No Heroes Among the Establishment Jews

Don’t look for heroes among the establishment Jews:

Looking at the Jewish Chronicle here’s a gem that is especially relevant to last week’s story on the UK banning of Spencer and Geller.

Geert Wilders guilt is established by association.

Mr Fraser said “While I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer’s talk, nor do I align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine.”

Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event.

In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said he “would have perhaps taken a different view” on whether to attend the conference had he known the “level of controversy” surrounding Mr Spencer.

The latest main stream media reporting makes satire redundant. If you have been watching the BBC’s reporting of the latest Egyptian revolution you will, for example, have been told that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, non-violent, democratic organisation now robbed of its deserved place to rule.

So, as per this satirical article, we can be comforted to know that Mr Fraser could not in any way have been ‘infected’ with Spencer’s views since he actually never heard what those views were. (Edgar 1981 has more goodness …)

If you haven’t signed the petition, do it now:

Misrepresenting American Jewry

Posted By Caroline Glick On July 12, 2013 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage 

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Last month, we learned that in addition to targeting groups that that oppose abortion and that support limited government and lower taxes, the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service has apparently been singling out non-leftist pro-Israel groups.

According to numerous media investigations, beginning as early as March 2009, a consortium of powerful forces including the Palestinian Authority, The New York Times, columnists in The Washington Post, administration-allied anti-Israel groups including J Street and the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the State Department lobbied the IRS to discriminate against these pro-Israel groups.

They alleged that since these groups opposed the administration’s policy of coercing Israel to vacate Judea, Samaria and northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem, they had no right to receive tax-breaks as nonprofit groups.

There is no legal basis for the claim that US groups which lawfully oppose government policy should be barred from receiving nonprofit status.

Since Israel’s presence and the presence of Jewish civilians in Judea and Samaria is completely legal, there is also no justification for vilifying those in the US or in Israel who support and work to expand that presence.

True, the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s Middle East strategy is to delegitimize the Jewish presence in these areas as a prelude to eliminating it. If nothing else, the contrast between Secretary of State John Kerry’s peripatetic efforts to restart peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel on the one hand, and his demonstrated indifference to the convulsions now engorging Egypt, not to mention the Obama administration’s generally lackadaisical attitude toward the Syrian civil war on the other hand, make that point.

Like President Barack Obama, Kerry has adopted the PLO’s position that talks between the Palestinians and Israel must be based on presumptive Palestinian sovereignty of all territories illegally captured by Egypt and Jordan in Israel’s War of Independence up to the 1949 armistice lines (falsely, and misleadingly referred to as the 1967 borders). Implicitly, the administration supports the PLO’s demand that for a Palestinian state to be formed, those areas – as well as much of Jerusalem – must first be ethnically cleansed of Jews.

The administration’s obsession with coercing Israel to make massive concessions to the PLO is based on its belief that the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the greatest source of all instability and anti-Americanism in the Arab world.

Every day, the utter folly and madness of this position is revealed. For the past two-and a- half years, it has been exposed in the chaos that has taken hold in state after state throughout the Arab world, and in the fanatical forces released by this chaos. True, Jew hatred is endemic throughout the Arab world. But as the demonstrations from Cairo to the killing fields in Aleppo have shown, this hatred has little impact on the actions of the hundreds of millions of people in the Arab world. When supporters of Egypt’s ousted Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi yell “[Interim President] Adly Mansour is a Jew,” they are not suggesting they will put aside their differences with Egypt’s military government if Israel reaches a peace deal with the PLO.

Thirteen years ago this month, the Palestinians rejected peace and statehood at the Camp David summit. Since then, not a day has passed when they haven’t taken some action that made clear they have no intention whatsoever of ever making peace with Israel. Their identity is based on the negation of Jewish peoplehood and Jewish rights.

Just last week, this state of affairs was grotesquely reinforced when the Palestinian Authority’s television station presented two little girls reciting a poem in which they castigated Jews as “filth,” the “most evil among creations, barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs,” whom Jerusalem will “vomit” out, and who are condemned to “humiliation and hardship.”

But the folly of the US’s Middle East policy has made no difference to the foreign policy establishment, which has connived, according to media reports, to deny pro-Israel groups that reject this position their legal right to nonprofit status by siccing the IRS on them.

