To Fight or Diplomatize: Karsenty Takes on the AJC

Philippe Karsenty has been threatening to write a piece about the behavior of the American Jewish Committee in the al Durah affair for years now. He’s finally done it. It lays out a classic dilemma between the confrontational and the accommodational approach to dealing with the problems of anti-semitism in the current scene.

This critique is echoed both in its particular target of the AJC, as well as the more general problem of the American Jewish leadership (a fortiori, Jewish leadership in other countries).

Mar 30, 2009 20:24 | Updated Mar 30, 2009 23:22
The American Jewish Committee deserves better leadership
By PHILIPPE KARSENTY

Talkbacks for this article: 17

If ever an issue begged for the intervention of a Jewish organization of international stature, it was the Mohamed al Dura affair. This notorious blood libel accused Israeli soldiers of shooting to death an Arab boy in Gaza on September 30, 2000. Though the event was actually a staged hoax, it was broadcast the same day on French public television station, France 2. Mohamed al Dura became an icon for all Muslim children. The story triggered rioting, terrorism and mayhem throughout the Muslim world; unleashed the Second Intifada; was the pretext for Daniel Pearl’s beheading, and was referenced in Osama bin Laden’s recruitment tapes prior to 9/11.

For seven years I worked to expose that hoax, and was sued for my effort.

The American Jewish Committee is one of the world’s most active Jewish institutions. It would have been entirely consistent with its mission to have stepped forward to aid me in my efforts to counter a libel that dishonored every Jew.

But under David Harris as executive director, only silence and obstruction were forthcoming.

Harris is renowned for his diplomatic skills, his warm friendship with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and his contacts at the highest levels of other European governments. Some have complained to him that his representative in France, Valerie Hoffenberg, never once objected to France 2′s hoax or supported my efforts to expose it. In fact, Hoffenberg was waging a behind-the scenes counter-offensive to cover-up the al Dura lie by blocking my access to some French officials, lobbying Jewish leaders against me, and claiming that the phony news report was authentic. Harris’ response was always polite and reassuring: “I will look into it,” he promised.

Yet nothing ever changed. It finally became clear that Hoffenberg was not acting on her own initiative, but faithfully adhering to AJC policy. Because of Hoffenberg’s activities, AJC France was actually my most destructive foe.

That would be a significant exaggeration. Enderlin and France2 were Karsenty’s most destructive foes. I don’t think it helps to exaggerate.

Nonetheless, in May of last year I was vindicated in a French court.

DAVID HARRIS’ antipathy to exposing the al Dura hoax is entirely consistent with his advice to the Obama administration (as well as other foreign governments) to participate in the planning of the Jew-hating stimulus package known as Durban II – against the wishes of the State of Israel. Now he is viciously attacking three of Israel’s best defenders – Caroline Glick, Melanie Phillips and Anne Bayefsky – for advocating an immediate and unequivocal boycott.

Harris’ claims that he deserves the credit for the current US disengagement from Durban II or improvements in its draft declaration – after undermining boycott efforts repeatedly – are more examples of the same practice I witnessed in the al Dura context: AJC’s mastery of the double game.

When the French Court of Appeals ruled in my favor, the AJC immediately issued a statement in praise of French justice. But that statement was only for its US audience. When asked to comment in French, the AJC representative in France refused, afraid it would appear as criticism of the French government which owns and controls the French public TV station that broadcast the al Dura hoax.

On December 2006, the AJC published an excellent report called “Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” by Alvin Rosenfeld. AJC received requests that it be translated into German.

Harris wrote to his Berlin bureau chief, Deidre Berger: “I believe there would be a mini-firestorm in Germany if this [the Rosenfeld report] appeared and, therefore, do far more damage than good to our image and reputation in a key country.”

In other words Germany is a “key country” and Harris had important relationships to protect.

I’M NOT ALONE in my concerns about Harris’ European involvement.

The following is an unsolicited note from a prominent German Jew that came to me in November 2008 and confirmed my perception of Harris’ “policies”:

“While you experienced problems with AJC Paris, AJC Berlin has been making problems in Germany. This is no coincidence. The explanation is that this AJC policy is supported by David Harris. AJC wants to sit in the first row among the Jewish organizations when it comes to contacts with European governments. For this reason they try to get along well with the establishments in the various countries…

“It is thus working against, and even sabotaging, other Jewish and non-Jewish NGOs that are more serious about combating anti-Semitism and supporting Israel. In short, AJC is practicing appeasement toward the European governments and elites. That establishment, for its part, appreciates AJC giving them the kosher stamp of approval. AJC is thus working against Jewish interests in Europe.”

