the utter eradication of individuality for a presumably noble purpose, that of sweeping away all evil on earth—no matter the cost. (Hmmm, where have we heard that before?) If Christians must be crucified and exiled; if Jews must be completely exterminated; if infidels must all convert to Islam or die—then so be it. What Westerners envision as “revolutionary” is really quite reactionary but the herd instinct, the pressure to be a politically correct anti-racist, has been dangerously romanticized. This madness must be de-programmed. First, the Islamists must be defeated militarily. Then, we can put our best minds to the task of de-programming.
Q: Beyond Israel, Europe appears to be a strong preoccupation for the book, particularly the rise of anti-Semitism there. What is Europe doing wrong to invite events like the Charlie Hebdo attack or even casual discrimination in cities like Paris and Malmo?
A: Europe, like America, and like Israel, symbolizes Western values which are despised, envied, and condemned by tribal Islam. Today, Europe is doing nothing wrong—and yet it is doing everything wrong. There is a tragic history here.
Europe wanted cheap Arab oil and cheap Arab and Muslim workers. They did not expect these workers to stay or to eventually bring half their villages along with them. Many Europeans have traditionally been racists. That is why so many are now “atoning” for the sins of their grandparents by adopting a more “politically correct” version of racism. (Dark-skinned Muslims may live as they wish, we have no desire to seriously integrate them; anyway, this is their preference as well).
Many immigrants remained illiterate or felt disenfranchised; they lived on the dole in hostile, parallel, anti-European communities and became radicalized via mosque, jail, and satellite TV. Jean Raspail, the French novelist, envisioned what could happen in his brilliant book In The Camp of the Saints. As I write in one of the essays in Living History: On The Front Line for Israel and the Jews, 2003-2015, I sometimes think that Europe is reaping a terrible, karmic destiny. It murdered six million friendly, non-violent, often highly assimilated Semites—the Jews—and has now reaped the whirlwind of many millions of non-friendly, violent, anti-assimilation Semites—the Arab and African Muslims.
To read an exclusive excerpt from Living History: On the Front Lines for Israel and the Jews 2003-2015, click here.
In 2014, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain published a report on the iERA. The report concluded that the iERA should be classified as a “hate group.”
Unfortunately, providing extremists with a platform only serves to legitimize “anti-racism” and interfaith initiatives that openly promote illiberal and anti-democratic agendas.
If anti-racism activists and representatives of the Anne Frank Trust choose to attend the iERA’s event and share a platform with Abdurraheem Green, they will simply be handing a powerful cover of undeserved legitimacy to one of Britain’s most intolerant groups.
On May 21, a representative of a prominent British Jewish charity, the Anne Frank Trust, will share a platform with one of Britain’s most anti-Semitic extremists: the Salafist preacher, Abdurraheem Green.
The event, organized by the Islamic Diversity Centre, is named “Against Racism Against Hatred: Tackling Anti-Semitism & Islamophobia.”
The speaker, Abdurraheem Green, has spoken of a “Yehudi [Jewish] … stench” and urged Muslims to “push them [Jews] to the side.” In addition, he encourages men to hit their wives to “bring them to goodness,” and has called for the killing of homosexuals and adulterers.
Salafist preacher Abdurraheem Green, one of Britain’s most anti-Semitic extremists. (Image source: BBC video screenshot)
In addition to Green, Councillor Alyas Karmani will also be speaking at the event. A former member of George Galloway’s Respect Party, Karmani has claimed that the “ideology” of “the Yahood [Jews] and the Nasara [Christians]” has “no issue killing women and children.”
Despite these views, Grace Dunne, a representative of the Anne Frank Trust, as well as anti-racism campaigners and Labour MP Jeremy Beecham, seem happy to share a platform with these two anti-Semitic preachers, all in the name of tolerance.
Speaking to the Gatestone Institute, Ms. Dunne said, “I have carried out my own research on Abdurraheem Green and iERA, and remain convinced that speaking at this event aligns with the mission of the Anne Frank Trust to challenge prejudice and reduce hatred. Our goal is to encourage people to embrace positive attitudes towards others; we can only do this by encouraging more connections between those with potentially differing views.”
The event on May 21 is part of a broader “anti-racism” campaign launched by Abdurraheem Green’s own Salafist charity, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA).
Green, a convert to Islam, founded the iERA in 2009. The group, which is currently underinvestigation by the Charity Commission, describes itself as “a global dawah [proselytizing] organisation” that works “to empower Muslims as individuals and local communities to invite and inform people about Islam.”
In truth, the iERA is one of Britain’s most extreme Islamist groups.
Zakir Naik, an Indian preacher banned from Britain, who has said, “every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Hussein Yee, who openly preaches hatred against Jews, and claims that Jews in America were “happy” when the Twin Towers fell.
Abdullah Hakim Quick, who has called upon God to “clean and purify al-Aqsa from the filth of the Yahood [Jews]” and “clean all of the lands from the filth of the Kuffar [non-believers].”
