Thanks to Israeli reader Nuriel for sending along a link for this segment from Eretz Nehederet, Israel’s highest rated political satire TV series. It depicts an education curriculum devised by Im Tirtzu with the Ministry of Education that helps prepare kindergarten children for the “complicated reality” that is life in the contemporary Middle East. It’s priceless:
Mendel Beilis, victim of a real blood libel
How does Sarah Palin demean Jewish suffering? Let me count the ways. Today, she comes forth with the absolutely disgusting, outrageous claim that those who accuse her of creating an environment of hate that fed Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting commit a “blood libel” against her:
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a seven-and-a-half minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
I swear, my jaw dropped when I heard that. Her statement is so noxious, so self-serving, so self-pitying, I simply don’t know where to begin.
First, let’s explain that the term “blood libel” derives from the anti-Semitic charge by Chrisitian Jew-haters that Jews stole Christian children and used their blood (hence that term) to make matza for Passover. Many Jews were persecuted, even arrested and imprisoned under such claims, most notoriously Mendel Beilis in 1913. This was one of the first times that Jews worldwide fought back against the charge and campaigned vigorously to defend the victim. In short, Jews died over the charges of blood libel. That’s why we take the phrase seriously and refuse to allow a cheap politician like Palin to demean it.
That being said, the subtext of what Palin is charging is that her detractors have fomented hatred and violence against HER (and not the other way around). When you think about it, this is an absolutely heinous and brilliant manuever to turn the tables on her attackers. Instead of being the perpetrators, she becomes the victim. How can you attack someone who claims she’s become the victim or persecution?
Not to mention that Palin has also introduced an element of religious devotion and imagery into the debate as another subtext of this monstrosity is that she’s calling on her followers to rally around her to defend her from this attack. As a devout radical evangelical, the imagery of Jewish persecution invoked by blood libel would resonate deeply with her given similarly imagery regarding Jesus’s suffering and those of later Christian martyrs.
We must not allow Sarah Palin to appropriate the blood libel or any other Jewish symbolism or suffering to which she is not entitled. This is simply an outrage. She cannot do this. She must pay a price for smearing the memory of Mendel Bailis and all those who suffered for their religious beliefs. Again, if anyone is guilty of political blood libel here it is Palin and her followers. They are the ones who use violent political rhetoric. They are the ones who express their rage all too easily on their enemies. They are the perpetrators, not the victims.
I am outraged. This is a hillul ha-Shem (“desecration of the Divine Name”).
Abe Foxman issued a tepid slap on the wrist in which he said he “wished” she hadn’t used the term. C’mon Abe. Do you only wield the big guns against liberals and Democrats like Ted Turner when they misuse Jewish suffering?
Seattle's anti-war bus ads
Like a good general, I have a rule I try to follow about blogging: I try to choose the terrain on which I will fight. I like the terrain to favor me. If my opponent chooses to fight on their terrain, I prefer not to engage unless I think it’s favorable to me. That’s why I’ve declined to enter into the local fracas-become international cause celebre involving a series of Seattle Metro Bus ads which decry U.S. military aid to Israel and accuse it of committing war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.
Before entering this political swamp, let me make something clear: I have no problem with any of the issues raised in the ads, which is why I strongly attack King County executive Dow Constantine’s decision to pull the plug on them after an outcry from a local Israel lobby coalition. I strongly support the right of the group which organized them to display them. The issue of U.S. military aid to Israel is an important one as is the even more important issue of possible war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza during the last war.
But I do have problem with both sides of this debate: both the advertisers and the pro-Israel baying chorus trying to take them down. First, my problem with the ad. If you want to make a political point AND influence people you make your argument coherent and plausible. You don’t flaunt rhetoric. You don’t score points. You don’t shout when a calm voice will do. There are thousands of different iterations of this ad which would’ve worked as effectively and made it harder for the pro-Israel crowd to get the ads taken down.
