Thursday, April 30, 2015

Germany: Police arrest couple over 'planned terror attack'

German police have arrested a married couple suspected of having planned a terrorist attack and have seized an assault rifle, ammunition and a pipe bomb in their home, Die Welt daily reported Thursday.
The newspaper identified the couple arrested overnight in western Hesse state only as Halil and Senay D., saying they were believed to have links to Salafist and Islamic extremist groups.
Authorities had noticed them last month when they purchased a large amount of chemicals that can be used to make explosives, giving a false name to the building supplies shop, the report said.
Local police confirmed to AFP they had arrested a man and a woman in the town of Oberursel near Frankfurt and that more locations were being searched, but did not provide further details.
Die Welt said the couple had been under observation by a police special unit for several days.
Police had decided to raid the home and arrest the couple after the man had been spotted walking through a nearby wooded area which will be part of the route of a bicycle race on Friday, because they wanted to rule out any possible security threat to participants and onlookers.

FAA raised concerns about mental stability of Germanwings suicide crash pilot

By Thomas Lifson  

As Germany, the EU, and the world grapple with the horror of Andreas Lubitz plotting and carrying out a suicide crash that killed 149 innocents, a document has surfaced demonstrating that the American Federal Aviation Agency had concerns over his mental fitness. The release of the document follows a Freedom of Information Act request on the part of news agencies.  Nicholas Kulish and Nicola Clark write in the New York Times:
The Federal Aviation Administration raised questions in 2010 about whether it should grant a pilot’s license in the United States to Andreas Lubitz, who in March flew a Germanwings jetliner into a French mountainside, but was assured by his doctors in Germany that he had fully recovered from an episode of depression the year before, according to newly released documents.
Lubitz required an American student pilot’s license and a valid medical certificate from a flight doctor in order to participate in Lufthansa’s flight school located near Phoenix.
According to the documents made public by the aviation administration, Mr. Lubitz was treated from January 2009 to that October with at least two drugs, Cipralex and mirtazapine. During that period, he was on leave from Lufthansa’s pilot-training school, a program that normally lasts around two years and included a period of several months at a Lufthansa-owned center in Arizona where he would learn to fly small planes.
Ultimately the agency decided that Mr. Lubitz could travel to the United States and continue his training, but warned him that he would be prohibited from flying if his depression recurred.
There is also evidence suggesting that Mr. Lubitz might have tried to mislead the F.A.A. about his treatment, initially marking “no” in response to a question on whether he had ever been treated for mental disorders on a form dated June 2010. Referring to a question number on the form, the file notes, “changed from N to Y.”
“Why he didn’t check yes, I don’t know,”’ said Dr. Warren S. Silberman, the former manager of aerospace medical certification for the aviation administration whose office reviewed Mr. Lubitz’s application for a United States medical certificate.
“He cannot leave it blank. It won’t transmit,” he said. “I would have advised him to check yes.” Dr. Silberman said Mr. Lubitz’s online application form appeared to have been changed after the fact by a Lufthansa doctor to reflect the treatment he had received.
The name of the German psychologist who wrote a letter to the FAA attesting to Lubitz’s mental fitness has not been released.
Germany’s own investigation of Lubitz has been hampered by strict medical privacy laws. While medical privacy is important, and under threat in the United States by Obamacare’s electronic medical records requirements, it seems to me that people in critical positions like airline pilots should be asked to and have a means for waiving those rights.
There are a lot of people who must be acutely embarrassed by Lubitz’s ability to stay a pilot. I hope that Germany will rethink its regulations.

Europe: Muslim terrorism and European Jew hatred: What’s changed in 35 years?


In the book Semites & Anti-Semites, renowned author and historian Bernard Lewis introduces the work with a summary of a terror attack on a Paris synagogue in 1980. When a bomb exploded at the synagogue, it killed four people including two non-Jewish passers-by. The French Prime Minister at the time, Raymond Barre, expressed his sympathies for the victims but made an interesting statement: “They aimed at the Jews, and they hit innocent Frenchmen.”

Now imagine the impact this statement would have had, if “Jews” had been replaced with something else:
“They aimed at the Muslims, and they hit innocent Frenchmen.”
“They aimed at the English, and they hit innocent Frenchmen.”
“They aimed at the Australians… the Italians… the Indians...”
Any of these groups would understand the implication instantly.

It was a response that made a bold statement. While he did feel sorry for what had happened, he did not see French Jews the same as the ethnic French, who were somehow more “innocent” in this tragedy.

What has changed? Now France has recognized the “State of Palestine,” which is not a State but is ruled by both a terror-supporting government and a terrorist organization, neither side willing to accept Israel as the Jewish State or to accept a Jewish presence there at all, ready to commit whatever violence they deem necessary on any Jewish civilians. France is experiencing just a taste of that same terror, yet has chosen to recognize Palestine, which is nothing short of an endorsement for this terror. [...]

As of 2014, according to Pew Research, the Muslim population of Germany was 5.8 percent, 7.5 percent of France and 4.8 percent of the UK. Now remember, the small Jewish populations in Europe. Forget percentages, and let’s look at real numbers.

In Germany, the Jewish population is around 118,000. The Muslim population? 4,760,000. In the UK, there are about 290,000 Jews but 2,960,000 Muslims.  In France, with the highest Jewish population in Western Europe, there are about 475,000 Jews but 4,710,000 Muslims [Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Great Mosque of Paris and head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith. puts the figure at 7 million Muslims].

The difference is obvious- thousands of Jews; millions of Muslims. And anti-Semitism is high in each of these countries, often disguised as “anti-Zionism” through the BDS movement; the endorsement of the terror-supporting “Palestinian State;” investigations into so-called Israeli “war crimes” yet little mention of the Palestinian war crimes against both Jews and Arabs; media bias which includes an obsession with Israel and a distortion of facts, often highlighting unbalanced casualty counts without explaining the reasons why (like the use of human shields by Hamas); and so much more.

