Are there anti-Semites? Of course, it seems they will never go away. The same goes for racists. But, it's nothing like it was in the days of Arthur Godfrey. Hotels no longer exclude Jews, or for that matter African-Americans. Thank goodness.
But, David Duke and proponents of Nazism remind us that the virus is never entirely wiped out. So how are we to deal with it? Can we end hate speech by prohibiting it? Experience tells us no.
To end the virus of religious hatred, of race hatred, we must offer lessons of tolerance. And, I submit that in many ways Americans have been doing exactly that.
However there are times when we relapse. When does that happen? When people express themselves through violence. In matters large and small, violence sets us back. Whether it is Crown Heights or Ferguson, the lessons of tolerance find themselves under attack. Remove the violence and you can begin to make progress. Skokie is an excellent example of that.
And now we come to Charlottesville where violence rose to the level of murder by an unhinged racist. Some time earlier, the attack on Republican Congressmen playing ball in a park in Washington DC resulted in extremely serious injures to a number of the Republicans and their two guards. But the outrage over this incident died down rather quickly.
It must be said; the media makes a far bigger noise reporting on violence by crazies on the right than they do when it's the left that acts violently. Remember the Trump rallies, back when Trump was running for the presidency? Remember, seeing on TV, members of the left attacking, with their sticks, cans, and pepper spray, Republican families lined up for Trump rallies. The media treated it as not much of a big deal. But show a protestor being led out the door, and the press will cry out how the protestor was manhandled.
The Right has their bully boys. But so do the Liberals. You hear of the Nazis and the skin heads, but you hear very little of the Antifas, those who use violence to suppress the voice on the Right. (Antifas is a relatively new term used to describe those who present themselves as people who are against fascists. Get it? Antifas . . . . anti-fascists . . . . ) Why the fancy name? Why not simply refer to these ruffians as "violent liberals." It's like referring to Islamic terrorism as simply "terrorism." Abstract terrorism seems far more attractive to the politically correct than the more honest label; namely, Islamic terrorism.
This is not to say that all liberals engage in strong-arm methods. And, for that matter, neither do all people on the right, even those on the far right, engage in violent confrontations. And that was the situation in Charlottesville. We all know about the deranged right-wing driver who killed a woman protestor against the statues of southern generals. But we hear almost nothing of the behavior of the violent leftists.
Trump spoke against the fascist demonstrators, as well as against the racists. But he also noted the presence of violent people on the left; namely, the antifas people. For this he was pilloried in the press. The police, often targets of violent liberals, were keenly aware of who was attacking them. They may well have included white supremacists. But, it also included violent liberals. It was, of course, politically incorrect to point this out. When Trump did so, the press piled on. He was called a racist and an anti-Semite.
The media will play their game, but I stand with the truth. I stand with Trump.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Slavery: Not Made In The USA
Slavery is and has always been a horror. And, it was so in America. Indeed, it afflicted North America even before it's independence from England. And, like any disease, to understand it requires an understanding of how it began in North America.
Based on my readings, there were three migrations of slaves to North America. The first involved Africans who had been in Spain, Portugal and other European countries. No one took any special note of them as they were treated pretty much as indentured servants. This was also the condition of many of the white Europeans who came to this country.
The second migration of Africans was from the Chesapeake area to the farms, where slaves were used in raising tobacco and other crops. In the third major migration, the slaves were moved to the south where a major crop was cotton..
The sequence of African migrations is interesting because the first of the migrations was of Africans who came here not in slave ships, but as merchandise that called for some care -- not much care, but some. These slaves were not locked in the wretched holds of slave ships as were the Africans that followed. Also, these early slaves had some knowledge of Europeans and in most cases spoke in one of the European languages. Their servitude was not very different from that of the many indentured Europeans. Upon arriving in America, they were able to adapt to local conditions.
Later Africans to arrive to these shores found themselves in very different circumstances. These later arrivals entered by why of the Chesapeake docks. They were put to work harvesting tobacco and growing rice. The last migrations of African to America was the one most noted; namely, shipping the slaves further south and west to tend the cotton fields.
From a presentation in the Ellis Island Museum (If course, slaves did not come through Ellis Island. The following figures came from a poster board presentation on exhibit there.) Half of all Africans sent to the new world were sent to Brazil. They numbered roughly 4 million. Roughly three million enslaved Africans were distributed among French, Spanish, and English islands in the Caribbean. About one million were sent to America.
