From YouTube, October 06, 2010: the story of a 107-year-old survivor in a 12-minute Trailer of an upcoming movie: "Alice Dancing Under the Gallows":
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Anti-Christian Pogroms in Egypt
From (IsraelNationalNews.com), 27 October, by Gil Ronen:
Egyptian Muslim mobs are seething against the country's Christians following a Al-Jazeera television report that the Christians were aligned with Israel and stockpiling weapons in preparation for attacking the Muslims.
Fears for the safety of the Christians are growing after a series of violent threats and mass demonstrations against them...In addition, the Barnabas Fund [a Christian advocacy and charitable organization based in Britain] reported, the anger is being fueled by rumors circulated by Islamist leaders that Christians are kidnapping and torturing women who had converted to Islam.
At least ten mass Muslim demonstrations by crowds numbering in the thousands have taken place against Christians this month. A previously unknown group called “Front of Islamic Egypt” vowed that the Christians would experience a “bloodbath.”
There are reports that Egyptian authorities are behind the demonstrations, which serve them for political reasons ahead of next month’s national election for the lower house of Parliament and the 2011 election for the country's presidency. Christian human rights activists said that the authorities may be trying to channel the country's growing social discontent into anti-Christian sentiment.
Egypt has the largest Christian population of any Muslim nation in the Arab world, estimated at six to ten million.
In a separate affair, Egypt's Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs compelled a senior church leader to apologize publicly after another church leader questioned a verse in the Qur’an that accuses Christians of being “infidels.”
Also see "Islamists Accuse Egypt's Christians of Behaving Like…Islamists?" by Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, October 28, 2010.
Egyptian Muslim mobs are seething against the country's Christians following a Al-Jazeera television report that the Christians were aligned with Israel and stockpiling weapons in preparation for attacking the Muslims.
Fears for the safety of the Christians are growing after a series of violent threats and mass demonstrations against them...In addition, the Barnabas Fund [a Christian advocacy and charitable organization based in Britain] reported, the anger is being fueled by rumors circulated by Islamist leaders that Christians are kidnapping and torturing women who had converted to Islam.
At least ten mass Muslim demonstrations by crowds numbering in the thousands have taken place against Christians this month. A previously unknown group called “Front of Islamic Egypt” vowed that the Christians would experience a “bloodbath.”
There are reports that Egyptian authorities are behind the demonstrations, which serve them for political reasons ahead of next month’s national election for the lower house of Parliament and the 2011 election for the country's presidency. Christian human rights activists said that the authorities may be trying to channel the country's growing social discontent into anti-Christian sentiment.
Egypt has the largest Christian population of any Muslim nation in the Arab world, estimated at six to ten million.
In a separate affair, Egypt's Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs compelled a senior church leader to apologize publicly after another church leader questioned a verse in the Qur’an that accuses Christians of being “infidels.”
Also see "Islamists Accuse Egypt's Christians of Behaving Like…Islamists?" by Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, October 28, 2010.
Christian Dhimmis turn against Jews
From Jihad Watch, 26 Oct 2010, by Robert:
Recently two prominent Eastern Catholic bishops have made statements that are ...contradictory of their earlier statements ....indicative of a larger phenomenon regarding the difficulties that Christians in Islamic countries and non-Muslims in Muslim countries in general face.
Dhimmi 1
In 2006, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, Eparch of Newton for the Melkite Greek Catholics in the United States, said:
In 2007, Emmanuel III Delly, the Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, said this about the Christians in Iraq:
Why these shifts?
...the statements ...are essentially identical to statements that so many Muslim leaders have made about Jews, Jerusalem and Israel. This is the way all too many Middle Eastern Christians have learned to view the world.
...it is a reflection of the situation on the ground in Islamic countries: Christians who don't echo the Islamic political line face hard going.
Also, according to Islamic law, the "protection" contract between the Muslim community and the dhimmis is violated, leaving the dhimmi subject to execution, if he "mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam," ('Umdat al-Salik 011.10(5).)
... Christians generally know that if they speak out against the mistreatment to which they are subjected, they will only make matters worse. Historically, dhimmi communities were also kept apart and at odds with one another -- hence the animosity toward Jews. They were communities of fear, living under an ever-ready threat of death if they got out of line. And so mostly, they didn't....
Recently two prominent Eastern Catholic bishops have made statements that are ...contradictory of their earlier statements ....indicative of a larger phenomenon regarding the difficulties that Christians in Islamic countries and non-Muslims in Muslim countries in general face.
Dhimmi 1
In 2006, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, Eparch of Newton for the Melkite Greek Catholics in the United States, said:
"the doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers ...the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice ...peace in Islam is based on the surrender of all people to Islam and to God's power based on Islamic law. They have to defend this peace of God even by force."And yet at the recently concluded Vatican Synod on Christians in the Middle East, he contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council and echoed Islamic supremacist propaganda by saying that
divine promises made to Israel according to Jewish and Christian Scripture "were nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people."Dhimmi 2
In 2007, Emmanuel III Delly, the Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, said this about the Christians in Iraq:
"Christians are killed, chased out of their homes before the very eyes of those who are supposed to be responsible for their safety." In 2008, he said: "The situation in some parts of Iraq, is disastrous and tragic. Life is a Calvary: there is no peace or security... Everyone is afraid of kidnapping."But on October 15 he said this at the Vatican's Synod on Christians in the Middle East:
"The population of this country, crossed by two famous rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, is 24 million, all Muslims, with whom we live peacefully and freely....Christians are good with their fellow Muslims and in Iraq there is mutual respect among them."(Quotes from Emmanuel thanks to Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican.)He made no mention of the Muslim imperative to bring about "the surrender of all people to Islam" as being a possible contributing cause in the plight of Christians in the Middle East; instead, he blamed Israel only.
Why these shifts?
...the statements ...are essentially identical to statements that so many Muslim leaders have made about Jews, Jerusalem and Israel. This is the way all too many Middle Eastern Christians have learned to view the world.
...it is a reflection of the situation on the ground in Islamic countries: Christians who don't echo the Islamic political line face hard going.
Also, according to Islamic law, the "protection" contract between the Muslim community and the dhimmis is violated, leaving the dhimmi subject to execution, if he "mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam," ('Umdat al-Salik 011.10(5).)
... Christians generally know that if they speak out against the mistreatment to which they are subjected, they will only make matters worse. Historically, dhimmi communities were also kept apart and at odds with one another -- hence the animosity toward Jews. They were communities of fear, living under an ever-ready threat of death if they got out of line. And so mostly, they didn't....
