These are two views on antisemitism which I noted down to publish. They were made as comments on Israpundit. I will place them under the category “antisemitism defined”.


The remarkable wisdom of Anne Frank

A Classic Attempt to Attribute Anti-Semitism to Happenstance

In his book Why the Jews? author Dennis Prager cites a glaring example of an attempt to sell the public on the idea that there is nothing Jewish about anti-Semitism:

On April 11, 1944, in an observation that demonstrates an uncanny wisdom that far surpassed her age, Anne Frank wrote in her diary:

Anne Frank knew why/Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly until now? It is God Who has made us as we are, but it will be God, too, Who will raise us up again.

Who knows — it might even be our religion from which the world and all peoples learn good, and for that reason and that reason alone do we now suffer. We can never become just Netherlanders, or just English, or representatives of any other country for that matter. We will always remain Jews.

Anne Frank made a point of stressing that Jews have something of special value to give to the world, and that is precisely what the world has resented, and that is why people have persecuted Jews. Anne Frank identifies anti-Semitism as a hatred of Jewishness, a loathing altogether different from the bigotry or racism that other peoples experience.

Yet, Dennis Prager points out, when Anne Frank’s story was reconstructed by Lillian Hellman into a Broadway play, her words were completely changed. “Why are Jews hated?” asks Anne. “Well, one day it’s one group, and the next day another. . . .”

On Broadway, audiences were made to believe that Anne Frank felt that Jews have been hated just as any other people has been hated. Producers capitalized on the integrity of an Anne Frank to promote the view that there is nothing Jewish about anti-Semitism.

Comment by yamit82 — August 20, 2009





The dishonesty of today’s antisemites

People are only called antisemitic when they are

Israel haters plaintively wail that just because they oppose the Jewish State does not mean they are anti-Semitic.
Of course it does.
There are 212 countries.
One is Jewish.
They only want to eliminate one country.
The Jewish country.
Quite the coincidence, eh bubby?
There are 56 Islamic countries.
If I support dismantling just 56 of the 212 countries – the Muslim ones – might that be construed as Islamophobic?
Wouldn’t our liberal friends cry “Racism” and stagger across the room like Fred Sanford, clutching his heart and calling to his dear departed Elizabeth?
Anti-Semites are not just malicious…they are dishonest and gutless.
I actually prefer the Farrakahn variety of Jew hater to the Obama model – at least Farrakahn doesn’t cravenly pretend to tolerate Hebrews.

Comment by ayn reagan — August 21, 2009



August 31, 2009

Frontpage Magazine did an interview with Kenneth Levin. It is remarkable because it gives a clear insight into the way that the US Government is now embarked on the most anti Israel campaign ever. It has done this often in the past but never with such open hostility to the Jewish state. It is also working on totally illegal grounds but more on that later. The headings in brackets are mine…FQ


The anti-semites, the Palestinians and Islamists can be counted on to call Israel a Nazi nation or Israelis Nazis, when in fact it is they who are filled with racist hatreds of Jews and exemplify in their words and deeds Nazi ideology in that regard.

at Harvard Medical School, a Princeton-trained historian, and a commentator on Israeli politics. He is the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege.

FP: Kenneth Levin, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about how and why Israelis, many of whom previously invited American pressure on their government, have responded in so unified a way — and so negatively — to the pressure from Obama.


But first, let’s set the stage a bit with the Obama administration’s disposition toward Israel.


A recent piece in the Washington Post noted that the only country in the world with which the U.S. has worse relations since Obama took office is Israel.


Why do you think this is?


[Israeli people beginning to hate the US Government]

(headings like this are by me…FQ)


Levin: The Post was referring to a recent poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project which found that, of 25 countries surveyed, only in Israel was the public image of the United States worsening.


Obama picked fight with Israel over “settlements”

The Post editorial attributes this to President Obama’s having picked a very public fight with Israel over building in settlements. He has also rejected understandings concerning the parameters of construction within settlements that had been in place under former American administrations and were defined more explicitly with the Bush Administration.


In addition, Obama has made no comparable demands on the Palestinians, even though the so-called Roadmap, advanced by the Quartet of the U.S., Russia, the UN and the EU and supposedly embraced by Obama, requires steps by the PA “at the outset.” These include security measures aimed particularly at ending all anti-Israel terrorism and dismantling terrorist infrastructures and independent militias; institution-building intended to establish a “strong parliamentary democracy “; and an end to anti-Israel incitement.


FP: And the Palestinians have done what with these required steps?


[Abbas and Hamas continue to promote terror]


Levin: There has, of course, been virtually no movement by the Palestinians on any of these steps. On the contrary, Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah, as well as Hamas, continues to promote anti-Israel terror and to praise terrorist “martyrs.” It also continues to employ its media, mosques and schools to attack Israel’s legitimacy and call for its destruction. Indeed, Abbas himself has refused to endorse Israel’s legitimacy, demands a Palestinian “right of return” that would transform Israel into yet another Arab-dominated state in the region, and continues to honor those who died attacking Israeli civilians.


Not only has the Administration not put any public pressure on the PA to meet its Roadmap obligations, but President Abbas has demonstrated he feels under no pressure to do so. While in Washington for meetings with President Obama and Administration officials, he stated that he intends to take no steps toward accommodation but will essentially wait for what he expects will be Obama’s “delivering” Israel.


FP: Why has Obama taken this path of abandoning prior Israeli-American understandings and engaged in a high-profile attack on Israeli policy while making no corresponding demands of the Palestinian side?


[Obama reaches out to Islamofascism]

Levin: The President has clearly given a high priority to reaching out to the Muslim world and particularly to the Arab states and Iran. Publicly pressuring Israel is consistent with that priority. Of course, his outreach is most focused on appeasing those Muslims hostile to America, and this inexorably involves some abandonment of those who are well-disposed to America but are also targets of that hostility, including, ironically, many Muslims.


For example, President Obama initially refused to criticize the Iranian regime for its brutal response to popular demonstrations against the apparently fraudulent “election” of Ahmadinejad to a second term as Iranian president. Obama was more concerned with reaching out to Ahmadinejad. Only after being shamed into changing his stance did the President begin to offer some criticism of Iranian actions against anti-government demonstrators. It is very likely that if the Pew poll were extended to Iran, the Iranian people would also voice diminishing esteem for the United States.


[Obama supports Sudan’s genocida in Darfur]

Similarly, while Obama the candidate promised to give high priority to ending Sudan’s genocidal policies against the people of Darfur, Obama the President has focused on ingratiating himself with Sudan’s allies and has done nothing to alleviate the suffering in Darfur. Even some Obama advocates have publicly condemned his reneging on his pre-election promises vis-à-vis Darfur. Democratic operative and columnist Kirsten Powers published a piece on the issue entitled “‘Bam’s Darfur Sins.” In contrast, President Bush led the way in drawing the world’s attention to Sudan’s murderous policies in Darfur and labeling it a genocide. It’s fair to guess that if the Pew poll were conducted in Darfur, there, too, it would find a decrease in people’s estimation of the United States.


[Those close to Obama have rabid anti Israel views]

As has been noted by many observers, President Obama has long been close to people harboring and promoting rabidly anti-Israel views, including – to name but a few – Rashid Khalidi, Reverend Wright, and Samantha Power. He’s appointed Power to a position on the National Security Council. It is not entirely surprising that he has demonstrated a willingness to initiate a public confrontation with Israel and to abandon U.S.-Israel agreements forged by previous administrations as he seeks to appease America’s – and Israel’s – enemies in the Muslim world. Nor have other steps by Obama favoring the positions of those dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state been very surprising.


