Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.

I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.

The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?

Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)

Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.

If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.

More on The Roots of Jewish Self Hatred

I have thought more about Jewish self hatred, and I feel that this sums up the roots of this problem best.

---

I started to read The Jewish State by Yoram Hazony, and I feel it misses most of the point of where the problem of "post-zionism" and Jewish self hatred stems from. I believe that the essence of the problem can be summed up by the way the Islamists describe Israel as little Satan.

Jewish self hatred is not limited to the Jews; Western self hate is at an all time high, and I hope to visit Eurodhimmiland this winter just to see the Louvre and large parts of Paris prior to it being taken over by Islamists. What does Western self-hate and Jewish Israeli self-hate have in common? Answer: they both derive from a hatred of capitalism and the American way.

Israel was formed upon a "Labour-Zionist" ideal, and I view this, i.e., its socialist roots, as the core of the problem. Every year that Israel moves away from these socialist roots, it has a greater and greater chance of success against its internal and external enemies.

Socialism is a form of nihilism, and it is directly inapposite to an idea of Judaism. True socialism cannot succeed as long as Jews remain Jewish. The USSR knew this, witness their extensive antisemitism. Karl Marx knew this, see On the Jewish Question.

And so Israel did perform genuine bad things against its religious populations early on in its statehood. I would argue this is the result of the nihilistic orientation of its Founders. The way the Mizrahi, for instance, were treated by the 'liberal' socialist Zionist elite is deplorable.

But this all is the result of an anti-Jewish attitude exhibited by the founders of Israel. This anti-Jewish attitude stems from socialism, which is also anti-Christian and anti-nationalistic. To the extent that the West has been gripped by suicidal tenancies, this is why. (NOTE: the founders were pro-Jewish ethnicity, but antagonistic towards the Jewish religion. Ben Gurion himself was an atheist.)

Israel's self hate did not materialize out of thin blue air. The self hatred in Israel is minimal in comparison to what is in Eurodhimmiland and the US, aka, "Big Satan," from whence the self-hating philosophy has its roots. This self hatred is even evident in India, whereby the communist parties seek total abdication of India's might to the Islamists. (Remember that communists and Islamists are aligned.)

The future of Israel and the West rests with the rejection of nihilism and the embrace of an alternative, non-suicidal philosophy. Judaism is one such alternative, but is by no means the only one.

The ROOT of Jewish self hate

Carl in Jerusalem recently discussed the security fence in Israel, showing how in fact it is anti-security by its very nature. A commentator, Daniel, replied to this post basically saying how sick he was of liberal Jewry and their self loathing, placing the blame for Israel and the Jewish nation's cultural malaise on Reform/Conservative Judaism and a lack of Jewish pride. He stated that Jews did much during the Civil Rights movement for black people, but little to save Jews during the Holocaust. I wrote a response, and I think it is worth reading.

Daniel,

With all due respect, you have mischaracterized reform and conservative Judaism.

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

Now, as far as your argument about the Nazis; I have read about Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish community during WWII. Yes, there is more they could have done, in my opinion. But this all misses the broader problems in the world.

I believe that the problems Jews face are of more pressing significance than most ethnic/religious groups throughout the world. And so kapos and self hatred have a more immediate and disastrous effect on the Jewish nation than it does or would on most others. But self hatred is not limited to the Jews, and treason is not limited to the Jews.

Just look at Eurodhimmiland. It is a cesspool of self hate on a scale that I believe even outstrips Israel. Every opportunity is taken to bash the Judeo-christian Euro heritage. Even in the US, moveon.org had the gaul to call General Petreaus a traitor for simply saying the US is making progress in Iraq...and this ad was not condemned by a single Democratic candidate for president. Not one. Why is this?

I would argue the root of the self hatred is in communism, and in fact the free world only just barely won the Cold War; academia and the social elite of Eurodhimmiland and the US are littered with communists and socialists. And I view this, not Jewish self hatred as the root of the problem.

