No Jews allowed in Judea says NY Jews, Muslims and Christians only

July 28, 2013

Excerpt from… Arutz 7 Op-Ed: NY Federation has Its Own Boycott of Judea and Samaria Ron Jager, July 23, 2013 …The New York Federation does not cross the ‘green line’ (known as the pre-1967 borders) unless of course it’s to assist Palestinian Arabs, meaning that Jews who could benefit from the many programs that are funded and provided by the New York Federation for the citizens of Israel are effectively barred if they reside in Judea and Samaria. Jews living beyond the green line have been voluntarily boycotted by the New York Federation despite the fact that there is no legal prohibition to support organizations or communities located in these areas, not only according to Israeli law, but also in accordance with American tax law. Any American dollar donated is fully tax deductible to the extent provided by law. This has not stopped the New York Federation from voluntarily boycotting 700,000 Jews along with the Europeans and the many enemies of Israel who have been behind the boycott movements throughout the world. (MORE)


Roosevelt, Ibn Saud, and American Jews

March 27, 2013

Andrew Bostom h/t Doc’s Talk:

This morning at AT, Professor Emeritus Edward Bernard Glick described his frank 1958 discussion with Eleanor Roosevelt regarding her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decision not to bomb the railway tracks connecting to the Nazi extermination camps for European Jews. Professor Glick also alludes to prevalent antisemitic attitudes in the State Department, and perhaps President Roosevelt, himself, whom he quotes as having stated to a prominent Jewish Congressman, “The Jews in America should know that they are tolerated here, but not more than that.

Roosevelt’s statement was in fact a crude retrogression from the attitudes expressed by America’s first President, George Washington. Following a visit to Newport, RI in August, 1790, and his warm reception by the local Jewish community, represented in a letter by Moses Seixas, George Washington wrote a moving reply to Touro’s congregation. Our first President rejected the idea of mere “tolerance” of Jews, embracing them as full, equal citizens of the nascent American nation, with complete freedom of conscience, and the guarantee of their personal security. Washington stated,
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. [emphasis added]

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Roosevelt made another particularly maleficent, if bizarre, statement revealing his visceral antisemitism during the seminal February, 1945 Yalta Conference between the American President, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The President was scheduled to meet with Arabia’s despot King Ibn Saud immediately after the Conference. Alluding to this upcoming meeting with the Arabian despot, Stalin asked Roosevelt what concessions the President might make to Ibn Saud regarding Middle Eastern issues. As per two independent sources of archival documentary evidence (hat tip, Diana West), i.e., the minutes preserved in the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York, and the papers of then Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius (the latter reproduced in the recent M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein analysis, “Stalin’s Secret Agents—The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government,” p. 35),
The President [Roosevelt] replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to give him [Ibn Saud] the six million Jews in the United States. [February 10, 1945]

Professor Glick warns, appropriately, about the pitfalls of American Jews’ blindly misguided reverence for Democratic Presidential “saviors,” such as Franklin Roosevelt, or Barack Obama, “whom Jews revered then [Roosevelt] as much as they lionize President Barack Obama now ,” despite their latent (or blatant) antisemitism, and the actions, or inactions, such attitudes may engender.
All Articles Copyright © 2007-2013 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) Roosevelt spelled out this promise in a letter to King Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud on April 5, 1945:
Your Majesty will recall that on previous occasions I communicated to you the attitude of the American Government toward Palestine and made clear our desire that no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in that country without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews. … [D]uring our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people.
…when Roosevelt made this promise about Palestine, it never occurred to Ibn Saud that another president could come along and break that promise.???????
But Roosevelt died a week after sending the letter to Ibn Saud.
Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, came to office suddenly and unexpectedly.
Truman placed the United States forcefully and decisively in support of the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in 1948. The sentiments of the king of Saudi Arabia were not considered important.
“I’m sorry, gentlemen,” Truman explained to worried Arabists. “But I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of people who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) The meeting took place in February 1945 aboard the USS Quincy, a destroyer, in the Great Bitter Lake of the Suez Canal, where Roosevelt stopped on his way home from the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin.
Ibn Saud was brought to the rendezvous aboard the USS Murphy, a cruiser, along with an extraordinary cargo, though not nearly as strange as it might have been if the king had had his way. Ibn Saud had arrived at the dock with an entourage of about 200 men, plus quite a few women from his harem.
The captain of the Murphy was appalled. He warned the king’s entourage of problems that might arise with women aboard a naval vessel manned by a crew that had been at sea and at war for a long time. The women were left behind. The king brought a retinue of 48, including coffee servers, cooks and six huge Nubians with swords.


