You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2010.
Per the Jerusalem Post:
The Israel Forum for International Humanitarian Aid (IsraAID) announced on Wednesday that it will send send a team to Haiti, despite the current cholera outbreak.
The team will leave Israel on Thursday to assess the progress of IsraAID’s programs in Haiti, as well as present its work in an exhibit using the IDF hopsital tent in the upcoming Jewish Federation General Assembly in New Orleans.
They will also aid those affected by the cholera outbreak. More than 420 new cholera cases were confirmed Tuesday, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Twenty-five new deaths were confirmed, bringing the total to 284.
IsraAID has been in Haiti since January 16, four days after the island was hit by an earthquake. The organization has provided including emergency emergency medical treatment, primary family medical care, medical rehabilitation, informal education, food production, and other services.
As noted by a colleague, this story from Ynet, unsurprisingly, hasn’t gotten much press in the international media yet. However, the Islamic Jihad website displays photos of recent flotilla’s Turkish passengers visiting Gaza and trying on the organization’s uniform.
The Viva Palestina 5 ship carrying “peace activists,” which docked at the al-Arish port recently, brought along not only humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but also enthusiastic Turks who took advantage of the opportunity to visit local Islamic Jihad members.
In pictures obtained by Ynet, the Turks are seen holding weapons and rocket launchers. While their prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to blast Israel and demand an apology for “state terrorism,” two of the guests put on the uniform of the al-Quds Brigades, the Islamic Jihad’s military wing.
The pictures from the Turkish delegation’s visit were put on the al-Quds Brigades website as part of the coverage of their visit. The guests’ face was blurred, but shortly afterwards the photos were removed from the site, most likely for fear that the Turks would be hurt.
Turkish activist holds weapon alongside Jihad gunmen
During their visit to Gaza, the Turkish delegation members visited several Islamic Jihad posts. One of the guests was quoted as telling the group’s gunmen that they are “a source of pride for all decent people in the Arab and Muslim world.” He defined them as “the forefront of the struggle against the Zionists.”
Turkish guests visit Jihad post in Strip
H/T Elder of Ziyon:
Evelen Gordon, writing in Commentary Magazine’s blog, Contentions, noted:
The New York Times tucked a remarkable statistic into the tail-end of an article on WikiLeaks’s latest document dump, one with ramifications for the ongoing delegitimization campaign against Israel: for most of the last century, the normal civilian-to-combatant wartime fatality ratio has been 10:1.
Civilians have borne the brunt of modern warfare, with 10 civilians dying for every soldier in wars fought since the mid-20th century, compared with 9 soldiers killed for every civilian in World War I, according to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
This elicits an obvious question: if civilians routinely account for 90 percent of all casualties in modern warfare, why is the world up in arms about the civilian casualty rate in last year’s Israel-Hamas war in Gaza — which, by even the most anti-Israel account, was markedly lower?
CiF’s “Best of the Web” included an essay published by Slavoj Zizek on the radical anti-Zionist publication, Counterpunch.
Slavoj Zizek, just to be clear, is a communist, who said:
“However, what one is tempted to add here is that, in the very case of Nazism (and Fascism in general), the constellation of violence is rather the opposite one: crazy, tasteless even, as it may sound, the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not “essential” enough”
And:
“The only way to conceive of what happened on September 11….is to locate it in the context of the antagonisms of global capitalism.”
Let’s recall that Counterpunch published (CiF commentator) Ben White’s apologia for Jew hatred, entitled “Is it possible to understand the rise in anti-Semitism“? In the essay, White said:
“I can…understand why some are [anti-Semitic]. There are, in fact, a number of reasons. One is the state of Israel, its ideology of racial supremacy and its subsequent crimes committed against the Palestinians.”
Banner quoting Abunimah at anti-Israel and 9/11 Truther rally in San Francisco in 2010
Ali Abunimah’s hatred for Israel is legion. Abunimah is the co-founder of the anti-Israel propaganda site, Electronic Intifada (EI) – a site which doesn’t simply criticize Israel for its policies. Rather, it is a propaganda offensive aimed at portraying Israel as a monstrous state. Abunimah strongly supports the dissolution, and radical reconstitution, of Israel into the 51st majority Muslim state – a position, let’s remember, which squarely falls within the European Union working definition of ant-Semitism. He also has flirted with, and seemingly justified, comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany – also anti-Semitic within the EU definition.