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Remember Rabin PROPERLY and get out of the boiling pot
From Ynet News, 28 October 2010, by Martin Sherman:
This Saturday night the Rabin Square will once again be the site of the ritual rally marking Yitzhak Rabin’ assassination. Notably, it will take place under the theme "Remembering together; Preserving the Hope" ...
...There is indeed much in "public memory" ...that is in dire need of clarification - particularly in view of how it has been cynically distorted for partisan ends that diverge strongly from the positions Rabin himself stood for to his very last days. It is thus crucial that the public in Israel, and beyond, be reminded of the contents of this speech, for nothing else can more be more legitimately deemed "Rabin's Heritage."
...The address was made on October 5th, 1995 exactly a month prior to Rabin's assassination. As such, it was his last major policy statement and final articulation of his vision of the "permanent solution" with the Palestinians. Those believing that he would have abandoned it for a less conciliatory course might feel that their case was considerably strengthened by the recent declaration from his daughter that "on the eve of his death…he was considering a u-turn" and "stopping the Oslo Accords because terrorism was rampant, and… Arafat was not delivering on his promise."
As for the context, the speech was delivered after Rabin was awarded the Nobel Peace prize and after he was hailed as a courageous champion of peace. Significantly, the address was made during the debate on the Oslo II Accords for which Rabin was seeking Knesset ratification. At the time, the vision he set out was considered an unprecedented dovish/"leftist" prescription for far-reaching Israeli concessions and a doctrine which produced such dismay and dissension, it divided the nation into two roughly equal camps.
Rejecting 2-state solution
In that address, Rabin, the recently announced Nobel Peace laureate, rejected the two-state formula. In his view of the permanent solution regarding the Palestinian entity, he stipulated that this should " …be an entity which is less than a state… and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."
Referring to the final frontiers of the country, he was unequivocal: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."
As for what was to be included in Israel's permanent borders he prescribed that, at minimum, four elements must be ensured:
These were Rabin's last recorded commitments to the nation. ... even though the positions espoused by Rabin were considered excessively concessionary, inducing fierce repudiation by many, Israel has retreated from every position set out by him in his vision of a "permanent solution."
Yet despite this dramatic erosion of every single principle enshrined in Rabin's last legacy, Israel is still accused of intransigence - not only by its foes but by those who feign friendship. Still it is pressed for ever more far-reaching concessions - now not even to reach a permanent settlement, but merely so the Palestinians might deign to resume negotiations.
...But even more ominous is the imperceptible accumulation of dangers that this continuous capitulation entails for the nation. This is perhaps best conveyed by the by the parable of the "boiled frog" ...
This Saturday night the Rabin Square will once again be the site of the ritual rally marking Yitzhak Rabin’ assassination. Notably, it will take place under the theme "Remembering together; Preserving the Hope" ...
...There is indeed much in "public memory" ...that is in dire need of clarification - particularly in view of how it has been cynically distorted for partisan ends that diverge strongly from the positions Rabin himself stood for to his very last days. It is thus crucial that the public in Israel, and beyond, be reminded of the contents of this speech, for nothing else can more be more legitimately deemed "Rabin's Heritage."
...The address was made on October 5th, 1995 exactly a month prior to Rabin's assassination. As such, it was his last major policy statement and final articulation of his vision of the "permanent solution" with the Palestinians. Those believing that he would have abandoned it for a less conciliatory course might feel that their case was considerably strengthened by the recent declaration from his daughter that "on the eve of his death…he was considering a u-turn" and "stopping the Oslo Accords because terrorism was rampant, and… Arafat was not delivering on his promise."
As for the context, the speech was delivered after Rabin was awarded the Nobel Peace prize and after he was hailed as a courageous champion of peace. Significantly, the address was made during the debate on the Oslo II Accords for which Rabin was seeking Knesset ratification. At the time, the vision he set out was considered an unprecedented dovish/"leftist" prescription for far-reaching Israeli concessions and a doctrine which produced such dismay and dissension, it divided the nation into two roughly equal camps.
Rejecting 2-state solution
In that address, Rabin, the recently announced Nobel Peace laureate, rejected the two-state formula. In his view of the permanent solution regarding the Palestinian entity, he stipulated that this should " …be an entity which is less than a state… and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."
Referring to the final frontiers of the country, he was unequivocal: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."
As for what was to be included in Israel's permanent borders he prescribed that, at minimum, four elements must be ensured:
- A united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty as the nation's capital;
- the Jordan Valley as Israel's security border;
- the incorporation of existing settlements across the 1967 "Green Line" into the sovereign territory of Israel; and
- the establishment of new settlement bloc across the Green Line like those later destroyed in the Gaza disengagement.
These were Rabin's last recorded commitments to the nation. ... even though the positions espoused by Rabin were considered excessively concessionary, inducing fierce repudiation by many, Israel has retreated from every position set out by him in his vision of a "permanent solution."
Yet despite this dramatic erosion of every single principle enshrined in Rabin's last legacy, Israel is still accused of intransigence - not only by its foes but by those who feign friendship. Still it is pressed for ever more far-reaching concessions - now not even to reach a permanent settlement, but merely so the Palestinians might deign to resume negotiations.
...But even more ominous is the imperceptible accumulation of dangers that this continuous capitulation entails for the nation. This is perhaps best conveyed by the by the parable of the "boiled frog" ...
"…if you place (a frog)… in a pot of tepid water…, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor …and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death."Given the relentless retreat in Israeli positions that we have witnessed over the last decade and a half, how far can we be from boiling point?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Tutu borders on anti-Semitism
From Times Live (Johannesburg), Oct 29, 2010. by Allan Wolman, Rosebank:
...Desmond Tutu's call urging the Cape Town Opera to call off its tour to Israel confirms his agenda of demonising Israel. His stance borders on anti-Semitism...
...how can he deny the lies that he perpetuates when referring to Israel's "fallacious claim to being a civilised democracy". This is indeed rich given the neighbourhood that Israel is located in.
He goes on to claim "millions of citizens are denied the right to education and cultural opportunities in Israel and the Palestinian territories it occupies". How right he is if only he confines this remark to the Palestinian Authority.
I challenge the good Archbishop to deny that Israel practises absolutely no discrimination whatsoever regarding race, religion or creed, something that is enshrined in Israeli law and fiercely protected by an independent Supreme Court.
The tragic truth is that it suits Tutu's agenda to have the Palestinians endure permanent refugee and occupation status.
...Desmond Tutu's call urging the Cape Town Opera to call off its tour to Israel confirms his agenda of demonising Israel. His stance borders on anti-Semitism...