FP: Some examples?


[Obama hides Arabs turning to Hitler and German Nazism]

Levin: Take a look at elements of Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, where he suggested that Israel’s founding was a response to the Holocaust and failed to note the Jews’ more than 3,000-year connection with their ancestral homeland. He likewise said nothing of the fact that the modern international endorsement of recreation of the Jewish state dates to the post-World War I establishment of numerous national homelands as part of the breaking up of pre-war empires, including Arab homelands; or the fact that the Arabs allied themselves to European fascists in the 1930’s and used the rise of Nazism to stymie the creation of the Jewish state. Obama essentially parroted Arab claims that, in Israel’s creation, the Arabs were being forced to pay a price for European crimes.


[Obama is playing down the Holocaust]

Also in his Cairo speech, Obama implicitly equated the Holocaust to Palestinian Arab displacement in the context of the war the Arabs initiated to destroy the nascent Jewish state – a morally obscene comparison.


FP: Ok., so let’s narrow in on the Israelis’ reaction. Give us some insight into how Israelis are resisting the bullying coming from Obama.


Levin: If we’re talking about the general Israeli response, the polls are most significant as a measure of the change in Israeli opinion over the last decade and rejection of Obama’s pressure.


[Obama freezes all construction. He decides what is a “settlement”]

President Obama has demanded a total freeze on all construction in whatever his Administration chooses to characterize as a “settlement.” He has not only reneged on former Israel-U.S. agreements on the parameters of continued construction, particularly agreements reached between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, but has also lumped together all communities beyond the pre-1967 armistice line – unauthorized outposts, isolated settlements and major settlement blocs – as “illegitimate.” He has indicated a rejection of President Bush’s formally declared support for Israel’s retention of large settlement blocs and does not appear to share the recognition by a number of former presidents of Israel’s need for defensible borders.


[Obama opposes all Jewish settlement. Obama likes Judenfrei]

The Smith Research poll in June that showed only 6% of Israelis viewing Obama as pro-Israel also showed 69% opposing a construction freeze in major settlement blocs. The poll demonstrated Israelis clearly making distinctions between, for example, unauthorized outposts and settlement blocs, that Obama has refused to make.


The Obama administration’s subsequent highly publicized attacks on the eviction of some Arab families from Jewish-owned homes in east Jerusalem after they had stopped paying rent – evictions pursuant to a court order and not even involving the Netanyahu government – only broadened Israeli distrust of Obama. So too did the Administration’s complaints about Jewish housing units being built in a Jewish-owned building in the Sheikh Jarrah section of Jerusalem.


[Netanyahu answers Obama with utterly reasonable demands]

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his much anticipated speech at Bar Ilan University on June 14, elaborated a policy of insisting upon defensible borders for Israel, recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, and opposition to a Palestinian so-called “right of return.”


Netanyahu declared that, should the Palestinian Authority establish stable civil institutions and the rule of law, undertake, finally, to fight terror and end anti-Israel incitement – essentially the steps demanded of the Palestinians “at the outset” in the Roadmap – he was prepared to pursue a peace treaty. He offered to support a Palestinian state provided it is demilitarized, it is genuinely committed to peace with Israel, and the conditions under which it is established – including its demilitarization – are guaranteed by the international community.


According to a Haaretz-sponsored poll, 71% of Israelis supported the speech. This support spanned most of Israel’s political spectrum. For example, in the wake of the speech, 49% of those polled who had voted in the last election for Kadima – now the main opposition party – favored Kadima joining Netanyahu’s coalition.


66% of Israelis supporting military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities]

On another matter, a May poll co-sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League and the Begin-Sadat Center showed 66% of Israelis supporting military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Of these, 75% said they would support such action even if the U.S. opposed it.


None of this discounts the great weight Israelis generally, including the present government, give to a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship and to the importance of Israel’s working to promote and sustain that relationship. Polls of Israeli opinion leave no doubt on these points.


[…even if that means resisting pressures coming from an American administration]

But the polls also demonstrate a more clear-sighted vision among Israelis of Israel’s strategic circumstances and vital national interests, and wide support for the government’s defending those interests even if that means resisting pressures coming from an American administration. The consensus is now against taking potentially suicidal steps to please others, including the Obama administration. The great majority of Israelis are not prepared to see Israel play Czechoslovakia to Obama’s Neville Chamberlain.


Of course, this popular sentiment strengthens the government in its dealing with the Obama Administration. It allows it to make some concessions to reach compromises with the Administration but also provides support for the government’s standing firm on issues of existential import. This is true with regard both to measures toward reaching agreements with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world and to a strategy for addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.


FP: Illuminate for us why so many Israelis have responded in this way.


Levin: The explanation lies largely in the evolution in Israeli political thinking over the past decade and the dramatic shift from the perspectives embraced by at least half the nation a decade earlier.


In the early 1990’s large numbers of Israelis, worn down psychologically by the persistent Arab siege – the Arab refusal to recognize Israel and ongoing determination to destroy the Jewish state – chose to look away from such unpleasant realities and instead embrace delusions of Israeli control over the nation’s predicament vis-à-vis its neighbors. They embraced the delusion, despite all the evidence against it, that Arab hatred was actually due to past Israeli missteps and fault and that if Israel would only make sufficient amends, especially retreat to the pre-1967 armistice lines, then Arab hostility would be assuaged and peace would ensue. They insisted that Israel would then not need to concern itself with defensible borders as, in the context of peace, there would be nothing to defend against.


They rushed en masse to endorse the Oslo agreements and embrace arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat and his cadres as their “peace partners.” On the September, 1993, evening after the signing of the initial Oslo accords on the White House lawn, Arafat declared in a broadcast to his Palestinian constituents and to the wider Arab world that they should understand Oslo as the first step in implementing the PLO’s 1974 plan. This was a reference to the “plan of phases,” which called for taking whatever land could be gained by negotiations and using that territory as a base for pursuing Israel’s annihilation. But Israel’s Oslo enthusiasts ignored Arafat’s speech and celebrated the outbreak of “peace.”


In the ensuing months, and more particularly after Arafat’s arrival in the territories, Israel suffered the worst level of terror attacks it had ever endured. Arafat openly praised those responsible for the terror. The Palestinian Authority used its media, mosques and schools to declare Israel’s existence illegitimate, teach Palestinian children they must devote themselves to the nation’s destruction, and prepare the entire Palestinian population for incessant war against Israel. Still, half of Israel ignored all this and continued to focus its gaze on its rosy delusions.


FP: The turning point?


[Oslo enthusiasts in large numbers began to free themselves from their erstwhile delusions]

Levin: It was only in 2000, when Arafat and his associates rejected Israel’s dramatic concessions at Camp David, rejected as well President Clinton’s bridging proposals, refused to offer any counter-proposals and instead launched their terror war against Israel, that Oslo enthusiasts in large numbers began to free themselves from their erstwhile delusions. The numbers of the disabused grew as the terror war increased in viciousness, claiming more victims on buses, in restaurants, in markets and outside schools.


[majority of Israelis understand they have no “peace partner]

Still more abandoned their delusions when Israel unilaterally evacuated all its citizens and soldiers from Gaza and got in return intensified rocket and mortar attacks onto Israeli towns and villages near the Gaza border.