Heres’s the text from the EU document:
“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include”:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming the the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
He’s also a contributor – along with Noam Chomsky, Philip Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, Sara Roy, Omar Barghouti, Kevin Ovenden, Ilan Pappé, Ken O’Keefe, and Adam Shapiro – to the pro-IHH book about the flotilla incident, called “Midnight on the Mavi Marmara”. An excerpt from the book, notes:
“Midnight on the Mavi Marmara reveals why the attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla may just turn out to be Israel’s Selma, Alabama: the beginning of the end for an apartheid Palestine.“
Here are some of Abunimah’s greatest hits:
Abunimah writing for Electronic Intifada
Israel-Nazi Comparison
“Gaza will likely be seen as the turning point when Israeli propaganda lost its power to mystify, silence and intimidate as it has for so long. Even the Nazi Holocaust, long deployed by Zionists to silence Israel’s critics, is becoming a liability; once unimaginable comparisons are now routinely heard. Jewish and Palestinian academics likened Israel’s actions in Gaza to the Nazi massacre in the Warsaw Ghetto. A Vatican cardinal referred to Gaza as a “giant concentration camp.” UK Member of Parliament Gerald Kaufman, once a staunch Zionist, told the House of Commons, “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow, [Poland]. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.” Kaufman continued, “my grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.” He denounced the Israeli military spokesperson’s justifications as the words “of a Nazi.” - Why Israel wont’ survive, Jan. 19, 2009
H/T Israel Matzav
This survey was conducted by Independent Media Review Analysis, and was made possible with the support of the Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung in Ramallah:
No comment necessary:
Dear Just Peace for Palestine,
I have just visited your web page, and I note the following from it:
“What we stand for
“Our vision… “We are committed to a just peace for Palestine that affirms the dignity of the Palestinian people, in accordance with their civil, political and human rights under international law.
“The current treatment of Palestinians denies their basic rights and therefore does not offer any hope of a lasting peace.
“We affirm that a just peace for Palestinians will also mean peace and security for Israelis.
“We reject all forms of racism that treats any group as ‘lesser’ or inferior. (emphasis mine)
“Though religion can be a source of division and conflict, Jews, Christians and Muslims – as well as those of other faiths or none – can share a common commitment to ‘Doing unto others as you would have them do to you’. Whether from a faith group or not, we affirm this as a good foundation for going forward.
“We recognise the history of the suffering of the Jewish community through the centuries and particularly the horror of the Holocaust. We affirm our rejection of anti-Semitism as we commit ourselves to justice for the Palestinians.”
This is all very well, but I note that you don’t actually define what you mean by “just” (which is, after all, a value judgement on your part), nor do you mention, much less condemn, the suicide and other terror by Palestinians against their Israeli neighbours, Jewish and Muslim. That being the case, I would venture to suggest that your “vision” is a blinkered and highly selective one and that your declaration above, that you reject all forms of racism, is disingenuous if not downright dishonest.
It follows that a group such as yours which, as you would have us believe, rejects all forms of racism, ought to think very carefully indeed before it lists among its workers or supporters people whose behaviour shows an outright rejection of this central tenet. One such group, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, goes out of its way to delegitimise the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. You also list the Friends of Sabeel among your supporters. Knowledgeable people are fully aware that Sabeel promotes revisionist theology which tries to sever the relationship between the Jewish people and their homeland in Israel. It deliberately tries to obscure the fact that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in what is now Israel since before the time of Jesus or Muhammed, and its founder, Naim Ateek, makes excuses for suicide terror. In a bizarre article he recast Samson of the Old Testament as an Israelite “suicide bomber.” In his 2000 Easter message, in a scurrilous reworking of the antisemitic trope that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, Ateek depicted Israel as killing Jesus again, by “crucifying” the Palestinian people. Your publicising your connection with these groups, without any caveats, show you to be at least lacking in awareness of how your message will be received. The general public, who have no axe to grind, may be forgiven if they assume you to be cynically manipulative and hypocritical as well.