...how can he deny the lies that he perpetuates when referring to Israel's "fallacious claim to being a civilised democracy". This is indeed rich given the neighbourhood that Israel is located in.
He goes on to claim "millions of citizens are denied the right to education and cultural opportunities in Israel and the Palestinian territories it occupies". How right he is if only he confines this remark to the Palestinian Authority.
I challenge the good Archbishop to deny that Israel practises absolutely no discrimination whatsoever regarding race, religion or creed, something that is enshrined in Israeli law and fiercely protected by an independent Supreme Court.
The tragic truth is that it suits Tutu's agenda to have the Palestinians endure permanent refugee and occupation status.
France caves in to terrorist threats
From a DEBKAfile Special Report October 28, 2010:
Just a day after Osama bin Laden warned France to remove its troops from Afghanistan, French Defense Minister Herve Morin announced Thursday, Oct. 28 that the withdrawal of French troops would begin in early 2011. Paris then raised its terror alert level to "red" after confirming the authenticity of the Bin Laden audiotape aired Wednesday.
...Morin tried hard to explain that the decision to pull the 3,750 French troops out of Afghanistan was not connected to the Bin Laden warning - but he was not convincing.
...never since the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, has any Western country caved in so quickly and precisely to an Al Qaeda ultimatum.
Just a day after Osama bin Laden warned France to remove its troops from Afghanistan, French Defense Minister Herve Morin announced Thursday, Oct. 28 that the withdrawal of French troops would begin in early 2011. Paris then raised its terror alert level to "red" after confirming the authenticity of the Bin Laden audiotape aired Wednesday.
...Morin tried hard to explain that the decision to pull the 3,750 French troops out of Afghanistan was not connected to the Bin Laden warning - but he was not convincing.
...never since the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, has any Western country caved in so quickly and precisely to an Al Qaeda ultimatum.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
"Moderates" who incite hatred and sanctify murder
From a posting by Isi Leibler on October 26th, 2010:
The Palestinian Authority renowned for its bizarre proclamations has now threatened that it would unilaterally abrogate the Oslo Accords if the peace talks break down.
For ten months, Mahmoud Abbas refused to indulge in direct negotiations with us, relying on the Obama Administration to act as their interlocutors and pressure us into providing further concessions without reciprocity. Now, after the ten month settlement construction freeze expired, Abbas informs us that if we do not extend it, he refuses to negotiate....
But topping the absurdity of this theatre of the absurd is the threat by PA spokesmen, Yasser Aboud, to abort the Oslo Accords if the negotiations break down. Needless to say a “breakdown” is regarded as Israel not acceding to all Palestinian demands.
We know the Palestinian end game in negotiations. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Abbas concessions that neither the Knesset nor the people of Israel would ever have endorsed. These included foregoing indefensible borders by returning to the 1949 armistice lines, enabling the Palestinians to assume control of the Temple Mount and even making a preliminary offer to accept 100,000 Palestinian “refugees”. Yet these offers were rejected by Abbas.
I am reminded of the last conversation I had with Rabin before his assassination. I asked him: “What would your response be if the Palestinians made absolutely unreasonable demands?” Rabin replied that if Arafat sought to divide Jerusalem or was not prepared to concede that Israel needed defensible borders he would conclude that his “gamble for peace” had failed and would feel obliged to inform Israelis that they would have to await a new generation of Palestinian leaders before making tangible progress towards attaining a durable peace.
... I am bemused when I hear people on the far left exploiting Rabin’s memory and distorting his views in order to promote policies to which, at least during his lifetime, he would have adamantly opposed. Indeed, on the basis of his previous record, Rabin would probably not have placated the Palestinians or the Americans to the same extent as Netanyahu.
...It does not take a genius to realize that this entire process is designed to extract further concessions from Israel which the Palestinians would insist become the benchmark for the next round negotiations as they doggedly pursue their objective of dismantling us in stages.
Despite all the concessions that we made, the Palestinians and Arabs refused to even reciprocate with gestures. Abbas has a forked tongue and conveys nice words to the foreign media and Diaspora Jews which are never expressed in Arabic to his constituents. There, he continues to incite hatred against us, sanctifies suicide bombers as national heroes and condemns us for defending ourselves against terrorists.
In this context it is both incomprehensible and nauseating when senior analysts and political leaders repeat the absurd mantra that the PA and Abbas are moderate peace partners...
The Palestinian Authority renowned for its bizarre proclamations has now threatened that it would unilaterally abrogate the Oslo Accords if the peace talks break down.
For ten months, Mahmoud Abbas refused to indulge in direct negotiations with us, relying on the Obama Administration to act as their interlocutors and pressure us into providing further concessions without reciprocity. Now, after the ten month settlement construction freeze expired, Abbas informs us that if we do not extend it, he refuses to negotiate....
But topping the absurdity of this theatre of the absurd is the threat by PA spokesmen, Yasser Aboud, to abort the Oslo Accords if the negotiations break down. Needless to say a “breakdown” is regarded as Israel not acceding to all Palestinian demands.
We know the Palestinian end game in negotiations. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Abbas concessions that neither the Knesset nor the people of Israel would ever have endorsed. These included foregoing indefensible borders by returning to the 1949 armistice lines, enabling the Palestinians to assume control of the Temple Mount and even making a preliminary offer to accept 100,000 Palestinian “refugees”. Yet these offers were rejected by Abbas.
I am reminded of the last conversation I had with Rabin before his assassination. I asked him: “What would your response be if the Palestinians made absolutely unreasonable demands?” Rabin replied that if Arafat sought to divide Jerusalem or was not prepared to concede that Israel needed defensible borders he would conclude that his “gamble for peace” had failed and would feel obliged to inform Israelis that they would have to await a new generation of Palestinian leaders before making tangible progress towards attaining a durable peace.
... I am bemused when I hear people on the far left exploiting Rabin’s memory and distorting his views in order to promote policies to which, at least during his lifetime, he would have adamantly opposed. Indeed, on the basis of his previous record, Rabin would probably not have placated the Palestinians or the Americans to the same extent as Netanyahu.
...It does not take a genius to realize that this entire process is designed to extract further concessions from Israel which the Palestinians would insist become the benchmark for the next round negotiations as they doggedly pursue their objective of dismantling us in stages.
Despite all the concessions that we made, the Palestinians and Arabs refused to even reciprocate with gestures. Abbas has a forked tongue and conveys nice words to the foreign media and Diaspora Jews which are never expressed in Arabic to his constituents. There, he continues to incite hatred against us, sanctifies suicide bombers as national heroes and condemns us for defending ourselves against terrorists.