Today, the great majority of Israelis understand they have no “peace partner.” They understand the agenda of Hamas, which explicitly declares in its charter, in its media, in its mosques, in its schools, its dedication not only to the annihilation of Israel but to the murder of all Jews, and daily seeks to translate its words into acts. They understand that so-called “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, while talking at times of peace, makes clear to his own people and to those in the West who will listen that he and his Fatah movement will likewise not reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence. Rather, they will refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination and a Jewish state, will continue to insist on a “right of return” intended to overwhelm Israel and render it part of yet another Arab entity, will continue to praise murderers of Jews as heroes to be emulated, and will continue to educate Palestinian children on their obligation to dedicate themselves to Israel’s destruction.


[numbers have been reduced to a relatively small minority]

There are, of course, still many Israelis who cling to their Oslo era delusions, people who still insist that sufficient Israeli concessions will somehow transform the Middle East. But their numbers have been reduced to a relatively small minority.


It is this that accounts for the overwhelmingly negative Israeli response to Obama’s abandonment of previous American-Israeli agreements and heavy-handed public pressure on Israel for unilateral concessions, and to his distortions of historical realities about the Arab-Israeli conflict as reflected in his Cairo speech. This is why a recent poll of Israeli opinion revealed that only 6% of Israeli Jews regard the Obama Administration as pro-Israel, and the Pew poll revealed a worsening image of the U.S. among Israelis.


[Obama’s tack very much resembles the stance pursued by Israel when it embraced the delusions of Oslo]

That worsening image also reflects a reaction to Obama’s overarching tack of apologizing in foreign venues for America’s past policies and seeking to appease America’s enemies. Even aside from its direct relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict or to the threat from Iran, this strategy can hardly comfort Israelis, the vast majority of whom regard a strong, confident United States as a vital, necessary force for good in the world. Moreover, Obama’s tack very much resembles the stance pursued by Israel when it embraced the delusions of Oslo, a stance which cost it so dearly and of which it has been so painfully disabused. Most Israelis today cannot respect, or trust, an American administration embracing similar delusions.



 [The great majority of Israelis are not prepared to see Israel play Czechoslovakia to Obama’s Neville Chamberlain]


by Felix Quigley

August 27, 2009 

4international issues an open challenge to Moshe Feiglin [head of the Likud’s Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction]



Feiglin is of course in many ways a very progressive Jewish man and leader. We specifically opposed Netanyahu in trying in the past election to bar Feiglin from participating fully.


Feiglin at the centre of his campaign inside Likud also calls for the revival of Jewishness and any progressive and revolutionary socialist who has the interest of the Jews at heart will support that totally.

After all we fight on 4international for Jews to create their Homeland in Israel and to have full rights to live there as THEY decide!


But this is still not a political strategy in the context of today’s complex world politics where fascist power and socialist power are being posed.






Basically Feiglin is confused and confusing.


Feiglin calls for the development of Jewishness. He is most progressive in this.


But then Feiglin claims that this development of Jewishness will create or will be a political strategy. It will not. Unfortunately the world is far more complex.


Really what Feiglin has to still do is to spell out his political programme for the Jewish people and for Israel and it is on this that he is weak and totally deficient. If you wish to put it stronger he is bankrupt.


There are many ways to approach Feiglin and to understanding his politics. But essentially in the end there is only way and that is to counterpose the revolutionary socialist programme to that Israeli bourgeois type politicians.


For that purpose this is a paragraph from out of a report ( on the meeting which Bogey Yaalon had with the Feiglin group when Bogey was on his tour of speaking engagements.


[start extract here]


At the meeting, Bogey spoke about how peace is impossible for now, since the other side has not recognized Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. What he seemed to miss, however, is that to Feiglin, this is completely irrelevant. Whether the other side is ready for peace, willing to make compromises or anything else, plays no role in Feiglin’s thought. “Peace is not my objective,” he replied to Bogey. He continued, “There is no country on the entire planet, except us, that has peace as its national objective. The minute that peace is your national objective, you lose it.” The Zionism of old doesn’t interest him either. “Zionism has reached the end of its road,” he says. “It is time for the next level – the one based on faith and the God of Israel. If we don’t build the second level, we will lose the whole thing.”

[end extract here]


Actually Feiglin you are dead wrong! Re Zionism we on 4international have in no way whatsoever reached the end of its road. In fact its true road is only at the beginning stage.


In any case in the historical cycle it is not that long since Herzl and Zionism has been in existence anyway for 3000 plus years.





Feiglin sounds dramatic but is confusing


He is right in parts, wrong on fundamentals.


Right that “Peace” is a meaningless bullshit word when the world is dominated by Imperialism and by anti-Semitism!


But he offers no real political strategy at all, much less a revolutionary socialist political strategy.


His aim is to keep Imperialism chugging along, just that Imperialism does not do “chugging along”. Imperialism is in crisis and the total Imperialist world scene is what is causing such death-traps for the Jews of Israel and the world.


Feiglin does not offer any political strategy, even discussion, to meet this. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH FEIGLIN!


No political strategy equals certain defeat!


Remember these words from the above paragraph of Feiglin>


“It is time for the next level – the one based on faith and the God of Israel. If we don’t build the second level, we will lose the whole thing.”



As the majority of Jews in Israel or in any Western country are tending towards atheism.


What then! ???


It is a political position of bankruptcy.


This is very different to what we on 4international say. Full freedom of religious expression! But no ramming of religion down anybody’s throat either!




Bogey Yaalon the former IDF chief of staff and now part of the Netanyahu Government has called the “Peace Now” camp in Israel a virus. We on 4international believe he is right and we join the call of Bogey Yaalon absolutely completely with all of our might and resources.


“Peace Now” is a reactionary anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist movement inside Israeli politics.


The true measure of “Peace Now” is that it links up with “peace woman” Mairead Maguire who was given the Nobel Peace prize by the ever reactionary Norwegians.






Maguire it was who linked up with the British Army of occupation in Ireland as part of the reactionary “Peace Movement” which led on to the horrific Good Friday Agreement of Clinton and Blair, which forced into power the totally reactionary Sinn Fein of Adams and McGuiness, a leadership in Sinn Fein which is riddled with actual British State paid agents.


So we know where Maguire comes from. And we know too where “peace Now” with its associations with the anti-Semitic Palestine Solidarity Campaign comes from!


Maguire can often be found on these boats which are used as anti-Semitic propaganda ploys against Israel over Gaza, always hiding that Israelis left Gaza, handed it over to Arab Palestinians, but the Arabs then used Gaza as a base for terrorist attacks on Jews. Quite simply Maguire stinks! Total liar!


In many ways Israel is a sick society. But its sickness does not come from Zionism, it comes from those who have given in to the pressure of the US State Department on Israeli society and created traitors out of Jews!.



Peace Now is one of the results of that US State Department pressure. Peace Now is riddled with all kinds of state agents, agents of the Palestine Solidarity anti-Semites etc.


Then there is a very small minority of Jewish people in Israel who hate their own Jewishness.


This again is not new and indeed how could it be new! For at least 2000 years Jews have been bombarded with the message that they are lesser than other humans.


Some of this had rubbed off, was bound to rub off. Result is the “Peace” Now crowd.


Always ready to link up with the anti-Semitic enemies of Israel and Jews.


No different really to those Kapos in the Holocaust era who gave their services to the Nazis against their own people.




By Felix Quigley

August 23, 2009



Is it possible that the present so called “Left” has been totally taken under the control of US Intelligence and the US state?