Yet there is no Jewish terrorism, while Muslim terrorism is on the rise as the Muslim populations increase.
Not much has changed since that 1980 terror attack on the Paris synagogue Bernard Lewis wrote about. The attitude is the same: “They aimed at the Jews, and they hit innocent Frenchmen.” Now they’re aiming at the Frenchmen too but still blaming the Jews. Will they ever learn?


Porous Border Update: Lab and Lib MEPs Vote For Brussels To Send Britain More Refugees

By A.B. Sanderson  

Ed Miliband’s claims that Labour will be tough on immigration fell flat yesterday when his Euro MPs supported measures that would wreck Britain’s power to control its own borders. MEPs in Strasbourg voted in favour of a binding quota system to distribute asylum seekers among all EU countries, resulting in their critics saying the party “says one thing then does another” on immigration.
The vote came only days after the Labour leader pledged to strengthen UK borders and restore the principle of contribution within the first 100 days of a Labour government.
“We will deal with people’s concerns because we have listened, we have learned and we have changed,” Ed Miliband said.
Should this become law, it would mean Britain becomes obliged to take as many refugees rescued from the Mediterranean as the EU decrees.  Currently the Dublin Agreement says that asylum applications must be dealt with in the EU country where the refugee lands. However, with the Schengen guarantee of free movement, it has resulted in asylum seekers leaving safe countries such as Italy or Greece and travelling north to more prosperous countries – and of course the thousands camped in Calais trying to get to the UK.
The only British Liberal Democrat in the European Parliament, Catherine Bearder, voted with Labour to give Brussels more control over UK immigration policy.
It led to the Conservatives saying Labour was duplicitous on migration.
Timothy Kirkhope, Conservative spokesman on justice and home affairs in the European Parliament, said: “Labour talk tough at home then do the dirty over here.
“April 18: the man who would be their prime minister stands up on Merseyside and tries to portray Labour as tough on immigration, despite their track record. April 29: his MEPs put their hands up in Strasbourg to hand more power to Europe over how many migrants are sent to Britain.
“At least the Lib Dems make no secret of their feebleness.  They are proud to hand control of our borders to Brussels.”
UKIP immigration spokesman Steven Woolfe told Breitbart London, it was “more hypocrisy” from Labour on immigration, adding, “this is to be expected from the party which sent out search parties for more migrants to the UK.
“Labour MEPs now vote for common EU asylum policy in Brussels as Miliband lets on to talk tough in London – nobody is fooled.”

Britain's Labour Party Vows to Ban Islamophobia

By Soeren Kern
  • "In Miliband's Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. ... If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged." — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.
  • The report shows that Britain's Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population's median age of 40 years.
The leader of Britain's Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw "Islamophobia."
The move — which one observer has called "utterly frightening" because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as "the tightest general election for a generation."
With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.
In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:
"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.
Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government's definition of "religious hatred" was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.
In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only "threatening" words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.
Miliband's renewed promise to make "Islamophobia" (a term he has not defined) an "aggravated crime" may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.
According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, "Miliband's proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions." In an opinion article, he added:
"In Miliband's Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy's name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged."
McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain's three million-strong Muslim community to "prop up Labour's urban vote."
Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.
The report shows that Britain's Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population's median age of 40 years.
An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year's election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.
Others say that although Britain's Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year's election "will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level."
A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.
Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of "Asian" voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.
In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.
Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:
"A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.
"With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.
"YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.
"With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics."
Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the #StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a "sin" against Islam because Allah is "the only legislator." He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are "apostates."
Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a "sin."
Other British Islamists are following Choudary's lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy "violates the right of Allah" have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.
One such poster stated:
"Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.
"Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed."