In short, I see Israel's problems as very related to its socialist roots. The further it gets from these socialist roots, the more it will have to grasp some alternative ideology. We cannot forget that socialism/communism is an antisemitic philosophy at its core. Karl Marx was not a Jew (his parents converted to Christianity and raised him non-Jewish), and he wrote the antisemitic paper, On the Jewish Question. There is a reason why the USSR was so hostile to Jews, and why communist nations around the world are so virulently hostile to Jews. Once you read On the Jewish Question, perhaps you will have a better understanding as to what I am talking about.

To sum this all up...to the extent that Jews might suffer particularly from self hate and self destructiveness, as opposed to Eurodhimmiland and the like, it is because of the large numbers of Jewish communists. The Jewish communists are not the recent immigrants from the former USSR, as most of those saw the destructiveness of communism and are now ardently anti-communist. No, the communists mostly are Red diaper babies whose parents and grandparents left the USSR and Eastern European and European states when communism was en vogue. Most of these Red diaper babies are assimilating, anyway. Witness the Adam Shapiro story. And thus, within the next few generations, I predict that the Jewish nation will only improve, if nothing else due to demographics of who is reproducing.

Daniel replied with the following:

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

I wish you were correct. I wish c&r's were becoming more observant, having large numbers of Jewish kids, visited Israel at a higher rate than xtians, and didn't intermarry. Yes, the local federation rags often profile a temple that added a few lines of hebrew. but this is like the MSM in the 70's profiling the successful black woman that was once on welfare.

The facts speak for themselves. r%c have intermarriga rates approaching 75% in some locales. 2007 National Survey of American Jews demonstrated how with each generation the non orthos have little concern for Israel and Judaism.

We can pretend that r& c are strongly committed , but for the vast majority are places for going twice a year and for treif bnai mitzvas.

Conservative "believes" in halacha, and you can probably find a minyan of shomer mitzva conservative jews, but I'd bet my left foot that less tah 1% of C's practice family purity and only5% would even know that they are supposed to.

100 years from know when historians write the history of American Jewry-at least of the wave that came at the beginning of the 20TH century- will be "they came , they prosperred , they intermarried, they ignored TWO HOLOCAUSTS, and they disappeared."

Nothing to be proud of.

p.s. notice that I intentionally excluded the refugees from hitler and stalin- They are the Maccabees of America

This brought the following reply by me:

Daniel:

I have to reiterate how you have the wrong perspective.

If the choice were between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, you would have a point, and maybe I would agree with you. That is not the choice.

The choice of most Jews would be between Reform Judaism and nothing, or even converting out of Judaism. So the correct comparison that should be made is not between Reform/Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jewry. The correct comparison should be between Reform/Conservative and nothing/atheism.

Given those are the choices, (and I can say for the most part, that is the reality) the real question should be whether Reform/Conservative Judaism is better than nothing at all. And the answer to that question, in my mind, is a clear yes.

There are real benefits offered in Reform/Conservative shuls. Firstly, technically speaking, Conservative shuls believe in Halacha, however, the synagogues are integrated by gender, and most of the congregants do not follow Halacha in their daily lives. How is it a negative if Jews in that category are exposed to what is authetic Judaism when they go to shul, which they otherwise would not do?

Then there are Reform congregations, which do not follow Halacha and do not necessarily believe in Halacha. I would argue that the validity of these synagogues is on a case by case basis. Some are basically churches with a few Hebrew words uttered; I see little value in that and no point in holding on to Judaism if that is all that is left. Other synagogues offer much more.

Your analysis is very black and white, whereas the world of Reform/Conservative Judaism is anything but that.

Finally, you have not addressed the rest of what I said, which I believe to be the bottom line basis for the self hate. I do not see this as a particularly theological Jewish struggle, except to the extent that Judaism is and can be used as an alternative to the destructiveness of communist self hate. I have atheist Jewish friends who are the biggest Zionists around. They identify with capitalism and secular humanism, and even vote for the religious parties in Israel, as they are also capitalist and anti-communist.