In America, as we well know, slaves were eventually freed under the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln, January 1, 1863, following a horrible Civil War. Slavery in Brazil continued until May 13, 1888, 25 years after it ended in America. In the British islands in the Caribbean it ended in 1833. In that year slavery was ended in all British territories except those under the authority of the British India Company. There it ended 10 years later.
The misery for Africans sold into slavery did not begin on the west African docks were they were loaded into slave ships. It began when a weaker tribe was captured by a stronger tribe, often in Africa's interior and marched to the coast were they were sold to owners of the slave ships. The march was brutal and many died along the way.
But as we know, the freeing of Africans in America did not return to them their human dignity nor place in their hands the rights due all Americans. Rather it was followed by a period referred to as Jim Crow that lasted around 90 years and was more onerous in southern parts of America than in the north. But, generally, bigotry and racism could easily be found to a greater, or lesser extent, all over America. Voting restrictions, rights to an equal education and other privileges enjoyed by whites followed slowly.
How are we to judges America's race relations compared to that of other countries? What other country in this hemisphere has had a black leader. other than Haiti? That is not, of course, the ultimate yardstick by which to judge a nation's race relations. There are other features that could be used as yard sticks. America could do better; but frankly, in my opinion, we've done pretty well. Even in a country like Haiti, largely devoid of whites, a light skin is favored. The debate goes on.
Based on my readings, there were three migrations of slaves to North America. The first involved Africans who had been in Spain, Portugal and other European countries. No one took any special note of them as they were treated pretty much as indentured servants. This was also the condition of many of the white Europeans who came to this country.
The second migration of Africans was from the Chesapeake area to the farms, where slaves were used in raising tobacco and other crops. In the third major migration, the slaves were moved to the south where a major crop was cotton..
The sequence of African migrations is interesting because the first of the migrations was of Africans who came here not in slave ships, but as merchandise that called for some care -- not much care, but some. These slaves were not locked in the wretched holds of slave ships as were the Africans that followed. Also, these early slaves had some knowledge of Europeans and in most cases spoke in one of the European languages. Their servitude was not very different from that of the many indentured Europeans. Upon arriving in America, they were able to adapt to local conditions.
Later Africans to arrive to these shores found themselves in very different circumstances. These later arrivals entered by why of the Chesapeake docks. They were put to work harvesting tobacco and growing rice. The last migrations of African to America was the one most noted; namely, shipping the slaves further south and west to tend the cotton fields.
From a presentation in the Ellis Island Museum (If course, slaves did not come through Ellis Island. The following figures came from a poster board presentation on exhibit there.) Half of all Africans sent to the new world were sent to Brazil. They numbered roughly 4 million. Roughly three million enslaved Africans were distributed among French, Spanish, and English islands in the Caribbean. About one million were sent to America.
In America, as we well know, slaves were eventually freed under the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln, January 1, 1863, following a horrible Civil War. Slavery in Brazil continued until May 13, 1888, 25 years after it ended in America. In the British islands in the Caribbean it ended in 1833. In that year slavery was ended in all British territories except those under the authority of the British India Company. There it ended 10 years later.
The misery for Africans sold into slavery did not begin on the west African docks were they were loaded into slave ships. It began when a weaker tribe was captured by a stronger tribe, often in Africa's interior and marched to the coast were they were sold to owners of the slave ships. The march was brutal and many died along the way.
But as we know, the freeing of Africans in America did not return to them their human dignity nor place in their hands the rights due all Americans. Rather it was followed by a period referred to as Jim Crow that lasted around 90 years and was more onerous in southern parts of America than in the north. But, generally, bigotry and racism could easily be found to a greater, or lesser extent, all over America. Voting restrictions, rights to an equal education and other privileges enjoyed by whites followed slowly.
How are we to judges America's race relations compared to that of other countries? What other country in this hemisphere has had a black leader. other than Haiti? That is not, of course, the ultimate yardstick by which to judge a nation's race relations. There are other features that could be used as yard sticks. America could do better; but frankly, in my opinion, we've done pretty well. Even in a country like Haiti, largely devoid of whites, a light skin is favored. The debate goes on.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
U.S. Press Colludes With David Duke
During the presidential campaign, what was the story line of the American liberal press? Trump was a bully, Trump shot from the hip, Trump was a know-nothing, Trump supporters were goons, and on, and on in that vein.