Recently we have the example of a Human Rights Watch leader who is exposed as a definite Israel and Jew hater.


This man Joe Stork (deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division) is important because he has formed part of the anti Israel propaganda machine against Israel, which also includes people like the Irish Nobel Peace winner Mairead Maguire, also known as Mairead Corrigan.


We are all familiar with this form of extreme Israel and Jew hatred, their calls for boycott of Israeli produce in Ireland etc.


But one thing has gone unnoticed. That is that when Jewish organizations have criticized Stork then they have referred to Stork as a “Marxist”, an “extreme Marxist”, a “Marxist Revolutionary” and so on.


I think that US Intelligence has set up this situation in its broad outlines. I do not mean every exact detail is planned. That would fall into the realm of conspiracy. But every detail does not have to be so planned if the general outline is laid down


Anybody can see the US Intelligence machine achieving their aims here. Killing 2 birds with the one stone as it were.


  1. The American ruling class hate Jews, hate Israel and is obsessed with Israeli and Jewish power. So they have infiltrated the “Left” as anti-Semites
  2. Then when these “Left” anti-Semites do their dirty work they are labelled by the Media and also by ignorant Jewish people as “Marxists”


It is thus a classic piece of CIA strategic and tactical thinking. Investigate Philip Agee and you will see that this is not in any way fanciful. These are typical CIA programmes and here remember that the British Intelligence are not far behind the Americans, and the Germans also.



There are a number of questions about World War 2 which will not go away


  1. Hitler had wide support in Europe and America so long as he was fighting Bolshevism. He was opposed only on strategic territory issues.
  2. The British and the Americans had full knowledge of the Holocaust, as had the Vatican, and of the killing of the Jews. They knew everything about the death camps. They understood the railway system which made it possible. Yet although messengers from the Polish Underground sent messengers to urge them to bomb the railway lines (they actually flew over the lines daily!) they refused to do a thing


In all of this what then is the relevance of the Christopher Simpson book “Blowback” in understand the War and in understanding if US and British Intelligence worked to take over the “Left” as part of its anti-Semitic agenda and as part of its drive to negative the real Left


Next article in this series will ask:


What really changed in 1945? From Nazi rule to what?


The book referenced here:



America’s recruitment of Nazis,
and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy

by Christopher Simpson

Collier / Macmillan, 1988






The Swedish Foreign Ministry backs the Blood Libel



Sweden is an avowed enemy of Israel’s

By David Frankfurter

I am sure that you have been following the war of words between Sweden and Israel. A Swedish newspaper repeated rumor and innuendo that Israeli soldiers were harvesting organs from Palestinians. Sweden (which currently heads the EU) has refused to condemn this blood libel, confusing freedom of speech with hate speech. The Swedish Foreign Ministry even distanced itself from criticism of the article by its own Embassy staff in Israel.

Sweden is a major sponsor of antisemitic NGO’s

Friend, Gerald Steinberg argues that this is consistent with Sweden being a major sponsor of anti-Semitic NGOs which consistently defame Israel with lies, innuendo, propaganda and spin. Gerald expresses the hope that this furore will somehow teach the Swedes a lesson, and that they will stop this destructive funding.


Sweden and blood libel for over a decade

In March of 2004, I highlighted reports from Swedish newspapers that showed that Sweden had, from 1997 to 2004, deliberately and consistently classified as secret their own reports that their donations to Arafat’s Palestinian Authority were being diverted to corruption and the creation of a police state. Why? So that they could continue to knowingly channel billions of crowns to Palestinian corruption and violence. Also hidden from view of the Parliament was tens of millions in donations to the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit. An organization which had stopped negotiating and had become a pure Palestinian propaganda agency. Swedish politicians were “shocked” – but the money kept flowing.

Later that same year, Lisa Abramowicz and I published an article highlighting the fact that the Swedish government was funding a conference in Gothenburg aimed at finding ways to fund Palestinian terrorism.

Sweden funding the propaganda and physical war against the Jews

For well over a decade, Sweden has deliberately and carefully looked for and found ways to secretly and openly fund the Palestinian propaganda and physical war against the Jews. And the Israeli government thinks that they can get the Swedes to change their ways with a bit of diplomatic pressure. They forget that the Swedes may live in a cold country, but they have proved that they can take the heat.


Conclusión: Frankfurter is right. These antisemitic traits are deeply ingrained incide the old countries of Europe which Either carried out the Holocaust or stood by and did nothing. Frankfurter knows that Israeli diplomatic effort will not stop antisemitism, a classic example being the heroic efforts of the Israeli ambassador to Ireland mailing to stop Irish antisemitism


by Felix Quigley

August 9, 2009

We believe that there must be a United Front created to stand with Jews, Serbs and many others against the US and EU Empire which are in alliance with Islamofascism.


Israel has no alternative but to strike against the Iranian Fascist Nuclear bomb and call on the Iranian people, especially the youth, for understanding and support.

A United Front means that there is unity against that comon enemy but inside the United Front there is freedom of discussion.


It seems that the issue centres on this


[begin quote here]

It was a packed audience at the Begin-Sadat Center in Bar Ilan University, and all eyes of the world were looking on. As reported, Netanyahu, not unlike many of his predecessors, agreed at least in principle to the creation of a Palestinian state. The conditions he laid out – recognition of Israel as a Jewish homeland and a demilitarized “Palestine” – though, are probably conditions that the Palestinians cannot and will not fulfill. The Palestinian people are controlled not by one, but by two terrorist organizations, which curse Zionism and deny Israel’s right to exist. In view of the Prime Minister’s words, one has to question whether this is something he understands.

During Netanyahu’s speech, regarding the subject of Israel’s peace partners and enemies, he contradicted himself in a major way. At one point, he stated, “I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately…” This, while towards the end of the speech, he strongly declared, “Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek its destruction.”

The reason why the two statements contradict one another is because the organization Prime Minister Netanyahu is pursuing peace talks with, the Palestinian Authority (PA), is run by Fatah, a terrorist organization which “seeks” Israel’s “destruction” – precisely the type of group that he insists Israel will not sit with!

[end quote here]

 The article then goes into lots of detail about this very murky movement. Read it, study it, yourself.



It seems that the Fatah was supposed under Arafat to have changed its founding rules. But that was a bit of fakery. It has not.


The result is that Fatah is till calling for the destruction of Israel.


At times this is slightly covered by calling for the destruction of Zionist Israel.


These people in Fatah were trained in the Stalinist school of lies, actually they werre trained physically in Moscow.

The big lie of the times was that Zionism was Nazism etc.


But Zionism has always been Jewish nationalism, the nationalism of the Jewish people.


No different to Irish or any other nationalism.



The other thing about this Fatah is that on their websites and speeches they tend to have one version in English, one in Arabic. They are not the same!


This is the bind that Israeli elites are in. Reach an agreement with who, with a group which is out for your destruction

Continue reading


By Felix Quigley

August 7, 2009

Many people who know little believe that the Good Friday Agreement was a good thing. It is claimed that it brought an end to the troubles and that by discussion a “peace” agreement could be reached anywhere.


These people who say this are liars, hypocrites and lack all sense of fairness and principle.


What happened in Northern Ireland is that the Provisional Sinn Fein whose political programme was in a total shambles was rescued by the British Government, the Irish Government, the EU and especially by the US (Clinton of course and later Bush)


The rescue…Provisional Sinn Fein had launched their campaign of ciolence and terror in 1969 as a response to sectarianism of the loyalist protestants. The first to die were in fact Catholics, now long forgotten along with thousands of other unfortunates.


