A British Muslim flew thousands of miles to take Jewish hostages in Texas in an attempt to secure the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a noted anti-Semite serving time for trying to kill American soldiers and plot a mass casualty attack in New York City. The hijacker, Malik Faisal Akram, yelled at the people praying on a Sabbath morning in synagogue, “Jews control the world, Jews control the media, Jews control the banks,” and said that the Jews “can call President Trump and he will do it [release Siddiqui] because Jews control everything.“
But The New York Times deliberately omitted that Akram and Siddiqui were Muslim or even the word “anti-Semitism” in its coverage. The Associated Press would similarly not describe the Jew hatred of Siddiqui in a long profile of her.
The Times has an established track record of ignoring Black and Brown anti-Semitism for two principle reasons: the liberal paper does not want those communities to draw the attention of law enforcement which it thinks over-police those communities, and it seeks to label racism as a purely White and Republican phenomenon, in the hopes of securing more votes for liberals and minorities.
The left-wing media gives Muslim anti-Semites and anti-Zionists a platform, such as CAIR-San Francisco Bay Area Executive Director Zahra Billoo, who has been flagged by the Anti-Defamation League for comments like “pay attention to the ‘polite Zionists,’ … We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. …know your enemies, and I’m not going to sugarcoat that they are your enemies.”
But in the end, liberals have placed Muslims alongside Black and Brown people in the category of Victims of Preference. They will not disturb their protective shield around these groups, even if they commit heinous crimes.
That is why left-wing politicians call out anti-Semitism and lump it together with racism and Islamophobia – not because they think that Jews suffer like their Victims of Preference, but as a means TO PROTECT the VOPs, even as the Jews uniquely suffer.
What makes the absence particularly appalling, is that the liberal press did not have to make the statement itself, but could just have simply quoted Democratic President Joe Biden who said of the attack “let me be clear to anyone who intends to spread hate — we will stand against anti-Semitism and against the rise of extremism in this country.” Instead, the paper just use a quote in an article on January 18 where he called it an “act of terror.“
The New York Times, the most popular digital news source in the world where over 90% of its viewership is Democratic, is educating its liberal readers that minorities cannot be racists or anti-Semites. It is part of its ‘2019 Project’ on White Supremacy, which is concluding that “American Jews are now part of the ownership class,” as Randi Weingarten, President of the powerful American Federation of Teachers union said. While Jews may be a numerical minority, they are in the one-per centers and in cahoots with the White ruling class, and are therefore an integral part of the problem. More succinctly, the alt-left is attempting to educate people that Jews are the only persecuted minority who actually deserve it.
There is a loud chorus of people who don’t simply disagree with some Israeli policies, they are against the entire principle of Zionism. Keith Ellison, the current Attorney General of Minnesota and former Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Council summed up this attitude when he said “Zionism, the ideological undergirding of Israel, is a debatable political philosophy.“
The objection to Zionism stems from a belief that global powers had no right to facilitate the movement of Jews to Palestine as they outlined in the 1920 San Remo Agreement and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine. The fact that Jews always moved to Israel at rates far surpassing non-Jews even during the Ottoman Empire period is actively ignored as besides the point.
The root of the Arab objection was that it was no longer a fellow Muslim entity (the Ottoman Empire) which ruled them in Palestine but Western powers. Christian nations decided they would enable the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” another non-Muslim group. Even though Jews historically lived in the land, considered the land holy and moved to the land during Ottoman rule, the local Arabs considered the non-Muslim efforts an assault on their way of life.
Consider the statement by President of Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser in May 1967 as he readied to destroy Israel: “What is Israel? Israel today is the United States. The United States is the chief defender of Israel.” Muslim nations view the Jewish State as a foreign implant of western powers which continues to be supported by such foreigners (jihadists read ‘infidels’). It is an attitude that drives Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to demand an apology from Britain for the Balfour Declaration today.
That position manifests itself in two principal ways: hating the presence of Jews in Palestine, and protesting the sovereignty of the Jewish State of Israel.
The Presence of Jews
While Jews rapidly moved to Palestine under the Ottomans, they did so in even greater numbers under the British and then under the modern State of Israel. The influx of these people offended the Arabs who fought to curtail the immigration of Jews, even during the Holocaust as they were being wiped out in Europe, getting the British to institute the infamous 1939 White Paper. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with Adolf Hitler and many other Nazi leaders to make sure European Jews never made it to Palestine. Palestinian Arab efforts caused the deaths of over 100,000 Jews, many more than the total number of Arabs who died fighting Israel since the country’s founding.
When Israel declared itself an independent state in 1948, several Arab countries invaded with the stated goal of destroying it. After the Transjordanian army took over Judea and Samaria, it ethnically cleansed every Jew from the area and gave citizenship to everyone as long as they weren’t Jewish. During the nineteen years that the re-branded Jordan held the Old City of Jerusalem, it destroyed 56 of the 58 synagogues and wouldn’t allow any Jews to enter the city walls to pray at the Western Wall.
