Fresnozionism - The Palestinian movement and Jew hatred

Fresnozionism.org..
17 June '12..

We keep hearing how there is a big difference between Jew hatred and anti-Zionism. Those who are promoting boycotts of Israeli goods, academics, athletes, etc. until Israel provides ‘justice’ to Palestinian Arabs — which is defined in terms that would preclude the existence of the Jewish state — vehemently insist that they have no problem with Jews per se.

Often they themselves are Jews. “How can we be Jew-haters,” they ask?

This position is belied by their double standards and by the pathological obsessiveness of their focus on Israel. But they nevertheless maintain that the logical distinction between hating Jews and ‘opposing’ (in fact, hating) Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs means that social sanctions against antisemitism (and in some countries, legal ones) do not apply to them.

But if we look at the Palestinian movement that they are supporting, it is joined at the hip with ideas and people that represent classical racist Jew hatred of the most murderous kind.

We can quickly dispose of Hamas, whose charter — which has not changed since its inception — contains anti-Jewish material taken directly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But did you know that the Palestinian Authority (PA) published a textbook for children in 2004 that asserts that the forged Protocols are historically true?

The PA media and religious appointees also continue to describe Jews as descendants of apes and pigs. Does this count as ‘criticism of Israeli policies’?

A Movement of Hate, Pt. IV

Rob Harris
frontpagemag.com
13 May '10

[Editor's note: This is the final installment of a four-part series. To review earlier segments of "A Movement of Hate," please click: Part I, Part II and Part III]

Many pro-Palestinians seem to take genuine pleasure in abusively condemning Israel, which one critic described as a perverted, fevered hatred. It is their privilege to equate Jews with Nazis but dare anybody call them anti-Semites? Why would people behave in this abhorrent fashion, especially socialists who purport to be far more ethical than many of us? The Jew is a stranger whom others transform into what they fear. In the Christian era he was a devilish child and priest killer. In times of plague he was disease carrier or well poisoner. In Soviet Russia he was capitalist, while simultaneously in McCarthyite America he was communist. In the newer liberal/alternative political climate the Jew has become a 21st century version of the Western capitalist: the pro-war “neocon” of new anti-Semitism.

The Jew, as a microcosm of Israel, is seen as essentially white/Western, capitalist, wealthy, progressive, and somehow representative of authority and the establishment. The Palestinian is the polar opposite: primitive, feudal, radical, chaotic, anti-establishment, authentic, ethnic/non-white, and poor. Extreme pro-Palestinianism is acceptable even when overtly anti-Semitic since it presents an opposing face to the skin-head/jack booted anti-Semitism of old. It is politically correct, anti-American, anti-capitalist and alternative. No wonder hating Israel is a prerequisite for any right thinking leftist who can indulge his/her hatred for a much maligned race while appearing holier than thou.

Meanwhile, these people appear to be looking the other way while appalling abuses go on in the rest of the world. For example the extremely savage ethnic cleansing in Darfur, where a death toll numbers hundreds of thousands in a few years, is hardly mentioned. Why is it so few really care when Arab Muslims orchestrate a mass butchering campaign against black Muslims? The Arabs are a Caucasoid race, so this represents quite possibly the very worst episode of white on black racially motivated violence since the abolition of slavery. Yet President Obama, whose election would lead to a cure for all the woes of the world, seems to only be concerned in the international sphere with Jews building extensions to their homes. It is difficult to imagine a double standard starker than this.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

A Movement of Hate, Pt. III

Robert Harris
Frontpagemag.com
12 May '10

Israel has been subjected to forceful criticism for decades. When those criticisms are hysterical, irrational and/or do not address Israel’s concerns to the slightest extent, are we not obliged to query why these frequent criticisms seem so unbalanced. If any commentator treats a serious topic in an unbalanced fashion it is quite right to be concerned. Such a viewpoint could cause genuine harm if it gains currency. The questions, “Why is person or movement ‘X’ so extreme? why do they turn the facts upside down and ignore everything not in their favor?” are perfectly legitimate, especially if there was extensive hatred and oppression of the group historically that is now the subject of their ire.

The response is typically an approximation of “Oh, we are only concerned about Zionists not the Jews who we really like an awful lot, I like Dylan, Seinfeld etc.” This argument seems a little suspect since Israel is the only state in existence populated principally by Jews. The only state in existence where Jews can live without being subject to the censure of hostile non-Jews in host nations. Of course it is quite feasible that many Palestinian supporters aren’t anti-Semitic. The motivations of an individual can be difficult to establish: even if they make unjustifiable remarks, spread untruths and flatly refuse to accept opposing views no matter how well justified, they may not be driven by hatred even if that is likely to be the case. Ignorance, stubbornness and even stupidity can be alternatives. However, this is not simply an observation relating to individuals but rather a movement. If we were to accept the “concern of Zionism only” line we would have to ignore the dishonesty, usual methods of criticism and belligerent manner that defines the movement and which gives rise to concerns about anti-Semitism. If many pro-Palestinian groups are not anti-Semitic it is extremely unlikely they would then collectively resort to such forms of criticism and behaviour.

(Read full article)

To read part II click here

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

A Movement of Hate, Pt. II

To read Part I, click here.


Robert Harris
Frontpagemag.com
11 May '10

The pro-Palestinian movement is profoundly undemocratic with regard to dissenting views. All contentious issues have at least two points of view. A level of reasoned discussion is often required to bring about a fair resolution to a given issue. While most of us can have strong reactions to the opinions of others when they are unpalatable, we still recognize they are entitled to have differing opinions. The need for free speech is meaningless if we all agree with each other, and it is a necessary characteristic of having a free, open society.

Today, in honor of Yom Yerushalayim, a very special video - Jerusalem Day: Reflections by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel

However, nowhere more so than with the Israeli-Palestinian debate does a genuine belligerence occur when there is a divergence of opinion away from the predominant pro-Palestinian narrative of the conflict. Whenever anyone endorses an opinion in the media or on the Internet that is even mildly critical of the Palestinians or mildly supportive of Israel they are typically subjected to extreme criticism. Palestinian sympathisers often use a variety of dishonest methods of argumentation. One common method of counter-argument largely avoids confronting the issue at hand. A pro-Israel article dealing with a particular topic is broadly dismissed but typically issues are cited that are beyond the scope of said article and as a consequence vitriolic scorn is often heaped upon it. Even lengthy articles can only deal with a limited number of topics in a limited number of words, and can only address a limited number of responses. Yet they are typically attacked to such an extent it comes across as an attempt, wherever possible, to discredit articles supporting Israel.

The Guardian newspaper has been for some time a notoriously biased publication when it comes to matters of the Middle East. Any article that doesn’t roundly condemn Israel is subjected to extreme prolific criticism below in the Comment is Free (CIF) Internet comment sections that is often very abusive in nature. Furthermore, rather than just criticising the content of the article, many comments can be extremely personal in nature. An author’s reputation can be put into disrepute by claiming he or she is a “holocaust denier,” under the control of “Zionist paymasters” etc. The moderators of the Comment is Free section often allow deeply anti-Semitic views to also be expressed. The criticism is very prolific, with comments sometimes numbering in the thousands. The Comment is Free section is an extreme example from a mainstream newspaper but this sort of activity is nonetheless very common.

It should be clear that this sort of behaviour represents an attempt to intimidate and essentially shout down any dissenting opinions. This does not only happen on the Internet. On discussion shows the same often occurs, and in mainstream publications few moderate articles on the conflict ever go unanswered (forcefully) in letters pages. From colloquial evidence, many that defend Israel are sometimes subjected to serious threats, which needs to be discussed openly.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.