In this context it is both incomprehensible and nauseating when senior analysts and political leaders repeat the absurd mantra that the PA and Abbas are moderate peace partners...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Germany's Foreign Ministry was complicit in Holocaust
From Deutsche Welle, 24.10.2010, by Richard Connor, Andrew Bowen:
Germany's Foreign Ministry was far more involved in the murder of millions of Jews than previously thought...
A report to be published this week reveals that diplomats actively assisted the Nazis in their campaign of genocide against the Jews, contradicting post-war attempts to portray Germany's wartime Foreign Ministry in a positive light.
"The Foreign Ministry actively supported all measures of persecution, rights deprivation, expulsions and the Holocaust," Eckart Conze, one of four historians asked to investigate the role played by the ministry in the Holocaust, told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
"The Foreign Ministry was actively involved in every operation to persecute, strip away the rights of, expel and exterminate the Jews from the very beginning," Conze said.
Conze, who spent five years researching diplomatic archives, also condemned the ministry during wartime as a "criminal organization" in the German news magazine Spiegel.
Conze said post-war claims that officials within the ministry had resisted Nazi policies were untrue. In fact, he said, the ministry had often been proactive in its efforts to carry out the will of the Third Reich leadership.
The study, commissioned in 2005 by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, looked at the activities of ministry between 1933 and 1945. The panel of historians is due to present its full findings later this week.
Support of war-crime suspects
Fischer was quoted by the newspaper as saying that he was "horrified" by the level of support and advice offered by the ministry to help war-crime suspects escape Germany after the country's defeat.
"As I read this report, I became more and more shocked," said Fischer.
Among the documents was a paper from the official responsible for Jewish affairs, Franz Rademacher, citing the "liquidation of Jews in Belgrade" as a reason for one of his foreign trips.
The report was praised by current Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle as "an important work" that would contribute greatly to the ministry's knowledge of its own past.
Westerwelle's predecessor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the fact that it had taken 60 years since the end of the war to begin the inquiry was "incredible."
The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants also hailed the report, saying it "categorically refuted" previous attempts to sanitize the Foreign Ministry's role in the Holocaust.
"Germany has taken an honest and painful look at its past," said the group's president Elan Steinberg in a statement. "This report is a pointed reminder of the broad cross section of German society and institutions which were implicated in the Holocaust and the brutalities of the Nazi regime."
...The ministry's role has long been controversial because many Nazi-era diplomats continued to work for the ministry after 1945 - many claiming they had always been opposed to Hitler's regime.
Germany's Foreign Ministry was far more involved in the murder of millions of Jews than previously thought...
A report to be published this week reveals that diplomats actively assisted the Nazis in their campaign of genocide against the Jews, contradicting post-war attempts to portray Germany's wartime Foreign Ministry in a positive light.
"The Foreign Ministry actively supported all measures of persecution, rights deprivation, expulsions and the Holocaust," Eckart Conze, one of four historians asked to investigate the role played by the ministry in the Holocaust, told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
"The Foreign Ministry was actively involved in every operation to persecute, strip away the rights of, expel and exterminate the Jews from the very beginning," Conze said.
Conze, who spent five years researching diplomatic archives, also condemned the ministry during wartime as a "criminal organization" in the German news magazine Spiegel.
Conze said post-war claims that officials within the ministry had resisted Nazi policies were untrue. In fact, he said, the ministry had often been proactive in its efforts to carry out the will of the Third Reich leadership.
The study, commissioned in 2005 by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, looked at the activities of ministry between 1933 and 1945. The panel of historians is due to present its full findings later this week.
Support of war-crime suspects
Fischer was quoted by the newspaper as saying that he was "horrified" by the level of support and advice offered by the ministry to help war-crime suspects escape Germany after the country's defeat.
"As I read this report, I became more and more shocked," said Fischer.
Among the documents was a paper from the official responsible for Jewish affairs, Franz Rademacher, citing the "liquidation of Jews in Belgrade" as a reason for one of his foreign trips.
The report was praised by current Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle as "an important work" that would contribute greatly to the ministry's knowledge of its own past.
Westerwelle's predecessor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the fact that it had taken 60 years since the end of the war to begin the inquiry was "incredible."
The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants also hailed the report, saying it "categorically refuted" previous attempts to sanitize the Foreign Ministry's role in the Holocaust.
"Germany has taken an honest and painful look at its past," said the group's president Elan Steinberg in a statement. "This report is a pointed reminder of the broad cross section of German society and institutions which were implicated in the Holocaust and the brutalities of the Nazi regime."
...The ministry's role has long been controversial because many Nazi-era diplomats continued to work for the ministry after 1945 - many claiming they had always been opposed to Hitler's regime.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Obama: "wanting to see the destruction of Israel"?
From New English Review, June 23, 2010:
Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, author of "Jihad and Genocide", Harvard Phd, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", and Harvard Phd, states that president Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel." Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim - to the point of "wanting to see the destruction of Israel."
Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, author of "Jihad and Genocide", Harvard Phd, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", and Harvard Phd, states that president Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel." Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim - to the point of "wanting to see the destruction of Israel."
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Calling children, siblings or spouses of Nazi victims murdered in the Belzec death camp.
Can you assist in the pursuit of justice?
Prosecutors in the trial against Samuel Kunz before the district court in Bonn, Germany are seeking co-plaintiffs, as defined by the relevant German Law.
The prosecution accuses Samuel Kunz of having been an accomplice to the murder of 435,000 persons in the period between late November 1941 and the spring of 1943, when he was a guard at the extermination camp of Belzec.
Samuel Kunz, 89, has been under close investigation since his name emerged in the war crimes trial of fellow Nazi John Demjanjuk.(Read more detail... and further background...)
From The Austrian Times, 7 October 2010:
A prospective co-plaintiff in this trial is any person whose parent, sibling or spouse was murdered in Belzec.
A co-plaintiff has the right to file motions, make declarations and to plead at the end of the trial. Moreover, a co-plaintiff can be represented by an attorney, who will be appointed and remunerated by the court.
The co-plaintiff does not even have to appear at the trial in person. He or she has the right to take part in the trial, but this presence is not a requirement. A co-plaintiff does not have to bear any of the action’s costs; neither does he or she have to pay for the appointed attorney.
The participation of co-plaintiffs is important because they give names and faces to the victims and participation presents an opportunity to hold the accused to account in the name of the co-plaintiff’s murdered relatives.