How Non-Muslims "Survive" in Turkey

By Burak Bekdil
  • A non-Muslim can rise and become a darling of today's neo-Ottoman Turks. He can win hearts and minds in important offices in Ankara -- and a bright career. But to maintain his fortunes, he must remain loyal to the official Islamist line, both in deed and rhetoric.
  • That is the kind of collective psychology into which Turkey's ruling Islamists force non-Muslims: either become a collaborator or...
Last October, Etyen Mahcupyan, a leading Turkish Armenian intellectual, "liberal" writer and columnist, was appointed as "chief advisor" to Turkey's Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. At first glance, this was good news in a country where Islamists privately adhere to the old Ottoman "millet" system, in which non-Muslims were treated as second-class (if not third-class) citizens.
In reality, Mahcupyan was a reincarnation of the Ottoman "devshirme" system, in which the Ottoman state machinery produced several non-Muslim converts who enjoyed a place in the higher echelons of the palace bureaucracy, and the finer things of life, because their pragmatism earned them excellent relations with the ruling Muslim elite.
In a December interview with Turkey's leading daily, Hurriyet, Mahcupyan said, "Whatever has been a [political] asset for Turkey's Armenian community (they number around 60,000) is an asset for the Jewish community too. But... there is Israel... As long as the psychology of the Israel issue continues to influence politics in Turkey and relations between the two countries do not normalize..." The line, which Mahcupyan shyly did not finish, probably would have gone on like this: "Turkey's Jews will keep on paying the price."
Mahcupyan admitted that if Turkey's Jews felt alienated, it was the government's responsibility to do something about that.
What more? "I have lived through this personally for the past 60 years," he explained. "Among Turkey's non-Muslim minorities, including Jews and Armenians, there is an opinion about humiliating Muslims." As Mahcupyan's statement is not true, it therefore just seems a way to justify Islamists' intimidation of Jews.
Next, Mahcupyan argued, "Both Jews and Armenians are better-educated [than Muslim Turks] and more open to the West. And this brings in a feeling of superiority complex." In this view, daily attacks on Turkey's Jews and other non-Muslims happen because Jews and Armenians humiliate Muslims -- they are better-educated than Muslims and hence their superiority complex. The charge is, at best, silly.
Only a few months later, Mahcupyan would learn how wrong he was about the Islamist supremacists in Ankara and their inherent intolerance to liberal thinking.
Mahcupyan recently commented on Pope Francis's remarks on April 12, in which the Pope described 1915 as "the first genocide of the 20th century," and said that the Vatican had "thrown off a 100-year-old psychological burden."
If, Mahcupyan said, accepting that what happened in Bosnia and Africa were genocides, "it is impossible not to call what happened to Armenians in 1915 genocide, too."
It was probably the first time in Turkish history that a senior government official recognized the Armenian genocide. Once again, at first glance, that was good news in a country where outright denial has been the persistent official policy. But it seems Turkey was not quite as liberal as Mahcupyan had thought.
Immediately after his remarks became public, EU Minister Volkan Bozkir expressed unease, saying that "Mahcupyan's description was not appropriate for his title of adviser." But that was not the only price Mahcupyan would have to pay.
A few days after his remarks on genocide, Mahcupyan, "retired" as chief adviser to Prime Minister Davutoglu -- after only about six months in the job.
Officially, Mahcupyan had retired in March after turning 65, the mandatory retirement age for civil servants. But it was an open secret in Ankara that his departure came simply because Turkey's Islamists were not quite the liberals he had claimed they were.
The "Mahcupyan affair" has a message to Turkey's dwindling non-Muslim minorities: Just like an Ottoman devshirme, a non-Muslim can rise and become a darling of today's neo-Ottoman Turks. He can win hearts and minds in important offices in Ankara -- and a bright career. But to maintain his fortunes he must remain loyal to the official Islamist line, both in deed and rhetoric. Just one unpleasant utterance would suffice to end a devshirme's career in government service.
That is the kind of collective psychology into which Turkey's ruling Islamists force non-Muslims: either become a collaborator, or...
There is another Turkish Armenian columnist who looks more seasoned than Mahcupyan in his devshirme career. Markar Esayan, a writer for a fiercely pro-government daily, recently said in reference to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's 2014 statement about the Armenian victims of 1915: "[Erdogan's] message of condolences illustrates how we have achieved the Ottoman spirit in line with this century and its democratic practice. Furthermore, the practices in the last 13 years [of the Justice and Development Party's rule] have positively influenced our [Armenian] community and non-Muslims."
Apparently Esayan is happy with Turkey's neo-Ottomans and their Islamist rule, including their rigid policies of genocide-denial, which he claims have done good to Turkey's Armenians and other non-Muslim citizens. Etyen Mahcupyan may have been punished, but Markar Esayan is being rewarded for his loyalty: he has been selected to run for parliament on the ticket of Prime Minister Davutoglu's party!

Two-State-Solution? Try Baltimore

By Jack Engelhard 

Considering Baltimore, the Obama Administration ought to think twice before lecturing Israel about adopting a “two-state-solution.”
Baltimore is where an incident of alleged police brutality led to a fatality and to days of looting, burning and rioting. It’s still going on as we write.
Inner-city unrest is something we will have to fix for ourselves and we do not need outsiders telling us what to do or how to behave.
Thank you very much but we are good at fixing things. So are the Israelis.
Which is why word from US Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman is such an unwelcome intrusion. She insists that Israel must pledge itself to a two-state solution, otherwise the Jewish State can forget about counting on the United States at the UN and who knows where else.
Bad timing for the State Department to be sticking its nose into what is strictly another country’s business.
We’re trying, but still not doing so well ourselves “between the races.” Even after the awakened 1960s, down on the street we do not even speak the same language.
Is there a difference between America’s Inner-city Unrest and Israel’s Palestinian Arab Conflict? Sure, plenty, but here is where they meet.
In both cases inflexible grievances define a particular minority.
But only Israel finds itself associated with guilt. Why, asks the world, can’t Israel make peace with these people? Not so easy when you’re dealing with people nursing an irreconcilable grudge. Ask Baltimore. In Baltimore there are still signs of riots that took place in 1968, when practically all of Urban America went up in flames.
Like America, Israel keeps trying, but it’s tough going with generations who feel entitled to their resentments.
They call it Naqba over there and we call it “anger” over here when acrimony becomes a mob.
President Obama weighed in today about “troubling interactions between police and African Americans.”
Nonsense, according to oft-decorated Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, himself African American. Clarke won’t have any of it and spells it out it plainly when he refers to Inner-city criminals as “sub-humans” operating from within a “sub-culture” all made possible from a culture of (failed) Liberalism.
Now read this for everything the news media won’t tell you about our clash of cultures.
Clarke goes on: “Ninety percent of the homicide victims in the Baltimore area are Black as are 90 percent of the suspects.” This trends nationwide.
Obama says we need to change the “System” – and so where has he been all these six-plus years?
This time Obama almost got it right when he mentioned “broken homes”… no guidance, no fathers.
Too true. We expect the police to do the job that ought to be done by parents and teachers.
We demand that the police act as fathers where there are no fathers and teach discipline where there is no discipline.
Society can’t seem to get it done. So, need help? Call a cop. But we are watching every move.
Go in, we say, into where the streets and corners are bustling with knives, guns, drugs, robbery and murder; break up the street fights, settle the domestic disputes, curb the rioting, separate the gangs -- but do it gently. Be tender with the goons, or else.
If you use force of any kind, listen to our cameras clicking and watch our righteous indignation kick up. We will judge you!
That ought to sound familiar enough for Americans and Israelis who face the multitudes feeding on bitterness and self-fulfilling discontent.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