At Trump rallies, prior to his election, TV cameras couldn't avoid showing violent confrontations between Trump supporters and the liberal haters of Trump. But what they deemphasized, as best they could, was the pepper spraying and assaulting of the Trump followers by the anti-Trump ruffians. The Trump supporters often came to these rallies with their families and young children. They were defenseless against the frequent assaults by the liberal bullies. (If you followed the campaign, you could not have missed these violent confrontations.) Did you ever hear the press condemn these assaults on Trump supporters? I didn't. What the press kept telling us was that Trump was divisive and that confrontations seemed to follow him wherever he went.
The drumbeat of charges that Trump was a bigot and a racist continued unabated. And then came Charlottesville. Initiated by black movements, the demonstrations included white liberals, calling for the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee. Had that been the extent of it, there would have been no problem. These statues of leading Confederate figures on public lands and on, and about, college campuses, were an issue well worth debate. Such debate should then have been followed by such action as determined to be appropriate.
But, it didn't work out that way. Instead there were demonstrations lasting into the night. (A night-time demonstrations is especially difficult to control.) And as they viewed the unfolding events, David Duke realized that for him, for the KKK and their racist followers, here was a situation tailor made for them. It would give them space in the media to spew they noxious hatred of blacks and Jews.
The media loved it. They had long charged Trump with racist tendencies as well as bigotry. They regretted, however, never having had the slightest bit of evidence. But, now, here was David Duke making their case. Trump was championing the KKK.
It was, of course, all nonsense. Trump had come out immediately, at the time of the riot, as denouncing the racist and bigoted gangs that had set upon the demonstrators. However, from reports he had gotten of the riot, he was also aware that among the demonstrators that night were liberal hooligans with clubs that attacked not only the followers of David Duke, but also law abiding, conservative whites who felt that the willy nilly removal of statues of Confederate leaders like Lee was wrong.
Let me be clear. I am in favor of removing these statues from the public eye. I know a bit of history and I realize that Germany had some very effective generals. I'm thinking of Rommel, the desert fox, who fought valiantly in behalf of his country. But, would I like to see Germany put up a statue in his honor? Definitely not. The country for which Rommel fought so valiantly was dedicated to the destruction of 6 million Jews.
I see statues of Lee in the same light. A man dedicated to the preservation of slavery deserves no public honor. He might have been a good general but he clearly was limited in his understanding of what was right and wrong.
But, how do we relate this to Charlottesville, VA? Protests are a valid form of expression, but it must be kept from running amok. Night time demonstrations are especially problematic. Actions should be preceded by discussion and debate. It is the duty of public officials to establish a suitable forum.
Yes, I believe that statues of Robert E. Lee should have been removed, but not by an unruly mob acting without the scintilla of due process. And, yes, David Duke was there with his bully boys and Nazi acolytes. But, present also at Charlottesville were liberal goons eager to give the conservatives a good thrashing.
It was a situation created for David Duke. The press loved it. The could now tie Trump to Duke. I don't buy that connection, but many people will. Mark it down as a win for the press.
At Trump rallies, prior to his election, TV cameras couldn't avoid showing violent confrontations between Trump supporters and the liberal haters of Trump. But what they deemphasized, as best they could, was the pepper spraying and assaulting of the Trump followers by the anti-Trump ruffians. The Trump supporters often came to these rallies with their families and young children. They were defenseless against the frequent assaults by the liberal bullies. (If you followed the campaign, you could not have missed these violent confrontations.) Did you ever hear the press condemn these assaults on Trump supporters? I didn't. What the press kept telling us was that Trump was divisive and that confrontations seemed to follow him wherever he went.
The drumbeat of charges that Trump was a bigot and a racist continued unabated. And then came Charlottesville. Initiated by black movements, the demonstrations included white liberals, calling for the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee. Had that been the extent of it, there would have been no problem. These statues of leading Confederate figures on public lands and on, and about, college campuses, were an issue well worth debate. Such debate should then have been followed by such action as determined to be appropriate.
But, it didn't work out that way. Instead there were demonstrations lasting into the night. (A night-time demonstrations is especially difficult to control.) And as they viewed the unfolding events, David Duke realized that for him, for the KKK and their racist followers, here was a situation tailor made for them. It would give them space in the media to spew they noxious hatred of blacks and Jews.