If you wish to participate in this trial as co-plaintiff, please see this website and contact the attorneys. The contact details are listed here.
The attorneys preparing the participation of co-plaintiffs:
Thomas Walther conducted the pre-investigation against John Demjanjuk in his function as a special prosecutor in the central institution for prosecuting Nazi-crimes in Ludwigsburg and has thus played a decisive part in bringing Demjanjuk to criminal trial before the district court in Munich. Thomas Walther is currently an attorney.
Michael Koch and Cornelius Nestler are each representing several co-plaintiffs in the trial against John Demjanjuk before the district court in Munich. Michael Koch is an attorney specializing in criminal law in Frankfurt/Main, Prof. Dr. Cornelius Nestler is professor of criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Cologne
For more background see
Prosecutors in the trial against Samuel Kunz before the district court in Bonn, Germany are seeking co-plaintiffs, as defined by the relevant German Law.
The prosecution accuses Samuel Kunz of having been an accomplice to the murder of 435,000 persons in the period between late November 1941 and the spring of 1943, when he was a guard at the extermination camp of Belzec.
Samuel Kunz, 89, has been under close investigation since his name emerged in the war crimes trial of fellow Nazi John Demjanjuk.(Read more detail... and further background...)
From The Austrian Times, 7 October 2010:
Prosecutors in Bonn today (Thurs) announced that Kunz will stand trial in January.
...Kunz is said to be one of the most notorious wartime Nazis yet to stand trial and was number three most wanted on the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's list of fugitives.
He is said to have assisted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews while he was serving in the German army in Belzec in occupied Poland between 1942-43. He is also charged with murdering 10 prisoners personally.
One former German serviceman posted with Kunz at the camp told how he snatched his machine gun away from him when he was reluctant to open fire on prisoners saying: "That's not how you shoot."
Kunz then grabbed the gun and opened fire on the defenceless Jewish civilians.
A prospective co-plaintiff in this trial is any person whose parent, sibling or spouse was murdered in Belzec.
A co-plaintiff has the right to file motions, make declarations and to plead at the end of the trial. Moreover, a co-plaintiff can be represented by an attorney, who will be appointed and remunerated by the court.
The co-plaintiff does not even have to appear at the trial in person. He or she has the right to take part in the trial, but this presence is not a requirement. A co-plaintiff does not have to bear any of the action’s costs; neither does he or she have to pay for the appointed attorney.
The participation of co-plaintiffs is important because they give names and faces to the victims and participation presents an opportunity to hold the accused to account in the name of the co-plaintiff’s murdered relatives.
If you wish to participate in this trial as co-plaintiff, please see this website and contact the attorneys. The contact details are listed here.
The attorneys preparing the participation of co-plaintiffs:
Thomas Walther conducted the pre-investigation against John Demjanjuk in his function as a special prosecutor in the central institution for prosecuting Nazi-crimes in Ludwigsburg and has thus played a decisive part in bringing Demjanjuk to criminal trial before the district court in Munich. Thomas Walther is currently an attorney.
Michael Koch and Cornelius Nestler are each representing several co-plaintiffs in the trial against John Demjanjuk before the district court in Munich. Michael Koch is an attorney specializing in criminal law in Frankfurt/Main, Prof. Dr. Cornelius Nestler is professor of criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Cologne
For more background see
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Travails of Modern Islam
From a transcript of an invitation-only seminar at Future Directions International, Perth, Western Australia, August 20, 2010, by Daniel Pipes [brief excerpt only - follow this link to the full transcript, including the Q&A, and to download the audio]:
...the Islamic religion prevails in majority-Muslim countries stretching from Senegal to Indonesia, and is not simply a Middle Eastern phenomenon. Muslim people can now be found in substantial numbers in Europe, North America, Latin America, and indeed, Oceania.
...In the broad sweep of history, the Islamic religion got off to a very fast and successful start. Muhammad himself fled Mecca in 622 A.D. By the time of his death, however, he was ruler of Arabia and within 100 years his followers had gone from Spain to India. This was more than just a military conquest. The Muslim faith was successful in culture, the arts, and the economy and created the great empires of its age. Had you looked around the world say precisely a millennium ago, August 20th, 1010, you would've concluded that Islam was the most successful civilisation, more so than those of China, Europe or India.
Starting from about 1200, especially after the Mogul invasions, the civilisation of Islam declined and stagnated for a long time. The striking fact was that Muslims long were generally unaware of this downturn although it finally became vividly obvious around 1800, especially when Napoleon landed in Egypt and wiped out the Ottoman and Mamluk armies. Napoleon brought with him a cadre of scientists who started studying the flora, fauna, and archaeology, savants who would eventually crack the code of Egyptian hieroglyphics. His was not only a military expedition but a scientific one as well. The contrast between the Egyptians and the French was stark and shocked Muslims into realising that, during their long period of stagnation, Europe had surged ahead.
Trauma followed. Muslims had assumed that they were blessed by God in both spiritual and mundane ways. Now they worried that God had forsaken them, which led to a profound reassessment of what it means to be a Muslim. Muslims saw themselves challenged by Europe and more broadly by the West, and this is a challenge that Muslims still face today.
How is it that the people who should be on top – militarily, economically, politically, culturally, scientifically, technologically – how is it that they now sit at the bottom in terms of literacy, longevity, Nobel Prizes per capita, Olympic medals per capita? Indeed, whatever index you choose, Muslim states are at the bottom. Muslim people are not doing well; some of the worst countries in the world include Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq, all of which are majority Muslim. This is a great strain, a great challenge: What went wrong and how do they fix it?
...Over the course of the past 200 years, there have been three major explanations. The first one was what one might call the liberal Western explanation, namely emulating the French and the British. These nationalities descended upon Muslim lands in particular; they built empires; they offered themselves as models. They were extremely successful and Muslims tended to emulate them. The symbolic figure of this trend was Kemal Atatürk, the ruler of Turkey between 1923 and 1938, who removed Islam from public life, replaced Arabic words with French words, brought in Belgian and Swiss legal codes, and in all made Turkey look increasingly Western.
But this didn't work. By the 1920s and 30s, despite Atatürk, there was a sense that this liberal effort had failed. So Muslim adopted another approach. The approach that appeared at that time to be most impressive was the illiberal Western approach. The 1920s were the hey-day of totalitarian societies, with Mussolini and Lenin in particular showing the way. These offered models that proved very influential; Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt symbolizes this approach to politics. For the next 50 to 60 years, the Fascist and Communist models prevailed in large swaths of intellectual and political life. They didn't do too well either, they didn't solve the problems of weakness and poverty.