The root of the self hate in Israel is the same root found in Eurodhimmiland, the US, and the rest of the West. It is communism, which we know is linked with Islamofascism. It is that root which must be expunged, not Reform and Conservative Judaism.

P.S.: I never said that Reform or Conservative Jews are as committed as Orthodox Jews, because they are not. However, most congregations are much more committed to Israel and the Jewish nation than the general population of the US or Eurodhimmiland. Moreover, if any kid of a secular Jew is to make teshuva, they would come from the Reform/Conservative pool, NOT the pool of kids with atheist parents.

In summation: the logical and constructive path to take is to encourage and support Orthodox Jewry, while not denigrating Reform/Conservative congregations unless they fail to support the Jewish nation. (such as in Lerner's case) For every Lerner synagogue, there are 20 Zionist congregations that might not be as ardent as Orthodox congregations, but are definitely not anti-zionist. (and that said, the Satmar are Orthodox and anti-Zionist)

So what should be done? Work with the Reform/Conservative shuls. Have Zionist speakers come and educate the members of these shuls, and get out the facts, which are on our side. Hope is not lost, and the vast majority of Reform/Conservative synagogues are not the enemy.

Thoughts?

Brown just keeps on swining those punches

Yesterday he invited Thatcher to Number 10.

Election warfare methinks. David Cameron has gambled on the Blair way of doing things, and i think he's lost. Saatchi is in charge of Labours election advertising. Which is ironic really, considering the fact that Saatchi's advertising helped Thatcher gain power in 1979 with the "labour isn't working" being one that sticks in older peoples memories (i was but a twinkle in my fathers eye in 1979). The first advert for Labour is quite simple, it has a picture of Brown with the words "Just Gordon". I think people are sick of the Blair style of politics (which Cameron has been trying to emulate), so the simple appeal of Brown as a politician of old (boring bank manager type) may just win Labour the election.

I'm voting for my local MP, as he has done a very good job over the years (he got my first ever vote in a general election). Hopefully i will not have to run the gauntlet of Tatchell's supporters. Because when i vote, i head in and out as quickly as i can. Without making eye contact with Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour party workers. Who are always trying to drum up extra votes. I vote, then watch the election night news programmes as they try and number crunch the results into predicated a Parliament, which they revise constantly over night with the swingometer.

As for when the Election will be called ? If it's not called before November, then i guess Brown will call it sometime before the spring in 2008. I think Labour might get a slight increase on it's majority. As David Cameron has failed to use the chances to run down the Labour Government over things like the NHS and other issues that have cropped. Team Cameron is more like Team Tory: Opposition forever!

• BBC Article 1
• BBC Article 2

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
3. anti-Iraq war
4. Darfur Genocide awareness
5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.
   
   This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.
   
   One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.
   
   Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.
   
   They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

'Masked' the play

Last night, I saw something that had me very deeply disturbed. I saw a play called 'Masked,' about three Palestinian brothers. This was written by Ami Dayan, Moshe Dayan's nephew. One of the brothers is a suspected 'collaborator' with Israel, one is an Arafish stooge, and one is young and impressionable - the question is where he will go in the future. The play ignored several key parts to the 'Palestinian' question, namely, Islam and jihad. The word 'jihad' was not mentioned once. Moreover, the suffering of the Israelis at the hands of these 'Palestinians' was not mentioned at all. I also saw the choice of the 'collaborater' brother as a false one. Given how leftist Barak basically left a number of the Southern Lebanese army to die after the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000...why would ANYONE want to risk their life to be a 'collaborator' if they get little to nothing in return?

But anyway, that was only half of my criticism. The brunt was aimed at one of the members of the panel discussion after the play, Elik Elhanan. He said that he lost his sister, and he blamed the death of his sister on the 'cycle of violence' caused by 'the occupation.'

I raised my hand and said "With all due respect, Mr. Elhanan, but there is no cycle of violence. Arafat was offered all that Israel could be willing to give in 2000, and he answered that with the Intifada."

In response, Elhanan said "Oh, but you don't know what was offered, have you seen maps?"