But the ad organizers went for the jugular. They made their choice and undoubtedly are happy their ads were banned since it will play well to their constituency. The other side will think it has won a victory and feel pleased with itself. What it won’t realize is that any time you have to win a victory at the expense of fundamental constitutional principles of free speech and fairness, you’ve lost in the long run. Meaning Israel has lost too. And if your cause is Israel, then you’ve done your cause a disservice.
Now my much more serious problems with the smear campaign run by the local pro-Israel advocates including the Jewish federation, Aipac, American Jewish Committee and Stand With Us. Here’s some of their rhetoric as mouthed by local King County Councilmember Jane Sprague, who’s dutifully repeating the Israel lobby talking points as all obedient U.S. politicians tend to do:
The ad reads “Israeli War Crimes Your tax dollars at work,” and has an image of a group of children staring at a destroyed building. . Like many of you, I find the ad disturbing. Yesterday I sent a letter to the Executive and Metro officials demanding that they put a halt the ads…
We need to be mindful that inflammatory speech like this can affect many groups including our Jewish Community. I strongly believe in freedom of speech and our first amendment rights…Messages like these, that lack basic civility, can incite violence against minorities and various religious communities. We need to be able to protect those who can be hurt as a result.
What is “inflammatory” about this speech? That it accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza? Major Israeli newspapers run stories virtually every day recounting stories of Israeli atrocities during the war and using terms like “war crimes” to describe them. Yes, I’d prefer to use terms like “alleged” or “possible” since the war crimes haven’t been proven in a court of law yet. But I find absolutely nothing wrong with putting forward a political argument in such ads claiming that Israel committed war crimes.
Now, as to whether U.S. taxpayers financed those atrocities with U.S. military aid: that seems incontrovertible. Israel’s military has used American weaponry liberally and even flagrantly in situations such as the mass firing of U.S. cluster bombs during the concluding hours of the 2006 Lebanon war, leaving Lebanese civilians to suffer the tragic consequences after the war ended as they unintentionally exploded the ordinance on their property and roads.
As to the ads “lacking basic civility,” well, excuse me but a cluster bomb in your backyard or an F-16 levelling your Gaza apartment building is a pretty uncivil message sent from the American people to Palestinians courtesy of the Israeli Air Force. Do the American people deserve the right to know about such things in bus ads? You bet.
But there is another deeply disturbing notion put forward by pro-Israel advocates in this message: that Israel=American Jews. That Americans somehow blame their fellow Jewish citizens for the acts of Israel. This is not only an offensive concept, it simply isn’t true. America is not a place in which Jews will be blamed for Israel’s alleged crimes. I reject this notion.
The anti-ad coalition views Israel and world Jewry as being inseparable, as being joined at the hip. But the vast majority of Jews in the world don’t accept this equation. I am a Jew, not an Israeli. Israel doesn’t speak for me, nor I for Israel. When Israel acts badly, I am not at fault nor do my fellow Americans see as such.
But it is convenient for Stand With Us and the rest of the Israel advocates to claim there is “no daylight” between Israel and us because then they can argue that hostility to Israeli policy=anti-Israelism and even anti=Semitism. Let me point out as clearly as I can: this notion is noxious. It is offensive. I utterly reject it as should all Americans and American Jews who care about Israel.
Israel doesn’t need all Jews to identify with it unconditionally. Israel need to become a normal nation in the Middle East. To do so, it needs to come to terms with its Arab neighbors. Having world Jewry’s identity confused with Israel’s will not help this process. It will indeed poison it. If you want to be a friend to Israel tell it to make peace with its neighbors and not presume all the Jews in the world think everything it does is honky dory.
King County’s executive has done a grave disservice to free speech in suspending these ads. Not only this, he has handed a victory to those sponsoring the ads. He has given them the high ground. I hope they sue the county and get a judge to rule on this situation. It is really a contract dispute. The County signed a contract and then violated it. Grounds for reneging are specious. Metro approved those ads then took the Mideast Awareness Campaign’s $3,000. After signing on the dotted line, they want to back out. I’d love to see this tested in court.