Worldwide, Jew-hatred is skyrocketing and Israel’s enemies have never been as united as they are now. The UN’s Durban II is a forum intended to confer official legitimacy on that hatred and unity – no less than the fiction of Mohamed al Dura, the UN’s poster child for Israeli atrocities. Not surprisingly, the painful but phony image of the “dead” Al Dura boy adorned the walls of the places that hosted Durban I.

AJC attracts donors by claiming to protect Jewish interests, but in reality, under Harris’ leadership, its actions provide cover for our enemies.

The writer is a French media critic.

My personal experience in the al Durah Affair was that, in addition to going to major news outlets (ABC, WGBH, Boston Globe, Ha-aretz, Jerusalem Report), and media watch groups (CAMERA, PMW, MEMRI), I also went to major Jewish organizations (AJCommittee, ADL, CPMAJO, TIP, AIPAC, AJCongress, Israeli government, IDF), thinking they’d be helpful.

What I found was a world paralyzed by fear of being labeled “conspiracy nuts,” and basically unwilling to help. (I should mention that one of the AJC’s major donors helped me in the earliest stages, but that was not through the AJC. Other figures in the ADL and the Israeli consulate helped me surreptitiously. Only B’nai Brith International did anything public.) Harris, the first person I went to, was and remains, evasive and unresponsive. I have never presented the material on al Durah and Pallywood to any of their annual meetings.

When I presented the case to the New England board of the AJC, to see if they would back a campaign to bring this to the attention of the public, one of the old-timers in the group came up to me after it was voted down handsomely, patted me on the shoulder condescendingly, and said: “You know, we needed people like you in the 1930s, but now… you’re just dangerous.”

My general impression of the current Jewish leadership is that they were largely formed in 1990s when the positive-sum rules of civil society offered the paradigm for action: let’s help the civil and human rights of others and, if it ever comes to it, when we need their help, they’ll help us. When the sh*t hit the fan in 2000 with al Durah and the wave of anti-Semitism, the model failed miserably — all those liberal organizations the Jewish organizations has partnered with either fell silent or went on the offensive against Israel, especially the liberal Protestant groups.

And the Jewish leaders did not know what to do. So they redoubled their efforts to be nice, not to offend. As the joke runs about two Jews in line for the showers at Auschwitz, one of them sneezes and the other says, “Hush Bernie, you’ll only make it worse for us.” Or, as a friend of mine who’s on the board of B’tselem said, “I don’t have any other moves.”

For those of us, like me, Karsenty, and others, who were not mobilized before 2000, and who took on the al Durah affair, it was a disorienting problem. As the judge said to Karsenty during the trial: “If the Israeli army, which is the target of these accusations, doesn’t have anything to say in their own defense, why should we take you seriously?”

The initial comments to Karsenty’s article are almost unanimously supportive of his confrontational approach to the AJC. (I’m struck by the number of complaints about arrogance.)

I was hoping that after Karsenty won, there’d be a shift, a reconsideration, in which some understanding emerged between activists and large Jewish organizations with a reputation to protect. I still think that has to happen. In fact the influence organizations like the AJC and ADL have acquired are important. Too bad they take no advice and too few risks.

30 Responses to To Fight or Diplomatize: Karsenty Takes on the AJC

  1. Ak Khazar says:

    Well, on the bright side (if we can try to imagine one), it is on balance better to belong to the side that fears being labeled ‘conspiracy nuts than the side of the nuts that actually believe in absurd conspiracies (9-11 “troofers,” the Protocols, etc.; take your pick). As the saying goes, the difference between science and codswallop is that science acknowledges the existence of codswallop. The problem, of course, is: what to do when faced with a real conspiracy? Rational liberal leadership often collapses when confronted with opponents who play by different and seemingly incomprehensible rules. We’ve been there before.

    Specific question in this case: The key term here is “fear.” To what extent–in your personal experience–did the leadership believe your account but fear to support it publicly? versus simply refuse to believe it?

  2. SE says:

    1. when karsenty said that harris et al. were his greatest foes i assume he meant, ‘beyond my opponent.’
    2. a problem with getting your platform out there seems to be that it is perceived as a conspiracy theory. i dont know how to combat that. maybe play down that aspect of it more, and focus more on culture [i know, you do this already...]? i mean, when people say ‘conspiracy’ they often think of a bunch of people getting together and concocting a scheme. now, no one is going to buy that about a billion + people. but people understand culture. just like western culture has a paradigm of positive sum thinking, they have a zero [or negative] sum thinking. it’s just a different way of looking at the world, see.
    except theirs is dangerous.