That Judenfrei sentiment remains. Those Jordanian Arabs are now called Palestinian Arabs in the renamed “West Bank.” The current head, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said he “would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” calling to ethnically-cleanse Jews from the region once again. Palestinian law makes it a crime – either with a death sentence or life in prison – for selling land to Jews.
Today, many pro-Palestinians continue to argue that the mere presence of Jews is an affront to Palestinian pride. White House correspondent Helen Thomas said Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Poland, Germany, America and “everywhere else.” In October 2014, President Barack Obama’s spokesperson said the Obama administration condemns Jews who move into “residential buildings in the neighborhood of Silwan” because their “agenda provokes tensions.” This inversion blamed new Jewish neighbors for the anti-Semitism of the local Arabs.
The Sovereignty of a Jewish State
Some anti-Zionists are less triggered by the physical presence of Jews and more by the notion of a Jewish State. They object to a land which had a Muslim majority for a thousand years suddenly having a flag with a Jewish star and an anthem reflecting the yearning of Jews. Many Muslims regard this as a direct insult to Islam.
Shortly after the founding of Israel, the Muslim world routed almost all of its local Jews. Almost all Muslim countries still refuse to recognize the Jewish State over 70 years later. Other Islamic regimes are more aggressive such as Iran, which said that Israel is “cancerous tumor” (a dangerous foreign entity) that “will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.”
The Palestinians are divided between those who want to see the Jewish State destroyed (HAMAS/Gaza) and those who won’t recognize it (Fatah/West Bank), like PA President Abbas who said “We will never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel.” The Palestinian objection to Jewish sovereignty is so ingrained that leadership would forgo establishing a new Palestinian Arab State if it also required recognizing Israel as a Jewish State. It begs the question of whether Palestinians truly are “desperate” for independence and sovereignty or to be rid of the Jewish State.
Many non-Muslim anti-Zionists hold common cause decrying Israel. While there may be dozens of Islamic states as well as religious Christian democracies like Denmark and Greece, Palestinian supporters shout absurd smears of “Jewish supremacy” and “apartheid” against the liberal country which has more rights for all of its citizens than any country within 1,000 miles.
Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism
People debate whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism in a more politically-acceptable form. As reviewed here, one needs to look at the nuances of anti-Zionism to reach the conclusion.
In the first instance – the people who do not want Jewish neighbors and would go so far as to support the genocide of the Jews in Europe – the answer is clear that they despise Jews. Palestinian Arabs are overwhelming anti-Semitic as further shown in recent ADL polls which show 93% of West Bank and Gaza Arabs hold anti-Jewish views.
Regarding the notion of Jewish sovereignty, it is true that the idea of creating a Jewish State 100 years ago may have been “debatable” to quote Ellison but Israel is a well established reality. The country is more stable, more democratic, more open and thriving compared to all of the countries which surround it. To call for the country’s destruction (as Iran does) or to call for boycotts and divestment only against this country for perceived short-comings is a poor double-standard which reeks of anti-Semitism.
The majority of Palestinians are complete anti-Zionists, objecting to both the presence of Jews and the sovereignty of Jews in the holy land. Most Muslim countries are less extreme and do not object to Jews living in Israel as long as they become a minority living under an Islamic flag. Other Muslim countries have normalized relations with the Jewish State, noting that the country is a wonderful trading partner and not going anywhere.
Outside of the Muslim world, liberal anti-Zionists believe that they are siding with the stateless Arab underdogs as part of their religion of empathy. However, they all-too-often adopt the anti-Semitic language and philosophy of anti-Zionism: seeking to minimize the presence of Jews in their ancestral and holy land, as well as to obliterate the only Jewish State.
Some anti-Zionists might object to these two categories and suggest they do not object to Jews as neighbors, just as invaders. That argument simply means they deny Jewish history which is also anti-Semitic. Others could protest that “Zionism is Racism” is a commonly held belief, as demonstrated at the 2001 Durban Conference to combat Racism. The reality is that there is a lot of systemic hatred, such as the reality that most of the world also considers homosexuality a crime which does not absolve the anti-LGBT sentiment, much as anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist laws do not wash the hateful stain. Anti-Semitism remains a large global problem in its many forms.
Thousands of years ago, it made sense to focus on the narrow strip of land that acted as a bridge between Africa and Europe / Asia, but no longer, in this larger, connected world.
The ongoing critical obsession on a country with 0.1% of the global population which is home to the most persecuted people in history which suffered both a genocide in the European continent and a mass expulsion from the Muslim Middle East / North Africa within the last century should raise immediate alarms. That the goal of much of the criticism of the Jewish State is to weaken it militarily and economically or even to destroy Jewish autonomy in their ancestral home and religious capital is terrifying, and must be combatted aggressively.
A person can be in favor of yet another Arab state to join the dozens of others without being an anti-Zionist. However, one cannot be an anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite.