Dow Constantine is a craven political coward. Read the bullshit that he’s published under the name of the King County government:
“I have consulted with federal and local law enforcement authorities who have expressed concern, in the context of this international debate, that our public transportation system could be vulnerable to disruption.”
…Given the dramatic escalation of debate in the past few days over these proposed ads, and the submission of inflammatory response ads, there is now an unacceptable risk of harm to or disruption of service to our customers should these ads run.”
Yes, ads that are political speech and counter-speech will cause terrorism. That’s what he’s essentially claiming. Thank God, this is a view fully rejected by our nation’s Founders. Speech is speech. It is not an act and certainly not an illegal act. What utter nonsense. To retreat behind the skirts of a nameless federal bureaucrat who supposeldy told him to can an ad. I want to know: which federal official did he consult and what did he say? In fact, I’d like to file a Freedom of Information Act petition with Country government for every piece of internal information regarding this ad. So, Dow Constantine, I’d be careful what you say and make sure it’s the truth. You wouldn’t want to look awfully stupid if you mouthed nonsense like this, and were caught afterward doing so.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if David Horowitz’s counter ads were deliberately formulated in the most vitriolic terms possible, knowing that by doing so they would virtually force Metro to cancel the original ad, which was their real purpose. Really, who cares what the counter ads would say as long as they didn’t explicitly advocate illegality or violence? I’d like to see fools like Horowitz and his ilk voice anti-Muslim views on Seattle buses so the entire city can laugh them out of town. What’s the cure to bad speech? More speech. Not no speech. What Metro is doing is saying Seattleites are delicate flowers who can’t withstand the furor of political debate. Somehow they must be protected from opinions that are too hot. Otherwise, what? What would happen? Would the Seattle explode in WTO type riots merely because of a few bus ads? C’mon. Who’re they kidding.
You’ve heard conservatives deride the “Nanny State.” Well, here in Seattle we have the “Nanny County” protecting residents from the bad, bad man saying bad, bad things. I say let 1,000 flowers bloom. So what if some are weeds? A weed here or there won’t kill us. It’s the garden of debate that is important.
Henry Kissinger with Nixon: no Uncle Tomashefsky (AP)
Henry Kissinger is a foul human being, plain and simple. Let’s concede that he was a Jew seeking to ingratiate himself with the Republican powers that be beginning with Nelson Rockefeller, who was his mentor, and then with Richard Nixon. So in a sense he had to pretend to ignore any element of allegiance to his co-religionists. He didn’t want to be labelled an Uncle Tomashefsky.
But is there any possible justification for the horrible immorality of this statement reported in the NY Times?
An indication of Nixon’s complex relationship with Jews came the afternoon Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister, came to visit on March 1, 1973. The tapes capture Meir offering warm and effusive thanks to Nixon for the way he had treated her and Israel.
But moments after she left, Nixon and Mr. Kissinger were brutally dismissive in response to requests that the United States press the Soviet Union to permit Jews to emigrate and escape persecution there.
“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
“I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”
This was precisely the attitude of the FDR administration toward Jewish victims during the Holocaust. It was no a strategic or military concern of the Allies in prosecuting the war. It was merely a humanitarian concern, with “humanitarian” falling very far down in the list of priorities. To a certain extent this approach still afflicts policymakers as reflected in western paralysis in the face of genocide in places like Rwanda, Bosnia, Congo and Sudan.
The plight of Soviet Jewry ended up becoming a political football and in a sense served as the genesis of the nascent neocon movement when Sen. Henry Jackson (the progenitor of neoconservatism) shepherded the Jackson-Vanik Amendment into law. That allowed Soviet Jews to become the cudgel with which U.S. anti-Russian hawks could beat the Soviet Union about the head. It became an example of humanitarianism exploited for political gain. Many of these same Russian Jews upon emigration to Israel served as the backbone of the Likud and Israeli far-right nationalism (Natan Sharanky, Avigdor Lieberman, etc).