From the Armenian Jihad Genocide, to The Holocaust, and Islamophile Adolph Hitler’s Jihad Against The Jews

The German officers would often speak of us as Christian Jews and as blood sucking usurers of the Turkish people. What a falsification of the wretched realities prevailing in Asia Minor, and what a reversal of roles! Yes indeed, there was an oppressor. Either the Germans were consciously distorting the facts and roles, or the Turks had really convinced them that the Turks were the victims and the Armenians were criminals. How appropriate it is to recall here this pair of Turkish sayings: “The clever thief has the master of the house hanged” and “The one who steals the minaret prepares its sheath in advance, of course.”
—Grigoris Balakian, from his eyewitness memoir of events during 1915-1918

Grigoris Balakian’s eyewitness account of the Jihad Genocide of the Armenians from 1915-1918—recorded in his diaries during World War I, and already published by 1922 (but not in English till 2009, as Armenian Golgotha)—provide a unique confirmation of the ideological, and genocidal nexus, between the plight of the Armenians during World War I, and the Jews during World War II, antedating The Holocaust by two decades. Specifically, Balakian’s striking observations (on pp. 280-281) from a chapter entitled, “The Treatment of the Armenians by the German Soldiers” captures attitudes of German military officers towards the Armenians that foreshadow, chillingly, the genocidal depredations they would inflict upon European Jewry during World War II.
The German officers on their way to Palestine and the Mesopotamian front had no choice but to pass before the Bagche [Asia Minor] station [train]. All of them used offensive language with regard to the Armenians. They considered us to be engaging in intrigue, ready to strike the Turkish army from the rear, and thus traitors to the fatherland…deserving of all manner of punishment.
Although most of the Armenians living in Turkey had been deported, scattered, and martyred in the spring of 1915, a few hundred thousand survivors still perishing in the deserts to the south—wasting away to nothing. Nevertheless the German officers’ Armenophobic fury continued, and not a word of compassion was heard from their lips. On the contrary, they justified the Ittihad government [Young Turk Ottoman government] , saying, “You Armenians deserve your punishment. Any state would have punished rebellious subjects who took up arms to realize national hopes by the destruction of the country.”
When we objected, asking if other states would dare to massacre women and children, along with men, and annihilate an entire race on account of a few guilty people, they replied: “Yes, it’s true that the punishment was a bit severe, but you must realize that during such chaotic and frightful days of war as these, it was difficult to find the time and means to separate the guilty from the innocent.” This was also the merciless answer of the chief executioners—Talaat, Enver, Behaeddin Shakir, Nazim—and their Ittihad camarilla.
The German officers pretended ignorance of the widespread slaughter of more than a million innocent Armenians, irrespective of sex and age, and referred only to deaths by starvation and the adversities of travel during the deportations. Thus they exonerated the Turkish government, saying that its inability to provide for hundreds of thousands of deportees in a disorganized land like Asia Minor was not surprising. Meanwhile Turkish government officials prevented the starving refugees from receiving bread distributed by the Austrians and Swiss, stating, “Orders have come from Constantinople not to give any assistance. We cannot allow either bread or medicine to be given. The supreme order is to annihilate this evil race. How dare you rescue them from death?” The German officers would often speak of us as Christian Jews and as blood sucking usurers of the Turkish people.
What a falsification of the wretched realities prevailing in Asia Minor, and what a reversal of roles! Yes indeed, there was an oppressor. Either the Germans were consciously distorting the facts and roles, or the Turks had really convinced them that the Turks were the victims and the Armenians were criminals. How appropriate it is to recall here this pair of Turkish sayings: “The clever thief has the master of the house hanged” and “The one who steals the minaret prepares its sheath in advance, of course.”
Many German officers had no qualms about turning over to the Turkish authorities Armenian youths who had sought refuge with them; they knew full well that they were delivering them to their executioners. If an Armenian merely spoke negatively about a German—be he the emperor or [Baron] von der Goltz Pasha [a German military aide to the Ottoman Empire], or the average German—or dared to criticize German indifference toward the Armenian massacres, he was immediately arrested and turned over to the nearest Turkish military or police authority. And if the Germans found a certain Armenian particularly irritating, they pinned the label of spy on him.
Mistaking me for an Austrian, a few German officers boasted of having turned over several Armenians to the Turkish police, adding with a laugh, “Only the Turks know how to talk to the Armenians.”
The career trajectory and personal attitudes of Wilhelm Hintersatz (born 1886; died 1963) epitomize these genocidal connections. Hintersatz achieved the rank of colonel serving the Kaiser’s Austrian armed forces in Turkey, during World War I, where he became an assistant to Enver Pasha—one of the ruling Ittihad (Young Turk) triumvirate architects of the Armenian Genocide—and converted to Islam, assuming the name Harun-el-Raschid Bey. During World War II, he joined the Waffen SS as Standartenfuhrer (Colonel) of a unit that merged Waffen groups operating in the Ural Mountains, and Central Asia, from 1944-1945. As described by Professor Kurt Tauber in his meticulously documented two volume tome (published in 1967) on the post World War II era phenomenon of residual anti-democratic German nationalism, Beyond Eagle and Swastika, Wilhelm Harun-el-Raschid Bey wrote Aus Orient und Occident; ein Mosaik aus buntem Erleben [From the Orient and the Occident: A Mosaic of Varicolored Experiences], ostensibly “…about his personal experiences and travels, interlarded with his reflections,” which was published in 1954. However, as Tauber observes, cleverly avoiding strict German laws against the publication of overtly Antisemitic writings which were stringently applied during the early post World War II period, Harun-el-Raschid Bey concealed his Jew-hatred behind a “folkish” façade.
Yet, in doing so he presented a clear and penetrant racist orientation, masquerading as lighthearted story telling and simple good fun. Some of the descriptions of people and events have an almost Stürmer-like quality, including even the attempted seduction by a Russian Jewess!
Adolph Hitler’s Appreciation of Jihadism, and His General Islamophilia