One of the most notable aspects of the story of alleged IRS discrimination against nonleftist pro-Israel organizations has been the silence of the mainstream American Jewish groups in the face of this apparent persecution.

What does the silence of major American Jewish groups on this issue tell us about the nature of these organizations that claim to speak for the American Jewish community? Obviously the alleged ideological discrimination toward predominantly Jewish pro-Israel organizations by the federal government is a matter that the overwhelming majority of American Jews find objectionable not to mention frightening.

And yet, the largest American Jewish groups have said nothing. They have not demanded any explanations from the IRS or the State Department. They have not demand apologies from the New York Times, J Street, the Arab American Anti-Discrimination or anyone else for maligning lawful organizations that operate well within the boundaries of law.

It’s possible that they are silent because they are afraid.

Groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have multi-million dollar budgets and they prize their access to the White House and the State Department.

Their leadership may fear that by objecting to anti-Israel discrimination, they will stop getting invited to White House Hanukka parties or that they themselves will become the targets of unjustified Federal investigations.

Perhaps it is fear. But perhaps they are silent because they share the goal of silencing voices that refuse to accept the Obama administration’s assertion that it is pro-Israel to support the establishment of a Palestinian terror state in Israel’s capital and in its historic and strategic heartland.

Perhaps they wish to muzzle Jews who refuse to accept that it is pro-Israel to be anti-Israel.

Last month two rising Israeli political stars, Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett and Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, expressed their opposition to a Palestinian state. In addition to stating his own opposition to such an entity, Danon also noted that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s support for the establishment of a Palestinian state is shared neither by the majority of the members of the Likud’s Knesset faction, nor by the majority of the ministers in his coalition government, and that the government would oppose the establishment of such a state were the issue brought to a vote.

These statements were not unprecedented. Far from it.

In January Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon noted that a Palestinian state would be an enemy of the Jewish state, saying “There are those who are trying to market [PA Chairman Mahmoud] Abbas as relatively moderate, but his goals are the same as those of Hamas. He does not believe in an agreement based on pre-1967 lines and he is refusing to come to the negotiating table.”

Rather than contend with the substance of these elected leaders’ remarks, or simply give them the respect due to duly elected representatives of the Israeli public, both the AJC and the ADL condemned them for speaking their minds. Even worse, they pretended their condemnations reflected the position of the Israeli government.

As the Zionist Organization of America noted, the AJC falsely claimed that Ya’alon asked Netanyahu to reprimand Danon – his deputy – for speaking the truth.

The AJC and the ADL condemned Danon and Bennett because they claimed that by speaking the truth they harmed the chances of the “two-state solution.”

But of course, that is absurd.

The reason the so-called “two-state solution” has no chance of success is because the Palestinians reject the Jewish state, not because Jews reject another Arab state. Pointing this out is not harmful. It is essential. And hiding this fact is not constructive to Arab-Israeli peace or to Middle Eastern stability.

The only party that benefits from American Jewish groups attacking duly elected Israeli leaders for stating the truth is the Obama administration. It is Washington, not Jerusalem that insistently clings to the ridiculous “two-state solution.”

It is Washington, not Jerusalem that insists a policy of reducing Israel to an indefensible, riven and weak Jewish statelet without its capital city or heartland is the magic bullet for solving everything from the global jihad to Arab illiteracy and misogyny.

By defending the administration’s unhealthy obsession with Israel, these American Jewish groups, with multi-million dollar budgets and automatic access to the media, are promoting an agenda that necessarily rejects the legitimacy of Israeli elections, and the views of the majority of Israelis. And Israelis are not the only people these groups betray by siding with the White House against facts. These positions also pit them against the majority of American Jews.

As the ZOA noted, polls of American Jews carried out by the AJC itself over the past two years show that not only do the majority of Israelis oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, the majority of American Jews oppose it as well. A Gallup poll taken over the past year showed that the majority of Americans in general also oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The silver lining in this story is that not all American Jews are taking their organizational leadership’s abuse of their values and views lying down. In addition to helping the ZOA to expand its reach, in community after community, activists, generally with no financial assistance, are forming new groups to advance the interests and values of America’s Jews that are being trounced by the major Jewish organizations.

Over the past 10 years independent activists have banded together under an assortment of names – Christians and Jews United for Israel, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, JCCWatch and countless others to do the work that the American Jewish organizational leadership refuses to do.