The incredible irony of the Watergate tapes released yesterday is that they reveal a Nixon full of petty racist notions: among them that Jews, being the arrivistes that they are–are beset by tremendous insecurity. Now, we can argue about whether that’s true or not. But the notion reveals a Nixon utterly bereft of self-knowledge since of course, he was one of the most insecure personalities ever to inhabit the presidency. In a sense, you could argue that Nixon, seeing himself as an unappreciated, disrespected outsider, gravitated to Jewish advisors like Kissinger, who saw themselves similarly. They both had something to prove and hence were extremely ambitious. This ambition both fueled their legitimate achievements and defined their greatest weakness.
Rosh Ha'Ayin's Chief Racist Rabbi Azarya Basis (Gil Lerner)
I couldn’t have made this up myself if I’d tried: the rabbis of the largely Yemenite city of Rosh Ha-Ayin (English), including the chief rabbi, declared a ban on hiring Arabs at stores which employ Jewish girls. I swear to you, it’s true. If you’d told me this story came out of Pakistan or Kandahar I might’ve believed you, but no, it’s from Israel’s Rosh Ha-Ayin.
Earlier this week, we had Orthodox rabbis ordering Jews not to rent to Arabs. Now, we have rabbis prohibiting hiring of Arabs. Where will it lead and when will it end? Should we have a special Israeli Orthodox Nuremberg-like conclave at which we set down an entire series of halachic rulings governing social interaction with Palestinian Israelis? Shall we call it the Heychal Shlomo* Laws?
The rabbis claim that if young impressionable Jewish girls come under the Svengali-like influence of Arab men they will swoon and give in to their blandishments and so pollute the Jewish gene pool. In other words, that dreaded phenomenon of assimilation, by which they really mean miscegenation. And those shopkeepers who refuse to comply will receive the full religious ostracism and be excommunicated. I didn’t even know Jews did that these days. The last serious excommunication I’d heard about was Baruch Spinoza’s in the Middle Ages (well, a nutcase group of Orthodox rabbis excommunicated all the members of New Jewish Agenda via a pulsa di’nura in the early 1980s because it advocated gay rights and two-states, so perhaps I’m wrong).
When asked about the rabbinic ruling, the municipal authorities (despite the fact that the rabbis are paid and employed by the government) said “it’s not within our authority.” The mayor of the Israeli-Palestinian neighboring village of K’far Kassem replied:
What is this? South Africa?
This move was spurred by reports brought to the chief rabbi that young Jewish girls were seen “keeping company” with Arab men. A letter written to the rabbi claimed:
These girls fall lower and lower and are not always aware of it because we’re speaking of Arabs. They aren’t giving thought to the damage and assimilation this causes.
Rabbi Basis replied:
I see the situation as grave because it leads to assimilation and the violation of very severe prohibitions [against interracial sex].
All of which is very interesting since I’m not aware of any traditional halachic violations against having sex with any non-Jew let alone an Arab. Certainly, there are such prohibitions by settler rabbis (influenced by Meir Kahane’s obsessive and racialist views on the subject).
The former head of the municipal religious council, a follower of Basis, added:
We must make clear to shop owners that any business [conducted with Arabs] must be done on the basis of segregation. And if not [the shop owner refuses], there must be a boycott. So they will be forced to choose from whom they profit the most from [Jewish] consumers or cheap [Arab] labor. There are grave situations in which girls in hardship find themselves [living] with Muhammad in the [Arab] village. Afterwards, you find she gives birth to Ahmed and Fatma. We must also warn the parents of this.