So, with the disappointment in these two movements came a third solution, namely the Islamist one. The goal of this movement was not to emulate one form or another of Western ideology or power; it was to return to Islamic experience and to draw on the wisdom and achievements of Muslims in the past and to rehabilitate the Muslim world by learning from Islamic experience. The goal is to do something that is old, that draws on Islamic successes of past centuries. Ayatollah Khomeini symbolizes this approach.
Of course, you can't go back. You can emulate 7th-century Islam but you can't repeat it. Islamist movements of recent decades have created a new ideology, not revived something old. I am convinced this will be a failure too. The so far number-one experiment, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has failed by any standard, if only because a great majority of its subjects are rejecting it.
Bin Laden and Wahhabi-style Islamism clearly have no future. How can they run countries? Just imagine Bin Laden as ruler; it would be like the Taliban and it wouldn't work. Even a less extreme version, such as that in Iran, is not workable in the long term.
Instead, what we're seeing is that the Islamists are evolving into something that is more sustainable. Turkey offers the outstanding model here. The Turkish Islamists run and win elections; they don't depend on violence. They exercise good economic stewardship and good governance more broadly. While Turkey has many problems, its Islamists have shown that an alternative exists. An era has begun in which Islamists in part use violence on the Bin Laden and in part they work the political system.
Many Islamist groups are making a name for themselves by engaging in social services. One of the tensions now in Pakistan is that the Islamists, as happened with the earthquakes some months ago, are coming in first with the most aid for the victims of flooding. They win good will and respect for their work.
Getting back to the central issue, how Muslims answer the question "What went wrong?" Are they approaching a functional answer? I think not but that we are in a very dark period of little creativity, much instability, and much violence. I don't see any improvements soon but I do anticipate the potential for improvement. Anything that can get worse can, logically, also get better, and I expect a working out of the Islamist impulse, to be followed by something more constructive. At some point, Muslims will begin to discard it and to look elsewhere. I don't know what they're going to look for. Will it be return to the 19th century and Western liberalism? Will it be following the Chinese model?
In the meantime, things could get worse. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are within grasp and could be used. This threat could lead to far greater instability. There is also considerable anger within the Muslim world as the great majority of Islamist victims have been Muslim, for example in Algeria and Darfur....
Read more: follow this link to the full transcript, including the Q&A, and to download the audio.
...the Islamic religion prevails in majority-Muslim countries stretching from Senegal to Indonesia, and is not simply a Middle Eastern phenomenon. Muslim people can now be found in substantial numbers in Europe, North America, Latin America, and indeed, Oceania.
...In the broad sweep of history, the Islamic religion got off to a very fast and successful start. Muhammad himself fled Mecca in 622 A.D. By the time of his death, however, he was ruler of Arabia and within 100 years his followers had gone from Spain to India. This was more than just a military conquest. The Muslim faith was successful in culture, the arts, and the economy and created the great empires of its age. Had you looked around the world say precisely a millennium ago, August 20th, 1010, you would've concluded that Islam was the most successful civilisation, more so than those of China, Europe or India.
Starting from about 1200, especially after the Mogul invasions, the civilisation of Islam declined and stagnated for a long time. The striking fact was that Muslims long were generally unaware of this downturn although it finally became vividly obvious around 1800, especially when Napoleon landed in Egypt and wiped out the Ottoman and Mamluk armies. Napoleon brought with him a cadre of scientists who started studying the flora, fauna, and archaeology, savants who would eventually crack the code of Egyptian hieroglyphics. His was not only a military expedition but a scientific one as well. The contrast between the Egyptians and the French was stark and shocked Muslims into realising that, during their long period of stagnation, Europe had surged ahead.
Trauma followed. Muslims had assumed that they were blessed by God in both spiritual and mundane ways. Now they worried that God had forsaken them, which led to a profound reassessment of what it means to be a Muslim. Muslims saw themselves challenged by Europe and more broadly by the West, and this is a challenge that Muslims still face today.
How is it that the people who should be on top – militarily, economically, politically, culturally, scientifically, technologically – how is it that they now sit at the bottom in terms of literacy, longevity, Nobel Prizes per capita, Olympic medals per capita? Indeed, whatever index you choose, Muslim states are at the bottom. Muslim people are not doing well; some of the worst countries in the world include Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq, all of which are majority Muslim. This is a great strain, a great challenge: What went wrong and how do they fix it?
...Over the course of the past 200 years, there have been three major explanations. The first one was what one might call the liberal Western explanation, namely emulating the French and the British. These nationalities descended upon Muslim lands in particular; they built empires; they offered themselves as models. They were extremely successful and Muslims tended to emulate them. The symbolic figure of this trend was Kemal Atatürk, the ruler of Turkey between 1923 and 1938, who removed Islam from public life, replaced Arabic words with French words, brought in Belgian and Swiss legal codes, and in all made Turkey look increasingly Western.
But this didn't work. By the 1920s and 30s, despite Atatürk, there was a sense that this liberal effort had failed. So Muslim adopted another approach. The approach that appeared at that time to be most impressive was the illiberal Western approach. The 1920s were the hey-day of totalitarian societies, with Mussolini and Lenin in particular showing the way. These offered models that proved very influential; Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt symbolizes this approach to politics. For the next 50 to 60 years, the Fascist and Communist models prevailed in large swaths of intellectual and political life. They didn't do too well either, they didn't solve the problems of weakness and poverty.
So, with the disappointment in these two movements came a third solution, namely the Islamist one. The goal of this movement was not to emulate one form or another of Western ideology or power; it was to return to Islamic experience and to draw on the wisdom and achievements of Muslims in the past and to rehabilitate the Muslim world by learning from Islamic experience. The goal is to do something that is old, that draws on Islamic successes of past centuries. Ayatollah Khomeini symbolizes this approach.
Of course, you can't go back. You can emulate 7th-century Islam but you can't repeat it. Islamist movements of recent decades have created a new ideology, not revived something old. I am convinced this will be a failure too. The so far number-one experiment, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has failed by any standard, if only because a great majority of its subjects are rejecting it.
Bin Laden and Wahhabi-style Islamism clearly have no future. How can they run countries? Just imagine Bin Laden as ruler; it would be like the Taliban and it wouldn't work. Even a less extreme version, such as that in Iran, is not workable in the long term.