The media loved it. They had long charged Trump with racist tendencies as well as bigotry. They regretted, however, never having had the slightest bit of evidence. But, now, here was David Duke making their case. Trump was championing the KKK.
It was, of course, all nonsense. Trump had come out immediately, at the time of the riot, as denouncing the racist and bigoted gangs that had set upon the demonstrators. However, from reports he had gotten of the riot, he was also aware that among the demonstrators that night were liberal hooligans with clubs that attacked not only the followers of David Duke, but also law abiding, conservative whites who felt that the willy nilly removal of statues of Confederate leaders like Lee was wrong.
Let me be clear. I am in favor of removing these statues from the public eye. I know a bit of history and I realize that Germany had some very effective generals. I'm thinking of Rommel, the desert fox, who fought valiantly in behalf of his country. But, would I like to see Germany put up a statue in his honor? Definitely not. The country for which Rommel fought so valiantly was dedicated to the destruction of 6 million Jews.
I see statues of Lee in the same light. A man dedicated to the preservation of slavery deserves no public honor. He might have been a good general but he clearly was limited in his understanding of what was right and wrong.
But, how do we relate this to Charlottesville, VA? Protests are a valid form of expression, but it must be kept from running amok. Night time demonstrations are especially problematic. Actions should be preceded by discussion and debate. It is the duty of public officials to establish a suitable forum.
Yes, I believe that statues of Robert E. Lee should have been removed, but not by an unruly mob acting without the scintilla of due process. And, yes, David Duke was there with his bully boys and Nazi acolytes. But, present also at Charlottesville were liberal goons eager to give the conservatives a good thrashing.
It was a situation created for David Duke. The press loved it. The could now tie Trump to Duke. I don't buy that connection, but many people will. Mark it down as a win for the press.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
What's China's Need For A Buffer State?
Common wisdom holds that China should be expected to assist America in bringing to heel a rambunctious and militaristic North Korea. Trouble on their border, everyone understood, wouldn't serve China well.
But, generally, no asks why China needs a buffer state in the first place? If it doesn't want Chinese leaving China without approval, or if it doesn't want outsiders coming into China without Chinese approval, wouldn't a fence serve just as well. It seems to work pretty well for Israel. And, of course, it's what Trump is planning to build for America. Does China really need a nation on its border that treats its citizens like so many serfs laboring to buff the image of its fat, little, child-like leader; a leader that thinks nothing of using an artillery weapon to murder his uncle and others among his circle of friends?
After losing it's union of nations, Russia now finds itself surrounded by nations like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, etc. It's relationships with these countries are as good or as bad as Russia chooses to make them. The only real problem for Russia is that it has aspirations of empire. It's really a sorry country; huge in land mass, but with a population inadequate for its size. It's love for a centrally controlled economy dooms it to industrial inefficiency and kleptocracy. It's main export is oil and gas. Indeed, energy exports are it's only real ace-in-the-hole. That, and its propensity for making trouble for its neighbors, e.g. Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine.
But what's with China? They have a substantial land mass. They've got a sizable population. Their most peaceful border seems to be with Russia. (I guess the two are fairly well matched.) But China can't seem to make peace with India. Mianmar, Laos, and Vietnam are too small and underdeveloped to give China any sort of trouble. And, yet even with it's small and scrawny neighbors to the south China can't seem to live in peace.
What is China thinking when it declares that the entire China Sea belongs to it and it alone. Little, uninhabited islands that have been acknowledged for the longest time as belonging to Thailand, the Vietnamese and the Philippines, along with China, are all claimed by China. They have taken uninhabited islands and have built them up to accommodate military bases. Further, they have denied fishing rights to the nations that have exercised such rights for generations. If China were to attempt to restrict free movement through the China sea it would mean war. What is China's problem?
I guess my problem is that I'm an American. I see a peaceful neighbor to the north. To the south there are problems; two in particular. It seems to be our border with Mexico across which most narcotics flow into America. Second, it is this border across which millions of migrants have flowed with absolutely no control on the part of our government. Hopefully, these problems with Mexico can ultimately be resolved by better policing. It hardly seems something that requires aircraft carriers or atomic weapons.
Our real problem is with China rather then North Korea.