The woman who turned to Rabbi Basis with her complaint said:
What is happening is a catastrophe. I visit these stores and find our pretty Yemenite girls with Arabs who look Jewish. They buy them presents and talk nice to them and so deceive them. Afterwards, they end up in the village and get beaten. Within my own family, someone left her Jewish husband for an Arab because she was pregnant. That’s why I’m so sensitive to the issue.
The mayor of Kfar Kassem reacted with anger and demanded:
Why don’t they come right out and say what they really mean: that Arabs aren’t welcome in Rosh Ha-Ayin. Let them say the honest truth and not conceal it in supposed concern for the girls. This is against any sort of logic in the world. Neighbors should respect each other.
The Rosh Ha-Ayin municipal government responded that it was not in its power to forbid employment of Arabs in local stores, that there are laws governing such matters, and that if the rabbis wish to change them they should do so through the Knesset.
* former Jerusalem seat of the Israel’s chief rabbi
In a move reminiscent of Nazi-era Nuremberg Race Laws, a group of radical Orthodox rabbis led by the chief rabbi of Tzfat urged fellow Israeli Jews to refuse to rent apartments to non-Jews:
Dozens of Israel’s municipal chief rabbis have signed on to a new religious ruling that would forbid the rental of homes to gentiles in a move particularly aimed against Arabs, Haaretz has learned.
The religious ruling comes just months after a group of 18 prominent rabbis, including the chief rabbi of Safed, signed a call urging Jews to refrain from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews.
…The rabbis’ letter…urges Jewish owners of apartments to reconsider renting their properties to Arabs since it would deflate the value of their homes as well as those in the neighborhood.
“Their way of life is different than that of Jews,” the letter stated. “Among [the gentiles] are those who are bitter and hateful toward us and who meddle into our lives to the point where they are a danger.”
The rabbis also urge neighbors of anyone renting or selling property to Arabs to caution that person. After delivering the warning, the neighbor is then encouraged to issue notices to the general public and inform the community.
“The neighbors and acquaintances [of a Jew who sells or rents to an Arab] must distance themselves from the Jew, refrain from doing business with him, deny him the right to read from the Torah, and similarly [ostracize] him until he goes back on this harmful deed,” the letter reads.
What is especially significant about this development is that the municipal rabbis are employees of the State, which means that the nation is, in effect, endorsing their views…unless it renounces them. And so far it hasn’t. The attorney general has refused to take up the matter. Nor has the chief rabbi of Israel, who is technically the boss of the municipal rabbis. Tzfat’s chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, is among the most extremist in his views of Palestinian Israelis and many are seeking to bring a charge of incitement against him for this and his previous remarks.
Here is the chief rabbi’s reply:
The Chief Rabbinate is responsible for matters of Jewish law and professional issues pertaining to municipal rabbis. Theoretically, the two chief rabbis can summon a municipal rabbi for a disciplinary hearing if the attorney general concludes he has exceeded his authority or acted improperly. Such action has rarely been taken.
Oded Weiner, director general of the Chief Rabbinate, told Haaretz that the institution “does a great deal for interreligious dialogue, worldwide and with the Palestinian Authority [!].” But Weiner added that “every rabbi in his city says what is in his heart.”
Weiner said that in the past, chief rabbis handled such issues quietly with the individuals involved. “I have not seen the letter the municipal rabbis signed,” he said. “When we receive a query from any quarter, I’m sure the chief rabbis and the Council of the Chief Rabbinate will consider the matter.” Weiner said Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger would not take the issue to the council on his own initiative.
Apparently, decentralization of authority works well for rabbis when they wish to permit themselves to express the overt racism that “is in their hearts.” But were a rabbi to be overly sympathetic to Palestinians (little likelihood of that I recognize), then all of a sudden the chief rabbi would invoke the power invested in him to take swift action.
In response, a group of prominent Israelis have demanded the immediate firing of the state-funded rabbis:
A group of public figures, intellectuals and academics have asked [attorney general] Weinstein to immediately suspend any public servants among the rabbis who signed the document, those “who trample underfoot the pledges of the Declaration of Independence on which Israel was founded, turn Judaism into racism and openly break the law prohibiting incitement to racism.”