The head of the MIT Media Lab, Joichi Ito, was forced to resign when people learned that he accepted donations from Jeffrey Epstein after he had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor. Ito also resigned from several other boards in short order.
While institutions need donors’ money to exist and operate, they are becoming reluctant to be associated with certain types of individuals – in this case, taking money from someone who committed crimes against minors.
This is part of a growing trend of considering the source of donations, particularly among not-for-profit institutions.
Consider The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York which stated it will no longer accept donations from the Sackler family. While the Sacklers were not convicted of a crime, the Met felt that the owners of Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyCotin, were responsible for “the ensuing public health crisis surrounding the abuse of these medications.” While the proper use of the drug helped many, the abuse of the drug became an epidemic causing the Met to conclude that the association with the Sacklers was toxic to the image and values that it wanted to portray. The simplified math was the Sacklers equaled Purdue equaled OxyCotin equaled opioid overdoses and death which should never equal the Met. Goodbye Sackler dough.
In June 2019, the University of Alabama decided to return the largest donation in its history after the donor called for a boycott of the State of Alabama and the university for passing a very restrictive abortion law. The university said that it did so because of the donor’s “ongoing attempts to interfere in the operations of the Law School.”
The cases above highlight institutions returning donations because the donor either tarnished the institution’s brand image or actually sought to harm operations.
Some politicians have similarly returned donations from people who are associated with “sinful” activities like e-cigarettes. Sometimes the action is spurred by activists demanding that an institution return donations from companies who profit from actions deemed harmful, like immigrant detention facilities or, on the opposite side of the coin, demand a donor recall a personal donation or risk a massive boycott of their businesses.
In short, cash donations are no longer considered neutral currency of exchange but a binding seal between giver and recipient.
So what is one to make of noted Israel-basher Linda Sarsour raising money for Jewish causes, like repairing vandalized Jewish cemeteries? Are her vile comments about Israel and activists like Ayaa Hirsi Ali as well as association with anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan reasons to reject her funds? Many Jewish groups want her to be banned from speaking at forums or even entering Canada, while others are content to take her funds and ignore her more evil inclinations.
Universities are typically the most likely to turn the cheek while they open their pockets.
The New York University and many other colleges take in millions of dollars from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country that openly executes minors as well as people who convert from Islam (apostasy), a fundamental human right. Yet no one batted an eyelash, until the Saudi government was accused of murdering a journalist. Suddenly, it became common knowledge that several U.S. universities had taken over $600 million from the Saudi government and Saudi companies. Those universities, not coincidentally, had become hotbeds for anti-Israel activity, including Columbia University, Tufts University, and the University of Southern California with each school receiving at least $1 million and George Washington University receiving $12 million in 2017. MIT received $78 million from the Saudis between 2011 and 2017.
Saudi Arabia’s funding of American universities paled compared to Qatar, which gave over $1 billion between 2011 and 2017. Qatar openly funds Hamas, a U.S. State Department designated foreign terrorist organization, and an openly anti-Semitic organization. No matter. Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, and Northwestern established satellite campuses in the small country.
Curiously, there is virtually no public outcry about universities taking hundreds of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Without a protest, it is highly unlikely that these institutions of “higher learning” will do anything.
Consider the situation when Islamic antisemitism went into global overdrive in mid- 2000 just before the start of the Second Intifada, pushing money and narratives of Jews and Israel as enemies of the entire world, most notably manifest in the 2001 Durban Conference about Racism. In July 2000, the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, donated $2.5 million to the Harvard Divinity School to endow the Sheik Zayed Al Nahyan Professorship in Islamic Religious Studies. Within a short period of time, the Zayed Center became a noxious fountain of anti-Semitic screed complete with Holocaust denials and blood libels. It took the non-profit group The David Project and a student at the Harvard Divinity School, Rachel Fish, to loudly protest the donation and Center itself. Harvard did nothing for years, but ultimately returned the gift in July 2004, but not before hosting speakers like former president Jimmy Carter and former Vice President Al Gore.
Jeffrey Epstein and Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan: too hot to handle
For the most part, Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s funding of terrorism and anti-Semitism has not irked the American public. Organizations only started to return funds to Saudi Arabia – like the Endeavor talent agency – after the murder of the journalist in October 2018. It would appear that the well-being of journalists ranks much higher than of children or Jews.
The dirty money does not only go towards research or new Islamic study departments at American universities. Oftentimes the money is for paying for scholarships to send tens of thousands of Muslim students into American campuses.
In the 2017/18 school year, Saudi Arabia had over 44,000 students studying in American universities – the fourth largest total in the world and as much as every country in South America COMBINED (a population 13 times as large). That total was actually down from the 2016/17 school year when there were over 52,000 Saudi students, and lower then the incredible 61,287 in 2015/16 – an astounding one Saudi student in the United States for every 537 people from that country. To give that figure context, that’s the equivalent of 610,000 American students studying in a single country, while the actual number of US students studying abroad, all over the world, was 330,000.