But, generally, no asks why China needs a buffer state in the first place? If it doesn't want Chinese leaving China without approval, or if it doesn't want outsiders coming into China without Chinese approval, wouldn't a fence serve just as well. It seems to work pretty well for Israel. And, of course, it's what Trump is planning to build for America. Does China really need a nation on its border that treats its citizens like so many serfs laboring to buff the image of its fat, little, child-like leader; a leader that thinks nothing of using an artillery weapon to murder his uncle and others among his circle of friends?
After losing it's union of nations, Russia now finds itself surrounded by nations like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, etc. It's relationships with these countries are as good or as bad as Russia chooses to make them. The only real problem for Russia is that it has aspirations of empire. It's really a sorry country; huge in land mass, but with a population inadequate for its size. It's love for a centrally controlled economy dooms it to industrial inefficiency and kleptocracy. It's main export is oil and gas. Indeed, energy exports are it's only real ace-in-the-hole. That, and its propensity for making trouble for its neighbors, e.g. Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine.
But what's with China? They have a substantial land mass. They've got a sizable population. Their most peaceful border seems to be with Russia. (I guess the two are fairly well matched.) But China can't seem to make peace with India. Mianmar, Laos, and Vietnam are too small and underdeveloped to give China any sort of trouble. And, yet even with it's small and scrawny neighbors to the south China can't seem to live in peace.
What is China thinking when it declares that the entire China Sea belongs to it and it alone. Little, uninhabited islands that have been acknowledged for the longest time as belonging to Thailand, the Vietnamese and the Philippines, along with China, are all claimed by China. They have taken uninhabited islands and have built them up to accommodate military bases. Further, they have denied fishing rights to the nations that have exercised such rights for generations. If China were to attempt to restrict free movement through the China sea it would mean war. What is China's problem?
I guess my problem is that I'm an American. I see a peaceful neighbor to the north. To the south there are problems; two in particular. It seems to be our border with Mexico across which most narcotics flow into America. Second, it is this border across which millions of migrants have flowed with absolutely no control on the part of our government. Hopefully, these problems with Mexico can ultimately be resolved by better policing. It hardly seems something that requires aircraft carriers or atomic weapons.
Our real problem is with China rather then North Korea.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
The War Against Israel -- It Never Ends
The establishment of the State of Israel was for the Arabs a Nakba (a disaster). For them it was totally unacceptable for a Jewish state to be established on land they had always viewed as Islamic. Three grueling wars later, Israel still stood. More than that, Israel now controlled more land than it had before Egypt, Jordan and Syria had attacked it.
Egypt realized that further attacks on Israel would exact heavy costs and had little chance of success, Egypt's Sadat decided to make peace. He was rewarded for this by being assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic association of like-minded Muslims for whom any relationship with Israel was intolerable
Then there emerged a real scalawag, the notorious Arafat. This self-proclaimed leader of the Palestinian people, talked peace, peace, peace as he launching intifada after intifada. He deluded the west with his constant talk of peace. Had the west paid even the slightest attention to what he said to his fellow Arabs in Arabic, they'd have known better. He turned down one peace offer from Israel after the other. Truth be told, if he had made peace with Israel, he might well have shared Sadat's fate. In any event, his leadership role suited him nicely. When he died, the world marveled at how much wealth he had been able to tuck away in his various Swiss bank accounts.
Abbas is much the same as Arafat. His problem is that he doesn't have Arafat's charisma and the mideast has changed. It's now Saudi Arabia against Iran and America, as well as Israel, sides with the Saudis. Israel's support in this conflict means far more to the Saudis than the Palestinian cause.
One other development deserves mention; namely, the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi to Israel. Why? Because when India first emerged from British colonialism, they leaned toward socialism and the Russian model. Also, they were greatly supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Now, that's all changed. Modi's trip to Israel was the first trip to Israel by an Indian prime minister. Not only did Modi visit Jerusalem, he returned to India without bothering to stop in Ramallah and say hello to Abbas.
The Arabs and Saudis in particular noticed one more thing. Besides visiting Israel, Modi oversaw the signing of huge military contacts as well technology contracts covering water purification, agricultural development and other areas of technological development. The Palestinians had nothing comparable to offer. And, for that matter, neither does any other Islamic nation.