Haitham Al-Haddad, a British preacher who describes Jews as “apes and pigs” and “enemies of God,” quotes the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and speaks of a “conflict” between Muslim and Jews.
Bilal Philips, an American Islamist preacher who describes the Taliban as “innocent Muslim people” who did many “positive, good things.” Philips was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In 2013, five members of an iERA youth group, known as the Portsmouth Dawah Team, left for Syria to join the Islamic State terrorist group.
The group running the event later this month, the Islamic Diversity Centre, has organized events with the iERA on a number of occasions. In 2013, the Centre invited the iERA’s Yusuf Chambers to speak. Chambers, a confidante of Abdurraheem Green, has expressed support for the execution of homosexuals. In addition, when speaking about the stoning to death of adulterers, Chambers remarked, “May Allah allow us to bring back that punishment to protect all humanity, InshaAllah.”
Why is an extreme Salafist organization organizing an “anti-racism” campaign?
During the past two years, the iERA’s extremist activities have received a lot of press attention. In 2013, University College London banned the iERA from its premises after a media furor reported that the group was enforcing gender segregation at student events. The Times hasdescribed the iERA as a “hardline Islamic missionary group.” The Daily Telegraph‘s editorial has warned that the group is sending “extremist speakers to Britain’s mosques and university societies.”
In 2014, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain published a comprehensive exposé of the iERA. Its report concluded that the organization should be “classified as a hate group because of its persistent promotion of Islamists who preach hate against non Muslims, women, gays, progressive Muslims and ex-Muslims.”
Since then, the iERA has worked to build a façade of moderation, most likely to obscure its extremist beliefs. In recent years, British Salafist groups, in fact, have sought to mimic the tactics of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, which have advanced extremist ideology while simultaneously employing human rights rhetoric.
Along with the iERA’s “anti-racism” campaign, then, it has also established a climate change campaign, named “Islam is Green,” as well as a free speech project, titled “Don’t Hate, Debate.” It has also supported efforts by other Salafist groups, such as a think tank named Claystone, to paint Salafist ideology as a victim of anti-Muslim prejudice.
The façade is a flimsy one. The iERA has simultaneously continued to send extremist preachers to universities and communities across Britain.
The upcoming event will take place at St James Park, Newcastle’s biggest football stadium. It is possible the event will be cancelled once the hosting venue is made aware of what the iERA represents. There is certainly precedent: in 2012, Abdurraheem Green was banned from Arsenal football stadium in London, after complaints made by local supporters.
Well-intentioned activists often treat the notion of “dialogue” as an unassailable good. More often than not, however, Islamist groups merely regard these activists as useful dupes on whom to advance extremist agendas. Unfortunately, as history shows, providing extremists with a platform only serves to legitimize “anti-racism” and interfaith initiatives that openly promote illiberal and anti-democratic agendas.
If anti-racism activists and representatives of the Anne Frank Trust choose to attend the iERA’s event and share a platform with Abdurraheem Green, they will simply be handing a powerful cover of undeserved legitimacy to one of Britain’s most intolerant groups.
A senior Al Jazeera America manager is facing serious allegations of sexist and anti-Semitic discrimination after an employee filed suit Tuesday for wrongful termination.
Matthew Luke is seeking $15 million in damages from the Qatar-owned network. The complaint filed in New York state court accuses Osman Mahmud of sexist discrimination, such as removing female employees from projects and excluding women from emails and meetings related to their assignments. Mahmud also allegedly made anti-American and anti-Semitic comments, such as “whoever supports Israel should die a fiery death in hell.”
According to the lawsuit, Luke was fired 10 days after filing a report regarding Mahmud’s behavior to Al Jazeera’s HR department.
Mahmud denied the allegations in an interview with the Washington Post.
Among the other claims, Mahmud ordered a senior news official to replace a photographer, an Israeli national, with a Palestinian who was less qualified.
When the official complained, she was reassigned to a less prestigious position and replaced by a male colleague. The lawsuit describes Al Jazeera America’s chief executive as believing a correspondent’s reporting was too pro-Israel, even though Al Jazeera is notorious for its highly critical stance against the Jewish state.
The network’s Arabic and English outlets have been plagued by reports that its biases trump its stated objective of providing objective journalism. Nearly two dozen staffers resigned in protest of the network’s sympathetic coverage toward the Muslim Brotherhood after the 2013 ouster of Mohamed Morsi as Egypt’s president.
In January, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre of cartoonists, other staffers and police at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, internal Al Jazeerah emails obtained by the National Review show executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr urging staff members to emphasize the magazine’s “racist caricatures” in their coverage.
He suggested they question if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,'” and whether the spontaneous “I Am Charlie” signs held posted and displayed by outraged French citizens was an “alienating slogan.”
“Was this really an attack on ‘Free speech’?” one Khadr email said. “Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?”
