VIDEO: Rashida Tlaib – Muslim Congresswoman – First Day On The Job [Graphic Language]

This past summer, The United West team joined with Dick Manasseri and his Sharia Crime Stoppers in Michigan to expose Rashida Tlaib, as an anti-American, Palestinian operative dedicated to remaking America in the image of GAZA!

Well, Rashida Tlaib got elected and was sworn in on January 3 in full Palestinian garb and with her hand on a Quran.

Yes, in America.

We warned Michigan and we warned America, now stay tuned as the SHARIAH SHOW goes into high gear in our nation’s capitol, Washington, D.C.

Watch the CNN report on Tlaib.


Freshman Democrat On Trump: ‘We’re Going To Go In And Impeach The Motherf**ker’

Pelosi On Congresswoman’s ‘Impeach Motherf**ker’ Trump Comments: ‘I’m Not In The Censorship Business’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Rashida Tlaib is from Facebook.

Just in Time for Hanukkah, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Remembers Her Jewish Roots [Part One]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the much-ballyhooed new — and at 29, the youngest ever — member of the House of Representatives, recently announced, at a celebration in Queens on the last day of Hanukkah, that she has Jewish — Sephardic — ancestry. She claims that she is a descendant of Sephardic Jews who fled Spain during the Inquisition, and made it to Puerto Rico. How many Sephardic Jews there are in her family tree, and what percentage of her ancestry, is “Sephardic Jewish,” she did not make public. Only she and — or some similar group — know for sure.

Why, one wonders, did she raise this only now? Why not have mentioned it when running for Congress from New York, to appeal to some Jewish voters, and to try to immunize herself from criticism for the ill-informed remarks about Israel that she made during an interview with Margaret Hoover of Firing Line on July 18?

For let us remember what Ocasio-Cortez, a self-styled “progressive” — a word which nowadays, alas, often suggests a palpable want of sympathy for Israel — said in that interview on July 18. She described Israel’s presence in the West Bank as an “occupation.” That word implies that Israel has no claim to the West Bank, save as a military occupier. This would put the West Bank on the same level as Occupied Japan (to which the United States made no permanent claim), Occupied France (to which Nazi Germany had only the claim of military conqueror), or Occupied Berlin, divided into four sectors under the control of  the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, with all four countries seen as temporary military occupiers, having no permanent claim on Berlin.

But Israel’s claim to the West Bank is not solely, or even mainly, that of a military occupier. It has two separate and very strong claims to all of the land on the west side of the Jordan River.. The first claim is based on the Mandate for Palestine itself. The entire territory of the West Bank (as the Jordanians deliberately renamed those parts of Judea and Samaria that they held at the end of the 1948-49 war) was originally included in the territory allocated to the Mandate for Palestine, which had been created for the sole purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. It was well understood that eventually that Jewish National Home would become the Jewish state. The only reason the entire West Bank was not originally included in the new state of Israel is that the Jordanian army managed to hold onto part of it when hostilities ended in 1949. Had Israel been in possession of all of the West Bank at the end of those hostilities, that would have been the end of the matter. The Jordanian claim, unlike that of Israel, was based only on it being a military occupier of part of the  West Bank from 1949 to 1967. By their military victory in 1967, the Israelis were at long last able to enforce their pre-existing legal claim, which had been established in1922, by the provisions of the Mandate itself.

A second, and independent claim, to the West Bank by Israel is that which arises out of the language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. That resolution, as its author Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the U.N., repeatedly made clear, did not require Israel to return all of the territory it had won in the “recent conflict” (the Six-Day War of June 1967). Lord Caradon described Israel’s pre-1967 lines as  impermanent armistice lines, reflecting only where the Israeli and Arab troops were located at that moment when the armistice went into effect. He further described those lines as “a rotten border,” and for good measure added “you couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary.” In other words, there should be no forcing Israel back into the1949 armistice lines. Despite Lord Cardamon’s insistence on the meaning of the resolution, the Arab states kept trying to claim that Resolution 242 required Israel to withdraw “from all the territories” it had just seized. Lord Cardamon said, heatedly, that the Resolution most definitely did not mean that; if he had intended to mean that he would have written it that way; he deliberately wrote instead “from territories” taken in the recent conflict.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Hugh Fitzgerald with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Robert Zunikoff on Unsplash.

Linda Sarsour attacks Israel supporters, accuses American Jews of ‘dual loyalty to Israel’

Linda Sarsour appeared to criticize American Jews of a dual loyalty to Israel in a Facebook post calling for support for Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar, following a backlash over her announcement that she supports boycotting Israel. Sarsour wrote….that Omar is “being attacked for saying that she supports BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) and the right for people to engage in constitutionally protected freedoms. This is not only coming from the right-wing but some folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; it is surrounded by Muslim countries that seek to obliterate it simply for being the Jewish state. It is no secret that from the day of its birth in 1948, Israel has fought for its existence, after the Holocaust that was aided by jihadists.