  3. Cynic says:

    When I presented the case to the New England board of the AJC, to see if they would back a campaign to bring this to the attention of the public, one of the old-timers in the group came up to me after it was voted down handsomely, patted me on the shoulder condescendingly, and said: “You know, we needed people like you in the 1930s, but now… you’re just dangerous.”

    Sadly what we see is exactly like it was back in the 30s; too s**t scared of ‘rocking’ the boat; only now most probably also trying to prove to non-Jews how nice we can be by slitting our own throats.
    Everything comes down to appearances but not substance.
    Screwed up thinking that sacrifices integrity and honesty such as the crowd who helped the Turks avoid as much as possible public outrage over their massacre of Armenians because apparently the Turks were being “nice” to Israel.
    And when the crunch came in January how nice were they?

    Not the people one needs to have in the foxhole.

  4. Cynic says:

    Just had a look at the comments and this one #68 caught my eye

    Second, AJC’s work actually helps enhancing Israel’s image in France. Even Richard Prasquier, President of the CRIF, the institution of the French Jewish community, published a letter in a magazine few months ago to praise AJC’s work and express his desagreement with Karsenty’s view.

    Wasn’t there criticism on this blog of CRIF?
    I’d love to shove it down the commenter’s throat.

  5. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Diplomacy is not about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Especially not directly to your interlocutor.

    This said, I dislike Jewish wars.

  6. Michael B says:

    Silence and obstruction (via silence and via similar “unhelpful” machinations) are standard bureaucratic and inter- and intra-organizational tactics when various motives are at issue, motives that range from the most sincere and unblemished and altruistic down to far less illustrious motives, interests and tactics.

    What has been most boorish and eye-raising as far as the AJC is concerned has been their seeming inclination to portray themselves as virtually beyond reproach, beyond criticism, excepting in some token fashion. That aspect, coupled with a certain officiousness, a lack of transparency, also the “insider” portrayal, all that and more lends itself to a type of eye-rolling regard. It isn’t the fact that certain issues and problems develop, it’s the attempt to paper-over or coverup those issues and problems, rather than dealing with them in a more productive and collegial manner.

  7. Asher Pat says:

    In this case, “diplomatic” is “appeaser”.

    Another example: in the middle of Cast Lead, the rally in London arranged by Jewish organisations was “Rally for peace in Gaza” rather than unashamedly “Israel Israel Israel”. The speakers were telling how they feel the pain on “both sides”. It was ridiculiusly clear what the intention was – to support Israel but to appear anti-Hamas rather than the un-PC “pro Israel”.

    What do you think were the heealdines (all that most people read) in British press? Well it was “British Jews call for peace in Gaza” – coming a few days after violent (“only by a tiny minority” said BBC more than once in a single report) anti-Israel protests in London, it impied that even the Jews in UK are condemning and criticising Israel for not stopping its “onslaught”. The item on the BBC news was under 11 seconds of which 7 were showing a tiny “anti-Israeli counter demo…and the rest 4 seconds showed a seemingly fanatic youngster that looked suspiciouly like a stereotype ISraeli “kippa sruga” settler.

    So there you have it. So many times in my life I encounter the stupidity of group dynamic in Western societies, eg at staff councils at work, at the strategies versus commercial competition – westerners avoid confrontation, try to appease the aggressors, and this is probably what happens with AJC. I can clearly see the frustration of Karsenty, who is a true knight for Israel, when cowards such as AJC, and even the ISraeli officials call for not rocking the boat.

    God bless Karsenty and the likes of his, including Richard and let all Jews in the diaspora reject and despise AJCs cowardness and appeasement.

  8. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    If I get your drift you’re saying that Harris is playing diplomacy with Israeli lives when he should be as head of a Jewish organization arguing the case for those lives?
    In that case I certainly don’t need him speaking in the collective name.
    Let him dream up some diplo-facade to trade frogs legs with Chirac (Sarkozy arrive’ in time for the appeal) and not use Jewish to whitewash those other diplomats.

    It is not a case of Jewish wars but knowing who will sell you short when the time comes. The Jews have not been short of kapos.

