Saturday, December 13, 2003

Who is on OUR side?

I will do some wondering out loud here. What person, organisation or country is unequivocally on the side of the Jews (the real ones), on the side of Israel?

To set this off, I'll first name all the Enemies, the haters and murderers.
99.9% of all Arabs want the Jews dead and Israel gone.
99.9% of all Muslims want Israel gone.
60% of all Europeans want Israel gone (The percentage is larger among Europe's leaders).
China is an enemy of Israel (Ok, it's just one country, but 1.2 BILLION people live there).
Japan is against Israel

These enemies are divided into 2 groups, namely Arabs/Muslims, and those pandering to them for opportunistic reasons.

In this last group you will also find a small but influential group of Americans, who rule the US State Department. On many matters the US administration is a single entity, a ship with one captain, following a course set by him. But where foreign policy is concerned, Powell and his minions have a separate and very different agenda. Much of it is not what Bush wants, but he cannot afford to fight the Arab lovers too much, they carry too much weight (which is why he needed them in the first place). And foreign policy on the middle-East is not worth a war between State and the White House.
Which is why even the US will not be found on my list of countries unconditionally on the side of Israel.

That list is empty.

The list of persons unequivocally on the side of Israel is not empty. I do not refer to Jews on this list. Although you would think that all Jews would "root" for the Jews, this is not the case. There are a great many Jewhaters among the Jews, and aside from being an enemy by themselves, they do great harm to the Cause by being invaluable assets to the Enemies, showcases to use as proof for their position.
But there are many Christians nowadays who have distanced themselves from traditional Christian Anti-Semitism and have embraced the common bond between Jews and Christians. They have also come to recognize that all of Christianity's holy places in the middle-East can count on protection and respect only when they fall under Israeli rule (as opposed to Arab rule). This by itself is important, but the inferred difference in attitude towards Christianity between the Jews and Arabs is a greater factor.
So there are many Christians in Europe and the US nowadays that back Israel in word and deed.

The list of organizations is essentially a mapping of the list of persons backing Israel, except when Christian organizations have a political rather than a humanitarion agenda. In that case, pandering to the rich majority overrides any ideological or religious motives or foundation an organization might have. The International Red Cross is a prime example of this. Even if it was simple pragmatism that caused the Red Cross to bar the Israeli equivalent from any form of official recognition or cooperation until june of this year (2003). No such obstruction was present when the Red Crescent applied for recognition. Unsurprisingly, it was the Muslim Red Cross that politicized the process and was behind the movement to bar the Jewish "Red Cross".

The UN is a chapter apart. Suffice it to say that the UN is (as it should be) a reflection of the world, and as such governed by greed and fear, and the Arabs are (literally) masters of the means to play into these emotions. Control of the largest oil reserves and control of just about every terrorist organization in the world is the classic example of the carrot and the stick.

So it's a sad picture. Funny I don't believe in God. 'Cause he must be on our side...

Friday, December 12, 2003

Sick perverted Arab and I agree!

Sheikh Yassin: We reject two-state solution

Gaza - Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder and spiritual leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, has renewed rejection of a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict.

The Sheikh in an interview with the German magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ to be published today said that he opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a Zionist entity.

Glad we agree on that, Sheikh. Now if we could only agree on the small matter of the time and method of your euthanasia...

Palestinians REALLY want PEACE!

All the Jews have to do is leave. Or kill themselves (the preferred option obviously).
I hadn't read this before. You should. It's about how the Palestinian Arabs still feel angry about the British' statement that the Jews should really have a place of their own (a statement made in 1917...), too (after all, there are 22 Arab countries as it is. Why not just 1 tiny country for the Jews?).

Religions differ

Quote from Scott Adams (Author of Dilbert):
"If you're following the news, you know that the major religions differ in their interpretation of the holy books. For example, one way to interpret God's will is that you should love your neighbor. An alternate reading of the holy books might lead you to rig a donkey cart with small mortar rockets and aim it at a hotel full of infidels. In summary, po-tay-to, poh-tah-to. Religions are very flexible, and that's a loophole that the DNRC* should exploit, especially during the holiday season."