I said "Yes, I have. Dennis Ross wrote a book about this."

Then he incredibly said that you cannot trust Dennis Ross! Abram Epstein, an old and tired leftist Jew also on the panel, responded that his 'Palestinian' friends would say this was all about East Jerusalem. I responded "With all due respect, this was not about East Jerusalem. This was about the 'right of return,' which everyone knows is a ploy to destroy Israel. And moreover, when Israel does not return fire, they get MORE fire, not less. There is absolutely no cycle of violence."

Then some other audience members had a few other comments to make, and Epstein had the gaul to say that Hamas does not have to recognize Israel, as that would be like having the Native Americans recognize America. The most we could expect is they will renounce violence. I responded (shouting out in the audience), "Oh, you mean a hudna." He got very angry at that suggestion, and said "No, I mean long term peace." I laughed at him when he said that. It should be noted that Native Americans recognize America, and certainly have no terror campaign as the 'Palestinians' do.

Finally, it was down to closing comments. Blah, blah, blah. Then down to Elhanan. My friend sitting next to me whispered "Watch him say occupation!" Next thing you know, Elhanan, in his sinister way, said "Really, this is all about the occupation. My sister died due to the occupation. Little children on all sides have died due to the occupation. The occupation is the cause of all the troubles, and drives the 'Palestinians' to commit their terror!" (talk about soft bigotry of low expectations!) My friend and I laughed out loud, right in front of him, as he uttered such tripe.

What a travesty. Little old ladies thanked me afterwards, for stating FACTS in the midst of Jewish self hating LIES. It was disgusting to see such lies propagated to an audience who maybe does not know so much about the conflict, and now might buy into the garbage. Very sinister.

I would like to add that Elhanan stated that he and his cronies, 'Combatants for Peace,' go into 'Palestinian' areas and 'protect' the 'Palestinians' from Israeli bulldozers and IDF action. This is Rachel Corrie-esque. I hence view Elhanan, who organizes far leftist soldiers to not fight in the 'territories,' and 'protects' the 'Palestinians' from IDF action to be a traitor to Israel and the Jewish nation. I wanted to spit at him, I was so furious to see him. He should honestly be tried and convicted of treason, for the activities he has done.

What makes it the most tragic is that he lost his sister, killed by 'Palestinians.' Instead of blaming the right source, he and his family blamed ISRAEL! They blamed the victim! I sort of understand this mentality, as it is twofold. On the one hand, he must think that if people hate Jews so much, they have to have a reason! Many Jews turned to self hatred from this respect, during and after the Holocaust. On the other hand, it is much easier (and safer) to rail against Israel than it is to rail against the corrupt Jew-hating thugs which make up the 'Palestinian' leadership and media (indoctrinating all 'Palestinians' to hate) It gives him hope to rail against Israel, as Israel is a democracy, and responsive to his hate. In contradistinction, the 'Palestinians' would not stop their butchery of Israeli civilians due to Elhanan's action or inaction.

So sad. There was a British man on the panel, Glemore Trenear-Harvey, and as soon as I heard his British accent, I figured he would be a dhimmi. (due to recent British politics) While he most certainly was misguided, he actually was less misguided than the Jews on the panel!

If that does not sum up what is wrong with modern leftist Jews in a nutshell, what does?

UPDATE:

Carl in Jerusalem supplied information about Elhanan's mother. Evidently she was a speaker at a UN-sponsored conference of hate against Israel. With parents such as those, it is no wonder he came out as he did.

At last! The British decided to fight for their Christian roots...

After removing Churchill from its educational books, and quiting British Council offices in Europe, Banning crosses in British Airways, Saying No to "War on Terror", and tagging everyone condemning Islamic Ideology as Islamophobe!... the British had finally decided to defend its Christian roots.

Hold on a second, If you are dreaming that they had started to speak against Jihad, or Islamic Imperial goals of Global caliphet, then you are absolutely wrong. Instead of fighting the real enemy, They had moved further to ban Infidel Activities like Yoga.