Perhaps the earliest recorded evidence of Adolph Hitler’s serious interest in the jihad was provided by Muhammad ‘Inayat Allah Khan (who adopted the pen name “al-Mashriqi”—“the Orientalist” or “the Sage of the East”). Born in the Punjab in 1888, al-Mashriqi was a Muslim polymath who attended Cambridge on a government scholarship and excelled in the study of oriental languages, mathematics, engineering, and the sciences.
Not only did Mashriqi translate the standard abridged version of Mein Kampf (then commonly available) from English into Urdu during one of his sojourns in Europe, which included time spent in Berlin, he met Hitler in the early years of the Fuehrer’s leadership of the National Socialist [Nazi] Party. Their meeting took place in 1926 at the National Library. Here is the gist of Mashriqi’s report on his interaction with Hitler as described in a letter to the renowned scholar of Indian Islam, J. M. S. Baljon:
I was astounded when he [Hitler] told me that he knew about my Tazkirah [a jihad-promoting work]. The news flabbergasted me . . . I found him very congenial and piercing. He discussed Islamic Jihad with me in details.
The “Ten Principles” Mashriqi elucidated in the Tazkirah—the work Hitler discussed with him in 1926—produced a quintessential message of Islam enshrining the ideals of militaristic nation building. This vision sounded almost identical to sections of Hitler’s Mein Kampf (compare to Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 169–79, Reynal and Hitchcock trans., 1941)—certainly in the following paraphrase from Tazkirah prepared by some of Mashriqi’s col­leagues for foreign consumption:
A persistent application of, and action on these Ten Principles is the true sig­nificance of “fitness” in the Darwinian principle of “Survival of the Fittest,” and a community of people which carries action on these lines to the very extremist limits has every right to remain a predominant race on this Earth forever, has claim to be the ruler of the world for all time. As soon as any or all of these qualities deteriorate in a nation, she begins to lose her right to remain and Fitter people may take her place automatically under the Law of Natural Selection. 
Albert Speer, who was Hitler’s minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a twenty-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speer’s narrative includes a discussion which captures Hitler’s effusive praise for Islam, “a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.” Hitler, according to Speer’s account, repeatedly expressed the conviction that, “The Mohammedan religion . . . would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” These sentiments were also expressed by Hitler to Dr. Herman Neubacher, the first Nazi mayor of Vienna, and, subsequently, a special delegate of the Nazi regime in southeastern Europe. Neubacher wrotethat Hitler had told him Islam was a “male religion” and reiterated the belief that the Germans would have been far more successful conquerors had they adopted Islam in the Middle Ages. Additional confirmation of Hitler’s very favorable inclination toward Islam is provided by General Alexander Loehr, a Lutwaffe commander (executed in 1947 for the mass murders of Yugoslav civilians). Loehr maintained a smiling Hitler had told him that Islam was such a desirable creed the Fuehrer longed for it to become the official SS religion.
Hitler appears to have viewed the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad as an appropriate model for waging genocidal, total war. During the mid to late nine­teenth century, jihad total war campaigns—adapted to the conditions of modern warfare—were waged by the Ottoman Empire against its Bulgarian and Armenian Christian minorities. The Ottoman tactics included innumerable atrocities, mass slaughter, and extensive, murderous deportations. Official Ottoman jihad declarations during World War I assured that the genocidal aspects of Islamic doctrine were “updated” by the application of modern total-war offensive doc­trines and directed at the Armenians, in particular. This jihad-inspired policy begot razzias (raids), massacres of villagers, massacres of Armenian conscripts in work battalions, and mass deportations—all representative of an overall total-war strategy implemented by the Ottoman state and military high command.
And the disintegrating Ottoman Empire’s World War I jihad genocide against its Armenian minority, specifically, served as an “inspirational” precedent to Hitler. During August 1939, Hitler gave speeches (for example, as contained in this U.S. Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality document, pp. 753-54) in preparation for the looming invasion of Poland which admonished his military commanders to wage a brutal, merciless campaign and assure rapid victory. Hitler portrayed the impending inva­sion as the initial step of a vision to “secure the living space we need,” and ulti­mately, “redistribute the world.” In an explicit reference to the Armenians, “Who after all is today speaking of the extermination of the Armenians?” Hitler justified their annihilation (and the world’s consignment of this genocide to oblivion) as an accepted new world order because, “The world believes only in success.” The specific comments about the Armenians, dated August 22, 1939, and recorded by German Admiral Canaris, were made two days after Hitler accepted the Soviet terms for a non-aggression agreement, and prior to the German invasion of Poland.
Historian Vahakn Dadrian has observed that although Hitler’s motives in seeking to destroy the Jews were not identical with those of the Ottoman Turks’ in their attempts to eliminate the Armenians, “the two victim nations share one common element in Hitler’s scheme of things: their extreme vulnerability.” Moreover, Hitler emphasized the urgent task, “of protecting the German blood from contamination, not only of the Jewish but also of the Armenian blood.” Predictable impunity—the ease with which the Armenian genocide was committed and how the perpetrators escaped retribu­tive justice—clearly impressed Hitler and his henchmen, considering a similar action against the Jews. As historian Abram Sachar noted, “the genocide was cited approv­ingly twenty-five years later by the Fuehrer . . . who found the Armenian ‘solu­tion’ an attractive precedent.” Finally, the German Jew, Richard Lictheim who as a young Zionist leader had negotiated with Ottoman leaders in Turkey during World War I, characterized the “cold-bloodedly planned extermination of over one million Armenians . . . [as] akin to Hitler’s crusade of destruction against the Jews.”
Hitler’s murderous actions, consistent with those of his Ottoman “inspirers,” and the Nazi dictator’s personal affinity for Islam, are better characterized as a jihad against the Jews. Indeed, Hitler found common cause with one of the most influential Muslim leaders of the World War II era, jihadist Hajj Amin el-Husseini, whom the Nazis dubbed the “Muslim Pope.” El-Husseini’s writings and declarations educated his Nazi allies about Islam’s canonical Jew-hatred—i.e., in the Koran, and so-called traditions of Muhammad—and the Nazis in turn used this religiously sanctioned Islamic Jew-hatred as a recruitment tool for Muslim SS units in Bosnia, Croatia, and the Soviet Union.