Leave that aside for the moment. If one considers the political programme of Sinn fein it was to drive the British out of the North of Ireland and create a United Ireland.


In formulating this plan the Provisionals proceeded as if the Northern Protestants were nothing, just an adjunct of Britain. It was the Protestants though that defeated the provisionals.


In the end the Provisionals were at the end of the road due to this bankrupt type of politics. They were in fact rescued by Britain and placed in power (note 1)


So what can we say, in short, about what happened


  1. The Protestants won a large majority in election after election. This meant little because the Empire elite simply disregarded elections and helped by the Media moved the discussion right outside of the elected representatives. This was of course by any consideration a step to a form of Fascism
  2. The ordinary people both catholic and protestant were presented with what was already decided. The Media was able to whip public opinion into line behind whatever the elite wanted.


The essential result was that terror in the North of Ireland was proven to pay handsomely


The similarities to what is happening now in Israel is almost exactly similar.


This should hardly be a surprise. Consider


  1. The point man of the Empire and this Conspiracy was George Mitchell. He is the point man in Israel too.
  2. Bill Clinton is not really gone, his wife thinks and operates the same
  3. There is a Clinton clone, Obama, in power


If anything Obama is worse and the results will be worse.


Obama hates the power of Israel and the powerful heritage and history of the Jewish people. He sets out to destroy their Yesha, their Homeland.


Obama made a speech a month or so ago in Cairo in which he belittled the Jewish struggle for a Homeland, saying that it arose because of the Holocaust, a mirror of what Ahmadinejad says. Obama hides that the Jewish struggle for Yesha is 3000 years old.


This was a calculated move and insult.


Now Obama moves into another gear and try to follow the connection with Mitchell and Northern Ireland


Mitchell set deadlines in Northern Ireland. It was a feature of all those years of Mitchell plotting. Every month there seemed to be a deadline in operation.


This was a very deliberate construct to take the debate and power out of the hands of elected representatives. Nobody dared ask what gave Mitchell any power to authorize deadlines anywhere in the world.


Expect deadlines soon in Israel.


There is a death wish among a section of the Israeli and AMERICAN Jews. Note the following. Lieberman with strong ideas was elected by the majority of Jews and became Foreign Secretary. Now barak is the acting Foreign Secretary. What has happened?


The Israeli Court system has happened. Lieberman is being pursued by his own country men over some trivial matter and Lieberman who is a potential rival has been shat upon by Netanyahu.


The Americans are playing all their cards on Barak but Barak had few votes in the election. Same thing. Elections do not count as far as the US Empire is concerned.


The War in Iraq comes to mind. No excuse for war. Oh heck then invent an excuse. The Media created the WMD hoax and giant lie.


Power, that is the power won in election, that is the power of the Israeli vote, is being very craftily removed from Netanyahu. The latter by promoting Barak facilitates this. (note 2)


There is only one way in which this can be stopped and Mitchell and Obama driven back. That is if there is a great united struggle of the religious Jews and the secular but patriotic Jews created.


And vital support internationally, especially among ordinary peoples, especially among the US Christian organizations, especially in that regard CUFI, must urgently be sought.


We on 4international admire and support the spirit of the Jewish Yesha fighters for the Jewish Homeland in Yesha. But the programme of this movement, and of leaders such as Ruth Matar, must urgently change its focus.


There is already a potential powerful movement and cadre created there in Yesha (Judea and Samaria). But under the present leaders it remains too religio centred, too centred on the “settlements” (a word we do not like to use actually), and it must be mature enough to move out into the broad masses of the Israeli people. (note 4)


To sum up: Watch out for the Empire strategy of taking electoral power away from those elected: the issue of deadlines by Mitchell above all use of the tactic of divide and rule, not between Arab and Hew but between Jew and jew (note 5)


A classic example of all of the above strategies in action has emerged just 2 days ago with this piece of aggressive crowing by the anti-Semitic Arabs (called “Palestinians”)

Continue reading


by Felix Quigley

August 7, 2009

Bibi Netanyahu had this to say in his famous speech as a response to the Obama clearly anti-Semitic speech in Cairo University 2 weeks ago. The following is only a small extract from the Netanyahu speech and I ask the reader to listen to the words very carefully and assess how reasonable is Netanyahu


[begin extract from Netanyahu speech made in response to Obama in Cairo]


“To achieve peace, courage and honesty are necessary from both sides,” Netanyahu said. “The Palestinians must say, ‘Enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel’s right to exist and want to live by their side.”

He continued, “A public Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is a prerequisite for regional peace.”

“For peace,” Netanyahu said, “we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces. We ask that the U.S. commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another ‘Hamastan.’ And Israel can’t agree to that.”

Netanyahu continued, “If we receive a commitment to Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and a demilitarized Palestinian state, we can reach a final agreement.”


[end extract from Netanyau here]


Do you not agree? Very reasonable indeed!


The Arabs (Netanyahu wrongly calls them “Palestinians” but before 1967 it was the Jews who were known as “Palestinians”) need to want to live in peace with Israel.


They need to want to therefore not use guns, explosive belts, rockets, stones thrown by hand at Israeli youth in uniform, stones in slings, agitate and use forged documents over houses as has happened last week in Jerusalem.


The so called Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, use the education system etc, do not treat Israel with any respect. They show their hatred by joining in war time with the opposing forces. In other words they operate as traitors. Take the privileges of being a citizen of successful Israel yet hate Israel.


If you live in peace you do not live in war.


In other words for the Jews in Israel to be safe the Palestinian state must not be a war state.


If it is a war state then Jews ask themselves “what is the use of creating another Gaza.”


There the Jews took the Arabs as being normal people. If we give them the land they will use the land to create a decent life for their own Arab people, grow special fruit, open up the fabulous Mediterranean for tourism.


But because war against Jews was in their heart they did not chose any productive activity but made war in every conceivable fashion, in word and in deed, against the Jews.


So all that Netanyahu asked for really was for the Arabs to be peaceful. That is the key to the Jews agreeing to the Arabs having their own 22nd state, but this time on the most precious soil of historic Israel, on Yesha.


[I personally believe that granting a state to this bunch of terrorists misnamed Palestinians is the stupidest folly. Here I am just following some of their logic to understand just how anti-Semitic is the Obama position towards Israel and the Jews]


Now enters into the situation the most amazing thing…The President of the US, Obama, has let the Arabs know that the Obama speech (typical extract above) should be disregarded and he passes on to the Arabs the message that it is not worth tuppence.


That is war on the Jews and the President of the US, Obama and his crowd of flunkeys, Clinton, Mitchell, Jones et al declaring openly war on the Jews.


Netanyahu asks only for peace. The President of the US tells the Arab terrorists, that is the PLO and Hamas, that Netanyahu is talking bullshit.


What is this? Obama is urging the Arabs on to make war with the Jews.


Is this not anti-Semitism? Is anti-Semitism not the correct word for this?


The proof of the Obama anti-Semitism and on behalf of the Israel and Jew Hating Arabs.


This has got great implications for everybody living today, and not at all just for Jews.


First of all socialists. Are socialists going to back an anti-Semitic President of the US?


What about heads of state in Europe? Europe already the place where the Holocaust of the Jews was allowed to happen?


What about the American people of all classes? Are the American people going to do nothing as their anti-Semitic president, which the American people under their rules elected, are they going to stand by and do nothing?