*DNRC=Dogberts New Ruling Class

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Like I said: Leave now. While you still can.

Daniel Pipes sums it up nicely. Europe is unlikely (and probably deliberately unwilling) to combat the current (and still rising) level of anti-Semitism. Jews who stayed in Europe after '33 made a mistake, most of them ended up paying for this mistake with their lives.
Jews who stayed in Europe after '45 made the same mistake. Europe's dislike of their Jews has not diminished after the Shoah, it simply has been shamed into suppressing their hatred for a while. But something as elemental as this cannot be suppressed for long, especially when you have millions of new and such dynamic followers to egg you on. It's like a recovering drug addict living in a house full of heroine addicts and trying to stay clean. Not gonna happen.
So there are some 600.000 Jews still living in France, and perhaps the same again spread all over the rest of Europe. Leave, and wish the Europeans and their imported scum all the best with each other. They deserve each other. But leave, before the same price as in WW2 is exacted from you.
Leave, you don't have to face humiliations, threats and dangers.
Leave, you don't need to hide your traditional dress.
Leave, why live where you were never wanted? Where you will always be a despised minority?


You don't want to openly state where it's at. You can speak your mind, as long as it doesn't offend Islam, or its followers. Truth has nothing to do with it.
Anyway, when you do decide to go out on a limb, at least stick to it. 'Cause this is really embarrassing!

Anyway, one of CAIR's spokesmen says (among other bullshit):

"We had hoped that a respected broadcast professional like Mr. Harvey would not join the growing number of Islamophobic hate-mongers in our society," Hooper said last week. "He falsely attributes to Islam two things that are specifically prohibited by our faith, murder and cruelty to animals."

Thing is, it's only murder when they say so. It's not murder when they shoot sleeping babies in their beds, or in the arms of their mothers. It's not murder when they blow up a bus with mostly school children on it.

Well, it also is not murder if the victim is a cockroach. Even when the cockroach happens to believe in Allah. So bring on the Raid.

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

Germans threaten us again

Still comes sooner than even I expected. Hmmm. Imagine that.
I wish Truman had nuked Germany, as well as Japan. 6 million Jews would still have been paid for cheaply, and we not would be bothered by them ever again. Fuck I really despise them.

Anything is better than being ruled by Israel

Palestinian Arabs did better in every respect than any other Arab in the world. They earned more money, there was less unemployment, they had access to an actual legal system. Until 1993, when it all started going badly downhill. In fact, this IS something they can blame on Israel, as it was Israel's decision to hand over control of most of Samaria and Judea (sometimes referred to as "the Westbank") and all of Gaza to Arafat and his gang. Read this.

Imagine them as YOUR neighbours...

Syria's idea of a sitcom: Portrait Jews as bad as Arabs
It really takes an Arab to think of something as sick as this.
Two years ago Egypt (more neighbours) aired a modern interpretation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

And after that, they put a book on display, right next to the Torah, in a museum in the new Alexandria Library. This book is claimed to be the first translation of the Protocols. Unbelievable.

Egypt receives $2 billion a year from the US in aid.

No anti-semitism here

Use a baseball cap, rabbi urges

Monday, December 08, 2003

U.S. News: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network(12/15/03)

To me this is not really news 'cause I read this book, but it still makes me want to scream.


*Religion of Peace My Ass

Bookmark this, and start reading here.


The Irish teach on religious tolerance... BWAHAHAHAHA!

Found this at

The U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret
The international body refuses to condemn anti-Semitism.

Monday, December 8, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Last week, the U.N. once again proved itself incapable of rising to the moral challenges embraced in its founding Charter: "tolerance," "the dignity and worth of the human person" and "equal rights." A draft resolution on anti-Semitism--which would have been a first in the U.N.'s 58-year history--was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Muslim opposition.

Daily incidents of anti-Semitic violence around the globe are reported in the media. Yet while leaders of the Free World condemn synagogue bombings in Turkey, firebombings of Jewish schools in France, and the hate speech of Malaysia's president who now heads the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the U.N. moves in the opposite direction, encouraging the proliferation of this centuries-old hatred.