UK: Lib Dem candidate accuses British Jews of mistreating Palestinian people

Via Liam Hoare:

Lib Dem parliamentary candidate Peter Hirst, when asked to sign the Board of Deputies manifesto, said "How you treat the Palestinian people prevents me."

The Board of Deputies is the main representative body of British Jews.

Netherlands Imam Slams Democracy: Europeans Have Yet to Get a Taste of Its Woes

In a Friday sermon delivered on April 24, 2015 in Helmond, the Netherlands, Sheik Abdelhamid Aynelhayat said that democracy was the cause of strife. "Europeans love democracy because they haven't yet had a taste of its woes," he said. The sermon was posted on the Internet.

UK: Students Publicly Humiliated by School Because Parents Refused Permission for Mosque Visit

By Donna Rachel Edmunds 

Ten young children who were pulled out of a school trip to a mosque by their parents have been publicly humiliated by their school in Cornwall. The children, aged between eight and 11, were singled out in assembly and made to answer questions about their planned non-attendance. Junior school children from Lostwithiel School in Cornwall are due to visit Exeter mosque, Devon in May as part of their Religious Studies lessons. The rural school has just 156 pupils on its books, nearly 100 of whom, aged between eight and 11, are expected to be taking part. The school says the aim of the outing is to teach children that jihadist groups such as ISIS are not a true reflection of Islam.
But the parents of 10 children refused permission for their youngsters to take part in the trip due to safety concerns, citing fears over Islamic terrorism. They reacted furiously to the news that their children had been made to publicly answer questions about their non-attendance, pointing out that it was not the decision of the children involved.
One parent, who asked not to be named, told the Daily Mail “We have grave concerns about the childrens’ safety during the trip due to the horrific events that occur every day. We have therefore decided not to send our children on this trip. This decision is not one based on ignorance or racial or religious beliefs, but one based purely on safety concerns.
“They were made to stand up after assembly. The sitting non-attendees were then asked individually why they were not going on the trip. This is not a decision the children have made, so discriminating against these children in this fashion is disgraceful, unacceptable and unprofessional.”
However, the Chairman of Governors of Lostwithiel School, Kat Smith, was unapologetic. She insisted that the school had a duty under the Equalities Act 2010 to promote different faiths and ethnicities.
“This is the first time pupils from the school have visited a mosque and it’s an exciting opportunity for them to learn about different faiths and ensure that they’re aware of the diverse nature of modern Britain,” she said.
“Because of recent news reports about extremist groups, such as ISIS, that identify themselves with Islam, a small number of parents have expressed concerns about the trip and the teaching of Islam in school.
“In response, the school held a special assembly with children to discuss these issues, and the head teacher has met and sent letters to parents with specific concerns.”
She insisted that the trip was safe for the children to take part in, and that, coming from a provincial area such as Cornwall, it was imperative that children be introduced to other faiths and cultures. And she explained that children should be taught that ISIS is not “a true reflection of Islam”.
“A full risk assessment has been conducted for the trip and there is no more risk attached to this trip than any other school trip,” she said.
“Religious Education forms part of the basic curriculum in schools and its teaching is enshrined in law. The school recognises that parents have the right to withdraw their child from RE in whole or in part, and provide alternative work to further their child’s knowledge and understanding of the parents’ beliefs and values.
“However, the school is aware that children growing up in Cornwall may have little contact with Muslims and it is aware that it has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to promote good relations between people of different beliefs and ethnicities as part of its single equality duty.
“The Governing Body fully supports this trip and the teaching of RE, including Islam. It is the governors’ hope that the visit to the Mosque will provide an insight for pupils into the nature of British Islam, help them understand how Islam is presented in the media and that groups like ISIS are not a true reflection of the Islam followed by the vast majority of Muslims in Britain.”
The school’s headteacher Carolyn Huxley said that the trip would still go ahead and reiterated the need to teach children that jihadist groups such as ISIS are not a true reflection of Islam.
“Our hope from the visit to the mosque is that children will be given a view as to what are the values and beliefs of a ‘British Muslim'”, she said. “This trip will show the children the views of extremists are not a true reflection of Islam as a religion.”