  9. oao says:

    Sadly what we see is exactly like it was back in the 30s; too s**t scared of ‘rocking’ the boat; only now most probably also trying to prove to non-Jews how nice we can be by slitting our own throats.

    why should it be and end any different? have people changed in any way? in fact, do these people REALLY KNOW anything about the past? they did not experience it, nor were they properly taught about it.

    Not the people one needs to have in the foxhole.

    Don’t worry, they’re getting their lesson.

    This said, I dislike Jewish wars.

    what jewish wars? are those people jewish? i don’t think so, as they are doing everything they can to disassociate themselves from any jewishness? and if so, they are fair game.

    motives that range from the most sincere and unblemished and altruistic down to far less illustrious motives, interests and tactics.

    if the former, they are stupid; and if the latter they are cowards.

    their seeming inclination to portray themselves as virtually beyond reproach, beyond criticism, excepting in some token fashion.

    of course, because if they are not better than everybody else, then they can be lumped together with the “bad” jews.

    try to appease the aggressors

    why do you think the islamists decided to pound now? it’s not they who destroy the west, it’s suicide.

    God bless Karsenty and the likes of his, including Richard and let all Jews in the diaspora reject and despise AJCs cowardness and appeasement.

    yes, but i’m afraid it won’t help. the west is finished.

    The Jews have not been short of kapos.

    and they are not even close to the kapos circumstances.

    as far as i am concerned, any society or group who is unwilling to fight for survival does not deserve to survive.

  10. Michael B says:

    Btw, “to fight or diplomatize” is of course a false dilemma, a false dichotomy, since it’s a both/and, not an either/or, set of options.

    (It’s also egregiously presumpitve to accuse anyone of cowardice. Though that charge is one example of what can occur when better means of resolving disputes are eschewed.)

  11. JD says:

    For one, the Al Durah affair has less resonance, less presence, in America. So an American organization might not care about it as much.

    I read the “Progressive Thought…” piece, and all I can say, it’s off. Key sentence:

    “Jewish Marxists regularly denounced Zionism as inherently imperialist, colonialist, racist, and racist; they saw it as an ideological enemy of those who stood on the side of the oppressed in the class struggle.”

    This is suggested to have existed “pre-state”. This is NOT true. Indeed, Marxists, on order from the Moscow line, supported the creation of Israel, which, by the way, was created at a time when all sorts of borders in the world were being changed. Words like “racist” are not of that era. The first break came when Israel sided with the West, the biggest break with the frustration of Soviet prestige and world domination via their proxies’ defeat in ’67. That’s when the Soviet anti-Zionism campaign went bonkers, and all these anti-Zionists’ ideations and verbiage derive from then, are Soviet inventions. Also, the PLO fashioned itself in the “left” camp.

    Also, I think the anti-Zionism is declining, certainly since 2002, and then the rise of Hamas and the inability to shut down information flows about Hamas via traditional liberal-left news-shaping. I concede the anti-Zionism/Semitism sounds crazier these days, but that’s because they cannot contextualize and Hamas and fundamentalism, so they have to scream louder.

  12. JD says:

    Cynic wrote:

    “And when the crunch came in January how nice were they?”

    I don’t know what you are talking about. They were certainly nice enough to cooperate with the Israelis flying over Turkey to bomb the Syrian installation.

    Gaza? Well, if the Turks didn’t like that, isn’t that outweighed by the tacit support the Arab states gave to Israel in Gaza?

  13. trends watch says:

    trends watch : Augean Stables » To Fight or Diplomatize: Karsenty Takes on the AJC…

    …In fact, Hoffenberg was waging a behind-the scenes counter-offensive to cover-up the al Dura lie by blocking my access to some French officials, lobby……

  14. Michelle Schatzman says:

    @JD,

    your claim that the Soviet antizionism campaign went bonkers only after 1967 is historically inexact. In fact, this campaign reached lofty heights in the late forties and early fifties, when Stalin first eliminated all that remained of the jewish antifascist committee of WWII, and then sought to deport the full jewish population of the Soviet Union to Khazakstan. At that time, being accused of zionism was a sure path to the death penalty.

    The beginning of the antisemitic campaign was the famous “murderers in white cloak” affair, when medical doctors caring for the high echelons of the soviet powers were accused of killing or trying to kill them. Curiously, they were all jewish. The campaign was halted by the death of Stalin in the beginning of March 1953. Beria freed all the jailed doctors, who had not yet be tried. In the spring of 1953, Beria was murdered by his political bureau comrades.

