“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”
A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
December 3rd, 2008
1) Same terror, same story: Another terrorist attack. Another candle light vigil. Another media circus where the victims are blamed and the word “Muslim” isn’t used and the media uses callous phrases such as “in 2005 only 12 people died.” Same terror, same story. Now the media tells us to be ‘defiant’ in the face of terror. How do we ‘defy’ it? We “go about our daily lives and don’t let it affect us.” Why is it that in the face of genocide, hate crimes, murder, racism and massacre we are asked to ‘defy’ it by doing nothing. Was that how that American blacks were expected to react to lynchings? Defy the KKK by doing nothing? No. It is time to put out the candles and stop singing and mourning and time to start struggling against terrorism. It is every citizens duty to struggle against it, reliance on the government and the media to do the job has resulted in meager results and insult to the legacy and memory of the dead.
2) They died twice On the third day of the Mumbai massacre of 2008 the New York Times noted “It was not known if the Jewish Center was strategically chosen or if it was an accidental hostage scene.” This is but one example of how the media helps to murder the victims of terror twice. First the Muslim terrorist kills them. Then the media obscures the name of the terrorist, not referring to his religion, then it obscures the religion of the victims and pretends they were not targeted for their religion, then it even obscures the method of execution. The media is complicit in terror and future generations won’t know who carried out the Mumbai attacks or why.
3) Did the Jews steal the Holocaust from humanity? Recent intellectual outbursts, many of them by Jews, have claimed that the “Jews” monopolize the Holocaust and that the Jews are thus “stealing” it from humanity. The message is clear: the Jews need to share. What about the homosexuals and Gypsies and Slavic people who died in the Holocaust. But there is a second message that is less clear. Why is it Palestinians get their ‘Nakba’ and the Armenians get their Genocide and other people’s get to have their unique suffering, and alone among the world’s peoples the Jews are said to have ‘stolen’ and ‘monopolized’ and turned the Holocaust into an ‘industry’. Leftist journalists from the U.K are welcome to refer to the Armenian ‘Holocaust’ and the Palestinian ‘Holocaust’. Maybe Jews should call the Holocaust ‘Gukurahundi’, the Nedebele word for the genocide they suffered. Or will Jews then be said to have stolen the Gukurahundi from humanity?
4) Embarrassment of the Jewish people: Eitan Haber, the Jewish Agency and anti-semitism: Eitan Haber has said in an oped that “only in Israel do drug dealers facing the death penalty expect the State to save them.” He furthermore said the Jews were “pampered” and complain that their government should save wounded backpackers and other Jews who find themselves in trouble while vacationing abroad. There is one problem. Mr. Haber is on the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency. In the old days the Jewish Agency used to help Jews in distress, now it’s leaders encourage the death penalty for them and call Jews “pampered.”
Same terror, same story
November 30th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
Once again non-Muslims are crying and weeping and lighting candles. This is the universal way that non-Muslims always deal with Muslim terror. We live in an insular world where history tells us that “people die in terror attacks” and that we must mourn by lighting some candles. Let Saeed Ahmed of CNN tell the story, as it will certainly be told to our grandchildren, most of whome will be Muslim (it will have to be told to them because our Muslim granddaughters won’t be taught how to read in their Muslim schools). Ahmed writes “Terror attacks have come with depressing regularity to Mumbai -- and each time the city, brought to its knees, has dusted itself off and forged on. It did so in March 1993 when more than 250 were killed in a series of bombings on the stock exchange, on trains and at hotels. It did so in August 2003 when two taxicabs loaded with explosives blew up outside a crowded market, killing 50. And again in July 2006, when bombs ripped through packed commuter trains and platforms during rush hour and took 209 lives.” Ahmed tells it like history will tell it. Taxi cabs blow up of their own accord, people just dut themselves off and go back to their daily lives, bombs just blow up of their own accord. Ahmed tells us who did it: “In a brazen series of coordinated attacks, gunmen swarmed ashore Wednesday night and launched attacks on nine locations in the city.” It was ‘brazen’ which is almost a synonym for ‘daring’ and thus a positive word. Those who carried it out were just ‘gunmen.’ Yet days earlier the media had informed us that “Hindu extremists” have been arrested in the past for terror attacks. In no report at CNN or the New York Times will readers be informed that the Deccan Mujahadeen, the group taking responsibility for it, are Muslims. But Haaretz informs us on November 30th that the named ‘Deccan’ points to it being a local group. Oddly enough the lone terrorist captured by Indian troops is from Pakistan.