The “Je Suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) signs were counter-productive, he claimed. “You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.”
That sentiment was echoed by Qatar-based reporter Mohamed Vall Salem, who wrote, “what Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!
“It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”
Every democracy must defend itself against those who exploit its liberties to destroy it from within. The West must realize that naïvely open societies are the meals of plotting wolves, and totalitarian ideologies will exploit every freedom and benefit of the doubt that they are given. The documentary film “The Grand Deception,” by terrorism expert Steven Emerson, demonstrates in frightening detail just how much the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated U.S. society – from the media, to university campuses, to local and federal government. Apologists for Islamists will reflexively label the expose as “islamophobic” but the film is based on well documented cases pursued by the Department of Justice.
Unfortunately, one of the dangers underscored in the film has already materialized: Islamists and their sympathizers increasingly dominate college campuses, and the trend threatens those who want to remain free of sharia law, those who openly support Israel, and those who care about free speech and academic freedom. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) are increasingly active on campuses across North America, even though they advocate for Israel’s destruction, admire terrorists, and are making Jewish students feel unsafe.
Connecticut College professor Andrew Pessin is the latest casualty of hate groups exploiting the values of free speech and inclusiveness to defeat those very principles on campus. When he dared to exercise his free speech rights to defend the only Mideast state that has such rights, an SJP leader began a smear campaign to label Pessin’s defense of Israel a hate crime. In the skewed moral universe at Connecticut College, Professor Pessin, who actually endorses a two-state solution recognizing the rights of both Jews and Palestinians, is called a racist, while the student campaigning against him – who scoffs at anti-Semitism and supports the genocidal terrorist group Hamas – is embraced as a moral hero. The administration’s handling of this fiasco has been so inept and unfair that everyone who cares about academic freedom, free speech, and/or Israel’s right to defend itself from the murderous attacks of Hamas should sign this petition supporting Professor Pessin, who was forced to take a medical leave of absence because of this ordeal involving personal threats, reputational damage, and other costs.
While university administrators often fail to protect those who defend Israel, the only Mideast democracy and a close ally, they are all too tolerant of hateful Islamist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) who are sworn enemies of the U.S. and its values. Astonishingly, a Cornell University dean suggested that members of ISIS could be welcomed onto the Ivy League campus to conduct talks and even training programs. It is precisely such clueless naiveté about Islamist intentions that ultimately endangers the United States, where it has infected the highest levels of power.
North Americans who cherish their freedoms must oppose the dangerous trend on campuses today: university administrations that tolerate intolerance while hate groups try to silence those who defend the only democracy in the Middle East. The harassment is still mostly a nonviolent attempt to chill free speech, but how far are we from Charlie Hebdo-style massacres? When students openly welcome Hamas and sharia law on campus and university administrators respond to encroaching Islamist influences with naiveté or indifference, the stage is set for far more aggressive and potentially violent forms of Islamist activism.
This is a welcome and important start, but more support for such efforts is needed, given the scale and severity of the problem. If universities are increasingly dominated by an Islamist agenda, and they are where our democracy’s future is trained, what sort of future awaits us?
Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.
Jews from all over the world place small placards in front of the main railway building at the former Nazi death camp of Birkenau (Auschwitz II) in Oswiecim, southern Poland, May 2, 2011. Thousands of mainly Jewish people participated in the 17th annual “March of the Living,” a Holocaust commemoration.
The Rev. Franklin Graham warned on Holocaust Remembrance Day on Thursday that another holocaust might become a reality, pointing to the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe and the United States, who he said are “bringing their hatred of Jews and Christians with them.”
“Could the holocaust be repeated? I’m afraid so. Anti-Semitism is at the highest levels since the late 1930s. This is coming from the influx of Muslim immigrants to Europe, the United States, and other Western countries over the past few decades, and they are bringing their hatred of Jews — and Christians — with them,” Graham wrote in a Facebook message.
“This is a poison. Muslims have been on TV in Europe spouting ‘Hitler should have finished the job!’ Have we learned anything from history?” he asked.
Muslim immigrants have at times expressed anti-Semitic views in TV segments, such as a group of teenage Turkish Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands who in March 2013 said on Dutch TV that Hitler “should have killed all Jews.”
Holocaust Remembrance Day was marked around the world on Thursday, remembering the 6 million Jews who lost their lives under the Nazi Regime during World War II.
Earlier in the day, Israel came to a standstill when marking 70 years since the end of the war, Haaretz reported.
President Reuben Rivlin participated in a ceremony at Kibbutz Givat Mordechai, and said: “Alongside the murdered, I think of you, the Holocaust survivors who are still among us, many of you displaced children who war and destruction tore from your families.”
He continued: “On this day, the painful questions arise. Do we have the means to raise our children with the heavy burden of memory, but free of the threat of horror? Can we commit them to memory in such a way that we can grow from them? Will it be possible to transform the memory of the Holocaust among the next generation into a power that builds, into national responsibility, creativity and vision?”