And the Blacks in America who were supported so much, and rightly so, by Jews in their struggle for Civil Rights back in the Kennedy era?


You can see that all of this is heading in the direction of a revolutionary situation, no matter how you define that term.


The issue is possible to condense into a few words. Are the people of the world going to stand by and watch an anti-Semitic President open up a new anti-Semitic front on the Jews?

Continue reading


August 5, 2009There are a number ov vital aspects about Islam which we as trotskyists are most concerned about. It is in fact a religion made for dictatorship.


The following we have great pleasurein printing for our readers.


It contains one very important reference to the situation under Islam in Spain.


[begin article by John Spencer here]

Who Is Really Being Dishonest About Islam? By: Robert Spencer | Tuesday, August 04, 2009

In his “The Faith Divide” blog at the Washington Post’s website, Eboo Patel took umbrage Monday at two recent reviews in the New York Times Book Review charging  “Dishonesty About Islam in the NYT Book Review.” Patel was angry at favorable reviews of what he called “Bruce Bawer’s alarmist book Surrender” (about which he huffed, “the subtitle says it all: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom”) and Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (which was reviewed by Fouad Ajami). Yet while making the improbable claim that the New York Times printed material that was dishonest and negative about Islam, Patel showed himself to be not a little disingenuous – suggesting that before he call these reviewers on their alleged dishonesty, he should look to his own.


“Ajami,” complains Patel, “opens his piece by juxtaposing two disparate pieces of history: the departure of Spain’s last Muslim ruler in 1492, and the terrorist attacks on Madrid in 2004. ‘A circle was closed,’ Ajami writes, ‘and Islam was, once again, a matter of Western Europe.’” What is wrong with this? “The Muslim presence in medieval Spain,” asserts Patel, “is widely regarded as a time of tolerance, good government and support for the arts and education. In fact, Ajami himself wrote a positive review of one of the many books on that era, Maria Rosa Menocal’s The Ornament of the World.  Placing Al-Andalus, as it was known, in the same breath as a ghastly terrorist attack – as if to say ‘Here’s what happens when Muslims are around’ – is beyond questionable. A dead fish wouldn’t want to be wrapped in a newspaper article with that level of intellectual dishonesty.”


Funny that Patel should mention Menocal. Certainly her Ornament of the World is largely responsible for the contemporary myth of a tolerant, pluralistic, proto-multicultural Al-Andalus. But even Menocal, in that very book, admits that tolerance and pluralism went only so far in Muslim Spain, which institutionalized discrimination against Jewish and Christian dhimmis:


The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax — no Muslims paid taxes and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals. (Pp. 72-3)


So much for a paradise of tolerance and multiculturalism. Historian Kenneth Baxter Wolf observes that “much of this new legislation aimed at limiting those aspects of the Christian cult which seemed to compromise the dominant position of Islam.” After enumerating a list of laws much like Menocal’s, he adds: “Aside from such cultic restrictions most of the laws were simply designed to underscore the position of the dimmîs as second-class citizens.”


Contrary to Patel’s claims, if Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably and productively only with Christians and Jews relegated by law to second-class citizen status, then al-Andalus has precisely nothing to teach our age about tolerance. The laws of dhimmitude give all of Menocal’s accounts of Jewish viziers and Christian diplomats the same hollow ring as the stories of prominent American blacks from the slavery and Jim Crow eras: yes, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington were great men, but their accomplishments not only do not erase or contradict the records of the oppression of their people, but render them all the more poignant and haunting. Whatever the Christians and Jews of al-Andalus accomplished, they were still dhimmis. They enjoyed whatever rights and privileges they had not out of any sense of the dignity of all people before God, or the equality of all before the law, but at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords.

That sufferance, moreover, could be revoked at any time by Muslims who determined that Christians or Jews had overstepped the bounds of their “protection” agreement. If these Christians didn’t abide by the restrictions Menocal enumerates above, they could — in accordance with Sharia — be lawfully killed or sold into slavery.


This happened more than once in al-Andalus, but even on a day-to-day basis the situation of Christians and Jews in Muslim Spain was not as pleasant as it might seem in The Ornament of the World. According to historian Richard Fletcher, “the simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was a land of tranquility.” In fact, “Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch. The Mozarabic Christian communities whom John of Gorse met on his embassy to Córdoba were cowed and demoralized. . . . The Christians of al-Andalus were second-class citizens like Christians under Muslim rule elsewhere in the world such as the Copts of Egypt.”


Nor were the dhimmi communities free from the most extreme penalties. Menocal notes that Spain’s Muslim rulers “had zero tolerance for disparagement of their Prophet.” Consequently, according to Wolf, “in the spring of 850, a priest named Perfectus was arrested and later executed for publicly expressing his opinions about the errors of Islam to a group of Muslims. Months later a Christian merchant named Joannes suffered a severe lashing, public humiliation, and a long prison term for invoking the prophet’s name as he sold his wares in the marketplace.” This was the beginning of a series of public denunciations of Islam and the prophethood of Muhammad by Christians. All were followed by public execution; Menocal reports that after about fifty such horrifying events “the passions of the moment passed and life went on as it had before in this city of thriving religious coexistence.” But in fact Christian and Muslim sources contain numerous records of similar incidents in the early part of the tenth century. Around 910, in one of many such episodes, a woman was executed for proclaiming that “Jesus was God and that Muhammed had lied to his followers.”


Jews in al-Andalus sometimes had it even worse. On December 30, 1066, four  thousand Jews in Granada were murdered by rioting Muslim mobs. Menocal called this a “relatively isolated Muslim uprising against what had been a warmly favored Jewish community.” But Fletcher correctly points out that the political power of the Jewish vizier Samuel ibn Naghrila and his son Joseph, although celebrated by Menocal as an example of Islamic tolerance, was also resented by Muslims as a “breach of Shari’ah.” Then as now, Islamic law stipulates that a non-Muslim must not have authority over a Muslim, as the Saudi Sheikh and legal expert Manaa K. al-Qubtan stated in a 1993 fatwa: “The command of a non-Muslim over a Muslim is not permitted based on the words of Allah: ‘and Allah will not open to the unbelievers against the believers a way.’ [Qur’an 4:140]” In 1066 the angry mob was incited to kill the Jews by a poem composed by the Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq: “I myself arrived in Granada and saw that these Jews were meddling in its affairs. . . . So hasten to slaughter them as a good work whereby you will earn God’s favour, and offer them up in sacrifice, a well-fattened ram.”


Since the mob was killing dhimmis who were considered to be in breach of their contract of “protection,” the attackers could claim that by the light of Islamic law the killings were lawful. Thus even if Menocal’s description of it as an isolated incident is correct, the legal justification for such incidents was always present. And the beautiful record of the culture of tolerance in al-Andalus is overshadowed by the fact that if any such tolerance was achieved, it was in spite of Islamic law, not because of it.


“Islam,” Patel asserts, “has much to contribute to the West.” Sure, “some loud and boorish Muslims in Europe claim Islam can only dominate,” and “yes, a few of them are dangerous to Europe – including the Muslims of Europe.” Yet nonetheless, he says, “Fouad Ajami should know better. And so should the editors of the New York Times Book Review.”


And so, above all, should Eboo Patel.

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is available now from Regnery Publishing.