All of which begs the question of what your agenda really is, other than to add more hatred to the world. Sensible, open-minded people have no need for another blog which excoriates Israel and ignores or excuses the excesses and murderous intent towards Israel of her Arab neighbours. “Christian” groups which align themselves with such a body betray the teachings of their faith and the attitudes of those you list are truly appalling. True, you do mention peace for Israel, but your banner headline adds it almost as an afterthought and you say nothing whatsoever about what would be the Palestinians’ responsibilities (ie ending of terror attacks and hate speech in their media) toward bringing such a peace about.
Chapter eight of journalist Stephanie Gutmann’s excellent book ‘The Other War – Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy’ is entitled ‘Fixing the News’ and in it she describes the phenomena of the Palestinian ‘fixer’ – translator, driver, guide, facilitator and often initiator and director of news stories.
“Foreign reporters I met generally scoffed when I asked them whether they thought their dependence on a pro with a political agenda could affect their copy. Not at all, they would answer. This is a purely practical matter, they would say. We must employ Palestinians as escorts in the territories because we must have translators and the Israeli government forbids Israelis from going into the territories.”
Journalists of course employ fixers all over the world, but in this region they have a particular significance because, as Gutmann points out:
“..unofficially, a Palestinian fixer was a kind of tithe to the community. It was understood that Palestinian fixers had special connections to, say, Hamas chieftains, though nobody questioned too much how far these connections extended or what one must do to keep them in good order.”
In Gaza in particular, the fixer also acts as a kind of body-guard or guarantee against kidnapping and their price is accordingly higher than in other areas. The journalists go where they are taken by the fixer and see and hear what the fixer wants them to observe. In some cases it is the fixer who contacts the journalist with a potential story rather than the other way round which, when one comprehends the level of seriousness appropriated to media management on the Palestinian side of the conflict, is not surprising. The fixers are usually well-educated, media-savvy and have often attended training programmes run by Palestinian NGOs such as PASSIA.
Last weekend Harriet Sherwood visited the olive harvest in Luban a-Sharqiya. Did she go alone and talk to the people there by herself? One very much doubts it, particularly as there appear to have been other journalists there at the same time; Ma’an news agency has a story from the same village on the same day, featuring some of the same unsubstantiated claims as Sherwood proffers in her article and pictures of the trees supposedly damaged by Jewish residents of the region.
“But Awase found that someone had got there before them and had chopped down the trees, leaving stumps in the ground and branches scattered about the plot. The family blame hardline Jewish settlers from the nearby Eli settlement.”
Did Sherwood contact anyone in Eli and ask for their reaction or allow them the right of reply? Of course not: she simply published the unproven accusations and thereby libeled the people of that village without any proof of their involvement. She quotes some of the most partisan NGOs in the region on the subject including ‘Rabbis for Human Rights’.
Jonathan Franzen is an American novelist and essayist. His third novel, The Corrections (2001), drew widespread critical acclaim, and earned Franzen a National Book Award
Adam Kirsch, writing a review of Franzen’s new book, Freedom, for The New Republic, noted several disturbing themes. Kirsch’s literary criticism includes demonstrating that the book:
“fictionalizes this left-wing conventional wisdom about [Jewish philosopher] Strauss, the Jews, and the Iraq war…Franzen is spreading it to a much wider audience—complete with images of a wizened, cranially distorted Jewish puppet master, who cynically chuckles about how “we” control the U.S. government from behind the scenes. That Franzen could uncritically reproduce this kind of imagery is a reminder of how ugly and obsessive the antiwar discourse sometimes became.”
Recently, Guardian correspondent Sarfraz Manzoor interviewed Franzen about his new novel, friendship, and American politics. While you should see the full interview for yourself, some of what Franzen says about America says as much about the Guardian as it does about Franzen.
