Silence of the dhimmis: New Vicious Anti-israel Campaign in NY *Crickets Chirping*

October 18, 2012

When our “islamorealism” ads went up (in response to a vicious anti-Israel ad that was running), Mayor Mayor Peter Swiderski (mayor@hastingsgov.org) and the Board of Trustees sent a letter to the entire village asking residents to express their outrage  to Joseph Lhota, MTA chairman,concerning our islamorealism ad (below, the ad updated as the number of deadly Islamic attacks increased an additonal 500 acts of jihad since early September.)
Islamorealism ad updated
Another vicious anti-semitic campaing is now running on NYC Metro North (see below). Mayor Peter Swiderski, the Board of Trustees, and Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner (who actually protested our ad) have been silent (subdued as Islamic supremacists demand) in response to the new defamatory campaign. As has the media (remember the furor?)
Where is the media ad furor?
I sent the following email to Mayor Swiderski and the Board of Trustees (and cc’ed the NY Times and the NY Post) — still waiting for a request for comment:

Pamela Geller pamelageller@gmail.com
to peter, boardoftrustees, Jennifer, Matt,

Will you be protesting this Jewish blood libel (the second anti-Israel ad campaign at Metro) or is your moral indignation and outrage employed only on behalf of slaughtering  jihadists?

And just for knowing, this is a map of what the Jewish people were promised at San Remo (international law) and in the Balfour agreement. ‘

To measure the extent of American commitment to the National Home at the beginning, we may quote from the terminology of the time: “RES. 52: Expressing satisfaction at the re-creation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race” (House Committee on Foreign Affairs). “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…” (1922).

Israel is a fraction of what was originally agreed to and the enemies are working to shrink it until it disappears altogether. Here is the San Remo map of what Israel (“Palestine”) was supposed to be (more here):
Sanremo_palestine_1

Arab Riots and Jewish immigration – In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa.

And so there are two states – Israel and Jordan.
Here is the new anti-Israel ad runing on NYC’s Metro North: 

At Metro-North Railway, New Map, More Distortions Snapshot blog

Henry Clifford, who earlier bankrolled distorted maps about Israel and the Palestine Mandate at Metro-North Railway stations in New York, this month has come up with a new one. Well, actually, he pulled it from the Web site of PASSIA:
Ad at Metro North - October 2012.jpg
The map on the left is a huge manipulation for multiple reasons. First, though its title refers to “Land ownership” and it shows pockets of “Jewish-owned land” in 1947, the equivalent Arab-owned land is not identified. Instead, in an apples-versus-oranges misleading comparison, the Jewish-owned land is juxtaposed against land designated for an Arab state according to the U.N. Partition Plan.
So why doesn’t Clifford show us the Arab-owned land? If he did, commuters would see that the amount of privately-owned Arab land was nearly equivalent to privately-owned Jewish land. As previously noted by CAMERA:

During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the British Survey of Palestine, published in 1946 and republished by the PLO-affiliated Institute for Palestine Studies, at least 65 percent of the country was state land, and probably much more than that. Jews owned 8.6 percent of the land and Arabs owned 28.6 percent. But the Arab total included Bedouin grazing land (8.4 percent) and waste land (13.4 percent), neither of which was legally ownable according to the prevailing Turkish and British land laws. Not counting Bedouin grazing land and waste land, Arab owned land totaled only 6.8 percent.

Second, Clifford’s map falsely designates Jerusalem as part of the land slated to go to an Arab state under the 1947 partition plan. In reality, as illustrated by the U.N. map below, the plan called for Jerusalem and its suburbs to become an international zone:
palestine_partition_map_1947.jpg
Moreover, under the partition plan, Jaffa was supposed to have been part of the Arab state, but Clifford’s ad wrongly indicates it was to be part of the Jewish state.
As for the Moshe Dayan quote, CAMERA called Clifford out several months ago for truncating the statement, cutting out Dayan’s assertion that Jews purchased much of the land: “In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.”
But Clifford, the one man show called the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, will not be deterred by the facts. Like the commuter rail, he barrels on full steam ahead, running over any facts along the way.

fascinating. the new map responds to the allegation that the land was mostly state owned and then assumes ownership based on illegal homes… then further ignores actual data concerning Arab property. It’s a fucking lie is what it is when they merely show Jewish housing.