Taken from

Albanian organ extraction from Serbs

Albanian organ extraction from

 Serbs probed

Aug 3, 2009


Europe’s top human rights watchdog is launching a probe into Serb allegations that ethnic Albanian guerrillas kidnapped Serb civilians during Kosovo’s war, removed their organs and sold the body parts on the black market.

Leading the probe is Dick Marty, a Swiss senator representing the Council of Europe. He is expected to meet top Serbian judiciary and war crimes officials during his two-day visit to Belgrade starting Monday.

Serbian officials say up to 500 Kosovo Serbs vanished without a trace during the 1998-99 war. They claim at least some of them may have had organs removed.

Ethnic Albanian officials deny the claims. They say the allegations are part of Serbian propaganda against Kosovo’s independence, declared last year with Western backing.

Thanks to

Monday, August 03, 2009
Associated Press


This is a story that 4international will follow



people should be fully aware that Oliver Kamm, now from his position in The Times, is continuing to slander the Serb people


Marisol writing on Jihadwatch makes a very useful point. Once people are in Sharia Law, which by definition is a theocracy, then if you do not like something you have to fight it through that system.


Islam and Sharia Law is the building blocks of dictatorship, opena nd cruel dictatorship, a religion that goes right back to the seventh century and which therefore misses out on the English Pritan Revolution, the American and French Revolution, never mind the socialist fighters.

[begin Jihadwatch article here]

Sudanese riot police used tear gas against hundreds of people demonstrating outside a Khartoum courtroom on Tuesday in protest at the trial of a woman who faces 40 lashes for wearing trousers.

The judge decided to adjourn the trial to September 7 to determine whether Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, a journalist who also works with the United Nations, has legal immunity, defence lawyer Jalal al-Sayyid said.

Hussein, who is in her 30s, has been charged with public indecency after she was arrested last month along with 12 other women who were wearing trousers at a Khartoum restaurant.

Riot police wearing helmets and armed with shields and sticks used tear gas to disperse hundreds of women and activists from Sudanese opposition parties who demonstrated in support of Hussein outside the courthouse, an AFP correspondent reported.

“No to oppression against women,” read one banner carried by the demonstrators. “No return (to) the dark ages,” said another.

One of Hussein’s lawyers, Manal Khawajali, said she was assaulted by police outside the court and would file a complaint.

Hussein has said that she wants to be tried to challenge a law that decrees a punishment of whipping for people wearing “indecent” clothes, and told a hearing last week that she wished to waive her UN immunity.

Emerging from the courtroom flashing the victory sign, Hussein again insisted she wanted to be tried and said she had resigned from her job at the UN’s media office in Sudan so she no longer had immunity.

“The court should not have delayed the trial,” she told journalists after the closed-door hearing.

But in an apparent disagreement within her defence team, a lawyer nevertheless argued that she had immunity and asked the judge to ignore Hussein’s wishes, Sayyid said.

He said the judge decided to ask the Sudanese foreign ministry to determine the immunity issue ahead of her next court date.

Ten women have already been whipped for the same offence – including Christians – and Hussein has said she will fight a guilty verdict and the law itself.[…]

Unlike in some other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life. Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of the country’s laws discriminate against women.

Hussein said she wants to fight to get rid of the law, saying it “is both against the constitution and sharia (Islamic law).”

Three observations: Once one is under Sharia law, the only path forward within the system is to argue a ruling somehow violates Sharia. Appeals to democracy, egalitarianism, or human decency (as defined by something other than Sharia) are outside of the scope of the discussion. Secondly, it is in the spirit of Islamic law — via Qur’an 4:34 — that disobedient women may be beaten. That is the root of a variety of problems. Thirdly, the lack of accountability inherent in a theocracy ensures cases of this level of absurdity will happen again, and the victims can only hope to embarrass the government enough in the global media that it relents.

“If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Koranic verses or hadith (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) say so. I haven’t found them,” she said.

Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, who published an article in Ajrass al-Horreya newspaper (Bells of Freedom) entitled: “Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body.”


“We want a Christian-free society!”

Only One Possible Translation for That:

Christians Submit or Die!! (notice there is no compulsion after dying)



August 5, 2009


The events in a whole heap of Musklim countries are now absolutely alarming: iran, pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia


The above is about Bangla desh which has got a very big influence int he city of London, England

This report is from Jihadwatch and is self explanatory:

August 4, 2009

“We want a Christian-free society!”

The police participated in this torture and persecution — after all, the police in Bangladesh are Muslims also, who believe in Islam’s death penalty for apostasy and prohibition of proselytizing by members of other faiths. Islamic Tolerance Alert: “Bangladesh: Police Torture Pastor, Two Others: Local Muslim leaders prompt officers to arrest, abuse evangelistic team,” from Compass Direct, August 4 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

DHAKA, Bangladesh, August 4 (Compass Direct News) – At the urging of local Muslim leaders, police in western Bangladesh have tortured a pastor and two other Christians for legally proclaiming Christ.Habibur Rahman, 45, pastor of Boalia Spiritual Church (Boalia Ruhani Jamat) in Boalia in Cuadanga district, 220 kilometers (136 miles) west of Dhaka, said he was about to meet with 11 others for a monthly meeting on evangelism at 8 p.m. on June 8 when local police stormed in and seized him and Zahid Hassan, 25, and a 40-year-old Christian identified only as Fazlur.

The first question the police commander asked him, Rahman said, was, “Why did you become Christian?”

“Using a lot of filthy words, he charged me that I was teaching the Bible and converting people to Christianity in this area,” the pastor told Compass….

The commander who seized him and the two others was a sub-inspector with the name Khaleque on his badge, Rahman said. Police dragged them to a nearby parked vehicle and transported them to Shamvunagar police camp.

“Police told us, ‘We will teach you in the camp how to forget your Christ,’ while dragging us to the vehicle,” said Rahman.

Police blindfolded them after reaching the camp and took them to three separate rooms.

“I heard blood-curdling scream from other rooms,” Rahman said. “I was sitting on the floor blindfolded. I could not understand what was happening around me. Later several police came to me and one of them kicked me on the back of my head, and my head ricocheted off the wall. They also kicked my waist.”

Ordering him to say how many people he had converted to Christianity in the Muslim-majority nation, the commander said he would kick him a like number of times. The official told him to call out to Jesus, saying he wanted to see how Jesus would save him, Rahman said.

“While beating us, police told us there will be no Christian in this area,” the pastor said. “Police hurt our hands, lips, thighs and faces with burning cigarettes. They beat me in the joints of my limbs with a wooden club. They beat us for one hour, and I became senseless at some point.”…

“Some Christian villagers then said, ‘We are also criminal because we believe in Christ like Habibur Rahman and the other two Christians,’” Rahman said. “They told police, ‘If you do not release them, then arrest us and put us in jail.’”

Police did not release the three Christians until 9:30 that night.

The next day, June 10, thousands of Muslim villagers demonstrated in front of a local government office called the Zamzami Union Council chanting, “We want a Christian-free society,” and “We will not allow any Christians in Cuadanga.”

The frenzied mob called for Rahman to appear at the local government office, and a sub-district administrative chief called in 10 Christians and 10 Muslims including imams to try to resolve the matter. In that meeting, the administrative official told everyone to practice their religion freely without disturbing others.

“The administrative chief also said nobody should interfere in other religions, but even now we cannot attend our churches for worship,” Rahman said. “Local people said, ‘You will come in the church alive but return home dead.’”…

The original came from


And this comment on Jihadwatch sums it up well

““Police told us, ‘We will teach you in the camp how to forget your Christ,’ while dragging us to the vehicle,” said Rahman.”
Contrast this with violent protests riots by muslims for any perceived “insult” to their prophet.