The New York Times informs its readers that the Jewish Chabad house was either an ‘accidental’ or ‘strategic’ target. An interesting choice of words. The choice of words means that there will be no ‘hate crimes’ charges. There will be no racism or anti-semitism charges. There will be no use of the the U.K’s Universal Judicial Law to charge the terrorists with ‘war crimes.’ That law is only used against Israelis when leftist Englishmen decide to charge them with ‘war crimes’. In the UK the European has decided that since he can no longer colonize the entire world with his army he will at least use his laws to give himself ‘universal’ jurisdiction No, Muslim terrorists never get charged with war crimes. The surviving ‘gunman’ is named “Azam Amir Kasab” is from Pakistan and he is a Muslim. But the media won’t inform us of that. But the media, such as Christiane Amanpour, does tell us that in 2005 terror attacks in Delhi “only 12 people” died and that Muslims complain of ‘discrimination’ in India and that the Kashmir conflict may have forced Muslims to carry out these attacks. So the terrorists are the victims.
The man accused of being behind the terror may be one Dawood Ibrahim. He was also behind a 1993 series of 13 bombings in Mumbai that killed 250 people. Or maybe its ‘only’ 250. Ibrahim had a hard life being discriminated against. He was a mafia boss and then businessman and multi-millionare in Mumbai before he became a terrorist. Sure was a hard life for him, like Bin Laden, another rich person who decided one day to kill some non-Muslims. And it was non-Muslims who died in the November 27-30 terror attacks in Mumbai. A Turkish couple was released by the terrorists because they were Muslim. At the Jewish center: “Israeli media reported that some of the victims were found wrapped in prayer shawls, in accordance with Jewish burial tradition. The reports speculated that one of the hostages had wrapped the bodies before he was killed. According to unconfirmed reports attributed to Indian security sources, most of the hostages were found bound and gagged by the commandos, and had been shot long before Indian forces landed on the roof from a helicopter on Thursday night.” But that was apparently part of the large ‘accident’ in Mumbai that led to the death of 180 civilians, 20 Indian security force members and some 300 wounded. Nine people - most Israelis, some dual citizens but all of them Jews - were killed in an attack on the Chabad House in Mumbai, one of ten targets hit by terrorists. But this attack wasn’t anti-Jewish. According to the lone surviving terrorist “the terrorists were sent with a specific mission of targeting Israelis at Chabad House in order to avenge atrocities committed against the Palestinians.” See, its like all the anti-Israel protests by wealthy leftists in Europe, its not anti-Jewish, its just anti-Israel.
But tolerance and coexistence helped bring the terrorists and their victims together. The terrorist Muslims stayed at the Taj Hotel and also at the Nariman Chabad house. The Jews let the Muslims in and gave them meals and a bed. The Muslims expressed thir tolerance and thanks, they killed the Jews, through the women on the bed in one room and let one of the surviving ‘people of the book’ cover his brethren with a prayer shawls. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
Terrorism is the thing we live with. It is our life. We are expected to go about it everyday and we are supposed to be ‘defiant’ by doing the same thing day after day no matter how many of us die. When they kill us our media doesn’t even say who they are. The media hires Muslims who report the news and those Muslims inform us that taxi cabs just ‘blow up’ and buses ‘blow up’. No people are involved in such things. Deccan Mujahadeen, a made up name, is said to be ‘local’ but oddly enough its member are Pakistani. But the media twists our minds even further, telling us that a ‘Kashmir conflict’ caused the terror along with ‘discrimination’ against Muslims. Then the media tells us “Hindu extremists have been blamed for terror attacks in the past.” So what does this mean? Muslims are discriminated against. Hindu extremists carry out terror attacks. Victims are just ‘accidentally’ killed by ‘gunmen’ in ‘brazen’ attacks.