Israeli blogger Idan Landau and others have noticed the ironic historic echo of the Nazi-era race laws which severely restricted social, commercial, sexual and professional contacts between Jews and non-Jews. Interestingly, Landau displays this 1939 document which allows non-Jews to break leases signed with Jewish tenants and generally seeks ways of constricting Jews so they will be forced to live only in Jewish-owned property. Even here though, the Nazi authorities did not explicitly reject the notion of a non-Jew renting to a Jew. By the time they passed Law 234 (presumably after 1939) though, even this was withdrawn:
Law #234 told landlords that they could no longer rent to Jews. This made many Jews homeless, since a Jew kicked out of his home could not find any other place to rent. These Jews were then picked up by the police and sent to murder camps.
Israeli authorities must address this issue firmly or they risk become facilitators of the kind of racism and hatred which Jews suffered in Nazi-era Germany. And a prime minister’s rap on the knuckles delivered mainly for foreign consumption is not enough. There must be consequences. Isn’t it enough that the Carmel fires have made Israel a punchline for bad jokes, that the country should allow this too to add to the black eye? Diaspora Jewish leaders too have a responsibility to staunch the blood draining from the wounds of Israeli democracy through such wounds.
Do we really want to go down that road (again)?
And lest anyone attempt to argue that these rabbis are pure crackpots not representing anyone, I remind you that the Israel Democracy Institute 2010 survey found that 46% of Israeli Jews said they would be “bothered” by having Israeli Palestinians as neighbors. This was higher than the number which would be troubled by having gay, mentally ill, foreign workers, or ultra-Orthodox neighbors.
H/t to Sol Salbe.
'No citizenship without loyalty'
I’m actually heartened by the formulation of the loyalty oath which the rightist Israeli cabinet approved today. It compels only non-Jews to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state and doesn’t make the same demand of new Jewish citizens. This makes the proposal, almost guaranteed of approval in the Knesset even more racist than it was when it enjoined every new citizen to swear allegiance to the Jewish state. This in turn almost guarantees the law will be overturned by the Supreme Court. If the Court does not reject the law then Israel is sliding down the slippery slope to a racialist state.
I was contemplating using the term “fascist” or even stronger but thought better of it given that there are those ready to pounce on the use of such strong terms, but a sitting member of the Israeli cabinet beat me to it:
Isaac Herzog, a Labor member of the cabinet, said the amendment was one of a series of steps in recent years that “borders on fascism. Israel is on a slippery slope.”
Even a Likud stalwart like Reuven Rivlin, Knesset speaker, sees the evil in this proposal, which he says is:
“…Provocative and [could] serve as a weapon for the enemies of Zionism.”
Gee, dya think?
Can we be far from separate water fountains and bathrooms for Arabs? We already have separate schools, separate towns and separate political parties. For that matter, can we be far from prohibiting anyone who isn’t Jewish from becoming a citizen? Actually, Israel will always allow Christians to become citizens. It’s the Muslims who are a problem. So the next thing you know Israel will be prohibiting Muslims and Arabs from becoming citizens. They might just as well add “Arabs raus” to the Israeli Declaration of Independence.\
And while we’re at it, can’t we add a loyalty oath for visitors, especially the undesirable ones like Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky and Ivan Prado, the Spanish clown. That should end the problem of Israel having to arrest them and send them packing when they arrive at Ben Gurion unwanted. No more nasty ISMers either. Just think about it.
Let’s think really big, instead of confining the oath to non-Jews who wish to become citizens, let’s apply it to leftists who already are citizens. When they go abroad to spout their anti-Israel swill, don’t let ‘em back in the country till they swear allegiance to the Judenreich. That will get rid of any number of Sheikh Jarrah activists, Neve Gordon, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, and the like. It also ought to bring down substantially the number of leftists afflicting the Israeli body politic.