The enormous number of students coming from Saudi Arabia was the part of the Obama Administration’s outreach to the Muslim Middle East. The United States permitted greater numbers of students from Muslim countries than anywhere else in the world. That policy reversed course under the Trump Administration, as seen in the table below showing the annual change in the number of foreign students in the U.S.
NYU, Harvard, Columbia, MIT and many other universities have been taking hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of students from corrupt Islamic regimes who finance terror and spur antisemitism. As many American institutions have begun to return tainted money from the likes of the Sacklers and Jeffrey Epstein, it is similarly time to send the money and students back to their point of origin.
America’s “call-out” culture has seemingly had a very easy time identifying racism, but a much more difficult time seeing anti-Semitism.
Consider a new potential cast member for Saturday Night Light, Shane Gillis, who was found to have made off-color comments in the past. He was terminated this week before his first day on the job and the media was clear that his racist jokes were the cause:
Every headline made it clear that Gillis made racist remarks. They were not “perceived as racist,” “allegedly racist” or people “claimed they were racist” or “objected to the comments.” For the racist jokes – meant for amusement, not malice – the media was definite in calling it out without condition.
But the same cannot be said of antisemitism.
The founders of the Women’s March repeatedly smeared Zionism and said that Jews who back the Jewish State are sinister. The female founders stated that they were proud of their association with the vocal anti-Semitic preacher Louis Farrakhan. No matter. In commenting about three of the four founders stepping down from their post this week because of their comments and associations, the media made their comments very conditional:
Carmen Perez, Bob Bland, Tamika D. Mallory, and Linda Sarsour attend the TIME 100 Gala on April 25, 2017, in New York. CHARLES SYKES / INVISION / AP)
For the media, the antisemitism was not so clear. The women were simply accused of antisemitism, but did not necessarily say anything antisemitic. Even while the intent of the women was to vilify, demonize and dehumanize, the media opted to bracket and condition the antisemitism, while doing nothing similar for Gillis’s racist jokes which were meant to entertain.
Even the most clearly vile and noxious antisemitism spewed from the mouth of the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, got a pass from the press.
Shane Gillis also denied that he’s a racist and was just trying to be funny, but his protest did not make it into the headlines.
When the anti-male and anti-White comments by New York Times Asian female columnist Sarah Jeong came to light including “White men are bullshit,” “#CancelWhitePeople,” “white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants” and “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” the Times pardoned her comments and let her remain on staff.
So we are left to question the disparity.
Is the source of the comment the differentiator? Are the racist comments from white men perceived as worse than those coming from women or minorities?
Consider a leading white male politician in the United Kingdom who has made antisemitic and anti-Israel comments as matter of ritual. The antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has become so intense, that many Jews have left the party and the parliament itself. Still, the press conditioned the accusations against the Corbyn and the party:
This liberal white male was given the soft-touch by the media.
He was not alone.
When acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas said that Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust because of their behavior, and that Europeans have hated Jews for centuries because of their “function,” the press was tepid in labeling his outrageous statements as anti-Semitic.
The media is uniquely adept at clearly identifying and calling out racist speech while it contorts itself around antisemitism, noting that some people (you know who those pesky critters are, the media keeps telling you they’re racists) might possibly consider certain comments as problematic and allege antisemitism. Such manipulations makes room for the hatred and gives it air.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal on July 12, 2019 called “Can Ilhan Omar Overcome Her Prejudice.” It was an article written by a black Muslim woman refugee from Somalia who fled to the Netherlands to enter politics as a converted Christian, about another black Muslim woman refugee from Somalia who fled to the United States to enter politics as a Muslim.
Hirsi Ali’s comments were stark. And bleak. And frightening.
She wrote about how anti-Semitism is instilled into the Somalian community from the youngest age, and how hating Jews is as natural as breathing air. This, despite the fact that almost no Somalian ever encountered a Jew in their lives. Hirsi Ali wrote how she had to unlearn her prejudice, and she wonders whether Ilhan Omar (and presumably all people from Somalia) will ever be able to unlearn the deep Jew-hatred endemic in that society.
Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American Muslim woman came to Omar’s defense on the charge of antisemitism and said that “white Jews” tried to characterize Omar as an anti-Semite just because she’s a black Muslim woman – inverting the charge to white Jews being the racists. Sarsour contended that Jews think that Muslims are anti-Semites by default, “guilty until proven innocent.” Sarsour seemed to skip the uncomfortable fact that Omar made anti-Semitic statements again and again and again (let alone black non-Jews like Hirsi Ali pointing out Omar’s antisemitism).
As to Sarsour’s contention that “white Jews” think all Muslims are anti-Semites, she must be referring to the Anti Defamation League poll done in 2014 of countries around the world. There were 25 Muslim-majority countries reviewed, which showed that an average of 69% of the people in those countries were antisemitic. That compares to an average of 24% anti-Semites in non-Muslim majority countries, almost three times the rate of hate.