Landmark Case: Government argues that Islam is political

July 26, 2012

Photo-3

Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of American Freedom Law Center and Pamela Geller

What began as a clear first amendment issue has exploded into a landmark case regarding the the status of Islam as a political entity. Today the Detroit Transit Authority (SMART), a government entity, argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that our “Leaving Islam” ad was political because Islam is political.  At least two of the three judges seemed to go along.
If the Court rules against us, it will be ruling that Islam is political and that Sharia is a political program — something that other government agencies have strenuously denied. If that happens, will Islam and Sharia deserve the protection of a religion?
Leaving islam ad
The case was argued today before 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Raymond Kethledge, John Marshall Rogers and Algenon L. Marbley. Chris Hildebrand, the lawyer for Detroit SMART, began by referring to and based his whole argument on our recent victory over the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority in another First Amendment case about a completely different ad (a pro-Israel ad). Hildebrand argued that the Judge in that case, Paul Engelmayer, had said that that ad was political, and thus that the MTA had to accept it in accord with their guidelines. Hildebrand asserted that our “Leaving Islam?” bus ad, which Detroit SMART rejected, was also political, and thus was rightly rejected by SMART, which (in contrast to the MTA) does not take political ads. His client, said Hildebrand, does not reject ads because they’re provocative (as he claimed that ours was), or controversial, but because they’re political, and SMART does not and will not take political positions.
Judge Rogers then told him that he had gotten SMART into a “blurry area” to be making a distinction between the political and religious. Hildebrand countered that while the ad may be anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and anti-Sharia (actually it was designed wholly and solely to offer help to people whose lives were threatened), it was also political. Judge Marbley then pointed out that an imam, who would issue a fatwa (referring to the part of our ad that asked, “Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head?”) was not an elected official.
Hildebrand then dropped the bomb that has extraordinary implications for the debate about anti-Sharia laws and the status of Islam in the United States: he said that yes, imams have a religious function, but they also “control Sharia law,” and Sharia is political. Marbley said that that might be so in Iran, but not in Detroit, where they had a purely religious function. Hildebrand then dug in even deeper, saying that imams in Dearborn deal with Sharia on both a religious and political basis. When Marbley then asked him how our ad was different from one that SMART accepted from an atheist group, calling on people to become atheists, Hildebrand said that it differed because Islam is not only religious, but also a “political series of laws.” Marbley then pointed out that the same thing could be said about the Catholic Church, since the Vatican was a political entity, and that could be used to rule out advertising from Catholic groups. Hildebrand then argued that our ad was both religious and political, and that the reference to a fatwa made it primarily political and not religious — which would only be true if Sharia itself is primarily political and not religious.
Judge Kethledge seemed to go along with this argument, telling our own lawyer, Robert Muise (who ably argued for our side), that Sharia is “arguably” political as well as religious. Judge Rogers then outrageously compared our ad to an ad repeating a vile and disgusting blood libel against the Jews as part of Jewish law (which it most certainly is not, but the death penalty for apostasy most certainly is part of the sharia) — showing the truth of his and Marbley’s admission that they knew next to nothing about Islam (or Jewish law). Clearly they were unaware of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy. If they did, they would never have said that our public service ad constituted “scorn and ridicule.”
Kethledge clearly had his mind made up already, getting testy with Muise and helping Hildebrand with his case, inviting him when he returned to the stand to explain why our ad — designed to save lives — constituted “scorn and ridicule” of Muslims and thus was also disallowed on those grounds according to SMART’s guidelines. This entangled SMART in a self-contradiction: Hildebrand said that they didn’t disallow our ad because it was “controversial” but also that our ad constituted “scorn and ridicule” — but none of the judges seemed to notice and certainly no one challenged Hildebrand on this. Hildebrand did not, and could not, explain why our ad constituted scorn and ridicule, and instead simply kept asserting that it did. He did not argue his case persuasively, but with Kethledge and also Rogers so clearly on his side, he had a clear advantage.
If SMART wins, however, the implications for the status of Islam and Sharia as political will be enormous. Incalculable. SMART may end up winning the battle for Sharia in the U.S., but losing the war.

Photo-4
Brain trust: Robert Muise, David Yerushalmi and Robert Spencer confer after the hearing

ok… thought about this some more. Peanuts can be a substitute Protein which would offend the meat industry. Thus Peanuts are political and can be banned by “SMART”. Peanuts are political, therefor we can ban Jimmy Carter who grows Peanuts. Islam is political, but then why was Islam posting on SMART? But being against Islam is Political… double standard. Peanuts could be a religion too? Give me five minutes and I could find away to yarn that one. The court needs to admit it’s bias and push this to a higher court if they are thinking about this.