Here are some highlights from the interview:
Manzoor: Some of the characters in Freedom speak quite positively about the European approach towards freedom and community and the ideas is (from your book) that people came to America for money and for freedom, and it almost seems that what you’re suggesting is that the U.S. fetishizes freedom and forgets that there are greater freedoms to be had by having [human] bonds.
Franzen: I’m at pains not to endorse any interpretation of my book but, believe me, this isn’t grating on my ears what you’re saying. In the last decade America has emerged even in its own estimation as a problem state. There are many criticisms one could make…like the treatment of the Indians…it goes way back…and our long relationship with slavery…and then the Cold War where we were certainly culpable, but the degree to which we are almost a rogue state and causing incredible trouble around the world in our attempts to preserve our freedoms to preserve our SUV’s….
His characterization of the U.S. as a rogue state is simply a perfect display of how the far-left goes beyond mere critiques of U.S. policy, descending into the naked anti-Americanism which has so much currency in the totalitarian world. With all his sophistication and erudition, he parrots the most facile , not to mention hateful, narratives of his own country typically advanced by those in the world least dedicated to the progressive politics he presumably supports.
Manzoor: Like Operation Enduring Freedom?
Franzen (laughs): Yeah, Operation Enduring Freedom. It does make me wonder what it is in the national character that’s making us a problem state. And, I think this mixed-up, childish notion of freedom. And, perhaps, truly, who left Europe to go over there (to come to the U.S.)? It was all the malcontents. It was all the people who were not getting along with others.
This is truly a remarkable statement. Franzen characterizes the millions of Europeans (and citizens from other continents) – who escaped the poverty, and political and religious oppression, which characterized life for such people in their native countries (especially during the major waves of U.S. immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century) to start their lives anew in a land which clearly represented for them “a land of opportunity” – as “malcontents…who were not getting along with others.”
Manzoor: Are you more comfortable in America now then when you started writing the book?
Franzen: No. The liberal left has power but the system itself is so screwed up..and we (The Democrats) are relatively the adult party…so we’re responsible for making an unworkable system work. It’s this kind of discouragement and dull, throbbing anxiety.”
Yes…much like the dull, throbbing anxiety I feel when I contemplate how many Guardian fellow travelers – not to mention Franzen’s fellow Americans – may subscribe to his views. I continue to wonder how certain Americans (and her allies abroad), who simply can not deny that the U.S. is blessed with simply unparalleled political freedom and economic affluence - which would have been simply been unimaginable throughout most of human history – have developed such a seemingly immutable masochism and self-loathing. The moral inversion on display in Franzen’s interview with the Guardian represents something close to the ground zero of such a dynamic.
This first person essay about my decision to make Aliyah may seem, to some, inconsistent with the mission of CiF Watch. However, in addition to the anti-Semitism which we arduously combat, one of the challenges of monitoring the Guardian (and the comments of their readers) involves their complete lack of comprehension regarding what truly motivates modern Zionists. They possess, often, an appalling lack of empathy for the thousands year old Jewish dream to “be a free people in a free land”. While championing other peoples’ inherent right to self-determination, they seem to oddly lack even the most rudimentary empathy towards Jewish nationalist aspirations. Israel, and Israelis, have become the proverbial “other”. Jews, who represent 2/10 of 1% of the world’s population, have but one nation to call their own and we have no intention of entertaining the notion that our very existence as a sovereign state is somehow negotiable. As Abba Eban said:
“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist.’..Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and [191] other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement.”
It was March 2006, my first time in Israel. Shabbat had just arrived and, with a gentle breeze at my back, I tentatively approached the Western Wall. I had recently taken the first steps toward observance, and though I was anticipating a journey filled with joy and meaning, my life till then hadn’t prepared me for the emotion that took hold of me then.
I attempted to pray on that mild March evening not to open my heart to the arrival of Shabbat, but to avoid having to take that final step toward the wall, which would require me to wed myself with the struggles and aspirations of the Jewish people.
My mind was racing. The wall was much larger than I had imagined. I looked away, and saw intense davening (prayer) everywhere. I wanted to join in, but the words wouldn’t come.