According to the ADL, once a country passes the 95% Muslim population threshold, almost every single man and woman hates Jews. In countries like Somalia (homeland for Omar and Hirsi Ali which was not polled by ADL which is 98% Muslim) including Yemen, Iraq, Algeria and Libya, the percentage of antisemitic adults in those countries are 89%, 92%, 87% and 89%, respectively. Sarsour’s Palestinian territories are 92% antisemitic.
For Sarsour, a Jewish organization which shows the antisemitism in Muslim societies must itself be racist, as well as those who read and believe the poll’s findings.
Israeli Jews of Color
Omar, Sarsour and fellow Muslim woman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are proud anti-Zionists who attack Israel with “apartheid” charges, perhaps failing to realize that the “white Jews” who descended from Europe and Russia are a minority in Israel, while the majority of Jews are from Arab, Muslim and African countries, Jews of color. They fully engage in the most liberal country of the entire MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, making a new life in the Jewish State after they and their families were expelled and forced to flee Muslim lands.
White Jewish Men
By constantly calling themselves “Muslim women of color”, combining every minority element in the U.S., these women are directing their bile not just at non-Muslim white people, but men in particular.
Interestingly, the ADL polls of 2014 and 2015 show that in almost every single country and for every question, men are indeed more likely than women to be antisemitic. However, in a few instances, such as in the United States and the United Kingdom, women are more likely than men to believe that: Jews are hated for the way they behave; don’t care about anyone but fellow Jews; are more loyal to Israel than their country; and that they talk about the Holocaust too much. These antisemitic attitudes are in contrast to men who are more focused on perceived Jewish “control” over the financial markets, the media and US government. Like most antisemitic women, Omar, Tlaib and Sarsour clearly don’t think much about Holocaust appropriation, and are seemingly leaning in to cover all manner of antisemitic tropes as well.
And for a moment of clarity, it is worth noting that Hirsi Ali’s conversion from Islam to Christianity is not simply an affront to Muslims, but an act of apostasy that is illegal throughout the Muslim world. In some societies – like Sarsour’s and Tlaib’s Palestinian Arab community – the majority of people believe that apostates should be subject to the death penalty. It seems that for these intersectional women, there is nothing worse than breaking from the narrow wisdom breast-fed since birth.
With such orientation, it makes the discussion of antisemitism between Muslim women and a former-Muslim woman that much more interesting. Did Hirsi Ali need to leave Islam to purge her prejudice? One data point does not make for a compelling argument for 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide.
Muslim women calling “white Jews” in America and Jews of color in Israel “racists” does not make any of the Jews racists; it simply adds to the long list of antisemitic smears from a handful of anti-Semites who should be given no air. And it leads one to unfortunately conclude that many leading American Muslim women may never unlearn their antisemitism, as much as a leading Dutch apostate might desire.
Yesterday’s post called “Linda Sarsour as Pontius Pilate” got quite a bit of pushback. People wanted to know what was the point of attacking a Muslim woman who wasn’t even elected to office. They asked why there wasn’t an article written about President Trump and other calls of whataboutery.
Linda Sarsour is just one data point about an insidious jihad taking place in the United States.
On April 20, 2019, another Muslim woman – this one, an elected official, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) – posted a feed on her Twitter account that rebuked Christians for not realizing that Jesus was a Palestinian, the same sort of inanity produced by Sarsour on July 6.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) before Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
A few days later on May 9, the most power Democrat in office, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, invited Imam Omar Suleiman to give a prayer before Congress. Suleiman was the original source of Omar’s retweet.
In reaction to Suleiman addressing Congress, Rep Lee Zeldin (R-NY) rebuked Pelosi for inviting such a divisive person to address the august body, stating.
“Totally unacceptable that @SpeakerPelosi had Omar Suleiman give the opening prayer yesterday in the House. He compares Israel to the Nazis & calls them terrorists, supports Muslim Brotherhood, incites violence calling for a Palestinian antifada & the end of zionism, etc. Bad call”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) went into high gear with accusations of “Islamophobia,” rather than address the issue that a national platform was given to a virulent basher of a strong American ally. As described in cnsnews.com:
“Ekram Haque, acting executive director of CAIR’s Dallas-Fort Worth chapter, accused “anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian groups” of having “launched a smear campaign against yet another person of color and American Muslim leader in the hope of maligning and marginalizing our communities.”
A brilliant continuation of lies whereby the anti-Zionists deflected the charge with charges of Islamophobia.
The CNS news site continued that Suleiman has 1.35 million followers on Facebook and 282,000 followers on Twitter where he posted comments like these:
Facebook post, May 15, 2018:“Apartheid Israel, with American funding and cover, continues to terrorize with impunity.”
Facebook post, 10 August 2015: “Want to know what its [sic] like to live under Nazis? Look no further than how the Palestinians are treated daily by apartheid Israel. Sickening.”