In marked contrast, other forms of intolerance continue to consume the U.N.'s attention and resources. A special rapporteur mandated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports regularly to the U.N. on "discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world" including any "physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centers, businesses and properties." An entire 2003 Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam.

Condemnation of anti-Semitism--which ought to be axiomatic--engenders controversy and intransigence at the U.N. At this year's General Assembly, Ireland assumed the role of gatekeeper, slamming the door in the face of a resolution to protect Jewish victims. Ireland has shepherded resolutions on religious intolerance through U.N. bodies for nearly 20 years without introducing anti-Semitism. In mid-November current events prompted demands in the Irish Parliament for an explanation of this omission from Foreign Minister Brian Cowen. The shabby excuse offered at that time was to sacrifice Jewish rights on the U.N.'s alter of "consensus and a wide level of co-sponsorship."
In plain language, to Ireland, Arab and Muslim opposition to condemning anti-Semitism meant . . . cut and run! Irish unwillingness or inability to stand up for principle at a time when it is assuming the Presidency of the European Union, does little to enhance the credibility of either the U.N. or the EU as honest brokers in the Middle East peace process.

The behind-the-scenes story of this Machiavellian plot involves an Irish breach of a deal struck between Foreign Minister Cowen and Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom only two weeks ago. Israel agreed to drop efforts to include "anti-Semitism" in the religious intolerance resolution in exchange for a promise from Ireland to introduce a new resolution specifically on anti-Semitism. But after the General Assembly's Third Committee adopted the resolution on religious intolerance minus any reference to anti-Semitism, Ireland refused to carry out its side of the bargain.

From the common era to the modern age, genocidal persecution of Jews has been justified by whichever label has served the perpetrator's interests: Religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality have all functioned, at one time or another as grounds for anti-Semitism. Ironically, the U.N. today can find none of these grounds sufficient to launch the vital campaign required to prevent the atrocities this hatred inspires. Instead, U.N. diplomats use the multiplicity of alleged Jewish crimes to place anti-Semitism between the stools. When the U.N. passed a major treaty on racial discrimination in 1965, they omitted "anti-Semitism" on the grounds that it "was out of place." Yet, a matching treaty on religious intolerance, promised by the General Assembly in 1962, was never acted upon.

Now, Mr. Cowen and company are claiming that anti-Semitism is, indeed, a matter of racial discrimination rendering it unsuitable for the resolution on religious intolerance. This self-serving reversal has been perversely justified in the name of the U.N.'s infamous 2001 Durban Racism Conference, which actually served as a platform for anti-Semitism.

The Durban Declaration excluded virtually all references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust when it came to the specifics of taking action, and in a devil's bargain between the European Union and Arab states permitted a minimal reference to anti-Semitism in exchange for including a condemnation of alleged Israeli racism. Last week the U.N. General Assembly permitted reference to anti-Semitism in a resolution on follow-up to the Durban Conference, knowing that the United States and Israel would be forced to vote against.

At the heart of the U.N.'s problem with anti-Semitism lies rejection of the very idea of Jewish victimhood. Instead of ensuring that victimhood brooks no discrimination, on Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four states opposed. Israel was forced to withdraw its resolution because Egyptian amendments deleting "Israeli" before every mention of the word "children" were guaranteed an automatic U.N. majority.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--who has occasionally paid lip-service to the problem of anti-Semitism--ignored the requests of both NGOs and the state sponsors of the anti-Semitism resolution to weigh in on the importance of the issue with U.N. members, or to press the point with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, just as he has never convened a conference or written a report dedicated to anti-Semitism. The unwillingness of the U.N.'s principal organs and its secretary general to confront and take meaningful action against this scourge, including its Muslim and Arab sources, is not merely a sin of omission.

The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust. The inability of the organization to address seriously one of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global proportions. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared, "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind." Fifty-five years later the outrage is gone, the silence of the U.N. when it comes to anti-Semitism is deafening, and the only ones benefiting are those planning future barbarous acts against Jews everywhere.

Ms. Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School and professor of political science at York University, Toronto, is a member of the governing board of UN Watch.