Graham has warned of rising anti-Semitism in the U.S. and Europe before, and back in March praised the release of the film “Return of the Hiding Place,” about a student resistance movement against Nazi concentration camps.
“This release is very timely and has modern-day application as anti-Semitism is rearing its head again in many parts of Europe and the United States,” Graham said.
The 70-year anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland was also marked in January, with speakers at the event warning of growing anti-Semitism.
“Once again young Jewish boys are afraid to wear yarmulkes [skullcaps] on the streets of Paris, Budapest, London and even Berlin,” said Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress.
“We survivors do not want our past to be our children’s future,” added Roman Kent, who was born in 1929.
Can you sense it? There’s a storm coming.
Whether we have a few years, a decade, or more, now is the time to act. We must work while it is yet light, before the darkness overtakes us. We’re on a mission to get France’s Jews to safety before the clouds burst open and Jew-hatred floods the world once again. The State of Israel stands ready to receive them, but the journey is difficult. Families will have to leave behind everything they know, start over in a new land, and learn a new language. It’s one reason so many choose to stay, and the reason they need our help.
We cannot turn back the tide, but in the time we have, we can sound the alarm and help God’s people escape the storm. We’re calling on everyone with eyes to see, to help get France’s Jews to safety in Israel. Two-by-two.
Are you with us? Click Here to Help!
The world is witnessing a resurgence of global anti-Semitism not seen since the 1930s and the “Final Solution.” In the Middle East, Hitler-admiring regimes like Iran, and Hitler-admiring parties like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are openly planning to finish the job the Nazis started. Even in America, until now the most hospitable place outside of Israel for Jews, the atmosphere is more hostile than at any time in the last 70 years.
According to the FBI, three-fifths of all religious hate crimes in America are now committed against Jews, while a recent Pew poll revealed that 54 percent of Jewish students have either been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or witnessed one. The frequency of these attacks among college-aged students, moreover, is five times that of any other age group. The reason for this is obvious: Across the United States student groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association, are engaged in a vitriolic campaign against Israel and those students who support its right to exist. These organizations promote the propaganda of the terrorist organization Hamas, and call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Students for Justice in Palestine, the more active of the two groups, claims to support a left-wing agenda of “social justice,” and “universal human rights.” Like the left itself, though, Students for Justice in Palestine doesn’t stand for the rights of Palestinians in the territories controlled by Palestinians, including the rights of Palestinians to disagree with each other without being targeted by their terrorist rulers. Instead, SJP’s sole agenda is the destruction of the Jewish state.
While SJP’s self-professed purpose is “to promote self-determination for the Palestinian people,” the organization defines the boundaries of this liberation as extending “from the river to the sea,” i.e., from the Jordan River on Israel’s eastern border to its western border on the Mediterranean. To advance this genocidal agenda, SJP endorses the lie that Israel was created on territory stolen from the Palestinians and, therefore, Jews illegally occupy Arab lands from which they must be purged.
In fact, Israel was created on land that had belonged to the Turks, who are not Arabs, for 400 years previously. In 1948 when Israel was created, there was no Palestinian political entity, no movement for a Palestinian state, and no people calling itself Palestinian. These core genocidal lies make up the primary agenda of SJP and its anti-Jewish allies, and are crowned by the ludicrous claim that Israel is an “apartheid state” with policies worthy of the “Nazis.” In fact, Israel is the only democratic and ethnically tolerant state in the Middle East, the only place where gays, Christians and women are safe. The real Nazis in the Middle East are the Arabs who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.
Despite its anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agendas, SJP is funded by university fees. University administrations officially recognize the organization and grant it the privilege of erecting walls of hate, and conducting “die-ins” and other propaganda stunts in campus centers where other students can’t avoid being assaulted by their noxious accusations.
University administrators who refuse to rein in this hatred operate under pressure from faculty and student activists of the anti-Israel “social justice” left. These include the self-hating Jews of J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace, who join hands with their mortal enemies to condemn anyone who confronts SJP and the malignant forces it represents as “Islamophobes.”
As it happens, “Islamophobe” is a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to demonize its opponents, and the center of a campaign seeking a universal ban on critics as religious blasphemers. The campaign’s success can be seen in President Obama’s refusal to call the terrorist Islamic State “Islamic,” or to describe the war waged by the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamic terror organizations as a religious crusade.
Thanks to the savageries of the Islamic State, however, Americans have begun to wake up and to see Jews as canaries in the mine, and to understand that what is happening to Jews is also happening to Christians and others in the way of Islamic Nazis. Nonetheless, the continuing successes of front organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine are ominous indicators of the dangers that confront us, and should be a wake-up call, too.
Critical observers should be cautious when presented with the idea of a moderate Islam. While keynote speakers at a recent Washington Institute for Near East Policypresentation asked their audience to believe that this ideal is not only attainable, but already a reality, their articulation of a true Islamic religion of peace fell short of convincing the crowd – and rightly so.