And our response is to light some candles.
I will give Islam one thing. When Muslims die in terror they call for revenge. They protest and get angry. They say who carried out the attack. Baruch Goldstein, the Jew who gunned down 29 Muslims at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, doesn’t become a ‘militant’ ‘gunmen’ with a ‘brazen’ attack. He doesn’t ‘accidentally’ kill 30 Muslims. When he killed some Muslims the Europeans sent a special detail or ‘Temporary International Presence in Hebron’, staffed year-round by the children of wealthy leftist Europeans who otherwise couldn’t find jobs. If Muslims had died in Mumbai and if it was a Muslim center that was targeted we would know how they died and who killed them and there would be no description of it as an ‘accident’ and Muslims wouldn’t waste their time lighting candles and ‘defiantly’ doing the same thing the next day. No.
I will give the blacks of the American South one thing. When their people were strung up and lynched they didn’t call it an ‘accident’. They didn’t call it ‘brazen’. They didn’t say it was ‘strategic’. They didn’t say the KKK were ‘militants’ and ‘gunmen.’ I will give them some credit. They called the people who did it ‘murderers’ and ‘racists’ and the people who died were murdered because they were black, not as part of an elaborate accident.
I won’t give credit to the Indian government or its security forces. They failed miserably. They failed to understand the one thing that must be understood about Muslim terror. Muslim terrorists never release hostages alive. It has never happened in history ad it will never happen. The only way to deal with Muslim terror is to kill the terrorists as quickly as possible. Every minute that is allowed to pass the Muslim will kill more and more because that is what Muslim terror is about, it is about murdering poor people, civilians, women, children and non-Muslims. They failed to understand what Madagascar cannibals understood when Arab Muslim slave traders tried to colonize one of their outlying islands. The cannibals killed and ate the Muslims and the Muslims never came back. We can all learn from 14th century Madagascar cannibals, perhaps not dietary habits, but certainly in how to deal with terrorism. We can also learn from the story of the Sikh Gurus. Guru Tegh Bahadur, the 9th Guru, was asked by the Hindus of Kashmir who were being forcibly converted, raped and brutalized by the Muslim governor Iftikar Khan (1671-75) sent by Aurangzeb. The Hindu community leaders of Kashmir told the Muslim governor, on advice of the Sikh Guru, that they would convert their community to Islam if the Sikh leader could first be persuaded. The Guru was beheaded in 1675 for refusal to convert. But his death had an unintended consequence. Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th and last Guru, ordered the men to take up arms. According to the story “Guru Gobind decided to inculcate the martial spirit among his followers.” He ordered all the men to carry daggers as a religious obligation. He told them: “you will love the weapons of war, be excellent horsemen, marksmen and wielders of the sword, the discus and the spear. Physical prowess will be as sacred to you as spiritual sensitivity.” He spent most of his life fighting Islam and defeating the forces of Aurangzeb. Gobind Singh was no candle-lighter. He didn’t have vigils and his ‘defiance’ of Islam was not to ‘go back to life as normal as quickly as possible. His solution was to bring war to his enemies and to inculcate a martial spirit among his men. Among Sikh women he forbade the wearing of the veil, that symbol of evil. Such was his devotion to decency. Gobind Singh encouraged the Sikhs to learn that the hatred of Islam and its intolerance could only be met with strength. Other Hindu warriors of the Mughal period also understood this, such as Shivaji and Maharana Pratap. History must learn from this. Lighting candles exemplifies weakness. We will keep lighting them for our dead until there is no one left to light them and the only memory of us is melted wax. We should light candles for our dead enemies, then we could go about our daily lives in the normal manner and we would be living logically, rather than ‘defying’ our enemies by not daring to raise a hand against them. How far would the Civil Rights movement have gotten if, after each lynching, the response was to ‘show defiance by living life as if nothing happened? Put away the candles and the vigils for a time when we can light them in Mecca. Gobind Singh understood that. Madagascar’s cannibals understood it. Singh ordered the men to carry swords. The Cannibals sharpened their teeth for the struggle ahead. We must be prepared to do the same.