In New York, JCCWatch has organized protests against the Jewish Federation-funded 92nd Street Y for repeatedly providing forums for outspoken Jewhaters including Alice Walker and Roger Waters to air their poisonous views.

In San Francisco, a nurse named Masha Merkulova founded the Rimon Club in 2011. The Rimon Club organizes events to educate the Jewish community about Israel. The Rimon Club recently formed Club Z, a youth group for San Francisco area Jewish youth that provides them an informal, fun setting to connect in a meaningful and non-apologetic way with Israel and their Jewish identity.

According to senior Israeli officials, and leaked PA documents, after Obama came into office, his senior advisers told their Israeli interlocutors that they controlled the American Jewish community. Under Obama, these Israeli leaders were told, there would be no more American Jewish voices opposing the two-state solution or opposing pressure on Israel.

With J Street, they said, AIPAC would no longer defend Israel.

Maybe they were right. But what is certainly true, is that despite its audits, its alleged denials of nonprofit status, and its American Jewish mouthpieces, the Obama administration has not silenced the American Jews. From coast to coast, authentic, courageous American Jewish groups are forming and organizing. Their members understand that there are things that are more important than multi-million dollar budgets and invitations to White House parties.


Nobobdy makes the case better than Robert Spencer himself:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity

The strategy of Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies from the beginning has been to smear any opponent of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism as “hateful,” “bigoted,” etc. It’s a sign of how debased the public discourse has become today that such charges get any traction at all. Has it ever before happened in human history that virtually the entire intelligentsia of a nation decided that self-defense against a manifest threat was wrong, even evil, and that those calling attention to the threat were their real foe, not those who were working to undermine the nation’s security?

They’re aware of the absurdity of this, and it makes them desperately afraid of those of us who are calling attention to the jihad threat. Thus they work overtime to demonize and defame us, lying about what we say and do and stand for (cf. Hope Not Hate’s thoroughly mendacious campaign to keep Pamela Geller and me out of the UK) and trying to render us so toxic that no one will dare have anything to do with us. Hence stalker Nathan Lean’s smear campaigns to get me canceled where I am scheduled to speak, and similar campaigns against virtually everyone who stands against jihad terror, wherever they’re scheduled to appear.

As Saul Alinsky said, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” His thuggish children and heirs are doing just that: picking off the defenders of freedom one by one, isolating, demonizing and marginalizing them, and making people who stage and host speakers afraid to invite them, for fear of the firestorm that is certain to ensue. And now pressure is even being put on other speakers at events where I do appear. Take this news story about the heat being put on a cowardly speaker at an American Freedom Alliance conference at which I spoke last month — for the crime of standing in the same room with me.

It’s a bit of a pity that this article is about Fraser being confronted with being in my presence, since the principle is the point here, not my work. The point is that confronted by these demonization tactics, the worst thing that freedom activists can do is acquiesce to them and allow one of their own to be destroyed. But they do, again and again, perhaps thinking that their own turn will not come. But it will. It will. And that’s why it is so important to stand firm. But few, if any, have caught on to that yet.

Anyway, I had never heard of Ronnie Fraser before this conference. I am impressed with him — with how he collapses quicker than a house of cards here. And over what? I’m identified as having been banned from Britain. One would like to think that a Western government’s decision to do such a thing would carry some moral authority, and the Jewish Chronicle certainly assumes here that it does, as apparently does Ronnie Fraser as well. But in light of their previous ban on Geert Wilders, and their recent admission of Mohammed al-Arefe, who was advocated violent jihad, Jew-hatred, and wife-beating, it is hard to sustain such an idea. What’s more, the UK Home Office sent me a letter stating I was banned for saying that Islam has a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, which is rather obviously true.

Nonetheless, Fraser hastens to assure the Chronicle that “while I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer’s talk, nor do I in any way align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine.” What part of my “particular doctrine” does he reject? The defense of the freedom of speech? Or the freedom of conscience? Or equality of rights of all people before the law? Or is Fraser uncritically accepting the libelous claims from the Left and Islamic supremacists that I actually stand for something quite different? By not saying what it is exactly to which he objects, Fraser is certainly reinforcing the impression that I stand for some dark, sinister thing that no decent person would accept and that gets the likes of me banned from Britain.