This being as it is, how can Islamists and anti-Semites be waging a war of any significance against Israel? The key for them is to use other countries with an affinity to the Islamic culture plus convenient idiots. Let's first address countries with an infinity to the Islamic culture. That would, of course, include Muslim nations stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. They share with the Palestinians the same feelings of Islamic triumphalism. These countries still have laws against blasphemy on their books. They persecute homosexuals. And, all are strongly influenced by sharia. Consequently, they have a strong bias against Israel. In forums, such as the UN, they vote as a block against Israel and make ridiculous pronouncements, such as that the Temple in Jerusalem is not holy to Jews, or that Hebron, where Abraham, the first Jew, and his wife Sarah are buried, is Islamic. This, despite the fact that Islam was not even a religion at the time of Abraham and Sarah. Islam would not be a religion until it was established in Arabia by Muhammed hundreds of years later.
As to the "useful idiots," that was a phrase coined by Lenin to describe liberals in America who aided the stultifying communist cause. Today we see campus liberals decrying Israel as an apartheid nation when upon examination, Israel in no way fits this term. But, their propaganda is fierce. We actually have a Palestinian-Syrian woman who opened a bakery in Oakland California decorated with a wall-size mural of Rasmea Odeh. Odeh is the lady who was released from a life-sentence in Israel for murdering two university students, Edward Joffe and Leon Kamen. Her release resulted from a prisoner exchange. And, this is who this bakery proprietor honors!
Enjoy your mid eastern pastery.
Egypt realized that further attacks on Israel would exact heavy costs and had little chance of success, Egypt's Sadat decided to make peace. He was rewarded for this by being assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic association of like-minded Muslims for whom any relationship with Israel was intolerable
Then there emerged a real scalawag, the notorious Arafat. This self-proclaimed leader of the Palestinian people, talked peace, peace, peace as he launching intifada after intifada. He deluded the west with his constant talk of peace. Had the west paid even the slightest attention to what he said to his fellow Arabs in Arabic, they'd have known better. He turned down one peace offer from Israel after the other. Truth be told, if he had made peace with Israel, he might well have shared Sadat's fate. In any event, his leadership role suited him nicely. When he died, the world marveled at how much wealth he had been able to tuck away in his various Swiss bank accounts.
Abbas is much the same as Arafat. His problem is that he doesn't have Arafat's charisma and the mideast has changed. It's now Saudi Arabia against Iran and America, as well as Israel, sides with the Saudis. Israel's support in this conflict means far more to the Saudis than the Palestinian cause.
One other development deserves mention; namely, the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi to Israel. Why? Because when India first emerged from British colonialism, they leaned toward socialism and the Russian model. Also, they were greatly supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Now, that's all changed. Modi's trip to Israel was the first trip to Israel by an Indian prime minister. Not only did Modi visit Jerusalem, he returned to India without bothering to stop in Ramallah and say hello to Abbas.
The Arabs and Saudis in particular noticed one more thing. Besides visiting Israel, Modi oversaw the signing of huge military contacts as well technology contracts covering water purification, agricultural development and other areas of technological development. The Palestinians had nothing comparable to offer. And, for that matter, neither does any other Islamic nation.
This being as it is, how can Islamists and anti-Semites be waging a war of any significance against Israel? The key for them is to use other countries with an affinity to the Islamic culture plus convenient idiots. Let's first address countries with an infinity to the Islamic culture. That would, of course, include Muslim nations stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. They share with the Palestinians the same feelings of Islamic triumphalism. These countries still have laws against blasphemy on their books. They persecute homosexuals. And, all are strongly influenced by sharia. Consequently, they have a strong bias against Israel. In forums, such as the UN, they vote as a block against Israel and make ridiculous pronouncements, such as that the Temple in Jerusalem is not holy to Jews, or that Hebron, where Abraham, the first Jew, and his wife Sarah are buried, is Islamic. This, despite the fact that Islam was not even a religion at the time of Abraham and Sarah. Islam would not be a religion until it was established in Arabia by Muhammed hundreds of years later.
As to the "useful idiots," that was a phrase coined by Lenin to describe liberals in America who aided the stultifying communist cause. Today we see campus liberals decrying Israel as an apartheid nation when upon examination, Israel in no way fits this term. But, their propaganda is fierce. We actually have a Palestinian-Syrian woman who opened a bakery in Oakland California decorated with a wall-size mural of Rasmea Odeh. Odeh is the lady who was released from a life-sentence in Israel for murdering two university students, Edward Joffe and Leon Kamen. Her release resulted from a prisoner exchange. And, this is who this bakery proprietor honors!
Enjoy your mid eastern pastery.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)