“Fighting for Moderate Islam: Ideas and Activism on the New Front Line” was headlined by The Washington Institute’s David Pollock, who opened the event by explaining that would-be Islamic reformers like Washington Institute colleague Mohammed Dajani are in considerable danger because of their beliefs. Assailants torched Dajani’s car at his Jerusalem home the day his article “A Plea for Moderate Islam” appeared, and this was only one of many threats to the man’s life. Dajani described the about-face he made after witnessing the generous humanity of his “perceived enemy,” Israel, and recounted how ill-received his Saul-to-Paul-like conversion was from his fellow Palestinians.
During his tenure as a professor at Jerusalem’s Al Quds University, Dajani faced accusations of CIA recruitment and the teaching of “American Islam.” Experiences he faced while leading a 2014 student trip to the Nazi death camp memorial at Auschwitz, a topic of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories among majority-Muslim communities, finally forced his resignation.
American Islamic Congress co-founder and executive director Zainab Al-Suwaij said that she is constantly worried about threats similar to Dajani’s – not just abroad, but here at home. Al-Suwaij, the Iraqi granddaughter of a Shiite ayatollah, fled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship after participating in the 1991 post-Gulf War revolt to overthrow Hussein before establishing her career and family in the United States. Soberly, she said that Al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States made her realize that “the terror I had left behind is not always back there.”
Al-Suwaij said that extremism within the American Muslim community is dehumanizing and is “spreading like a cancer – quietly.” She pointed out that this form of jihadism in America has often been masked by moderation since the events of 9/11, giving the false illusion that “we are now in a safer place.”
An attendee at President Barack Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism summit, Al-Suwaij said that she would have preferred that the event be titled “Countering Radical Islamism,” which was the actual focus of the president’s summit. Although Al-Suwaij said that “Muslims and Islam – their religion – are the first victims of this dangerous ideology,” she was reticent to give specifics about the Islamist backgrounds of groups like theCouncil on American-Islamic Relations or the Islamic Society of North America.
Al-Suwaij said that what she sought most of all was “a voice of moderate Islam” that involved a reinterpretation of Islamic canonical texts. She said that this was not unheard of, but had occurred fairly often in Islamic history – albeit mostly due to pressure from Islamic regimes, not from the Muslim grassroots. She accused groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria of their own kind of brutal revisionism.
In all, Al-Suwaij said that she was optimistic that the social climate within Islamic communities would change for the better. Although extreme groups like ISIS have limited appeal among Muslims, she attributed deficient American Muslim anti-extremism efforts to the widespread desire of those who simply want to live a “normal life” without political fights. After all, many American Muslims simply do not care to air their dirty laundry for the world to see.
Seconding Al-Suwaij’s call for ideological warfare, Dajani said that another “version of Islam” is needed, in the face of groups like the Islamic State. He said that it was wrong for struggles against jihadist threats to consume so much military attention while “soft messages” that can influence Islam get little notice. Hence his assertion that Israel’s anti-terrorism barrier (the “wall”) was ineffective and consumed resources that would be better spent winning Palestinian friendship with development aid. His overgenerous spirit also included former ISIS fighters who were disillusioned when they returned to their home countries. His prescription: “Don’t treat them like criminals; embrace them.”
Dajani’s devil came in his theological details. To promote his vision of Islam, he founded the Wasatia Reconciliation Center, an organization whose name is derived from the Arabic word wasat from Quran 2:143, a word that can mean “middle ground.” Although Dajani said that he seeks to avoid extremes, his online explanatory documents note that, in the “Holy Quran,” wasat also “means justice, righteousness and goodness,” as various English Quran translations indicate. A writer at Islamic Revival argued that wasat “is unrelated to being extreme or moderate,” but requires the Muslim community to “resume the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the true State of Islam.”
Similarly shallow canonical foundations can also be found in Dajani’s rejection of Islamic anti-Semitism. He failed to counter copious instances of Islamic anti-Semitism such as a well-known, infamous canonical saying – or hadith – of Muhammad that predicted a genocidal end-times battle with the Jews. While Dajani called this hadith “fabricated,” Islam scholar Martin Kramer countered by saying its authenticity is “rated triple-A.”
Dajani also cited a hadith that described the Prophet Muhammad’s standing in respect for the funeral bier of a Jew, but more detailed Islamic interpretations explained that the prophet had merely stood for the angels who were receiving that Jew’s soul.
In a later interview, Dajani clarified that he hopes most of all to build “bridges of understanding” between people of various faiths whose values are common among religions. He rejected a “radical school” that believes “Islam has come to correct the other religions, rather than to complement other religions,” even though such correction is standard Islamic dogma. “Taken as a whole, the Quran’s moral message is consistent,” he said, but his evaluation rejects Islam’s abrogation doctrine, under which chronologically later, aggressive Quran verses replace earlier, tolerant passages.