    In the somewhat later years, after Stalin’s death, the antizionist propaganda continued in a somewhat more low key fashion. Nevertheless, I have seen a reproduction of a cartoon published in the soviet press and depicting a nazi officer and an israeli officer shaking hands over a weapons deal, on a background of barbed wire and concentration camp landscape. The cartoon must have been published before 1959 (date of publication of the brochure including the reproduction and published by some israeli agency) and 1952 (date of acceptance of the german reparations by the government of Israel, a deal which did include the supply of weapons).

    The immediate de jure recognition of Israel by the Soviet Union on May 14th, 1948 and the supply of weapons by Czechoslovakia were motivated by the theory that Israel was fighting British Imperialism and the arab regimes were more reactionary than the regime that Israel would establish. That was the official line. Nevertheless, I guess that Stalin wished that the large number of Jews of russian origin in the yishuv and its left leaning politics might give him some kind of foothold in the area.

    Historically also, there was a big scission in the kibbutz movement in the early fifties, the difference being about more of less stalinism. I have been certified by eyewitnesses that the bust of Stalin was placed in the chadar ochel (dining hall) of some left kibbutzim.

    At times, reality is more stunning than imagination.

  15. Cynic says:

    “And when the crunch came in January how nice were they?”
    I don’t know what you are talking about.

    The political punch to the gut Israel Peres took from Erdogan over Gaza.

    As for flying over Turkey it didn’t seem “co-operating”
    from here.

  16. JD says:

    “your claim that the Soviet antizionism campaign went bonkers only after 1967 is historically inexact”

    I’m not saying this was the first anti-semitic campaign in Russia. The one Stalin started was for domestic purposes. I am familiar with them using the code word “Cosmopolitanism” I didn’t know they used the word Zionism.

    Let me clarify my remarks–I am talking about the anti-Zionism campaign that was international, and centered on geo-political interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. This began about 1965 in earnest with the UAR’s falling into the Soviet Camp and being armed with Soviet arms–the only manufacture the Soviets had worth exporting, and a great part of their pride. The loss in ’67 was a great calamity for its prestige, and a seeming rebuke to the faith tenet of Marxist eventualism. After the defeat that’s when the campaign via radio and literature went bonkers. Ask Jewish leftists if they noticed a difference how Israel was perceived in the months after 67, that’s the start of the campaign going viral in left-thought in the West. The defeat in 1973 of even better Soviet arms increased the propaganda, culminating in the “Zionism is Racism” matter at the UN. All the parallels to colonialism, apartheid, and was much spurred out of the USSR in the late 1960s.

  17. JD says:

    “As for flying over Turkey it didn’t seem “co-operating”
    from here.”

    Where are you? You think Turkey didn’t notice over four hundred miles of their territory? Offer landing rights? Support? They don’t have radars? No NATO AWACS in the region? Israel didn’t make a deal with Turkey before hand?

    Don’t think so…..

  18. oao says:

    It’s also egregiously presumpitve to accuse anyone of cowardice.

    It’d also egregiously presumptive to accuse anyone of deeming certain behaviors cowardly when they are quite clearly so.

  19. oao says:

    For one, the Al Durah affair has less resonance, less presence, in America. So an American organization might not care about it as much.

    That’s usually true on ANY foreign issue in America; even on american issues.

    Words like “racist” are not of that era. The first break came when Israel sided with the West, the biggest break with the frustration of Soviet prestige and world domination via their proxies’ defeat in ‘67.

    correct. as i already argued, the founders of israel were soviet bloc lefties and the soviets assumed they would fall into line. but this does not mean there was no snti-semitism in russia.

    Also, I think the anti-Zionism is declining, certainly since 2002

    are we looking at the same reality????

    They were certainly nice enough to cooperate with the Israelis flying over Turkey to bomb the Syrian installation.

    who, turkey? what is the evidence that they did? as far as i recall, they actually protested it.

    The political punch to the gut Israel Peres took from Erdogan over Gaza.

    that’s just one obvious manifestation of it. the APK is softly and not so softly islamizing turkey, with one consequences rising anti-semitism in turkey.

    Where are you? You think Turkey didn’t notice over four hundred miles of their territory? Offer landing rights? Support? They don’t have radars? No NATO AWACS in the region? Israel didn’t make a deal with Turkey before hand?

    you are ass-u-me’ing, you have no evidence. I wouldn’t base arguments on such assumption if i were you.

    israelis are often very good at fooling, and they have proven that others in the ME are not very good at seeing thru it.