Ehud Barak as usual proposed an ineffectual compromise rejected out of hand which would’ve added a reference to Israel’s Declaration of Independence in the oath, as if this somehow will kasher what is treif in it.
Bibi, for his part, in defending the oath, repeated the usual pro-Israel delusion that Israel is the region’s only democracy:
“There is no other democracy in the Middle East…
Which must mean that Lebanon, Turkey and arguably Iran don’t exist. That’s explains why Israel does so poorly in understanding its neighbors. It isn’t even aware of what form of government they have.
Read Gideon Levy’s eloquent denunciation:
Remember this day. It’s the day Israel changes its character. As a result, it can also change its name to the Jewish Republic of Israel, like the Islamic Republic of Iran…
From now on, we will be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country.
…Today the loyalty oath bill, soon the loyalty oath law. The dam will overflow today, threatening to drown the remnants of democracy until we are left perhaps with a Jewish state of a character that no one really understands, but it certainly won’t be a democracy.
…The Association for Civil Rights in Israel issued a blacklist of legislation: a loyalty law for Knesset members; a loyalty law for film production; a loyalty law for non-profits; putting the Palestinian catastrophe, the Nakba, beyond the scope of the law; a ban on calls for a boycott; and a bill for the revocation of citizenship. It’s a dangerous McCarthyist dance on the part of ignorant legislators who haven’t begun to understand what democracy is all about.
…Swearing an oath to a Jewish state will decide its fate. It is liable to turn the country into a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
…That’s what happens when the fire is still smoldering under the rug, the fire of the basic lack of faith in the justice of our path. Only such a lack of confidence can produce such distorted proposed legislation.
…[This] is being done either to provoke the Arab minority and push them into a greater lack of loyalty so one day the time will come to finally get rid of them, or it is designed to scuttle the prospect of a peace agreement…One way or another, in Basel at the First Zionist Congress in 1897, the Jewish state was founded, as Theodor Herzl said, and today the unenlightened Jewish Republic of Israel will be founded.
Rick Sanchez hangs self on air
In reading the melodrama of Rick Sanchez’ implosion in front of a national radio audience when he called Jon Stewart both a “white liberal,” “bigot,” and “Jew,” not necessarily in that order, I was reminded how racism is an equal opportunity employer. Just because you’re a discriminated-against minority doesn’t mean that you too can’t be racist. During a radio interview meant to plug his new book, Sanchez recounted his own history of being the victim of prejudice at the hands of a CNN boss who wouldn’t consider him as a news anchor.
Then he proved that despite suffering prejudice, he could dish it out as well:
Mr. Sanchez called Mr. Stewart a “bigot,” but later took the word back, calling the comedian “prejudicial” instead.
Prejudicial “against who?” Mr. Dominick asked.
Mr. Sanchez said, “Against anybody who doesn’t agree to his point of view, which is very much a white liberal establishment point of view.”
One of the co-hosts of the radio show brought up the fact that Mr. Stewart is a Jew, saying to Mr. Sanchez, he is a minority “as much as you are.”
Mr. Sanchez answered sarcastically, “Yeah. Yeah. Very powerless people.” He let out a high-pitched laugh.
“Everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart,” Mr. Sanchez said. “And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah.”
Of course, what’s ironic about all this is that Sanchez had his many detractors at CNN, but one of his supporters was Jonathan Klein, undoubtedly one of those white-liberal-Jew-Jon Stewart types he so despises. Contemporary society pits all minorities against each other in a dog-eat-dog world. It’s divide and conquer so The Man ends up always winning. So if Rick Sanchez doesn’t get his promotion it must be because of all those white liberal Jew CNN editors like Jon Stewart who disparage him because he’s Hispanic.
I know who will snatch up his contract: FoxNews. That’s a marriage made in heaven–or Republican National Committee headquarters.
.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