Dajani’s presentation expressed optimism in winning over the Muslim people, but conceded that “people tell me that this is a one-man effort.” He and Al-Suwaij undoubtedly mean well, but Islam’s often violent, intolerant canons present steep theological hurdles to developing an Islam with a human face. Al-Suwaij and Dajani’s well-wishers should look before they make any leap of faith on the basis of an Islamic reform project.
by Abigail R. Esman Special to IPT News
March 30, 2015
Seventy years ago this month, Anne Frank died in the concentration camps of Bergen-Belsen, leaving behind, stashed in the rooms where she and her family hid from the Nazis in Amsterdam, one of the most valuable historic documents of our time: her diary.
But try telling this story in a Dutch classroom today. “Holocaust Classes? Bulls**t! Say the Students” declared a headline of Dutch newspaper AD. Indeed, large numbers of Dutch students, all of them Muslim, refuse to listen to lessons about the Shoah [the Holocaust], denouncing them as exaggerations and lies, and threatening their teachers. It is a capital example of the kind of exploitation one finds increasingly among radicalized and even non-radicalized Muslim youth in Europe: for even as many question the existence of the concentration camps, the efforts at genocide, they demonstrate in pro-ISIS and anti-Israel rallies chanting “All Jews to the gas” and “Hitler was right.”
And as the world witnessed with the killings of Jews in Brussels, Paris, and Copenhagen in the past year, this kind of Jew hate extends far beyond the borders of the Netherlands, where Anne Frank’s German family first sought refuge. Now, as then, there is no real refuge in Europe for the Jews.
If this sounds like hyperbole, look at the recent record: the killing of four Jews at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May 2014 by French radical Muslim Mehdi Nemmouche; the slaughter of four Jews at the kosher Hypermarche in Paris by would-be jihadist Amedy Coulibaly, on Jan. 9; and the murder a month later of a Jewish volunteer guard at a Copenhagen synagogue by Arab-Danish extremist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein.
But that’s not where the violence stops. There have been dozens of smaller incidents: firebombings of synagogues in Paris and Wupperthal last summer; the beating of a Swedish Jewish woman by Muslim gangs in Malmo that same summer (her crime: wearing a Star of David necklace); and the voice on a Belgian commuter train in February 2014 that calmly announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are approaching Auschwitz; all Jews are requested to disembark and take a quick shower.”
And there are more: an attack on a Jewish woman last August in Amsterdam; a French teenager beaten up outside of his school by “African” youth in October; the employee of the Netherlands’ Ministry of Justice, who tweeted in August that “ISIS is a Zionist plot.”
In January, former Scottish civil servant Zaim Mohammed posted to his Facebook page in January, “My grievance is with Hitler for failing to exterminate entire Jewish race.” Notably, the UK saw its highest level of anti-Semitism on record in 2014, including more than 80 physical assaults.
Unsurprisingly then, Europe’s Jews are on high alert and afraid. Marco Mosseri, an Italian Jew now living in Brussels, spoke for many when he told the New York Timeslast September, “This summer, I started to see the world in a different way. I was scared. I spent several nights without sleep. For the first time, I was thinking that maybe I could die from my religion.”
Several attacks later, you have to wonder how he feels now.
Dozens of reports on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe have protested that “this is not 1933,” noting that the attacks on Jews these days are made by civilians and not the State: Jews are hardly being rounded up, or officially banned from public life.
But increasingly, participation in public life is becoming, for many European Jews, a risk they calculate each time they step beyond the threshold of their front door. Congregants are reminded to remove their yarmulkes before leaving temple. Schoolchildren hide their Stars of David beneath their shirts. The sense of randomness and unpredictability of violence engenders a different kind of fear.
Moreover, as the Times article observes, Jews frequently find that while their governments may not engage in outright anti-Semitism, they do less than they could to stop it. It was only after the bloodbath at the Jewish Museum in Brussels that the Dutch government, for the first time, agreed to cover the costs of guarding Jewish schools and institutions – an expense that, until then, had been the burden of the Jews themselves.
Yet fighting anti-Semitism, the Times article points out, “is no longer seen as a priority, with Jews often perceived as privileged compared with Muslims and other minorities confronted with discrimination.” Although the number of anti-Jewish crimes surpassesanti-Muslim crimes in frequency and severity doesn’t seem to alter that misperception of privilege. Likewise, the fact that the vast majority of violent attacks on Jews are perpetrated by Muslims has no impact on this view. According to a report from Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP), “anti-Semitic attitudes are significantly more widespread among Muslims than among other segments of European societies.”
Other surveys, notes ISGAP, “confirm that antiJewish attitudes are stronger among [European] Muslims than among the general population.” Yet not a single Jew has been accused of engaging in anti-Muslim activity, let alone anti-Muslim violence.