Facebook post, 3 August 2014: “How symbolic: 2 books buried in the rubble of a destroyed home in Gaza: One about Moses and the other about Muhammad (peace be upon them both). The Zionists are the enemies of God, His Messengers, sincere followers of all religions, and humanity as a whole.”
Twitter post, 24 July 2014: “God willing on this blessed night as the 3rd Intifada begins, the beginning of the end of Zionism is here. May Allah help us overcome this monster, protect the innocent of the world, and accept the murdered as martyrs. ameen.”
Suleiman/Omar/Pelosi are far cries from an innocuous and impotent “social activist” making silly remarks about Jesus being a Palestinian. This is a man calling for the destruction of Israel who is parroted by a congresswomen and speaking before Congress.
Sarsour herself has many other friends at the top of the Democratic Party that are furthering the demonization of Jews and the Jewish State.
Linda Sarsour and Cornel West, right, listen as Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks in a roundtable discussion April 16, 2016, at the First Unitarian Congregational Society in the Brooklyn borough of New York. (Mary Altaffer / AP)
Sarsour has developed a very close relationship with one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders proudly posted her endorsement of his 2020 presidential run on his website. He clearly believes that her voice carries weight and will win him votes. (It should be noted that Sanders also posted the support of another loud anti-semite, former British MP George Galloway as well as Cornel West and James Zogby.)
Another 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand loudly and proudly complemented Sarsour for her role in the Women’s March stating: “It was an honor to write about them.” In addition to Israel-hater Sarsour, the other women Gillibrand wrote about were people like Tamika Mallory who is proud of her relationship with noted anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. (Gillibrand has company in another Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Cory Booker who also stands with Farrakhan).
Sarsour is also close to current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a fellow Israel-basher (who happens to be Muslim) who was the Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The two back each other all the way.
In short, Sarsour is not some low-level un-influential community organizer. She has a loud platform and ears of the leaders of the Democratic party.
The “progressive” intersectionality movement is merging the radical Muslim jihadist sect like Sarsour/ Omar/ Ellison with the far-left Democratic leadership like Sanders, Booker and Gillbrand as well as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris who both excused Ilhan’s Omar’s anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist comments. Rather than criticize the essence of the hateful American jihadists comments, the Democratic leadership is opting to condemn the targets of the smear attacks (including pro-Israel Republicans, religious Christians and and Jews) as racists. Appreciating the results, the jihadists do it again, further binding the alt-left to its cause, as the Democratic leadership seems unwilling or unable to pull itself out of the tailspin.
The insidious jihad is just getting started, and will roll over the Democratic Party should it elect a member of the far-left as its presidential nominee.
The term “cultural appropriation” (or sometimes “cultural misappropriation” ) is defined by Dictionary.com as “the act of adopting elements of an outside, often minority culture, including knowledge, practices, and symbols, without understanding or respecting the original culture and context.” It has been used by some “social justice activists” to attack the majority culture who use certain foods, clothing or symbols of a minority ethnic or religious group in a manner that is viewed as demeaning.
How much worse is it to not just use articles of clothing or food but to abuse a group’s ancestors and history? How much more sinister is it to do it to deliberately anger and attack a group, rather than take an action meant with no malice?
Leaders of the Palestinian Authority and its founder Yasser Arafat had often declared that Jesus was a Muslim Palestinian Arab in interviews, press releases and their official TV. Their transparent goal was to make it sound that Jesus was not a Jew but a Muslim Palestinian Arab like themselves. They manufactured a fake history that not only did Jews have no history in the region, but Palestinian Arabs did, in an effort to undermine the claims of Jews as being indigenous to the holy land.
The argument was also designed to enable Muslim Arabs to assert control of Christian holy sites in the holy land, not just Muslim ones, and align themselves with billions of Christians around the world. The actual Judeo-Christian history in the holy land with Muslim Arabs as foreign invaders over six centuries later was repackaged and retold as a Palestinian Muslim Arab-Christian story, with Jews coming as the foreign invaders two millenia later in creating Israel.
But you can almost forgive the Palestinian Authority for their insults and lies. They have cornered themselves into asserting that their entire claim to the land is that they are indigenous. The much older and deeper Jewish history undermines the very foundation to their claim.
Further, the Palestinian Authority lives in a third world backwater of their own making in the Middle East. Rather than create a liberal society like Israel, they cling to their repressive brothers which afford little to no rights for women and minorities.
So how should one consider the same remarks coming from a “progressive, social justice activist” like Linda Sarsour on July 6, 2019?
Sarsour lives in the United States of America, a predominantly Christian country. She was a co-founder of the “Women’s March” in Washington, D.C. and claims to care about oppressed minorities – even Jews, the most persecuted group on the planet. She has the background to know better and speak clearer than a bunch of old Arab men in the Middle East.
So why did she choose to insult billions of Christians and a couple of million Jews with the notion that Jesus wasn’t a Jew but a Muslim Arab? Why attack the faith of billions of others?