The Bangla thuggery is in line with the murder of Christians by Pakistani mobs for rumored descration of koran or for any reason – like inadvertently drinking tea from a muslim’s cup at a roadside stall.

There’s a word for this and it’s called Persecution.



The Israel-Palestine conflict is surely complicated enough without the British government injecting ambiguity into the situation via statements which appear to contradict Britain’s commitment to the rule of law.

Responding to Israel’s decision to evict nine Palestinian families from two houses in east Jerusalem, the British Consulate in Jerusalem has issued an extraordinarily aggressive press statement condemning the move. The evictions followed long and complicated court cases in which it was established that Jewish families held the title to the properties while documents produced by the Palestinian residents were found to be forgeries. On Sunday, the police moved in to enforce the court decision.

The British consulate’s statement says:

“We are appalled by the evictions in East Jerusalem. Israel’s claim that the imposition of extremist Jewish settlers into this ancient Arab neighbourhood is a matter for the courts or the municipality is unacceptable. Their actions are incompatible with Israel’s desire for peace. We urge Israel not to allow extremists to set the Agenda.”

I’m struggling with this. In countries governed by the rule of law, it would seem clear that matters of such complexity can only be decided by the courts. Could the British embassy explain who else should have been called upon to adjudicate? And whilst we’re at it, I wonder if they could issue clarifications on a couple of other matters?


For one thing, the area concerned is referred to as an “ancient Arab neighbourhood”. Is it? In the latest blog entry by Melanie Phillips on the Spectator website (see below) she provides evidence that it is in fact an ancient Jewish neighbourhood and that the homes in question belonged to Jews as far back as the late 19th century. Jews were forced out due to Arab attacks in the 1920s and 1930s. Is the embassy confident it has got its history right? Did it bother to check?

Another matter for clarification is the use of the word “extremists” to describe the people who have now reclaimed their property. Perhaps they are “extremists”. I honestly do not know. But it would seem to be an unusual departure from standard diplomatic practice to describe people in such terms without providing even a modicum of evidence.

Yet another matter for clarification is the use of the word “settlers”. If, as the courts found, the people in question are in fact the rightful owners of the properties then the term “settler” as it is used in the Israeli context is obviously inappropriate. So why was such loaded terminology employed?

Now, let me say in conclusion that I have no opinion on whether the Israeli move was a good idea or a bad one. In addition, if the Foreign Office believes that, regardless of the legal niceties, it was likely to enflame the kind of tensions which would make peace-making more difficult it is perfectly entitled to say so. The Americans, who also condemned the move, appeared to be motivated by precisely such considerations calling it “totally unacceptable”.

The problem is that the British statement is so riddled with ambiguities and so obviously shrouded in the red mists of anger that it serves no other purpose than to slate Israel yet again while leaving us none the wiser as to what we should really make of this.

For a fascinating review of the case, see Melanie Phillips here:


by Felix Quigley

August 5, 2009

Towards the end of the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah the traitorous and collaborationist Olmert, who was in league with Livni, had this to say:

•        The international backing which Israel enjoys in this current operation is also unprecedented, as manifested in the G-8 statement.  The international community stands united alongside Israel in its battle against Hizbullah and supports the attack and ultimate dismantling of the organization.
•        For the first time, conditions have been created to begin implementation of UN Resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of Hizbullah, its expulsion from the border and the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border.  The international community stands ready to take concrete steps to implement this resolution by dispatching an international army to deploy along the border with Israel and at the Lebanon-Syria border crossings and to operate effectively to dismantle the organization’s military capabilities.
Like the utter fool that he and Livni is he added the following:

•        This is almost a one time opportunity to change the rules of the game in Lebanon.  Much work is still ahead, on both the military and political levels, and we will not stop until we have achieved the sought after results.  We will invest maximum effort in order to make certain that the reality which existed in Lebanon on the eve of the operation never recurs.

But it was not at all to work out according to these pipedreams of Olmert and Livni..


Israel was forced to end the war with Hizbullah by international antisemites and to withdraw its forces so allowing the UN to plant its units in place, with the purpose of disarming the Hizbullah.


The opposite has happened.

The Hizbullah Fascists have used the few years of UNIFIL rule to build up their forces tobe an even greater menace to Israel right now.

This is from the Times Online of London

[Begin quote here]

Three years after Israel fought a bloody war in Lebanon against Hezbollah, there are fears that hostilities could erupt again — this time with the militant group better armed than ever.

According to Israeli, United Nations and Hezbollah officials, the Shia Muslim militia is stronger than it was in 2006 when it took on the Israeli army in a war that killed 1,191 Lebanese and 43 Israeli civilians.

Hezbollah has up to 40,000 rockets and is training its forces to use ground-to-ground missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv, and anti-aircraft missiles that could challenge Israel’s dominance of the skies over Lebanon.

Brigadier-General Alon Friedman, the deputy head of the Israeli Northern Command, told The Times from his headquarters overlooking the Israeli-Lebanese border that the peace of the past three years could “explode at any minute”.[Note 2…more of this article]

Continue reading



By Felix Quigley

4 August, 2009


The growing attacks on Israel which are led and promoted by the President of the USA and his Government, a very powerful entity by any standard, poses great danger for the Jewish people and for Israel.

This means that the Trotskyist leadership, and the future Trotskyist Party in Israel, must become healers of this terrible division in Israel between those who are religious and those who are either not so religious or are clearly secularists.

The Zionist movement is a broad church.


There is the religious aspect to Israel, that Israel was promised to the Jews by the Supernatural Being that they worship.


There are also non religious inside the Zionist movement. The non religious does not believe in the supernatural. The non religious does not need to believe in the supernatural in order to support Israel.


The support of the non religious will come from both his feelings of patriotism and from his intellect.


The key to a successful defence of Israel now will come from the religious tolerating the viewpoint of the non religious and vice versa.



Both the religious and the non religious can easily meet on this ground


  1. Jews have had an unbroken attachment to the land of Israel for 3000 years
  2. Their main enemy the Arabs a. entered the area from Arabia as conquerors and suppressors of national minorities b. were powered by a religion ideology which was reactionary and repressive imperialist and c. this gives a definite edge to the political campaign of the Arabs today in that they tolerate no competitors (google the Copts and Kurds)


To start and end though with the above categories will give a very incomplete picture in the mind of the youth or fighter for (Jewish) freedom. That is because we live in the age of Imperialist power and reaction. The capitalist or Imperialist system is dominated by American Imperialism and in order to prolong its corrupt and crisis ridden system the aim of American Imperialism is to create a kind of New World Order. And because of this undoubted fact Israel and the people of Israel are caught up in a spiders web of US, EU and Islamofascist intrigue.


It is only by understanding this total picture (gestalt) that a person can hope to give leadership which is scientific and correct.


There is therefore needed in Israel a Trotskyist party which will give clear leadership to the people of Israel in this vital period. It is only if these reactionary world forces of Imperialism, Stalinism and Islamofascism are grasped with a deep understanding that Jews and Israel can be guaranteed their freedom.


Furthermore if the Arab and Islamic poor are to have any future then they will have to join with Jews and help to overthrow their Islamic monsters who rule over them with Sharia Law based on reactionary Mohammedan dogma. But Jews and Trotskyists will not be required to wait for that. Jews have to defend themselves against another Holocaust.