But anti-Jewish sentiment extends beyond the Muslim community. It has become somewhat mainstream, from the popularity of French performer Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, whose signature “quenelle” – an upside-down Nazi salute – is replicated by fans (mostly, but not exclusively Muslim youth) across Europe, to the efforts in the Netherlands and elsewhere to broaden Holocaust Remembrance day to include the victims of all wars – thereby minimizing, in one gesture, the significance, the historical uniqueness, and the memory of Europe’s own near-destruction of the Jews.
Perhaps this development explains why so many teachers have given up teaching about the Holocaust in many European schools and why the governments do little to discipline those students who refuse to listen, and even those who issue threats.
It certainly explains the fact that not all of the rise in anti-Semitism can be attributed to Muslims: Pro-Palestinian far left groups and neo-Nazi far right organizations can take credit for their own fair share. According to IGSAP, in France, “twenty-four percent of the Muslim sample and 12 percent of the general population disagreed that the Holocaust should be taught to younger generations to avoid its repetition.” Moreover, 57 percent of Muslim interviewees, 25 percent of the general population, 32 percent of Front National sympathizers and 28 percent of Front de Gauche sympathizers agreed that ‘Zionism is an international organization that aims to influence the world and society for the benefit of the Jews.”
And so on.
No wonder, then, that Danny Pinto, a Dutch Jew who grew up in Amsterdam, toldDutch daily de Volkskrant, “I’m more conscious now of the dangers; I always look for the emergency exits.”
Before her death from typhus only weeks before the liberation of the camps, Anne Frank confided in her diary: “I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.
Seventy years later, her ideals still remain a dream, locked inside the pages that she wrote.
To support Israel is racist; to support ISIS is a demonstration of diversity. This is the atmosphere at American college campuses today. “Higher learning” has become synonymous with “liberal brainwashing.”
It is important to remember that Israel is America’s ally- not just any ally, but America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Despite President Obama’s blatant hatred for Israeli PM Netanyahu and his Administration’s obvious moves against our only truly democratic friend in the region, at the end of the day, Israel is still a close ally of the United States.
Yet at America’s colleges and universities, which celebrate diversity, the extremely diverse, humanitarian and peaceful Israel (whose population is made up of multiple races and religions), is the enemy.
After his Facebook post described Gazans as a wild pit bull in a cage, which attacks violently whenever let out of that cage, all hell broke loose from the anti-Israel camp. The Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity at Connecticut College and the history department condemned the “hate speech,” “dehumanizing language,” “bigotry,” and the celebration or incitement of “violence and brutality.”
The professor is actually against violence and brutality according to what he’s written. Those who disagree with his post are the ones who are supporting violence.
As a matter of fact, Pessin spoke the truth. Gaza is ruled by Hamas. Hamas is a wild pit bull, and no matter how much anyone tries to pretend that Gazans do not support Hamas, the terrorism and support for terror against innocent Israeli civilians and even Jews in Diaspora speaks for itself. Over the summer of 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, anti-Israel rallies around the world turned into anti-Jew violent riots. The pro-Palestinians showed their overwhelming support for Hamas and their hatred for Jews.
Yet this professor is the one accused of hate speech and celebrating violence.
You can start an ISIS “humanitarian” club and training camp at Cornell.
Joseph Scaffido, the Assistant Dean of Students for Student Activities at Cornell University, one of the most prestigious universities in America, spoke on hidden camera to an undercover journalist posing as a student from Morocco who hopes to attend the Ivy League school next year. The “student” asked about starting an ISIS humanitarian group, raising awareness for the “freedom fighters,” obtaining funding to bring over a terrorist to give a speech, and even starting a training camp. The Dean’s responses were all “yes, yes, yes,” explaining that Ithaca, where Cornell is located, is a very liberal community.
Apparently “liberal” now means “terror supporting.” Incidentally, as liberal as President Obama is, and although he is unwilling to admit that ISIS is Islamic, he at least recognizes that it is a terror group.
ISIS is an enemy of the United States. Israel is a friend.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who speaks out against the abuse of women in Islam, was offered an honorary degree from Brandeis University, but after Muslim cries of Islamophobia, the university took back its offer.
Any advocacy of women’s rights is deemed “Islamophobic.”
Ali was raised Muslim and herself is the victim of atrocities like female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage. She was once a pious Muslim, but after the Somali native was granted political asylum to the Netherlands and received an education, she began to reflect on Islam and its teachings. After the 9/11 attacks, she picked up the Qur’an and hadith, and it wasn’t long before she renounced her faith.
Ali’s AHA Foundation “works to protect and defend the rights of women and girls in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture”: http://theahafoundation.org/
Apparently defending the rights of women and girls is “Islamophobic.”