My decision to make Aliyah was forged that day — one which only came into fruition three years later when I when I boarded an El Al plane for Tel Aviv with a one-way ticket — but the seeds of that epiphany and, indeed, my initial identification with Zionist activism, was a reaction to a “progressive” world increasingly hostile to the Jewish right to self-determination.
The bright-eyed, idealistic and progressive man I was in college and early adulthood was confronted with a stunning cognitive dissonance — that many of my political allies, those committed to freedom, equality and individual rights, were turning away from their traditional identification with Israel – the nation which most clearly embodied these values.
That these Western values — enlightenment values — were, in fact, part of the Zionist vision since the days of Herzl, and were embodied and upheld in the modern Jewish state, mattered less, in many circles, than the new narrative being forged on college campuses, and among the intellectual elite, which saw Israel through the distorted lens of colonialism and imperialism.
That the boundaries of Israel were not drawn, as they have been with most nation states, by the edge of a sword, but by an act of the United Nations, didn’t matter. That Israel was a democracy with progressive policies towards women, gays and religious minorities strangely didn’t seem relevant.
What seemed to matter most was advancing a narrative of Israeli oppression, a caricature of a grotesque and manipulative Goliath that delights in inflicted pain and suffering — a defamation hauntingly similar to the historical caricature of the dirty, hook-nosed, money hungry, plotting villain we know all too well — Israel as the Jew writ large. The 19th-century German social democrat, August Bebel, accurately called anti-Semitism the “socialism of fools,” and this clumsy anti-Zionism was and is nothing less than the anti-imperialism of fools.
My decision to wage war against these calumnies evolved slowly, but during my long rumination a clearer sense of purpose took shape. As my late father enlisted in the U.S. Army at the start of World War II, possessing no doubt that that war (against fascism) was his war, I, too, knew that this war — against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the totalitarianism of our age, their political fellow travelers and intellectual enablers — was my war.
I set out to defend Israel, but also to join the 4,000-year journey of the Jewish people, to be an actor in Jewish history and not merely a spectator.
I took a deep breath and closed my eyes. I took the final step and gradually lifted my arm. I moved my hand forward and touched the wall.
With a gentle breeze at my back, I opened my eyes. And I prayed.
Per the South African Zionist Federation:
“The SA Zionist Federation is holding its 47th Conference in March 2011, and we recently placed an order for conference bags from a company by the name of Saley’s Travel Goods, based near Gold Reef City in Ormonde. The order was confirmed telephonically; we faxed it through and immediately received the invoice for the goods.The following day, however, the same invoice was faxed through to our offices again, with lines drawn through it stating “Order cancelled by management!” and the following sentences handwritten on the invoice:
“Sorry, we cannot supply you any of our goods as we don’t want or need your blood money! Please do not contact us any more and remove all our contact details from your records and we will do likewise. We don’t want to aid and abet organizations that are responsible for crimes against humanity. Please don’t pay! Don’t contaminate our account with your blood money!”
Over the past few years the SAZF has placed various orders with Saley’s Travel Goods, purchasing conference bags and folders from them. We have never before been confronted with such naked hostility, such unbridled hatred, such disgusting slander and such overt anti-semitic sentiment.
Companies are at liberty to do business with whoever they choose; and it is their right to refuse to provide us with the goods. However, their reason for cancelling our order is deplorable; hence we have no compunction in naming and shaming them.
- Froma Sacks, Executive Coordinator, South African Zionist Federation
Apart from noting the extreme and glaring hypocrisy of S. Africans participating in boycotts of Israel as their own country continues to coddle and protect the genocidal leader of Sudan, as Froma Sacks said, in the face of such intolerance, it is incumbent that we continue to “name and shame” those who seek the isolation and delegitimization of the Jewish state.
The idea that the Guardian has, all along, been a parody newspaper gains more credibility everyday. Perhaps its possible that – as their rhetorical and editorial ticks are so pronounced, so beyond the pale – the editors of this Onion-inspired publication go out of their way to out-due themselves everyday with absurd analyses, Orwellian terms, and simply mind-boggling critiques of Israel.
Let’s take this headline, regarding a story about an attack on a water park in Gaza City (an attack likely relating to claims that the park violates modesty laws for allegedly allowing men and women to mix.)