Instead, what we're seeing is that the Islamists are evolving into something that is more sustainable. Turkey offers the outstanding model here. The Turkish Islamists run and win elections; they don't depend on violence. They exercise good economic stewardship and good governance more broadly. While Turkey has many problems, its Islamists have shown that an alternative exists. An era has begun in which Islamists in part use violence on the Bin Laden and in part they work the political system.
Many Islamist groups are making a name for themselves by engaging in social services. One of the tensions now in Pakistan is that the Islamists, as happened with the earthquakes some months ago, are coming in first with the most aid for the victims of flooding. They win good will and respect for their work.
Getting back to the central issue, how Muslims answer the question "What went wrong?" Are they approaching a functional answer? I think not but that we are in a very dark period of little creativity, much instability, and much violence. I don't see any improvements soon but I do anticipate the potential for improvement. Anything that can get worse can, logically, also get better, and I expect a working out of the Islamist impulse, to be followed by something more constructive. At some point, Muslims will begin to discard it and to look elsewhere. I don't know what they're going to look for. Will it be return to the 19th century and Western liberalism? Will it be following the Chinese model?
In the meantime, things could get worse. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are within grasp and could be used. This threat could lead to far greater instability. There is also considerable anger within the Muslim world as the great majority of Islamist victims have been Muslim, for example in Algeria and Darfur....
Read more: follow this link to the full transcript, including the Q&A, and to download the audio.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Israel: Jewish and democratic.
From Ynet news, 18 October 2010, by Attila Somfalvi:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyu said Monday that
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyu said Monday that
"We expect anyone wishing to become an Israeli citizen to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation state and a democratic state. There is a broad consensus within the Israeli public as to the Jewish and democratic nature of the country, and this is not by happenstance.
"The State of Israel was not established as 'just another state' – it was founded as the sovereign state of the Jewish people in their historic homeland; and as a democratic nation, whose citizens, Jews and non-Jews, enjoy full civil equality."
Monday, October 18, 2010
Why is Israel offering concessions in return for what was agreed to in past deals?
From Ynet News, 17 October2010, by Moshe Dann:
...Wasn't Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state part of the Oslo Accords?
...if the Oslo Accords, and Wye, and Hebron Agreements did not mean an end to incitement and terrorism, what do they mean?
And, if these agreements do not mean what they say, why did Israel give up territory, help create a Palestinian army, and transfer billions of dollars to the PA?...
De-legitimization must stop
If the PA has not lived up to its agreements, why doesn't President Peres object that he was misled? Why isn't he demanding that the Palestinians live up to their side of the bargain? Or, is he part of the campaign of disinformation?
The fact that PM Netanyahu needs to call for recognition, and is rejected by the PA, means that the agreements were a fake...
That the Israeli government offers further concessions in return for what was agreed to during the past 17 years, is a disgrace.
...Those who oppose "the occupation" owe the Israeli people an explanation for why Palestinians reject any form of recognition of Israel's legitimacy – and why they remain silent in the face of that insult. Why do they call for boycotts of Israel, and refuse to demand PA compliance?
...It's time to freeze the system that rewards PA non-compliance and contributes to undermining Israel, at home and the international community. PA de-legitimization of Israel must stop now.
...the question of recognition shows that the primary dispute – obviously – is not over territory, but over Israel's existence.
PM Netanyahu's demand that Palestinian leaders recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not a semantic tease; Israel's Jewish character is its raison d'etre, the "Jewish national home," and the essence of its sovereignty.
...Wasn't Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state part of the Oslo Accords?
...if the Oslo Accords, and Wye, and Hebron Agreements did not mean an end to incitement and terrorism, what do they mean?
And, if these agreements do not mean what they say, why did Israel give up territory, help create a Palestinian army, and transfer billions of dollars to the PA?...
De-legitimization must stop
If the PA has not lived up to its agreements, why doesn't President Peres object that he was misled? Why isn't he demanding that the Palestinians live up to their side of the bargain? Or, is he part of the campaign of disinformation?
The fact that PM Netanyahu needs to call for recognition, and is rejected by the PA, means that the agreements were a fake...
That the Israeli government offers further concessions in return for what was agreed to during the past 17 years, is a disgrace.
...Those who oppose "the occupation" owe the Israeli people an explanation for why Palestinians reject any form of recognition of Israel's legitimacy – and why they remain silent in the face of that insult. Why do they call for boycotts of Israel, and refuse to demand PA compliance?
...It's time to freeze the system that rewards PA non-compliance and contributes to undermining Israel, at home and the international community. PA de-legitimization of Israel must stop now.
...the question of recognition shows that the primary dispute – obviously – is not over territory, but over Israel's existence.
PM Netanyahu's demand that Palestinian leaders recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not a semantic tease; Israel's Jewish character is its raison d'etre, the "Jewish national home," and the essence of its sovereignty.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Richard Wagner should rot in hell
From Isi Leibler, October 15, 2010:
...The Jewish boycott of [notorious anti-Semite Richard] Wagner's music was initiated in 1938 following Kristallnacht when the Nazis burned synagogues and instituted massive nationwide pogroms against Jews.
In 2001 during the Israel Festival in Jerusalem Daniel Barenboim conducted a selection of Wagner's music which led to demonstrations and the then mayor Ehud Olmert condemned Barenboim's initiative as "brazen, arrogant uncivilized and insensitive."
A few weeks ago Katherina Wagner, the German composer's great granddaughter, sought to visit Israel to formally invite the Cameri Israeli Chamber Orchestra to inaugurate the forthcoming session of the Bayreuth Festival in Germany - an annual event promoting Wagner's music. Her intentions were leaked to the media and created such a maelstrom, that she canceled the visit.
But Cameri announced that it still intended to perform at the festival, although it undertook not to play or even rehearse Wagner's music in Israel.
...Richard Wagner ...became a central pillar in the anti-Semitic character of Nazism. In fact Wagner even coined the terms "Jewish problem" and "final solution," which subsequently became central to the Nazi vocabulary of Jew hatred.
In his notorious essay titled "Judaism in Music" first published in 1851, Wagner expressed his fervent revulsion for what he described as "cursed Jewish scum" and referring to Jews said that the "only thing [that] can redeem you from the burden of your curse:[is] the redemption of Ahasverus - total destruction" ...In this essay Wagner described Jews as "hostile to European civilization"and "ruling the world through money." He said that "Judaism is rotten at the core and is a religion of hatred," described the cultured Jew as "the most heartless of all human beings" and referred to Jewish composers as being "comparable to worms feeding on the body of art."
Wagner's family continued to promote his vile anti-Semitic ideology, and became a central focus for Jew baiters and radical right wing Germans. His daughter Eva married Houston Chamberlain, an Englishman who crafted the ideology for Nazi racism in his notorious book "The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century."
After his death, Wagner's family became a central attraction for anti-Semitic and radical right wing Germans.
Although Wagner died 50 years before the Nazis came to power, Hitler absolutely venerated him, saying, "Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner." He was so enraptured with him that he is quoted as having said "Richard Wagner is my religion."
...For Jews and, in particular for survivors, Wagner is not just another anti-Semite. He is bracketed with Nazism and can be said to have been a forerunner of those who paved the way for the Shoa. On top of this, Bayreuth, the location of the festival was renowned as a center for Nazi "cultural" activity.
Under such circumstances it is surely shameful for Jews to be associated with activity that can be linked to such an evil person. It truly requires a person to act in a schizophrenic manner to say that they can enjoy this man's music and close their eyes to his evil actions. But even more so, the heartlessness of Israelis ignoring the sensitivities of Holocaust survivors represents a stain on our dignity and national identity.
But for an Israeli orchestra to actually go to Germany to perform his works in Bayreuth where he was glorified by the Nazis is truly a national disgrace. It should be cancelled.
...The Jewish boycott of [notorious anti-Semite Richard] Wagner's music was initiated in 1938 following Kristallnacht when the Nazis burned synagogues and instituted massive nationwide pogroms against Jews.
In 2001 during the Israel Festival in Jerusalem Daniel Barenboim conducted a selection of Wagner's music which led to demonstrations and the then mayor Ehud Olmert condemned Barenboim's initiative as "brazen, arrogant uncivilized and insensitive."
A few weeks ago Katherina Wagner, the German composer's great granddaughter, sought to visit Israel to formally invite the Cameri Israeli Chamber Orchestra to inaugurate the forthcoming session of the Bayreuth Festival in Germany - an annual event promoting Wagner's music. Her intentions were leaked to the media and created such a maelstrom, that she canceled the visit.
But Cameri announced that it still intended to perform at the festival, although it undertook not to play or even rehearse Wagner's music in Israel.
...Richard Wagner ...became a central pillar in the anti-Semitic character of Nazism. In fact Wagner even coined the terms "Jewish problem" and "final solution," which subsequently became central to the Nazi vocabulary of Jew hatred.
In his notorious essay titled "Judaism in Music" first published in 1851, Wagner expressed his fervent revulsion for what he described as "cursed Jewish scum" and referring to Jews said that the "only thing [that] can redeem you from the burden of your curse:[is] the redemption of Ahasverus - total destruction" ...In this essay Wagner described Jews as "hostile to European civilization"and "ruling the world through money." He said that "Judaism is rotten at the core and is a religion of hatred," described the cultured Jew as "the most heartless of all human beings" and referred to Jewish composers as being "comparable to worms feeding on the body of art."
Wagner's family continued to promote his vile anti-Semitic ideology, and became a central focus for Jew baiters and radical right wing Germans. His daughter Eva married Houston Chamberlain, an Englishman who crafted the ideology for Nazi racism in his notorious book "The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century."
After his death, Wagner's family became a central attraction for anti-Semitic and radical right wing Germans.
Although Wagner died 50 years before the Nazis came to power, Hitler absolutely venerated him, saying, "Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner." He was so enraptured with him that he is quoted as having said "Richard Wagner is my religion."
...For Jews and, in particular for survivors, Wagner is not just another anti-Semite. He is bracketed with Nazism and can be said to have been a forerunner of those who paved the way for the Shoa. On top of this, Bayreuth, the location of the festival was renowned as a center for Nazi "cultural" activity.
Under such circumstances it is surely shameful for Jews to be associated with activity that can be linked to such an evil person. It truly requires a person to act in a schizophrenic manner to say that they can enjoy this man's music and close their eyes to his evil actions. But even more so, the heartlessness of Israelis ignoring the sensitivities of Holocaust survivors represents a stain on our dignity and national identity.
But for an Israeli orchestra to actually go to Germany to perform his works in Bayreuth where he was glorified by the Nazis is truly a national disgrace. It should be cancelled.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The worst slanderers of Israel
From Ynet News, 15 Oct 2010, by Yitzhak Benhorin:
Anti-Defamation League published list of top 10 groups responsible for slandering Israel in US
...The league ...listed
"These groups are not promoting peace, they are spreading propaganda to assault Israel's legitimacy. We want to Americans to know who these groups are and what it is they really stand for, which is to delegitimize the Jewish state," Foxman said in a press release.
"These groups demonize Israel through various public campaigns. Their messages are one-sided and fail to take the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into account. They unfairly attack Israel while ignoring Palestinian terrorism and incitement. They apply a different standard to Israel than other countries, condemning it for implementing policies to protect its citizens."
Anti-Defamation League published list of top 10 groups responsible for slandering Israel in US
...The league ...listed
- Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), which last July organized a protest in Chicago attended by 1,000 people who burned flags emblazoned with Stars of David and swastikas. Protestors also called on the US to "stop funding Israeli apartheid"....
- Al-Awda, which fights for the Palestinian right of return and is the largest pro-Palestinian organization in the US, was mentioned for its "electronic intifada" – or attempts to stop Israelis from going abroad. It has also called for boycotts against the state.
- Friends of Sabeel in North America, a branch of the Jerusalem based Christian Arab movement by the same name, is also on the list, along with If Americans Knew, which accuses the media of pro-Israel bias...
- International Solidarity Movement, whose activists are frequent visitors of Israel and which started the Free Gaza Movement, responsible along with the Turkish IHH for the May 31 flotilla, which was raided by the IDF and resulted in nine deaths...
- the largest Muslim organization in the US, the Muslim American Society, as well as Students for Justice in Palestine, which graces 75 campuses throughout the country.
- The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, an umbrella organization of some 200 anti-Israeli groups, is based in Washington and focuses on persuading the US administration to quit aid to Israel....
- the Jewish Voice for Peace, a California-based organization which began in 1996 to speak out against US aid to Israel, accusing the state of apartheid and backing boycotts against it. Its activists also encourage companies to cut ties with Israel.
"These groups are not promoting peace, they are spreading propaganda to assault Israel's legitimacy. We want to Americans to know who these groups are and what it is they really stand for, which is to delegitimize the Jewish state," Foxman said in a press release.
"These groups demonize Israel through various public campaigns. Their messages are one-sided and fail to take the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into account. They unfairly attack Israel while ignoring Palestinian terrorism and incitement. They apply a different standard to Israel than other countries, condemning it for implementing policies to protect its citizens."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)