Even more weaselly is this: “In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said he ‘would have perhaps taken a different view’ on whether to attend the conference had he known the ‘level of controversy’ surrounding Mr Spencer.” Note that he says he might not have come not because something I say or advocate, but because of the “level of controversy” surrounding me. In other words, he is saying he can’t take the heat — and signaling to the enemies of freedom that all they have to do is raise the “level of controversy” surrounding someone, and the cowards like Fraser will go scurrying away.

Henceforth I will ring a bell and shout “Unclean, unclean!” as I approach any public place. And I am busy collecting the addresses of everyone who was at In and Out Burger the day I had lunch there, so they can apologize to their respective employers and friends for being in my presence.

But this is not just about Fraser any more than it is about me. It’s about all the pressure on wimps and lily-livered cowards like him, for the simple and obvious reason that that pressure works. Note also that “Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event.” Perhaps these are the same Jewish community leaders who visited the pro-jihad East London Mosque and who are now supporting Tell Mama, the new Muslim advocacy group that was recently caught artificially inflating statistics about anti-Muslim hate-crimes in the wake of the Woolwich jihad murder. They think that, as the old saying goes, if they feed the crocodile, it will eat them last. And maybe it will. But it will most assuredly eat them, after having gobbled up Ronnie Fraser some time ago.

“Fraser speaks at US ‘freedom’ conference,” by Marcus Dysch in the Jewish Chronicle, July 4 (thanks to Edgar):

A teacher has explained his decision to appear at a controversial American conference that featured an activist who is banned from Britain.Ronnie Fraser said he agreed to speak at the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) event following his experience in bringing an unsuccessful employment tribunal against the University and College Union.

He appeared at the Los Angeles conference despite the presence of Robert Spencer, who was last week banned from entering Britain by Home Secretary Theresa May. She said Mr Spencer’s presence in this country would “not be conducive to the public good”.

Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event.

In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said he “would have perhaps taken a different view” on whether to attend the conference had he known the “level of controversy” surrounding Mr Spencer.

Mr Fraser appeared on two panels to discuss antisemitism in Europe and the continent’s cultural, political and social future. In April, Mr Fraser lost his case against his union after accusing it of harassment and antisemitism.

The AFA describes itself as “a non-political, non-partisan movement which promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals”. It promotes activism on what it says is the “Islamic penetration of Europe”.

Other speakers at the two-day conference in California included Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was cleared two years ago of inciting hatred against Muslims following comments about Islam.

Mr Fraser said: “I went to this conference to talk about antisemitism in Britain and to reflect on my own personal experiences of it, and my recent tribunal case against the UCU.

“While I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer’s talk, nor do I in any way align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine.”

Mr Spencer is director of the Jihad Watch group and author of a number of books on Islam. He had been scheduled to appear at an English Defence League march in London last weekend before his ban.

He said his exclusion was “craven capitulation on the part of British authorities to fascism and Islamic supremacism.”

The AFA event was titled “Europe’s Last Stand” and focused on “debt, demography and the abandonment of national sovereignty”.

One thought on “No Heroes Among the Establishment Jews”

  1. I have been to several presentations given by Israelis and can tell you that they don’t even like to mention the words ‘moslem’ or ‘islam’ as the root of the problem that they are having. Only after I asked why is that did I ‘get it’. They still do not know the enemy and/or are afraid of it.

    When I say they do not know the enemy, our own cater to Muslim Brotherhood groups. And they do not have to in our country, or in Europe. But they cater, they just sit back in silence, or they push the jihadist agenda until they have to move because it backfires on them.

    The Jews still wail and whine about the holocaust and want to own the whole thing, as if the insane and disabled, and most specifically, Catholics, were non-existent in its exterminations. And only individuals – mostly not the Rabbis – know a thing about al-Husseini or the Bosnian moslem SS troops that were more like roaming thugs on the street who were killing off the Jews.

    I stopped going to the presentations given by israelis because they made me sick and tired of them. I still support Israel but I pray that they stop pushing erroneous crap down other’s throats. yes, they live in a dangerous area but what would be the difference between them admitting what the problem is due to vs not admitting what it is?! The moslems want them dead and it is about time to admit what the problem is due to and start our own propaganda, etc.

Comments are closed.