They Died Twice
Seth J. Frantzman
November 30th, 2008
“It was not known if the Jewish Center was strategically chosen or if it was an accidental hostage scene.” Who wrote these lines will never be known because they were hidden behind the title ‘from news reports.’ But it was printed in the New York Times on November 29th. Read the callous sentence again. The choice is between ‘strategic choice’ or ‘accident’. That is how the deaths of nine Jews, five of them Israelis and one a Jewish woman from mexico has been described. Of course the New York Times does not mention that they are all “Jewish.” They have been murdered twice. Most media outlets also do not mention that they died at the hands of Islamist terrorists. The media informs us that they died and that their deaths may have been ‘strategic’ or ‘accidental.’ Were they hit by a care? That is an accident. An accident means that something occurred unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance. Of course the media does happen to inform us a little more about the circumstances of the deaths at the Chabad house or Taj hotel. Some of the victims were bound and that the women had been “dumped on the beds inside one room…at least some were killed immediately after the terrorists took over [Chabad].” We don’t hear the details, but if we were allowed to hear them then we might learn that they had their throats cut like Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl, two other Jews who died ‘accidentally’ at the hands of ‘militants.’ We might hear how the terrorists went room to room and murdered only non-Muslims. The Nariman house run by Chabad was, so many media outlets informs us; “siezed by gunmen.” Or they are described as “militants”, as at CNN. Its interestign that they are called ‘militants’. We knew who used this word to describe them in the New York Times: Kieth Bradsher and Somini Sengupta in their article on the front page of the Times on November 29th. Were they ‘militant’ when they executed the hostages? Was that part of their ‘military straegy’.
It is always interesting to know that the death of people from terror is so nonchaantly passed off and those who murder, those terrorists, are always excused as if they are part of a legitimate conflict. They are just ‘gunmen’ or ‘assailants’ or ‘militants’. They are not ‘murderers’ or ‘racists’ or ‘anti-semites’ or ‘terrorists’. That is what our language has done for the victim and the murderer alike. Our language has turned the victim into an ‘accident’ or part of a ‘strategy’ and the man who murders her is part of a ‘struggle’ and he is a ‘victim of discrimination.’ He and his tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition and his grenades are ‘victims’.
Those who died from terrorism in Mumbai died twice. They died first at the hands of the Muslim terrorists who killed them. Then they died a second time when the media outlets such as the Times excused their deaths and turned them into ‘accidents.’ Christiane Amanpour of CNN expressed it best on November 27th. She noted that in 2001 “Islamic militants” attacked the Indian parlaiment building and “only 12 people were killed.” Only 12? That is how our world reacts to terrorism. Only a few dead. Only a few accidents today. In truth victims of terrorism are murdered twice, first by the terrorists and then by those who excuse their deaths and marginalzie them, obscuring the perpetrators and denying the victims their right to be honored.
Did the Jews steal the Holocaust from humanity?
November 20th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
In a recent book review by Ethan Bronner of the New York Times the author claims "suffering, even holocaust, [A.B] Yehoshua implies, aren’t the monopoly of the Jews." Robert Fisk of The Independent devotes an entire chapter in his book, The Great War for Civilization, to the "First Holocaust" of the Armenians in 1915. He has also termed it the "forgotten holocaust." But he goes further in his book, claiming that the Jews have made it so that no one may use the word holocaust with a capital 'h' because Jews have seemingly stolen it from humanity. In an article in the Independent entitled 'Israel's New Prophet', the former speaker of the Knesset and head of the Jewish agency, Araham Burg, claims that there is a "holocaust industry" (a term used previously by Norman Finkelstein and the title of his book) and that "Burg argues Israel has been too long imprisoned by its obsessive and cheapening use – or abuse – of the Holocaust as 'a theological pillar of Jewish identity.'" Burg claims the Jews must "set Germany free" and no longer burden her with guilt over the Holocaust. His book The Holocaust is Over, is bring published in England in order to further this goal apparently.
Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist, often condemns Israel for using the Holocaust as a "tool" and claims Ben-Gurion used to force nations to be "under an obligation to support the world's one Jewish state. (Le Monde Diplomatique April, 2001). He goes so far as to even suggest that it is only a misunderstanding to "describe Israel's Holocaust memory as a mere instrument of Zionist propaganda" because although Israel has "manipulated" the Holocaust "you cannot truly understand Israel without understanding the role of the Holocaust in the minds of its people. And unless you understand the enemy [Israel?] , you cannot make peace with him." Segev also suggested that Israel's Holocaust remembrance day, 27th of Nissan, be changed to conform with the U.N's January 27th lest Israel be someone selfish in keeping the Holocaust to herself.
Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: “With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate." Amira Hass feels the same way, that Israel uses the Holocaust to "ward off criticism."
This idea that Israel and the Jews have thus stolen the Holocaust from humanity, denying others their right to use the word holocaust and also ignoring the suffering of other people's victimized by the Nazis is gaining ground. It is responsible for the way in which more and more European countries are seeking to remember 'genocide' rather than the Holocaust so that memorial days can be more 'multi-cultural.' It is interesting that multiculturalism cannot seem to even find a place for Jewish suffering and that the Holocaust of all things is twisted around so that it is called a 'Zionist tool', thus encouraging people to stop remembering the Holocaust in order to confront Zionism.
One of the strange twists of the claim that the Jews ‘use’ the Holocaust in order to ‘get away with crimes against the Palestinians’, a central theme in Avraham Burg’s book and in other anti-Israel propaganda is the way the claim works. The claim is that Israel uses the Holocaust as a shield against criticism. This is the same as the claim that Israel uses anti-semitism as a shield against criticism. The Critic and hater says this first in order cauterize his hatred so that he can say ‘see, I told you they would say I am anti-semitic.’ But what is odd about the idea that the Jews use the Holocaust and that Jews were harmed by the Holocaust and thus ‘take it out’ on the Palestinians (a claim also made by the British Historian Arnold Toynbee who, oddly, also claimed Israel was ‘like’ the Nazis-thus Israel suffers Nazism and is destined to become like the Nazis, so being a victim of Nazism makes one a Nazi, the true sin is thus being the victim, so victimhood is Nazism and the victim is thus the Nazi himself. Who is the actual historical German Nazi then?) But the other side of the story is ‘what would the world say about the occupation if there was no Holocaust?’ What about other nations who occupy things and abuse minorities, such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco, China, Russia or Burma? They didn’t suffer a Holocaust. Yet they are criticized less. The message is clear. The Jews are hated because they are victims and the new liberalism hates Jews because they suffered the Holocaust, saying that the Jews must be hated more because he uses the Holocaust, making other liberals think ‘gee, you are right, it is my duty to fight against Israel because she can’t be allowed to get away with using the Holocaust in order to abuse another people.’ But what about the fact that the majority of Israel’s people aren’t Holocaust survivor descendants but rather, the inconvenient truth, descendants of Sephardim, Mizrahim, Russians, Indian and Ethiopian Jews. Don’t tell the liberal. Because without the ‘Israel uses the Holocaust’ excuse the leftist could’nt justify his extreme hatred of Israel and justify using the Holocaust, and Jewish suffering during it, as an excuse to hate Israel more under the guise of not letting it ‘get away with using the Holocaust as a shield.’ Israel is thus punished twice, first by suffering under the Nazis and then by people saying “we must not let the Jews use this in order to get sympathy, we must be more critical of them because they suffered the Holocaust and should know better.” But it is primarily a German Jewish affliction that says “Jews use the Holocaust, the Holocaust is an industry, the Holocaust makes Jews cause human rights abuses, the Holocaust, the Holocaust, the Holocaust.” It is descendants of German Jews, such as Amira Hass and Avraham Burg who truly use the Holocaust, they use it to condemn the Jewish people and to claim Jewish destiny is to be ‘Nazis’. Apparently German Jews suffer from a longing for return to their ancestral Germanic homeland, their spiritual secular assimilated center where they were the center of intellectual attention, and not being respected in Israel they have decided to destroy it, and being racist (Amos Alon, author of Pity of it All, and a German Jewish descendant, claimed Israel was no longer ‘his country’ once all the Russians and dark Sephardim came to it, Baruch Kimmerling used German words when describing Ariel Sharon as a natural born genocidist in Politicide) against the ‘dark’ and ‘disgusting’ and ‘savage’ Sephardim, they have decided to call the Jews ‘white’ and turn Jews into ‘Nazis’ and ‘Crusaders’ and apartheid European settlers. How else can one explain the proclivity among German Jews to claim Israel is ‘like the Nazis’ and that Israel uses the Holocaust as an ‘industry’ and Jews suffered Nazism and thus have a greater chance of ‘becoming Nazis’ and ‘becoming fascist’. Hannah Arendt, the lover of the German Nazi philosopher Heidegger, was the first to claim the Jews collaborated with the Nazis and that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust (while Germans were just ‘banal’) in Eichmann in Jerusalem. Avraham Burg and Amira Hass and the other German Jews will do whatever it takes to make Israel a new ‘Nazi Germany’, one they can once again flee from as refugees and one they can claim they once again survived, one they can once again claim to have been pure prophets who ‘spotted the fire first’ and said some prophetic (The Independent calls Burg a ‘prophet’) things such as ‘where they burn books they will burn people’. The claims never end: Jews use the holocaust as an industry and Jews need to free Germany of its guilt (because Jews are now ‘responsible’ for the guilt of the Germans?) and Jews are destined to be Nazis and Jews use the Holocaust to shield themselves from criticism and Jews were responsible as actors in the Holocaust. And, as if that’s not enough, Jews even dominate the Holocaust and deny others their status as victims. How debased can the Yekkes become? What would intellectual Jews do without the Holocaust and Jews to blame for it? Why must all the Jews who didn’t suffer the Holocaust be shouldered with it so that they are either ‘using’ it or ‘abusing’ it or ‘dominating’ it or ‘destined to do it to others’? Why can’t we be freed of being blamed for it and why can’t Jews be allowed to be victims like everyone else of something that happened, primarily, to them. And why can’t Europeans be blamed for the thing they themselves did: the Holocaust, so that it doesn’t get twisted around so the Europeans get to be the ‘good’ people protesting in Hebron against the ‘Nazi’ Israelis. Why do the perpetrators get to once again take out their hatred, their new ‘human rights’ fad on the Jews and accuse Jews of shielding themselves from criticism, thus giving the Europeans an excuse to criticize the Jews. One must say it again. The Europeans did the Holocaust. It was in Europe. Europe built the gas chambers and put people in them and it is Europeans who are to blame for it, Europeans and a twisted part of their secular civilization. Europeans aren’t banal, they were the real Nazis and only Europe could have produced them, just as only Europe can produce a certain type of pasty faced extremist hating ‘human rights’ activist (by contrast the partisans who fought the Nazis, such as the Serbs, were also European whose source was in a very different portion of European history).
It is interesting that the Jews, alone among the world's peoples, are accused of being almost 'racist' for merely desiring to memorialize their own suffering during the Holocaust, one that was in many respects unique in human history. No other country or people is told that by memorializing its own history it is 'monopolizing' that history. Are Tutsis in Rwanda expected to stoop recalling the Rwandan Genocide lest they be seen as 'racist' against other African tribes, a few of whose people might have also suffered from the genocide. Should the Armenians be more inclusive with Armenian Genocide day and make sure to recall that some other people, such as Pontic Greeks, also suffered. Should the Ndebele people of Zimbabwe stop recalling the Gukurahundi, their word for the Robert Mugabe sponsored genocide of them in the 1980s? Do African-Americans have to stop memorializing slavery because they are not sharing it with white indentured servants and Native-Americans who also were enslaved? And what of the Nakba, are the Palestinians 'monopolizing' it by making it a selfish Palestinian event when others, such as Armenians, also fled their homes?