The decision of Brandeis University to revoke its offer to Ali is pure hypocrisy. Why? Because the school has given such honors to anti-Semites in the past. Jay Bergman, Professor of History
Central Connecticut State University, writes for FrontPage Magazinein an open letter to the university:
“You say that you are withdrawing the award because Ms. Hirsi Ali’s views violate what you call ‘the core values’ of the university. But Brandeis saw nothing wrong in awarding an honorary degree to Tony Kushner, who has called the creation of the state of Israel a mistake and falsely accused it of ethnic cleansing; and to Desmond Tutu, an anti-semitic bigot who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany. From this one could reasonably conclude — since Tutu’s anti-semitism did not cause Brandeis to refrain from awarding him a degree — that anti-semitism is either one of the core values of your university or is not inconsistent with these values.
“It is clear that at Brandeis University Israel can be smeared and those who do so are rewarded, but someone who properly criticizes Islam is unfairly attacked and dishonored.”
Anti-Semitism is allowed at a school founded by the Jewish community, but legitimate concerns regarding the mistreatment of women in Islam go against what the university stands for?
The result of a growing Muslim population in America is a growing anti-Semitic population. But it is worse than that. Now our young adults, who attend colleges and universities in the hopes of getting a good education, a higher degree and eventually beginning a successful career, some becoming our future politicians and practically all of voting age already, are being taught that our ally is our enemy, and our enemy is our friend. They are in effect, being taught that it is racist to say anything which might be considered “negative” against terrorists.
So bring on the ISIS terrorist speakers but condemn the Israel-supporting professors. Welcome to university life in America today.
Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism — two sides of the same coin — are raging yet again. They are brutally alive in the Middle East, Europe and even here in America.
Yet now, at long last, there is some pushback, at least on the “battlefield of ideas.”
It comes in the form of a new academic institute championed by a hardened veteran of this war, and its presence at universities throughout the world is blossoming.
In this country, we hear shouts of Jew-hatred at every pro-Palestinian demonstration.
We read all about it in the biased left-liberal, anti-Israel media and see it in President Obama’s overt hostility to Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Perhaps most troubling, though, is its presence on the American campus, where it is at full boil.
There, Israel-bashing is embraced as an expression of politically correct, divine truth — rather than called out for what it often really is: unadulterated racism.
Professors disguise their hatred of Jews by presenting it as a “politically righteous” stand against Israel, since the Jewish state is, in their portrayal, a colonialist, apartheid nation.
A 2015 report by the National Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students found 54 percent of 1,157 college students polled at 55 American campuses have experienced and/or witnessed anti-Semitic incidents.
Enter Prof. Charles Small — to the rescue. Small founded the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy after running a successful similar program at Yale from 2005 to 2011.
The Yale program was superb; experts there examined contemporary Islamic Jew- and infidel-hatred and terrorism in new academic ways — that is, openly and honestly.
That doomed it. The program was squashed and he was forced out by leftist pressure and a campaign by Arab and pro-Palestinian students, faculty and advocates.
Now, he’s back, and his new effort is also seeing success. The institute is proving a powerful force, one the Western academic world (not surprisingly) abhors.
He’s offering a rigorous scholarly program dedicated to the study of contemporary global anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism may be the “oldest hatred,” but no such program focusing on its current-day manifestation has ever before existed.
Instead, America today is awash with well-funded anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western Middle Eastern studies departments. Small says he is “fighting anti-Semitism on the battlefield of ideas, not in university corridors, not at campus demonstrations.”
By 2012, ISGAP had a foothold at Fordham and Harvard law schools, Stanford and McGill. It’s now at Columbia Law, Sapienza University in Rome and the University of Paris-Sorbonne. In two weeks, it will debut at the University of Chile.
In the 2014-2015 academic year, ISGAP presented more than 100 seminars in English, French and Italian.
Through the guidance of executive-committee Chairman Lawrence Benenson, funding is diverse, coming from “both right of center and left of center.”
The effort has not always been easy. The powers that be at the Sorbonne said “anti-Semitism is not important, not relevant” — their exact words.
Grudgingly, they let Small stage an event “just once,” thinking nothing would come of it; instead, 80 people showed up.
At another seminar after the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket attacks, 150 people turned out. ISGAP was later given military protection and invited to formally join the Sorbonne as a “recognized research center.”
This is an extraordinary victory. “The French now understand that those who are profoundly anti-Semitic are threatening the foundations of their society,” says Small.
This coming summer, ISGAP will be training professors at Oxford. Applications have poured in from Canada, the United States, the UK, Russia, China, Brazil and Argentina.
Yet already, it boasts a prestigious staff, including experts like Robert Wistrich, Martin Kramer, Bassam Tibi, Shimon Samuels, Valentina Colombo, Irwin Mansdorf, Meir Litvak, Richard Landes and others.
Despite the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (a campaign by “Israel-deniers”), the campus Israeli “apartheid” hate-fests and the indoctrination taking place in social sciences and departments of Middle East studies, we now have the beginning of a successful “fight back” strategy. Let’s hope it continues to rise to the enormous challenge it faces.