facebook Jewbags

April 4, 2012

(Sultan Knish)Take the Jewbags case of Danielle Gilbert, a staffer for Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who had been appointed the DNC’s Jewish outreach liaison. In a social media mishap, Gilbert posed along with her friends in a photo that she captioned “JEWBAGS” and that a friend of hers captioned as “Jew cash money team.”

One almost feels like Obama was just some dumb idiot listening to his own Jewish people. If they consider themselves this way, then why not treat Israel the way he has? It would all be forgivable… it really would be. I’ve told a few Anti-semitic jokes myself in highschool… we all have! It’s part of being an American Jew relating to other American Jews… but the problem I have is the arrogance and meanness that liberal Jews have afterward. It’s the extent that liberal Jews go to humiliate those that they feel can not take a joke… if we could call it that.


The Liberal Jewish Eunuch

April 3, 2012

(Sultan Knish)Liberal Jews have become the eunuchs in the modern Byzantiums, trusted to administer the system because they have no interests of their own. When Jewish groups are asked to define Jewish interests they inevitably reel off a series of liberal platitudes about immigration, abortion, tolerance and gay rights. It’s not that Jewish interests don’t exists, it’s that they have been steadily excluded from the dialogue space and liberal policies have been treated as their equivalent. Israel is the last stand. It’s the last Jewish interest that is specifically ethnic and religious, rather than some vague nostrum about Tikkun Olam and what Jewish values have to say about importing HIV positive Peruvians. And it’s no wonder that it’s so fiercely under attack.
The eunuchs can be trusted because they have no families and no children. They have no future and so they have no outside interests. They are contemptible for those reasons, but also useful for those reasons. You can trust a eunuch to see to things without worrying that he will selfishly help his own, because he has no ‘own’, he is an isolate, a dead end, a withered branch. The liberal Jew has the same role and for the same reason. His identity is a transitory thing on the path to integration. He has a future, but not a Jewish future. Like the eunuch, he is a dead branch of the tree.
Everyone knows Jews are clannish. It’s one of the stereotypes, right up there with cheap. But the Jewish eunuch can’t be clannish, not really, because the eunuch has no clan except his own kind and they aren’t much of a worry because eunuchs don’t reproduce. They may form their own groups and chatter on about whatever it is eunuchs care about, but everyone knows they have no future. Wait a few generations and they’ll be gone.
And that is the trouble with Israel, it is much too alive. It is a Jewish country swarming with Jews. It actually calls on ethnic and religious allegiances. It is the last Jewish interest there is. It is the dream muddying the waters of the eunuch’s loyalties. And it has to be destroyed for the liberals eunuchs to keep their place in the bureaucracy of the postmodern borderless state. (MORE)

I usually like to do a cartoon when I see a great Sultan Knish post… I don’t think you want to see me drawing this…. so I’m posting the whole thing. Ouch!


Better Jews. The Moral Vanity of Israel’s Leftist Jewish Critics

November 8, 2011
Media_http2bpblogspot_fsgja Judaism has never been defined by how much we suffer. It is not a religion of martyrdom.
(Adam Levick of CIF Watch) (h/t Safed-Tzfat)

Ben Murane, an American Jew and head of New Generations for the left-wing lobbying group New Israel Fund, recently wrote an essay, under his blogging pseudonym KungFuJew, titled, “Reinterpreting Jewish communal service“.
The essay attempts to “reinterpret” Jewish communal service in universal terms and represents the quintessential guilt of liberal diaspora Jews over Jewish particularism.

This recurring tendency of Jews, such as Murane, to pay greater attention to their own moral performance than to the necessities of survival is a trait which Ruth Wisse characterizes as “moral solipsism”. In displaying the resilience necessary to survive in exile, many Jews have come to fetishize weakness, and believe that they could pursue their mission as a “light unto the nations” on a purely moral plane. (MORE PAIN)