Ed Miliband is in fact Jewish himself. He has in the past admitted the Labour party and the Left wing of politics has a nasty antisemitic streak – is he playing into it with his new promise to ban Islamophobia?
Ali Sina, Iranian ex-Muslim apostate, is a strong critic of Islam and founder of Ali writes exclusively today for on Ed Miliband’s vow to ban ‘Islamophobia’. As an ex-Muslim who has spent his life examining Islam, it would be good for Mr. Miliband to discuss this with him – or at least listen to his warnings about this:
“The Labour Party is taking electioneering to a new level, the lowest imaginable. They are promising to sell their country and the freedom of the people just to get elected.” – Ali Sina
Ed Miliband the Leader of Labour Party is vowing to criminalize criticism of Islam and “outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia.”
“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.
“We are going to change the law on this so we make our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia absolutely clear. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.
In other words, Miliband is promising Muslims that he would introduce the Islamic blasphemy law, and prosecute the British people if they express their fear of Islam, using their tax money to silence them and crush their freedom of speech.
What is Islamophobia? Phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational in fearing Islam. The prophet of Islam vowed, Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah.’ (3:151)
Elsewhere he said, “Give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (8”12)
Who are these Unbelievers that Muslims should cast terror in their hearts? They are atheists, agnostics, animists, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Sikhs, Yezidis, Jews, Christians and everyone who is not a Muslim.
The Quran 5:17 says, “in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary”
The verse 73 of the same sura says, the unbelievers are those who believe in trinity.
The verse 9:31 includes also Jews in the rank of unbelievers and invokes the curse of Allah on both the Christians and the Jews.
Obviously Muhammad wanted the non-Muslims to fear him. He even bragged:
“I have been made victorious with terror.” Bukhari (4.52.220)
The following hadith also recorded by Bukhari exemplifies one such case where victory was attained through terror.
“Allah’s Apostle offered the dawn prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” The people came out into the streets (fearfully) saying, “Muhammad and his army.” Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya (a 17 year old woman whose father and uncle Muhammad had beheaded and whose husband he tortured to death) was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah’s Apostle who married her and her dowry was her manumission.” [Bukhari 2.14.068]
The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:
Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi‘ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiyabint al-Harith (another young woman whose husband, father and all male relatives he had butchered).”  [Muslim 19: 4292]  
There are plenty of examples from the Quran and the most respected hadith that show Muhammad wanted the non-Muslims to fear Islam.
In the same offer Ed Miliband made to Muslims he also said, “The Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism.”
Now these two goals are mutually exclusive. Muhammad was anti-Semitic and as the result of this, his followers are anti-Semitic. There are no less than 90 disparaging and hateful remarks in the Quran alone in regard to the Jews. Here are a few:
[2.88] Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief.
[2.98] Allah is their enemy.
[2.121They are the losers.
[4.46] Allah has cursed them.
[5.60] Allah made them apes and swine.
[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed.
[4.50] They forge a lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.
[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things and for their hindering many (people) from Allah’s way.
[4.161] And their taking usury and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for them a painful chastisement.
[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; an
d you shall always discover treachery in them.
And what should be their punishment of those who disbelieve in Muhammad and criticize him, i.e. oppose his religion?
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.
If Ed Miliband is serious about uprooting anti-Semitism he has to ban the Quran. Jew hatred is prescribed in the Quran.
The Quran [5.64] first curses the Jews accusing them of striving to make mischief in the land and says, Allah put enmity and hatred among Muslims and Jews till the Day of Resurrection.
The verse [5.51] instructs Muslims not to “take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever takes them for a friend, he is one of them — an unbeliever,”
Ed Miliband has a problem on his hands. If he opposes anti-Semitism then he has to oppose Islam, and if he defends Islam he would be promoting anti-Semitism. He can’t have it both ways.
This video is a compilation of hatred that Muslims have for the Jews, as the result of the teachings in the Quran and countless hadith.
There are also many hateful verses about Christians and Christianity. However, Ed Miliband did not offer to protect the Christians against hate. So as far as his narrative goes, there is no point in discussing the matter.
There is nothing irrational in fearing a religion that vows to cast terror in the hearts of people who disagree with it and teaches its followers that the surest way to heaven is through killing the unbelievers. Islamophobia, as someone pointed out, is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. It makes as much sense as Naziphobia.
Beliefs must be open to criticism, without which there is no freedom at all. Imagine granting the same concessions Ed Miliband is willing to give to Islam to Christianity. We should start burning the books of Bertrand Russell, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine, and prosecute Richard Dawkins. That is what Muslims did to the critics of Islam. There were many rationalists in the early centuries of Islam, like Zakaria Razi, Umar Khayyam, Al Farabi adn Abu Ali Sina. These men advocated for reason, skepticism and analysis rather than religious authority. They could have started the Age of Enlightenment 700 years before it eventually happened in Europe. But their voice of reason was silenced by rulers who like Ed Miliband thought it is politically more expedient to appease the religious fanatic than to defend freedom of speech.
Truth does not need the protection of the law and lies should not be protected by force. If a law is made to ban criticism of beliefs Islam is the first creed that has to be banned because it is it vile and disrespectful towards all faiths and beliefs. Not only Islam is intolerant of other faiths calling them ungodly or corrupted, it also advocates violence against their followers and encourages its believers to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them.
Politicians that offer to barter the liberties of the people in exchange for vote do not have the interest of the nation in their heart.
It is despicable for a man to offer his wife to sleep with his boss to get promoted. It is far worse for a politician to offer the freedom of an entire country so he can buy votes. The latter affects millions of people including the unborn generations.