First note, the Guardian headline:
Yes, um, Hamas “hardliners.”
So determined is the Guardian not to demonize the terrorist group, that they insist on viewing the incident as somehow not representative of the will of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah and his government (who, I’m sure, were shocked, SIMPLY SHOCKED, by the attack!). Of course, such a false bifurcation of Hamas (into hardliners and moderates) is contradicted by their own report, which notes government acts of late meant to move Gaza more and more towards Islamic fundamentalism. The article cites:
“[recent] restrictions on internet cafes, the closure of beach-front restaurants over the summer, a ban on women smoking shisha pipes in public and a prohibition on the display of lingerie in shop windows. Head teachers have been told they may impose Islamic dress codes on girls, and men have been banned from teaching in girls’ high schools. Some say that women have been reprimanded for sitting with crossed legs in public.”
Beyond making herculean efforts to absolve PM Haniyah’s government of responsibility for the attack, it simply wouldn’t be the Guardian if the story didn’t somehow find a way to give credibility to voices suggesting Israeli (and Western) culpability for the attack.
The piece ends:
For some, the west, and Israel, must shoulder some of the blame. “The broader picture of isolation in Gaza – international sanctions and closure – is a recipe for extremism to flourish,” said Shaqqura. “We are gradually moving to a monolithic society as interpreted by the ruling party. Their ideology flourishes in poverty and isolation. You can see the impact of this clearly.”
The absolute refusal by many to hold terrorists – and those who elect such folks into office – responsible for their hateful views and violent actions is a signature of the post-colonial ideology which denies moral agency to those viewed as possessing immutable “victimhood”. Of course, there’s a word generally used when you hold certain groups to lower moral standards than others. Its called racism.
Latma is an Israeli group that produces political satire for Internet broadcast, and was created to mock Israel’s media. Caroline Glick, who is one of the web site’s editors, told the Jerusalem Post that the group was founded with the intention of using comedy to critique the “egregious leftist slant of news coverage in this country.” Its satire is spot-on and, at times, outright hilarious. But, indeed the critiques are also relevant in the context of the anti-Israel media out side of Israel (especially one news enterprise located in the UK).
Here are snapshots from the program (see text at bottom of screen):
There was a quip by the late senator Daniel Moynihan that “people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.” Latma adeptly demonstrates that many in the media seem to passionately disagree with his statement.
Here’s latest episode:
“The problem from hell.” – Samantha Powers’ characterization of genocide in the 20th century.
Israel-Nazi Comparison:
Robin Shepherd, in 2009, wrote:
“Attempts in Europe to portray Israel as the modern incarnation of Nazi Germany were once the preserve of the extremists. Islamists, fascists and communists — each acting for reasons of their own — have employed the technique to portray the Jewish state as the epitome of political evil with which no compromise can be made.”
The cartoon above, from Arab News (April 10, 2002), shows Ariel Sharon wielding a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children. Arab News is a Saudi-based English language daily which is supposedly one of the Arab world’s more moderate papers.
“It is a sign of the times”however, that the Nazification of Israel as a technique of denigration has begun to invade the mainstream.”
In 2008, this cartoon appeared in the student newspaper of Emory University (near Atlanta) which directly compared the Nazi ghettos with the separation fence the Israelis have erected on the West Bank
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
CiF anti-Semitic comment of the day
October 27, 2010 in Uncategorized | Tags: Antisemitism, Biased Moderation, Comment is Free | by Adam Levick | 8 comments
On the “Lauren Booth’s Conversion to Islam” thread was this comment:
And then this reply:
Hmmm….seems that LucyQ subscribes to the view that the descendants of superstitious nomadic goat herders control Hollywood and the U.S. media.
Interestingly, LucyQ’s profile on CiF lists The Richard Dawkins Foundation as her recommended website. “Richard Dawkins” describe their mission as follows:
Funny, isn’t it, how a proud adherent to a foundation devoted to “critical thinking and evidence-based understanding” which seeks “to overcome…superstition [and] intolerance” can subscribe to such reactionary and irrational anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish control.
Share this:
Like this: