Is German Chancellor Angela Merkel Endangering Jewish Life?
Vicious, often Muslim-animated antisemitism—including violence—has engulfed German cities.
THE PROTESTERS SAY THEY ARE DEMONSTRATING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND AGAINST ALLEGED ISRAELI ABUSES, YET THEIR TARGETS SUGGEST OTHERWISE.
In Gelsenkirchen, a mob of 180 people waving Turkish and Palestinians flags marched on a synagogue, where they shouted, “Scheiss Juden” (“Shit Jews”). There was no similar mobilization against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s war on his own people that left half a million dead—including over 4,000 Palestinians. There were also no demonstrators protesting the Chinese Communist Party’s genocidal targeting of its minority Muslim community, the Uyghurs, not to mention the Tibetans.
Pro-Hamas supporters also attacked an Israeli journalist with a firecrackers during an interview in Berlin. The event prompted the Committee to Protect Journalists to urge the German authorities to swiftly investigate the attack (and others) and hold those responsible to account.
This kind of overt intimidation has exposed the emptiness of German politicians’ platitudes such as that “antisemitism has no place” in the federal republic.
Julian Reichelt, the Co-Editor-in-Chief of Bild, Germany’s highest-circulation daily paper, addressed how Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is limping along in its effort to manage, rather than to properly address, outbreaks of antisemitism:
“In almost 16 years in the Chancellery, and also after the refugee crisis, which fueled Arab-Muslim antisemitism in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel and her government have done next to nothing to combat this danger, or even clearly to name it.”
Widespread indifference within German civil society—and part of the political and media establishment—to the outbreaks of contemporary antisemitism targeting Israel is evident.
One possible explanation for these attitudes can be encapsulated by a highly sarcastic quote attributed to the Israeli psychoanalyst Zvi Rex, who said, “The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.”
The German-Jewish philosophers Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer termed this pathological response to the Holocaust “guilt-defensive antisemitism.”
Today, many Germans, and many Western Europeans, still will not forgive Israel for the Holocaust—possibly to try to rationalize a feeling of guilt: If the Jews and Israel can be portrayed as evil, then perhaps the Holocaust was not such a terrible thing after all, right?
A 2017 German federal government study found that 40 percent of Germans are infected with modern antisemitism. According to the study, 40 percent of Germans approved of this statement: “Based on Israel’s policies, I can understand people having something against the Jews.”
A Christian Social Union party think tank study published in 2017 revealed that over 50 percent of Muslim refugees hold antisemitic attitudes.
A dangerous interplay of this “guilt-defensive antisemitism” combined with an antisemitism seemingly animated by new Muslim arrivals and German Muslims who have lived for decades in the Federal Republic, appears to be unfolding in Germany. Only 500 people turned out at a pro-Israel rally last month, compared to 3,500 who turned out to support a terrorist group, Hamas, in Berlin.
The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on the Berlin demonstration in solidarity for Israel that “almost all of those who came had to come. What is going on there?”—meaning that those who attended were most likely staff of the politicians who spoke or members of the Jewish community.
Merkel and other German politicians have shown a far greater readiness to confront antisemitism—whether left- or right-wing—if it is integral to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign targeting Israel. In 2019, the Bundestag passed a non-binding resolution that declared BDS an antisemitic campaign comparable to the Nazi movement’s boycott of German Jewish business during the 1930s.
Merkel’s government and the Bundestag seem paralyzed, however, when faced with Muslim antisemitism, ubiquitous “guilt-defensive antisemitism” and the Iranian regime’s genocidal targeting of Israel.
MERKEL’S GOVERNMENT AND THE BUNDESTAG SEEM PARALYZED, HOWEVER, WHEN FACED WITH MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM, UBIQUITOUS “GUILT-DEFENSIVE ANTISEMITISM” AND THE IRANIAN REGIME’S GENOCIDAL TARGETING OF ISRAEL.
Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner for Jewish life and the fight against antisemitism, has blamed the previous US government under President Donald Trump for outbreaks of antisemitism. Yet Klein has refused to condemn 40 years of Iranian demands to obliterate Israel. Klein’s silence raises the possibility that his employer, Merkel, advised him not to comment to avoid jeopardizing diplomacy with Iran’s regime over its illicit nuclear weapons program, presumably to ensure the continued flow of business with Tehran.
To Klein’s credit, he delivered a strong statement against Prof. Achille Mbembe’s slated appearance at a publicly financed cultural event, triggering a 2020 nationwide debate about Mbembe’s antisemitism. Mbembe, Klein said, had “relativized the Holocaust and denied Israel’s right to exist.”
Mbembe, a post-colonial studies academic, is on staff at the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and has an annual visiting appointment at the Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University.
Additionally, the quality of some of Germany’s commissioners leaves rather a lot to be desired. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has urged the southern German state of Baden-Württembergto dismiss its commissioner, Michael Blume, who liked a Facebook post comparing Zionists to Nazis. Blume also sought to draw a parallel between a pro-Israel German Jew and Nazi mass murderer Adolf Eichmann.
A small number of courageous German journalists, such as Reichelt, have tried to bring Islamic-animated Jew-hatred to the fore of public discourse.
That would entail addressing the antisemitism of many in Germany, both Christians and Muslims, as well as the state-sponsored Islamic Republic of Iran, for which Merkel’s government has shown largely continual toleration.
Benjamin Weinthal is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow Benjamin on Twitter @BenWeinthal
Biden embraces Trump policy in backing Arab-Israeli deals
The Biden administration is considering appointing former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro to a Mideast role that would marshal and potentially expand the Abraham Accords.
By Associated Press
The Biden administration is laying the groundwork for a renewed push to encourage more Arab countries to sign accords with Israel and working to strengthen existing deals after last month’s devastating war in the Gaza Strip interrupted those diplomatic efforts.
The embrace of the so-called Abraham Accords is a rare carryover of a signature Trump administration policy by President Joe Biden and other Democrats.
The Trump administration put U.S. clout and incentives into landing the country-by-country pacts by four Arab states last year, easing enmity and isolation for the Jewish state in the Middle East that had dated back to Israel’s 1948 founding. The Biden administration saw significant prospects of several other Arab governments signing accords soothing and normalizing relations with Israel.
U.S. officials have declined to publicly identify the countries they regard as promising prospects.
Sudan, which signed a general declaration of peaceful intent but has not yet signed on to diplomatic relations with Israel, had been a prospect. Oman, which has a policy of non-interference that allows it to be a broker across the Middle East’s fault lines, long has been seen by Westerners as a likely contender.
But the 11-day war between Israel and Hamas last month has complicated U.S.-backed diplomacy for new Abraham accords.
The fighting “has strengthened the conviction of opponents of normalization” with Israel, activist Doura Gambo said in Sudan. Sudanese were already divided over their government’s agreement last year to become one of the four Arab states signing accords. In Sudan’s case, the Trump administration offered financial relief from U.S. sanctions.
The Biden administration is considering appointing a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, to a Mideast role that would marshal and potentially expand the country-by-country accords between Israel and Mideast governments.
Two people familiar with the matter confirmed Shapiro was being considered for the job, as first reported by The Washington Post. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
U.S. officials also are working to encourage more business, education and other ties among the four Arab states and Israel. They hope visible success there will also promote the bilateral accords in the region, at the same time the U.S. works to advance resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Last year, the United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country in over two decades to establish ties with Israel, after Egypt and Jordan in 1979 and 1994, respectively. It was a move that bypassed the Palestinians, who saw it as betrayal.
The Abraham Accords include a general declaration of support for peaceful relations in the Middle East among Jews, Muslims and Christians, all followers of religions linked to the patriarch Abraham. The Trump administration saw the accords partly as paving a path toward full ties with Israel, including in security and intelligence cooperation to counter common rivals, such as Iran.
The deals former President Donald Trump struck were “an important achievement, one that not only we support, but one we’d like to build on,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week.
In addition, “we’re looking at countries that may want to join in and take part and begin to normalize their own relations with Israel. That, too, has been very much part of conversations I’ve had with, with several of my counterparts,” Blinken added.
Netanyahu, Gantz clash over evacuation of Samaria outpost
Evacuation of a new settlement will likely strain the new governing coalition a day after Bennett is sworn in.
By World Israel News Staff
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz clashed over IDF plans to evacuate the illegal outpost of Evyatar.
Located near the Tapuach Junction in northern Samaria, the unauthorized outpost was first launched in 2013 following the murder of Evyatar Borovsky. The outpost was named after Borovsky, a father of five. Since then, it has been demolished by the IDF only to be rebuilt by Jewish settlers.
Gantz has sought to demolish more structures that were put up in the past month after a Palestinian terrorist shot and killed Yehuda Guetta at the Tapuach Junction last month.
Reports say 47 families are currently living in Evyatar and 75 more are interested in moving in.
But Gantz and the Civil Administration, which are responsible for authorizing construction in Judea and Samaria, rebuffed Netanyahu, saying that the 40 buildings in Evyatar were set up “illegally without the necessary permits” and that “enforcement will be carried out in accordance with the proper procedures and will be subject to operational considerations.”
The evacuation, currently scheduled for Monday, will put an immediate strain on the new Israeli government which is expected to be sworn in the day before. Prime Minister-Designate Naftali Bennett is former director-general of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of the Settler Movement. The right-wing parties of Yemina, New Hope and Israel Beiteinu support settlements, while left-wing coalition partners Meretz, Labor and the Arab Ra’am party oppose them. The Blue and White party will support Gantz, its leader, on the issue and Yesh Atid is expected to as well.
Media reports indicate that after the new government is sworn in, Netanyahu will oppose the evacuation from the opposition in order to embarrass Bennett.
PA security officers, Islamic Jihad terrorist killed in Jenin in clash with IDF
Islamic Jihad terrorist, two Palestinian security officers shot and killed when arrest operation goes awry.
By Paul Shindman, World Israel News
Palestinian media reported Thursday that an Islamic Jihad terrorist and two Palestinians security officers were killed in the city of Jenin during an IDF arrest operation.
Palestinians reported that a special IDF force entered the city of 50,000 in northern Samaria overnight to arrest two wanted members from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group who were in the area near the Jenin local headquarters of the Palestinian Authority security forces.
During the arrest, an exchange of gunfire broke out with the wanted men and PA security officers also opened fire on the Israeli troops. The IDF returned fire, killing two PA officers identified as Capt. Taysir Mahmoud Issa, 33, and Lt. Adham Taysir Aliwi, 23.
The dead terrorist was identified as Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Jamil Al-Amouri. A second terrorist identified as Wissam Abu Zeid was wounded in the firefight and arrested.
Palestinian sources said that the Israeli special unit members entered Jenin in private vehicles to carry out the arrest, during which the gunfire erupted. Videos uploaded to social media show locals crouching in the street as automatic weapons fire is heard in the background.
There was no statement from the IDF, while the office of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas “condemned the dangerous Israeli escalation that led to the martyrdom of two officers of the Military Intelligence and a freed prisoner in Jenin,” and warned there would be “repercussions.”
Hamas terror group spokesman Fawzi Barhoum issued a statement calling the opening of fire by the Palestinian security officers “a brave and heroic act.”
In the past, Hamas has criticized the PA for cooperating with Israeli security forces – mostly to arrest Hamas operatives in Judea and Samaria – and said shooting at the IDF “is the real and required exercise of the role of the [Palestinian] security services in the West Bank in protecting and defending our people, and that this spirit of resistance struggle must be strengthened, escalated, and continued.”
The Al Hadath news website noted that while Israel regularly carries out raids in Judea and Samaria that target “Palestinian militants,” ‘it rarely engages with the security forces of the Palestinian Authority.
Egypt, Israel turning the financial screws on Hamas, ‘not so fast’ for the $1.3 billion to Gaza
Israel, Egypt working to keep the $1.3 billion pledged so far for Gaza reconstruction out of Hamas’s hands.
By Paul Shindman, World Israel News
Negotiations between Egypt, Israel and Hamas on the details of the recent ceasefire in Gaza are expected to be held in Cairo in the coming days, but Egypt and Israel are demanding major changes that Hamas opposes, Channel 12 reported Thursday.
One week after the Gaza ceasefire took effect, tensions are rising as talks try to get off the ground on how to prevent a new round of fighting and guarantee that the reconstruction efforts in Gaza will not enable Hamas to siphon off any of the $1.3 billion pledged so far to help Gaza rebuild and use it instead to fund terror.
An Egyptian-Israeli meeting is expected to take place in the coming days. Egyptian negotiating teams met with Hamas representatives in Cairo and U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken held talks with Egyptian President al-Sisi. There appears to be a real attempt by all parties to see how it would be possible to move towards a long-lasting situation of calm, but several issues may block progress.
“The contacts are stuck and therefore there is an estimate that if things do not progress as expected, Israel may find itself in another round of fighting within a week,” said veteran Channel 12 military affairs reporter Nir Drori, adding that “following these assessments, the [Israeli] military is fully prepared for combat, including the approval of operational plans.”
Israel wants a number of things to happen, including removing the issue of Jerusalem so that it does not affect what is happening with Hamas. In addition, Israel is demanding a stop to balloon terrorism from Gaza, the return of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, and that the transfer aid money be done only through the Palestinian Authority – a request that Hamas does not particularly like.
Hamas seized control of Gaza from the PA in a bloody 2007 military coup, taking over all responsibilities from the authority that is headed in Ramallah by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. While Abbas says he supports the two-state solution, Hamas is totally opposed to peace with Israel and has not hidden its desire to one day replace the Abbas government.
In an interview on Al-Jazeera Wednesday evening, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh reiterated the terror group’s rejection of the peace process and its commitment to replacing Israel with an Islamic Palestinian state.
“The Battle of Jerusalem has put [the] Oslo [Accords] and the negotiation projects behind us,” Haniyeh said, adding that a Hamas delegation would travel to Cairo “soon” to discuss several issues including reconstruction and “consolidating victory.”
Hamas is known to have diverted some of the international funding and reconstruction aid for Gaza for its own use, and Haniyeh said that Hamas wanted no interference in the money pledged to rebuild damaged parts of Gaza that so far includes $500 million each from Egypt and Qatar and $360 million from the United States.
“We reject the politicization of the issue of reconstruction as a humanitarian issue,” Haniyeh said.
Unlike the $1 billion from the Arab countries, most of the American aid is expected to be transferred to UNRWA, the UN agency that provides services to the Palestinians, to ensure it gets into the right hands that will truly rehabilitate the Strip.
The Al-Arabi Al-Jadid newspaper reported that President Joe Biden asked al-Sisi to reduce Hamas’ influence in the Gaza Strip and to expand the presence of the Palestinian Authority. The Egyptians will apparently focus on the reconstruction of Gaza and oppose the Hamas demand to manage the massive funds entering the Gaza Strip to “assist in reconstruction.”
Egypt will directly oversee the $500 million it is spending ,and the Qatari money is expected to be channeled through Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, bypassing Hamas.
In return for not being able to touch the money and having to suffer an increased presence of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, Egypt will reportedly offer stronger ties with Hamas leaders to help maintain the organization’s power as well as provideing additional fuel, medical equipment and humanitarian aid.
Beijing’s Lies Matter
Chinese communists nurture BLM to destabilize America.
One year after George Floyd died in the custody of Minneapolis police, one year after riots ravaged the nation in his name, the founder of Black Lives Matter’s chapter in nearby St. Paul quit.
“After a year on the inside, I learned they had little concern for rebuilding black families, and they cared even less about improving the quality of education for students in Minneapolis,” Rashard Turner said in a video May 26. One week later, Turner provided specifics in an interview with Fox News.
“When you call for a moratorium on charter schools, that is a direct attack on black families, on black children,” Turner said. “We know that charter schools are creating opportunities. Anyone who is in opposition to school choice, charter schools, I would say they’re racist.
“I was an insider in Black Lives Matter, and I learned the ugly truth.”
That ugly truth goes beyond BLM’s professional hypocrisy. It extends to an even uglier truth: BLM knowingly plays a pivotal role in China’s quest to attain geopolitical and ideological supremacy by destabilizing the United States.
BLM’s role is so pivotal that many of the group’s leaders and affiliated bodies have relationships with organizations that are connected to China through fronts or diplomatic contacts.
“Black Lives Matter is a Communist organization 100 percent, tied to foreign Communists and directly to the Communist Party of China,” said Trevor Loudon, an author and filmmaker from New Zealand who has studied Marxist movements for more than 30 years.
BLM embodies Mao Zedong’s quest to foment revolution through race, as he succinctly stated:
“The evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and thrived with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the black people.”
Mao took that approach because China had neither an industrialized working class nor an organized labor movement.
“So he really had to use race, ethnicity and cultural differences to start the revolution,” Loudon said. “The best way to have a revolution is to utilize racial differences. In modern America, the Maoists all say, ‘The people of color — the black, Latino, Asian-American, Native American — are being oppressed by the white, Christian, capitalist patriarchy.’
“The only way you can get rid of that oppression, get rid of that racism, is to overthrow the white, Christian, capitalist patriarchy. It’s Marxist revolution based on color, rather than class.”
Compare Loudon’s and Mao’s comments to remarks made by BLM co-founder Alicia Garza to a left-wing convention in 2015:
“It’s not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism, and it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression.”
As FrontPage Magazine reported last year, Mao encouraged like-minded black activists, such as Robert Williams, who advocated violent revolution. Williams even visited Mao in 1966 in Beijing, where he gave an address.
After Mao’s death, China used more sophisticated methods to gain increasingly pervasive influence in the West. The China-United States Exchange Foundation, founded in 2008, courts professors, students, government officials and reporters through tours, private discussions, dinners and joint research. The targets include historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and the Congressional Black Caucus.
For the past four years, CUSEF paid an American consulting firm almost $670,000 to influence black students, professors and Congressional representatives. That firm, Wilson Global, also oversees the HBCU-China Scholarship Network.
Interestingly, President Barack Obama contacted China’s government in 2014 about enabling black students to take classes there. As a result, the China Education Association for International Exchange made 1,000 scholarships available for students at historically black campuses.
But the CUSEF is linked to China’s Communist Party through the United Front, a network of party organizations. The United Front works overseas “to co-opt and neutralize potential sources of opposition to the policies and authority” of the Communist Party, and encourages its targets “to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies,” stated the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review.
Or as Jamestown Foundation fellow Peter Mattis said about the Chinese, “If they cultivate enough people in the right places, they start to change the debate without having to directly inject their own voice.”
Black professors and politicians under Chinese influence make the perfect exponents of critical race theory and opponents of “white privilege,” both of which came from Marxist intellectuals in the West.
James Cone, a professor at the liberal Union Theological Seminary, developed critical race theory. His Marxist pedigree includes visiting Fidel Castro’s Cuba in 1984, along with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor in Chicago. Meanwhile, Theodore White and Noel Ignatiev developed the idea of “white privilege” as a Marxist construct. Both men joined the Maoist branch of Marxism when Marxist groups in the United States split over ideology.
But intellectual revolution needs street activism to reach the proletariat. Enter Black Lives Matter.
When a security guard killed Trayvon Martin in 2013, Garza joined with Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tonetti to create the organization through a hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter. All three belonged to Liberation Road, an ideological descendant of the Maoist New Communist Movement. Garza also belongs to Left Roots, a subsidiary of Liberation Road.
“It really was a scam from start to finish,” Loudon said. “They came up with the hashtag, put it out there and all the Liberation Road front groups and friendly media all around the country re-tweeted it, elevated it and made it into a movement. There’s nothing spontaneous about this whatsoever.”
Garza, a native of the Bay Area, also had been working with the San Francisco chapter of the Chinese Progressive Association since 2012. The CPA provides funding for the Black Futures Lab, a BLM subsidiary that Garza created to create policies and organize blacks. BLM calls the Black Futures Lab “a fiscally sponsored project of the Chinese Protective Association.”
One of Garza’s close friends is Alex Tom, a fellow student activist when both attended UC San Diego. Tom not only led the Chinese Progressive Association. He organized delegations to China, “boasts of his close association with Chinese diplomats in San Francisco (and) boasts of defending China,” Loudon said.
“This is basically a Chinese operation,” Loudon called the CPA, “a Communist Chinese operation.”
So were the riots in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014 after Michael Brown’s death and in Minneapolis last year after Floyd’s death. A group called Organization for Black Struggle organized the violence in Ferguson. Leading that group was Jamala Rogers, a long-time member of Liberation Road.
“They brought 10,000 people from out of town to burn down Ferguson,” Loudon said. “They were visited by delegations of Left Roots and Liberation Road members, some of whom had just returned from a visit to Communist China, where they met with Chinese Communist Party members, by their own admission.”
Most of the businesses they destroyed were owned by African-Americans.
“The revolution doesn’t want prosperous black people,” Loudon said. “They only want oppressed, poverty-stricken, embittered black people.”
That explains BLM’s opposition to charter schools. It also explains BLM’s silence on the death of David Dorn, a retired black police captain who was protecting a friend’s store when a young black man killed him during last year’s riots in St. Louis.
The riots in Minneapolis came under the jurisdiction of that city’s affiliate of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression, a group founded by a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, another group of Maoists that split from Liberation Road.
Jess Sundin, who runs the affiliate, is married to Steff Yorek, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization’s political secretary.
“Jess Sundin admits she started the riots,” Loudon said. “She admits she did the organizing for this. I’ve got her on tape talking about her organizational role. I’ve got her on tape talking about the joy she felt when Precinct 3, the police station in that area, burned to the ground, and that the looting and rioting was an integral part of the movement.
“It wasn’t peaceful demonstrators hijacked by radicals. It was radical right from the start. It was pro-China right from Day One.”
Following Floyd’s death, a BLM affiliate called the Movement 4 Black Lives, organized the ensuing mayhem nationwide.
“These are the people who coordinated riots and demonstrations all over the country for week after week after week,” said Loudon, who identified them as “people directly affiliated to the Chinese consulate in San Francisco, people who travel to China to meet with Communist Party officials.”
For Loudon, the implications are obvious.
“They are deliberately using America’s racial differences to stir Americans up, to bring about a civil war, to weaken this country and destroy President [Donald] Trump,” Loudon said about the Chinese. “This, to me, is an act of war.”
Biden to Celebrate 20th Anniversary of 9/11 by Freeing Gitmo Terrorists
Biden is restarting every terrible Obama project. And he’s trying to finish those that Obama couldn’t.
Obama’s big dream was freeing all the terrorists and closing Gitmo. One of his first executive orders addressed Gitmo’s terrorists. He forced out Secretary of Defense Hagel over it, and terrorized Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to such an extent that at one point Obama actually asked a Republican Congress for the power to override him on this. The Osama mission wasn’t about killing the terrorist leader, but detaining him for a civilian trial so he could justify dismantling Gitmo and the military court system.
Biden is following in Obama’s footsteps, but he’s chosen to be less confrontational about it. That’s a matter of tactics, not ends.
Unlike Hagel and Carter, Biden picked Lloyd Austin as a guy who will rubber stamp the worst possible abuses and crimes against national security.
It began with prioritizing Gitmo terrorists for vaccines.
9/11 vets expressed their fury at Joe Biden after the Pentagon approved giving Covid vaccines to Guantanamo Bay terror inmates before most Americans.
Tom Van Essen, who was New York City Fire Commissioner during the September 11 attacks, called the move “f**king nuts.”
“The fact that the 9/11 community can’t get the vaccine and the terrorists can show how backward our government is,” John Feal, who was a demolition supervisor at Ground Zero, said.
“It’s the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard. It’s an insult to the people who ran into the towers and were killed and those who worked on the pile for months and are ill.”
Last month, I wrote about one of Biden’s more outrageous Gitmo release parties.
Biden’s newest charity case wanted something bigger. The dossier describes the 9/11 mastermind’s associate and Paracha chatting about Al Qaeda getting some “radiological or nuclear items several times” because Paracha wanted “to help al-Qaida ‘do something big against the US.’”
Paracha “also discussed nuclear attacks and attacks against nuclear power plants” and had an idea for “al-Qaida to attack a nuclear power plant”.
So you can see why Joe Biden is letting him go.
But the overall strategy is keeping Biden’s plot against America on the down-low.
President Joe Biden has quietly begun efforts to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, using an under-the-radar approach to minimize political blowback and to try to make at least some progress in resolving a long-standing legal and human rights morass before the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
And then Biden can have a party to celebrate the 20th anniversary with his new Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Iranian terrorist buddies.
But he’s trying to keep it secret.
After initial plans for a more aggressive push to close the facility — including rebuffed attempts to recruit a special envoy to oversee the strategy — the White House changed course, sources said. The administration has opted to wait before it reaches out to Congress, which has thwarted previous efforts to close the camp, because of fears that political outcry might interfere with the rest of Biden’s agenda.
“They don’t want it to become a dominant issue that blows up,” a former senior administration official involved in the discussions said of Biden officials. “They don’t want it to become a lightning rod.”
Don’t tell the Americans what we’re up to. Let the media keep posting pictures of Biden with dogs or kids, while the nation is betrayed.
Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots
And its existential danger to our political freedom and unalienable rights.
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The expanding influence of Critical Race Theory and its Black Live Matter “praxis,” as Marxists call applied theory, has raised concerns about its incoherent pronouncements and illiberal aims. The origins of this ideology is an important question, for CRT has nothing to do with civil rights, or improving black lives or making them “matter.” It’s about increasing its practitioners’ power in our institutions in order to “fundamentally transform” the United States from a country of ordered liberty and limited government, to a “soft” despotic, intrusively regulated technocracy at best, or an illiberal socialist tyranny at worst.
CRT has its roots in Marxism, as one of the founders of BLM has bragged. And, like the Soviet version of Marxism, BLM’s growing influence over our social, educational, political, and corporate institutions––already compromised by a century of progressive ideology, itself a kissing-cousin of Marxism––is an existential danger to the Constitutional safeguards of our political freedom and unalienable rights.
The first Marxist feature is the dubious habit of thought often called the “hermeneutics of suspicion.” This intellectual grift also defines postmodernism in general, and ideological movements like poststructuralism, radical feminism, and postcolonialism, all of which are fellow travelers of Marxism.
This method of analysis assumes that the reality of all social, political, artistic, and other cultural phenomena cannot be known from the public words and actions of social and political institutions, but rather must be found in the deeper, subterranean ideologies of the power elite that runs them. This “ruling class” shapes political and institutional “discourses” and “knowledge regimes”––the “epiphenomena,” as Marxists call them–– in order to benefit their tyrannical, selfish interests by oppressing others, whom they keep imprisoned in a “false consciousness” that hides from them the true agents and causes of their oppression.
Hence for CRT, all the progress in race relations––the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Brown vs. Board of Education, the growth of the black middle class, the elimination of legal segregation, and the increase in black office-holders including the presidency––are mere “epiphenomena” that have not eliminated the underlying “systemic racism.” According to CRT, this occult “racism” keeps racism alive and accounts for all the “disparate impacts” that deny “equity” (i.e. the equality of result) to blacks and other minorities, but benefit and reward “white privilege” and “white supremacy” at the expense of black well-being.
Correcting that “false consciousness,” especially “white fragility,” the denial of white “privilege” and “racism,” explains the efforts to include CRT in school curricula from pre-school to university, and in training programs for employees of corporations and the federal and state government agencies so that they interpret their functions from the CRT perspective. The goal is to expose and reform these institutions’ true oppressive nature that is obscured by their duplicitous, self-serving public claims and motives. Hence the “1619 Project,” which has revolutionized and deformed the discipline of American history from grade school to university.
This retooled Marxism is clearly preposterous, an abstract, jargon-ridden verbal concoction for which there is no empirical or historical evidence or truth. But “truth,” “objectivity,” “reason” and “evidence” for a Marxist are meaningful and true only in terms sanctioned by Marxist ideology, and the sophisticated “woke” whose “consciousness” has been “raised” above the doltish, bourgeois hoi polloi who think, like the chained captives in Plato’s cave, that the shadows dancing on the walls of their politico-social prison are reality.
“Racism” today, then, is not about what it originally meant to the progressive “scientific” racists in the early 20th century––that every member of a lower race is by nature inferior to every member of the superior one. Now “racism” is a function of “white power” and “white privilege,” and its purpose is to shape our culture and political discourse––words like “equality” and “freedom” and “tolerance”–– so that they both camouflage and perpetuate that power. So no oppressed person, meaning any “person of color” defined by superficial physical characteristics, can be “racist.” Only “whites,” who because of those historically oppressive institutions enjoy “white privilege” no matter their social class, are “racists.”
The next offshoot of Marxism informing CRT is Critical Theory, a creation of the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism that transferred the Marxist struggle from the proletarians on the factory floor, to the broader cultural institutions whose false narratives of truth, beauty, and freedom had to be destroyed. Hence the “critical” in CRT. It does not mean a method of reasoning and analysis that brings us closer to the truth, but rather an undermining of America political, social, cultural, and economic norms, structures, and “discourses” in order to expose the supposedly ugly truth of economic and legal oppression fomented by conservatives, traditionalists, and patriots. Or as Marx himself put it, “a weapon” to use against an “enemy, which it wants not to refute but to exterminate.”
Thus the “long march through the institutions” by devotees of Cultural Marxism, most notably in the universities, for higher education teaches not just the next generation of academics, lawyers, and other professionals who form the country’s cognitive elite; but also those who end up in state colleges where they instruct and certify the future teachers in K-12 schools, thus capturing minds when they are young and impressionable. Again, that’s why revising traditional curricula, even more so than controlling opinion magazines, websites, pop culture, or books, is the most important BLM tool for dismantling the bourgeois, capitalist, Judeo-Christian culture that defines Marxism’s most powerful and hated enemy: the American political order comprising liberal democracy, a free-market economy, and individual rights that transcend political power.
Cultural Marxism, then, attacks “false consciousness” as expressed in our political institutions and discourse, especially the Constitution and its unalienable rights like the freedom of speech. The First Amendment is founded on the idea that a “free marketplace of ideas” expressed by many diverse minds, will respect the citizens’ diversity of viewpoints and opinions, as well as provide a greater public stock of ideas for citizens and lawmakers. But an illiberal, totalitarian mentality despises all true diversity, especially that of speech. Possessing the revealed Leftist truth hidden from the “unwoke,” outfits like BLM have declared open war on the First Amendment.
In doing so they are again refurbishing a Marxist idea. Consider Cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” which argued that the protection of free speech thwarts the cause of “social justice.” Hence his conclusion “that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.”
This means an Orwellian redefining of “tolerance” itself, the sine qua non for free speech, in order to liberate its “true” meaning, which of course comes from Marxism: “In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period––a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.” Any speech that does not advance the Leftist revolution is false and wicked, and should not be tolerated or protected.
From this idea comes the rationalization for the attacks on First Amendment rights that have been going on in universities for decades, but now permeate institutions such as journalism, corporations, publishing, K-12 schools, and even the military. Indeed, some of the top brass in the Pentagon are practicing the “cancel culture” that assaults our unalienable right to speak our minds in the town square, one of those freedoms the military exists to defend.
Critical Race Theory, then, is not some new “higher nonsense” of the sort our universities cook up. It’s the spawn of Marxism and its offshoot Cultural Marxism. It has used ideas like “hermeneutics of suspicion,” “false consciousness,” and “repressive tolerance” to foment racialist division and conflict that they can leverage for more political, social, and cultural power. This has been the modus operandi of Marxism from its beginning, especially in Marxism’s “late phase” when the revolution will not be waged by the industrial proletariat, but by the privileged, affluent tech-oligarchs, corporate boards, media pundits, university faculty and administrators, politicians, think-tank habitues, and federal agencies, all of whom have lost their nerve in the face of a historically, intellectually, and morally incoherent and destructive movement that has littered history with mountains of corpses.
And the old enemy of freedom will win, unless, as Winston Churchill said to Parliament after the Munich debacle, “By a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we rise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
Turkey Praises—and Seeks to Emulate?—a Mass-Murdering, Pedophilic, Slave-Trader
What a people’s “hero” says about them.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Turning churches into mosques is very much on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s mind these days. Last Friday, June 4, he “spoke of the Turkish legacy of conquest and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia [into a mosque] during a mosque opening in the city of Zonguldak on Friday.” In his own words, “the re-opening of the Hagia Sophia as a mosque is important, as it is a legacy of conquest.”
Thus, while the West falls all over itself to disavow any “conquest” its ancestors may have engaged in—for example, the “conquest of the Americas” at the hands of the “genocidal” Columbus—here is the president of Turkey praising the violent conquests committed by his Muslim ancestors. The significance of this dichotomy, and what it portends for the future, is in need of acknowledgement.
As a case study, take Erdoğan’s stance towards Turkey’s greatest jihadis of history—men whose atrocious deeds would shame ISIS. Last summer, while celebrating his decree to transform the Hagia Sophia—which for a millennium had functioned as Eastern Christendom’s greatest basilica—into a mosque, Erdoğan repeatedly saluted Sultan Muhammad al-Fatah (“the Conqueror,” 1432-1481) for violently transforming Christian Constantinople into Islamic Istanbul.
And yet consider: Sultan Muhammad’s sole justification for conquering Constantinople was that Islam demands the subjugation of “infidels,” in this case, Christians. He had no other “grievance” than that. In fact, when he first became sultan, he “swore by the god of their false prophet, by the prophet whose name he bore,” a bitter Christian contemporary retrospectively wrote, that “he was their [the Christians’] friend, and would remain for the whole of his life a friend and ally of Constantinople.” Although they believed him, Muhammad was taking advantage of “the basest arts of dissimulation and deceit,” wrote Edward Gibbon. “Peace was on his lips while war was in his heart.”
During his siege of Constantinople, he regularly exhorted his Muslim army with jihadi ideology, including by unleashing throngs of preachers crying,
Children of Muhammad, be of good heart, for tomorrow we shall have so many Christians in our hands that we will sell them, two slaves for a ducat, and will have such riches that we will all be of gold, and from the beards of the Greeks we will make leads for our dogs, and their families will be our slaves. So be of good heart and be ready to die cheerfully for the love of our [past and present] Muhammad.
“Recall the promises of our Prophet concerning fallen warriors in the Koran,” the sultan himself exhorted: “the man who dies in combat shall be transported bodily to paradise and shall dine with Muhammad in the presence of women, handsome boys, and virgins.”
The mention of “handsome boys” was not just an accurate reference to the Koran’s promise (e.g., 52:24, 56:17, and 76:19); Muhammad was a notorious pedophile. His enslavement and rape of Jacob Notaras—a handsome 14-year-old nobleman’s son in Constantinople, whom Muhammad forced into becoming his personal catamite until he escaped—was only one of the most infamous. The sultan stabbed to death another Christian boy who “preferred death to infamy.”
After his conquest and desecration of the Hagia Sophia, Muhammad had the “wretched citizens of Constantinople” dragged before his men during evening festivities and “ordered many of them to be hacked to pieces, for the sake of entertainment.” The rest of the city’s population—as many as 45,000—was hauled off in chains to be sold as slaves.
This is the man whom Turkey and its president honor—including by rededicating one of Christendom’s greatest and oldest churches as a victory mosque to him last year. Nor is Muhammad al-Fatah the only terrorist to be honored; as Erdoğan explained in one of his speeches:
The conquest of Istanbul [Constantinople] and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque are among the most glorious chapters of Turkish history.….The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia represents our memory full of heydays in our history, from [the battles of] Badr to Manzikert, from Nicopolis, to Gallipoli [all jihadi victories] … The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia is required by our respect and commitment to all of our ancestors, from Alp Arslan [Islamic victor of Manzikert who opened the way to the conquest of Asia Minor, and massacred or enslaved tens of thousands of Christians], to Muhammad al-Fatah, to Abdulhamid [who massacred as many as 300,000 Armenians in the name of jihad between 1894-1896]. The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia … honors Muhammad al-Fatah’s spirit of conquest… Allah willing, we will continue to walk on this sacred path without pause or hesitation, until we reach our ultimate destination [emphasis added].
The message could not be clearer: jihadi ideology dominates Turkey, at least its leadership. Invading and conquering neighboring peoples—not due to any grievances but because they are non-Muslim—with all the attending atrocities, rapes, destruction, and mass slavery is apparently the ideal, to resume once the sunset of Western power is complete.
Meanwhile, because Americans are used to seeing statues of their own nation’s heroes toppled—for no other reason than that they were white and/or Christian, and therefore inherently evil—the significance of Erdoğan’s words and praise of Muhammad the Conqueror—who as an Asian Muslim is further immune from Western criticism, as that would be “racist”—will remain lost on them.
Gender Studies Faculty Sides With Hamas
Facts and history are not the concern of the morally-elevated professoriate.
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.
Seeming to give proof to Orwell’s observation that some ideas are so stupid they could only have been thought of by intellectuals, yet another group of academics—this time faculty in some 120 Gender Studies departments—has, after the latest conflict in Gaza, followed the lead of various student governments, faculty, and other academic organizations by launching yet another attack in the cognitive war against Israel.
With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, a “solidarity statement” issued by the Palestinian Feminist Collective (PFC) pretentiously announced that “as gender studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline.”
“We center global social justice in our intersectional teaching, scholarship, and organizing.,” these moral termagants continued. “From Angela Davis we understand that justice is indivisible; we learn this lesson time and again from Black, Indigenous, Arab, and most crucially, Palestinian feminists, who know that ‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”
Palestine may be a feminist issue in the addled minds of these academics, but, tellingly, they conveniently make no mention in their statement of the terrorist group Hamas which is singularly responsible for initiating this latest clash with Israel and which commits a war crime each time its militants launch a rocket toward civilian neighborhoods with the intention of murdering Jews. And while these gender studies activists seem so concerned for the emotional and physical welfare of Palestinian women, they do not mention any Israeli women in their statement or commiserate with the reality of living with a genocidal enemy at one’s border. They do not mention mothers of children in southern Israeli towns like Sderot, a frequent Hamas target, where bedrooms have been converted to bomb shelters, residents sometimes have only 15 seconds to seek cover from incoming rockets, and over 40 percent of the town’s children suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of living with the specter of terrorism and possible death clouding daily life.
And, apparently, their virtue-signaling mission to realize “global social justice in [their] intersectional teaching, scholarship, and organizing” has not enabled these gender studies faculty to notice the injustice and violence currently being meted out against Israelis, either as a result of the shower of some 4300 Hamas rockets launched from Gaza in the latest assault with the intention of murdering Jewish civilians, or as part of an ongoing intifada which has claimed the lives of Israelis who have been injured and murdered by psychopathic Palestinians wielding knives, guns, rocks, incendiary kites, and even automobiles used as weapons.
But facts and history are not the concern of the morally-elevated professoriate. Based on this politically-charged, biased language, the gender studies professors expose that they have, with the breathtaking certainty that only the very sanctimonious and intellectually-elite can do, framed the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in such a way that they have determined precisely which side is worthy of opprobrium and which, by virtue of its perennial victimhood, is worthy of complete moral support. Revealingly, the language describing “the military, economic, media, and global power that Israel has over Palestine” focuses on the victim-centric, oppression-laden worldview of these academics, in which the legal creation of the Jewish state is framed as an unjust colonial enterprise during which innocent, indigenous Arabs in a factitious country called Palestine experienced a “Nakba,” a catastrophe, in which they were either ethnically cleansed from their lands or remained and now live in the oppressive, apartheid, racist state of Israel.
Perhaps it has escaped the notice of these experts on gender and sexuality issues that if one wanted to vilify any Middle Eastern country for its subjugation and abuse of women, Israel would probably not be the first nation to come under reasonable or justifiable scrutiny, even for a group wishing to “join a vibrant, vast, and growing international solidarity community, composed of those raising their voices in support of Palestinian’s right to freedom, return, safety, flourishing, and self-determination.”
Totalitarian and despotic regimes throughout the region have created an oppressive group of social pathologies that negatively affect women, including genital mutilation, stoning of adulteresses, “honor” killings by fathers and brothers who have been shamed, cultures of gender apartheid in which women are seen as property with no emotional or physical autonomy, ubiquitous sexual assault, and a general subjugation of women, complete with regulations governing behavior, movement, speech, and even requirements that women be covered by burqa or hijab.
A 2018 report by Amnesty International, “Human rights in the Middle East and North Africa,” for example, revealed that “Women and girls continued to face discrimination in law and practice, and were inadequately protected against sexual and other gender-based violence, including so-called ‘honour’ [sic] killings.” Referring to Palestinian society specifically, the report noted that “At least 21 women and girls were reported to have been killed in the West Bank and Gaza, mainly by male relatives in ‘honour’ [sic] killings, according to civil society organizations.”
The society of the Palestinian territories, most appropriately, might provide some additional examples of relevance for feminists trying to identify misogyny and suppression of the human and civil rights of women; and even though these gender studies academics saw fit to “join the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” they have not a single negative word to say about the Palestinians and the conditions of Arab women. In fact, according to Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister of Women’s Affairs, Haifa Al-Agha, women in this culture are singularly “unique,” but not in the way someone with Western values might think; she was quoted in the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida as observing “the Palestinian woman’s uniqueness, which differentiates her from the women of the world, as [only] she receives the news of her son’s martyrdom with cries of joy.”
Perhaps mothers embrace this cult of death for their children because of the oppression they experience in their own lives. Zainab Al-Ghneimi, head of the Women’s Legal Counseling Center, commented that a Palestinian man “believes he has bought the woman and paid for her, and therefore she has become his property and must obey his orders . . . [Palestinian] laws give him the right of ownership, based on the man being the guardian, and he is the one who commands and prohibits.”
And a more recent report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs confirmed this level of spousal abuse. It found that “Preliminary findings of a survey carried out by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) in the second quarter of 2019, reveal that 29 per cent of Palestinian women . . , or nearly one in three, has reported psychological, physical, sexual, social or economic violence by their husbands at least once during the preceding 12 months.”
Nor would these gender studies faculty have difficulty looking for the oppression of women in some of Israel’s neighboring countries, nations with dreadful records of protecting the rights, lives, and bodies of women. A Thomson Reuters Foundation poll, for example, “assessed 22 Arab states on violence against women, reproductive rights, treatment of women within the family, their integration into society and attitudes towards a woman’s role in politics and the economy,” and raised serious concerns about the status of women in those countries—all of which seemed to have slipped off the moral radar screens of these gender studies professors. The Amnesty International report also noted that in Iran, as one country where the human rights of women are chronically violated, “authorities continued to fail to criminalize gender-based violence, including domestic violence and marital rape. Acts of violence against women and girls, including domestic violence and early and forced marriage, were widespread,” the report found, and “between 21 March and 21 September, at least 366 girls aged below 15 and 29 girls aged below 10 were married.”
Egypt, which was the worst offender for providing a safe haven for women, was rampant with “sexual violence, harassment and trafficking combined with a breakdown of security, high rates of female genital mutilation and a rollback of freedoms since the 2011 revolution,” according to the Thomson report. The country’s anarchy and political instability have meant that women have also become sexual prey, with 99.3 percent of women and girls likely to be sexually harassed and “27.2 million women and girls—or 91 percent of the female population” becoming victims of female genital mutilation.
Iraq appears second in the rankings, many of the problems affecting women the result of “a dramatic deterioration in conditions for women since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion,” as well as “mass displacement [that] has made women vulnerable to trafficking and sexual violence.” “The Iraqi penal code,” the study found, also “allows men who kill their wives to serve a maximum of three years in prison rather than a life sentence.”
In Saudi Arabia, as yet another example, women are considered to be the virtual property of men, cannot go out in public unaccompanied, and “are banned from driving and need a guardian’s permission to travel, enroll in education, marry or undergo healthcare procedures.” The male-dominated culture means that “marital rape is not recognized and rape victims risk being charged with adultery.”
Syria, which has imploded from internecine warfare and murderous carnage, resulting in the death of more than 380,000 Syrians, has become even more dangerous for women, the Thomson report found, so that in the fog of civil war “Girls as young as 12 have been married in refugee camps,” and “more than 4,000 cases of rape and sexual mutilation have been reported to the Syrian Network for Human Rights,” with “reports of government forces and armed militias sexually abusing women and girls during home raids and in detention centres [sic].”
The rectitude of the gender studies faculty promoting condemnations of Israel manifests itself as what has termed “moral narcissism,” the tendency of members of the well-meaning, intellectual elite to align with causes and ideological positions which are based, not on the actual viability or justice of a cause, but on how the moral narcissist feels about him- or herself by committing to a particular cause or movement.
“A moral narcissist,” observed legal commentator Jay B. Gaskill, “lives in a self-approval bubble shared by other moral narcissists who collectively have agreed that their cocoon of mutually agreed moral gestures and self congratulations [sic] will constitute a perfect and sufficient engagement with an imperfect world.” Like other members of the academic left, who believe their worldview is correct because it seeks to create a world in which social equanimity will be realized by the downtrodden, these gender studies faculty members are content to stand in solidarity with one of the victim groups in their intersectionality bucket—the Palestinians—because it enables them, though mendaciously, to denounce Israel as an imperialistic, racist, militaristic oppressor that deprives Arab women of human rights.
“Moral narcissists,” said Gaskill, “have adopted a camouflage strategy to escape the moral disapproval of others [and] . . . they accomplish this camouflage by cloaking their narcissism in the trappings of ‘social justice positioning.’” The moral narcissist’s reasoning may defective, ahistorical, counter-intuitive, or just wrong, but he still feels good about himself. But in this worldview, there can be only one enemy of social justice, and Israel is that enemy.