Sarsour is part of a new wave of Muslim jihadists. Not the ones who used physical force to invade lands like the jihadists from Arabia who swept through the Jewish holy land and north Africa in the 7th and 8th centuries killing and converting non-believers. Sarsour describes herself as a jihadist in the mold of using words “of truth” to form a particular narrative. As she said in July 2017:
“What is the best form of jihad, or struggle? And our beloved prophet … said to him, ‘A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad. I hope that … when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”
Are her words “of truth”?
Jesus was not an Arab. Arabs didn’t come to the holy land en masse until they invaded in the seventh century, over 600 years after Jesus lived.
Jesus was not a Muslim. He was a Jew and father of the Christian faith.
Jesus was not a Palestinian. In the time of Jesus, the area was known as Judea. After the Bar Kochba Revolt (132-135CE), well after Jesus lived, the Roman conquerors changed the name of the province to “Syria Palestina.” The word “Palestine” didn’t even exist while Jesus was alive.
The same Roman Empire that crucified Jesus, destroyed the Jewish Temple, slaughtered the Jews of Judea and built pagan altars throughout the holy land, renamed the province to destroy the Jewish and nascent Christian spirit in the land. To call Jesus a Palestinian is not just incorrect, it is a highly charged insult which brands him with the signatures of his killers and everything he loathed.
Sarsour is seemingly happy to dress the part of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea who sentenced Jesus to death: destroy those who believe differently, rebrand the land, retell a new story to define a new narrative to your liking. In a “progressive social activist” world where “my truths” are more potent than facts, the alt-left audience is ripe for her fabrications. In rallying to her support, they won’t even pause to consider the outright lies or cultural appropriation.
Sarsour is not bringing words “of truth” to America, she is bringing a highly-charged jihad to destroy the Judeo-Christian roots of America.
In February 2019, new Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) accused members of Congress of selling their votes to the Israel lobby saying “it’s all about the Benjamins.” While the comment was condemned by most members of Congress, her alt-left progressive comrades stood by her, including fellow female Muslim Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Woman’s March organizer Linda Sarsour, also a Muslim woman. Sarsour had loudly attacked Israel with comments like “there’s nothing creepier than Zionism,” while defending sharia law and the actions of Muslim countries.
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
Curiously, just one year before Omar’s antisemitic “Benjamins” smear, the Arab Muslim country of Jordan was busy selling off rights to citizenship for huge stacks of Benjamins.
On February 19, 2018, the parliament of Jordan passed the Jordanian Citizenship by Investment Programme (JIP), which proudly declared “High-net-worth individuals can now become Jordanian citizens!” (exclamation point NOT added). How sweet! Citizenship in Jordan is so coveted, they’ll sell it to anyone – as long as they have at least $1 million to fork over to Jordan.
Personally, I think a country can make whatever rules it wants about citizenship. I would likely value Jordanian citizenship at about a single dollar (Canadian), but that’s just me.
However, what’s beyond insulting is that thousands of people – specifically women and Palestinians just like Linda Sarsour – are DENIED citizenship in Jordan, and stripped of citizenship they once had.
In Jordan, a male-dominated society, citizenship is controlled by men. By law, only men can pass on citizenship to their wives and children; a woman cannot pass on citizenship to her children or spouse.
And rather than rectify the situation when making adjustments to citizenship laws, Jordan simply went for the Benjamins and didn’t offer a morsel to women. Many activists in Jordan were outraged. But not a peep from Omar, Tlaib or Sarsour.
Linda Sarsour, herself a child of Palestinians and a woman’s rights advocate, could not arch an eyebrow about the insulting practice of Jordan selling a right it won’t even extend to women in the country.
For Palestinians, the insult is particularly insulting. Those people living in the West Bank which Jordan illegally annexed in 1950, were given Jordanian citizenship in 1954 until Jordan revoked such citizenship on July 31, 1988. The Jordanians have since started removing the citizenship of thousands of other people of Palestinian origin living inside of Jordan. It’s almost as though Palestinians were transforming into Jews, who were specifically denied Jordanian citizenship in Article 3 of the 1954 Citizenship Law.
Neither the Palestinian part of her persona, nor her women’s warrior mantle could stir Sarsour to denounce the actions of the Jordanians. A country where only the wealthy can get citizenship while poor women worry over the fate and future of their own children.
When observing Omar, Tlaib and Sarsour, one can only sigh that “there’s nothing creepier than Muslim antisemitism dressed up as progressivism.”
In 2012, the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel (now banned) created a group called the Murabitat which were tasked with harassing Jews that visited the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It received funding from Hamas, the terrorist group that has the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and administers Gaza.
These Arab Muslims objected to the presence of Jews anywhere on what they perceived as Arab land, but even more so, on the third holiest site for Islam.