This is the true irony, that whereas the world desires to use the word Holocaust for all sorts of other genocides and Israel is accused of abusing the Holocaust, that the Palestinians are not accused of using the Nakba as a 'tool' or depriving others of the world. Perhaps the Jews suffered a 'Nakba' when 700,000 of them were forced to flee their former homes in Arab and Muslim countries after 1948. Maybe the Jews had a Gukurahundi in 1919 in the Ukraine when numerous Jews were massacred? But if Jews were to use the word Nakba and Gukurahundi one might suddenly find that these words were also being 'monopolized' by the Jews and that some Polish peasants killed in 1919 and Maltese forced to flee Egypt in 1952 were being left out by a 'chauvinistic' Jewish narrative. The message is clear; if the Jews suffer and dare to recall their suffering they are manipulating and stealing the memories of others and they are not suffering uniquely. But everyone else who suffers is suffering uniquely, whether they be Armenians, Tutsis or Palestinians. This is the real antisemitism.
Embarrassment of the Jewish people: Eitan Haber, the Jewish Agency and anti-semitism
November 26th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
The Jewish Agency’s Eitan Haber recently claimed on November 26th, 2008 in Yidiot Ahranot’s Ynet: “only in Israel do drug dealers facing the death penalty expect the State to save them” This is tantamount to saying that Only in Israel do people care about their citizens abroad. Is he ignorant of the fact that his is common? It seems he cannot be completely ignorant of the world, he used to work for the Prime Minister and serves on the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency.
But if he is ignorant lets remind him:
Mexico intervenes to stop execution of Mexicans in U.S
Saudi helps Muslim citizens abroad
England helped women in Sudan
Australia intervened to help death row citizen in Cambodia, women in Indonesia and man in Guatananamo
Canada intervened to help nurses beheaded in Saudi
U.S intervened to stop caning of American in Singapore
So what else is behind this. Is he an anti-Semite? Those like him who have an Israeli-Judeo-Centric view of the world also claim that “only Israel” commits certain crimes and that Israel is the “worst” whether it is ‘racism’ or ‘human rights abuses’ or ‘apartheid’ or ‘religious intolerance’ or ‘sex trafficking’. Why is Israel singled out? Because as self-hating Jews they believe Jews are uniquely important and thus uniquely evil. Thus when a Jew dares to express concern that a Jew will be executed for drug smuggling it is “only the Jews do this.” If an Arab government intervenes on behalf of its people abroad there is no such outcry of “only Arabs do this.” In the opposite, it is seen as positive that they have solidarity with their own.
But it’s not the first anti-Semite to come out of the Jewish Agency. Avraham Burg was first. He compares Israel to the Wiemer republic, claims the acquisition of the Golan was an ‘Anschluss’ and that Israel uses the Holocaust as an excuse to harm others and that the Holocaust is also an ‘industry’. His book, The Holocaust is over, rise from its ashes is, unsurprisingly a best seller in Israel and among wealthy leftist Jews and is prominently displayed in the Stimetsky’s chain of book stores, just as Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby was. Jews like to believe the worst about themselves, especially if it has them controlling the world’s governments and foreign policy and using the Holocaust as an ‘industry’ in order to ‘gain sympathy’ so that ‘Jews can commit human rights abuses against Palestinians.’
What is odd about the ‘Jewish’ Agency is that it is involved in other anti-Jewish activities. There is also the heads of the Jewish Agency who have fought against bringing Asian Jews to Israel and other Jewish people. So why is this organization, that is supposed to help Jews, becoming anti-Semitic? Is it because they talk so much about Jews that they become tainted, they become anti-Semitic out of self hatred and being exposed to to much Jewishness? What is wrong with the Jewish Agency. No one expects that every Jew will have a knee-Jerk reaction and want to help the two Israelis sentenced to death in Thailand but one does not expect a member of the Jewish Agency’s board to encourage their execution. Would he encourage the execution of an Arab drug smuggler in Israel?