  20. Lorenz Gude says:

    one of the old-timers in the group came up to me after it was voted down handsomely, patted me on the shoulder condescendingly, and said: “You know, we needed people like you in the 1930s, but now… you’re just dangerous.”

    I sometimes experience a similar reaction in myself – the hesitancy to broach vexed subjects. Sometimes it is just keeping the peace appropriately. Sometimes it is moral cowardice. Sometimes it is kidding yourself ‘waiting in line for the showers’.

    I don’t know how old this old timer was, but I was born in the early forties and went to university with many who were the children of Holocaust survivors. Those were different times and I can’t imagine any of those young Jewish men reacting then in the way you describe. Perhaps some might have felt fear and would have preferred the topic didn’t come up. But it strikes me that the condescension is the critical difference that is the product of our times. Perhaps a form of Stockholm syndrome unconsciously evolved over a lifetime which would be even more appalling if the gentleman was an actual Holocaust survivor precisely because he has no trouble recognising in your raising the al Durah issue the very qualities that were needed in the 30s. Amazing.

  21. Cynic says:

    JD,

    Where are you? You think Turkey didn’t notice over four hundred miles of their territory? Offer landing rights? Support? They don’t have radars? No NATO AWACS in the region? Israel didn’t make a deal with Turkey before hand?

    I doubt that the Turks would have made that kind of deal given their hand in glove treatment with Syria of the Kurds.

    They offer no landing rights apart from civilian aircraft for civilian airports, and after denying America passage in 2003 to Northern Iraq Turkey is a far different kettle of fish.
    Stupid Juice for covering up Turkish inhumanity and barbaric acts while acquiescing to lies and distortions about Israel in the interests of “diplomacy” and frogs legs au gratin.

  22. Cynic says:

    oao,

    israelis are often very good at fooling, and they have proven that others in the ME are not very good at seeing thru it.

    Syria was only aware after the fact as the Israelis fooled their radar completely.

  23. Cynic says:

    Also, I think the anti-Zionism is declining, certainly since 2002

    South Africa which lauds Castro, Arafat and Guevara with monuments and street names, denies the Dalai Llama a visa and their trade union COSATU tells the Jews to leave the country.
    Every bit of opposition to Israel which has increased ten fold recently, by the Left, Europe etc., uses Zionism as the excuse.

  24. oao says:

    Those were different times and I can’t imagine any of those young Jewish men reacting then in the way you describe.

    bingo. there is no longer personal experience with that reality, nor is the history properly taught about it. in fact, today’s generations are mostly focused completely on the present.

    But it strikes me that the condescension is the critical difference that is the product of our times.

    I am not entirely sure the difference is critical. people find all sorts of mechanisms to survive in hostile environments: denial, ignoring evidence, making oneself believe that being morally superior can save them. this can be true even more for a repeat situation, when accepting that it happens again is just too hard to contemplate.

    Syria was only aware after the fact as the Israelis fooled their radar completely.

    that was hardly the only instance. israel has essentially excelled in fooling the enemies, in part because their culture is one of lack of sophistication and, therefore, gullibility. there is evidence of that throughout history. the naqba is one example — so readily believing that their arab brothers would wipe out the yahud very quickly. particularly after their elite ran away first, leaving the masses to their own devices and then asking them to follow suit out of shame.

    Every bit of opposition to Israel which has increased ten fold recently, by the Left, Europe etc., uses Zionism as the excuse.

    it’s also quite rabid and it’s everywhere. consider the US: would you have believed that screaming “death to the juice, put them in ovens” would occur in the US and the authorities would do nothing but move jews away from them? that in itself indicates that it’s much worse than 1930′s: then it was not that intense worldwide, and they did not have a previous holocaust example to warn them.

  25. oao says:

    what is the difference between chamberlain and obama bowing before abdallah and talking about negotiating with the “moderate” taliban? even the taliban said that he’s a lunatic.

  26. oao says:

    america’s future:

    Where once was Hamm’s
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023250.php

    any bets as to the sources and consequences for anti-semitism?

  27. oao says:

    and more:

    MORONS: Jurors Find Terrorist Youssef Megahed NOT GUILTY; Told Ya So (Sadly); Will Get U.S. Citizenship
    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/04/morons_told_ya.html

  28. Phil says:

    In the slightest chance that you hadn’t seen this yet, Dr. Landes:
    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/04/mohammed-al-dura-hoax-that-wont-go-away.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>