The Mourabitat (the women’s group) would yell “Allahu Akbar” at Jewish groups who came to visit their holiest site, blocking their pathway and often throwing debris at them. An armed group of police became required to accompany the handful of Jewish visitors to the site to protect them from the constant onslaught, while non-Jews were free to walk about the Temple Mount complex unimpeded. In many instances, the Israeli police would evict or ban the Jewish visitors to try to calm the situation, in a victory for the antisemites.
The United States has seemingly welcomed the latest iteration of the Mourabitat into the halls of Congress, with the election of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Tlaib started her first day at office hurling curses at the President of the United States. Accompanied by her friend, anti-Zionist Linda Sarsour, she loudly calls for a boycott of America’s most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel. Sarsour has stated that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” and together with the other leaders of the Women’s March, are close to noted antisemite Louis Farrakhan who also enjoys insulting Jews before thousands of people.
Tlaib defines all of Israel as Arab Land. She expects and wants millions of descendants of Arabs who left Palestine generations ago to all move into Israel regardless of the wishes of the sovereign Israeli government, and to dismantle the only Jewish State. She also calls Israel an “apartheid” state, ignoring the Arab members of Knesset, on the Supreme Court and in the army.
Her fellow freshman Muslim woman in Congress Ilhan Omar has berated both American supporters of Israel saying that they have dual loyalties, and fellow members of Congress claiming that they only support Israel because they want the money from Zionists.
Like the antisemitic Mourabitat women in Israel, these new members of Congress do not believe that Jews have rights to live, work and pray in their own sovereign country, as they feel that those rights belong to the descendants of Arabs who lost a war they initiated generations ago. Tlaib and Omar will harass, taunt, insult Zionists and do their utmost to break the US-Israel bond. They will not utter a word against the dozens of non-Jewish countries that hang gays from cranes, deny people the ability to convert from Islam and prevent women from even driving, just as the Mourabitat say nothing to the non-Jews on the Temple Mount.
The question is whether Americans fear the broader Muslim world the way that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu does and toss Jews from the Jewish Temple Mount, or will they stand proudly by the sole prosperous liberal democracy that sits in the volatile illiberal Arab Middle East.
On March 15, 2019, a horrific massacre happened in New Zealand, as a racist burst into two mosques and slaughtered innocent people. The actions were rightly condemned broadly throughout the civilized world.
However, the following day, the outspoken Palestinian-American, anti-Zionist Linda Sarsour chose not to attack the racism and racist actions of the madman, but instead criticized people who were angered by Muslim antisemitism, as if they deserved part of the blame:
“I am triggered by those who piled on Representative Ilhan Omar and incited a hate mob against her until she got assassination threats now giving condolences to our community. What we need you to do is reflect on how you contribute to islamophobia and stop doing that.”
Sarsour has often said that criticizing the policies of the government of Israel is not anti-Semitic, so it is therefore interesting how she can somehow not appreciate that condemning specific actions and comments – Muslim antisemitism – is not a call to hate all Muslims, nor is it Islamophobia.
As reviewed in these pages, Muslim antisemitism is widespread throughout the world and more prevalent over the past decades than antisemitism from other religious groups. That is a fact which all well-meaning people wish was not true. The condemnation of Ilhan Omar’s antisemitic comments were made in the hopes that she would not make such comments again. Similarly, the aim of writing about Muslim antisemitism is to work to eradicate the noxious hatred, not Islam itself. The ultimate goal is to see all religions – including Islam, Judaism and Christianity – living together peacefully in all corners of the world.
A proud American can criticize US policies and a proud Israeli can criticize Israeli policies, and a pro-Zionist American might also criticize some Israeli policies. Pointing out particular flaws in some of Israel’s policies does not label a person antisemitic, just as pointing to a flaw prevalent in Muslim society, which have been repeatedly spewed from the mouth of an elected Muslim American Congresswoman, is not Islamophobic.
However, Sarsour is not trying to change a particular Israeli policy; she is attempting to destroy the Jewish State. Her comments like “There’s nothing creepier than Zionism,” and people should not “humanize” Israelis, as well as her repeated calls to boycott Israel make it clear that her goals are not simply to soften Israel’s blockade of the terrorist-controlled enclave of Gaza, or to expel all Jews from the West Bank, arguably antisemitic desires in their own. But her incessant comments make clear that she wants to see the destruction of the Jewish State which does make her an anti-Semite.
Linda Sarsour says don’t “humanize” Israelis
I hope for a world in which Muslims live in peace alongside people of all faiths: that Jews and Muslims can each pray on the Jewish Temple Mount; that Jews, Muslims and Christians can each live and work throughout the “West Bank,” Israel and Gaza; where antisemitic terrorist groups like Hamas are banned outright; where the Jewish State has embassies in the entire Muslim world and all of those countries similarly locate their embassies in Israel’s capital of Jerusalem. It is a goal of coexistence with peace-loving people.
The act of denouncing Muslim antisemitism instead of continuing the global policy of ignoring and encouraging it, is to facilitate such a peaceful world. If only the demonizers of Israel had such lofty goals, instead of the antisemitic desire to destroy the only Jewish state.