Farage: We Face A Real and Genuine Threat From ISIS Because Of Mediterranean Crisis

 nigel farage manifesto
By A.B. Sanderson 

Nigel Farage has slammed the EU’s approach to the Mediterranean immigrant crisis, saying its common asylum policy will do nothing to stop the threat of Islamic extremists who have threatened to sail to Europe in their tens of thousands. Speaking at an extraordinary meeting of MEPs in Strasbourg today, the UKIP leader said that the EU must listen to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s advice on how to deal with the boatloads of asylum seekers who are trying to cross EU maritime borders.
Farage faced accusations from Dutch Liberal MEP Sophie In’t Velt that it was Europe who was exporting terrorism and he and his party were using the politics of fear rather than addressing the concerns of the electorate.
But in his response Farage told Sophia In’t Velt that “77 per cent of the British population say that immigration at its current rates is unsustainable.”
The veteran MEP said there was a “real and genuine threat” from Islamic extremists which the EU’s strategy would not counter.
“When ISIS say they want to flood our continent with half a million Islamic extremists they mean it, and there is nothing in this document [Common European Asylum Policy] that will stop them.
“I fear we face a direct threat to our civilisation if we allow large numbers of people from that war torn region into Europe.”
And he highlighted how the Australians, with their policy of not rescuing boats full of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, had actually led to fewer people drowning as illegal immigrants no longer risked making that journey. The robust action has also driven people smugglers out of business in Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Indonesia while their boats have been sunk at sea with Australian naval gunfire.
Addressing a quiet chamber, which is normally full when there is a debate with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, he said that both the UK Parliament and the European Parliament had made a huge mistake by being so “desperate to go to war”.
“Now we have a failed state of Libya which is now a conduit being used by criminal trafficking gangs bringing people to Europe. We are directly guilty for the drownings.”
The candidate for South Thanet caused outrage in the chamber by branding European politicians and officials “hypocrites” who were directly responsible for the poverty suffered by millions in developing countries through the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and barriers to trade.
“I am not blind to the human suffering we have caused in many of these countries” he said, calling on the Commission to end barriers to trade. “But the real question is, are we going to go down the Australian system in dealing with the [migration] crisis?
“They stopped the boats from coming, they’ve stopped the people from drowning,” he told fellow MEPs who had been calling for an open door to all asylum seekers and millions given in aid to rescue the traffickers’ boats in the Mediterranean.”
Instead, he said, “We have decided that people can come and people won’t be sent back.”
“It will be a hell of a shock for European citizens and people in Britain to understand that we’ve already agreed a common European asylum system,” he said, waving a copy of the document, explaining, “the debate today  is about the direct implementation of it.”
In his statement to MEPs, the Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that the criteria for people who could count as asylum seekers wouldn’t just be those fleeing war as laid out in the UN conventions, but also those “fleeing poverty”.
Mr Juncker had earlier said that one strategy taken by the EU in dealing with asylum seekers and people traffickers would be to send in EU border police to African countries, extending the control of the political bloc to the northern shores of the continent.

Why Is the Green Party So Obsessed with Jews?

By Tom Wilson 

 In recent months the Green Party has been accused of championing plenty of outlandish ideas. However, as a party of the “tolerant” liberal-left, one thing they haven’t yet been widely accused of is racism. But from a recent interview with Green leader Natalie Bennett it appears that there is actually an area where the Greens would be prepared to endorse a form of discrimination that other major parties have made clear is completely unacceptable. In the interview, Bennett confirmed that she supports a full cultural boycott of Israeli artists, musicians and academics. This is an extraordinary position. What Bennett and the Greens are advocating is censorship and discrimination against individuals along the lines of nationality and ethnicity.
Bennett attempted to justify her position by arguing that this is about the need “to get the message across to the Israeli state” regarding human rights and international law. Even if we were to accept the notion that Israel is the kind of human rights house of horrors that Bennett evidently believes it to be, where else would the Greens advocate trying to alter government policy by boycotting artists?
Would, for instance, Natalie Bennett want to see Chinese artists and activist Ai Weiwei boycotted “to get the message across” to the Chinese state that we don’t like China’s human rights record?
There is just no getting around the fact that those on the far-Left, such as Bennett, adopt a completely different attitude towards Israelis compared to all other ethnic groups. No doubt advocates of the Green’s cultural boycott would retort that such a policy is not racist because it only targets Israeli nationals and not Jews in general. Yet in practice this isn’t how it works. Those behind the boycott have previously stressed that Arab-Israelis should be exempt from a cultural boycott. In other words, it targets Jewish Israelis only.
Worse still, there have already been a number of cases where the boycott has been extended beyond Israel and to Jewish groups instead. Last year London’s Tricycle Theatre announced that as part of a cultural boycott it would cancel the UK Jewish film festival, not the Israeli film festival, but rather the long established Jewish cultural event.
Similarly, in March Sydney’s Red Rattle theatre came under fire when it initially refused to host a series of performances about the Holocaust, claiming that the Jewish organisers requesting the venue booking were “Zionists”.
As it turns out, the Green Party has its own rather sorry record of an Israel obsession that has repeatedly crossed the line into outright Jew hatred. There have been reports of anti-Semitic posts and literature being circulated within the Green’s online forums, and of party members with Jewish sounding names being repeatedly subjected to abuse from others in these forums.
Then there is Pippa Bartolotti, the Green leader in Wales, who has wheeled out the age old trope that Jews have dual loyalties—something she claimed to have learned from the “university of life”. While in 2009 the Green’s deputy leader Shahrar Ali was filmed giving a viciously anti-Israel speech in which he derided “the niceties” of Holocaust Memorial Day. Back in 2011 the Greens did establish an internal working group that was supposed to be grappling with the problem of anti-Semitism in the party, but the head of that investigation soon resigned claiming “it has become clear that the Green Party is institutionally anti-Semitic”.
Viewed in light of the above, Natalie Bennett’s support for discriminating against Israeli artists and academics starts to look even more sinister. Of course, there is also something terribly illiberal about the very notion of a cultural boycott.
This after all is not a policy that seeks to censor Israeli artists for anything they have actually said or written, but rather for the simple crime of having been born Israeli Jews in the Jewish state; in other words because of their ethnic background. And that in many people’s minds will make Bennett and her party guilty of the worst kind of bigotry.