It was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who “proposed an Arab revolt all across the Middle East to fight the Jews,” and who ultimately worked with Hitler and Eichmann in executing the Holocaust. In 1942, during World War II, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Hassan al-Banna, established MB branches in Transjordan and Ottoman South Syria (what is referred to as “Palestine”). The MB propaganda against Israel, and its aim to obliterate it, has thus been the dominant ideology in the Palestinian territories since World War II.

Sarsour supports the jihad against Israel, but pretends that she is standing for “democracy” and “free speech,” neither of which have any place in the Palestinian territories and in the Islamic states that surround Israel. BDS is nothing more than a calculated scheme to delegitimize the Jewish state of Israel. It is a sly promotion of anti-Semitism, and aims ultimately to destroy Israel via economic sanctions.

Benjamin Netanyahu ignited a firestorm when he rightly stated at the 37th World Zionist Congress three years ago:

“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said, ‘Burn them’.”

Prior to Netanyahu’s words, it was relatively easy to find this historic reference to al-Husseini’s conversation with Hitler, but when one does a Google search now,  Netanyahu’s reference is central and is surrounded by remarks about how shocking Netanyahu’s words were. What is actually shocking is the Grand Mufti’s remarks. And those of Ilhan Omar:

Omar’s tweets about Israel have earned her notoriety in the pro-Israel community. In 2012, she said that Israel had “hypnotized the world” to ignore its “evil doings.” Defending that tweet earlier this year, she said on the same platform that calling attention to the “Israeli apartheid regime” was not anti-Semitic…The statement appears to contradict her comments during a candidates’ forum at a Minneapolis-area synagogue in which Omar affirmed her support for Israel’s right to exist under a two-state solution and said she did not support BDS.

The Muslim Brotherhood and other stealth jihadists are the ones who have hypnotized the world with their deceptions, promulgated under the guise of “diversity,” “anti-racism,” and concern for “human rights.”

Israel has defended itself from obliteration while Sarsour and Omar cast it an “apartheid regime.” Meanwhile, scores of Arab Israelis openly discuss with tourists their happiness living in Israel compared with the abuses of their own people by the Palestinian Authority. Worse is that Sarsour and Omar have been aided in spreading their anti-Semitic propaganda by Westerners who mindlessly support the BDS movement and share its willful and shameless ignorance of history.

Although Sarsour claims to support human rights, she is silent about the gross abuses committed by her coreligionists against non-Muslims, gays and women. Add in the ongoing efforts to obliterate the tiny Jewish state, surrounded by large Muslim nations that are Muslim nations today because they were conquered by the vilest of means: bloody jihad, torture and the sanctioned taking of infidel sex slaves. What an advocate for human rights Sarsour makes.

Linda Sarsour

“Muslim Activist Sarsour Accuses American Jews of Dual Loyalty to Israel,” JTA, November 19, 2018:

Activist Linda Sarsour appeared to criticize American Jews of a dual loyalty to Israel in a Facebook post calling for support for Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar, following a backlash over her announcement that she supports boycotting Israel.

Sarsour wrote in the post on Thursday that Omar is “being attacked for saying that she supports BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) and the right for people to engage in constitutionally protected freedoms. This is not only coming from the right-wing but some folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.”

Sarsour, a leader of the Women’s March who has come under fire for not disassociating herself or the movement from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has made anti-Semitic and bigoted statements for decades, most recently comparing Jews to termites, also called for people to post messages of support to Omar on social media. “You don’t have to support BDS and have every right not to but we cannot stand by idly while a brave Black Muslim American woman is targeted for saying she will uphold the constitution of the United States of America as a member of the US Congress,” Sarsour wrote.

In the comments section on the post in response to the criticism, Sarsour singled out the Anti-Defamation League. In an online petition in support of Omar, Sarsour wrote that she was alarmed by “organizations like the ADL using their platforms to attack a trailblazing Black Muslim woman in order to undermine advocacy for Palestinian human rights.”

The post raised the ire of the American Jewish Committee which responded in a tweet that: “Accusing Jews of dual loyalty is one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic tropes. No surprise to see it coming from @LSarsour. How long will progressive leaders continue to look the other way in the face of this hate?

Ilhan’s campaign on Wednesday told the Muslim Girl website that she “believes in and supports the BDS movement.” It added that she “does, however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”

The statement appears to contradict her comments during a candidates’ forum at a Minneapolis-area synagogue in which Omar affirmed her support for Israel’s right to exist under a two-state solution and said she did not support BDS. She said that BDS “stops the dialogue” and is “counteractive” to achieving a two-state outcome….

RELATED ARTICLE: The ‘Hamas Caucus’: The Five Anti-Israel Women That Democrats elected to Congress

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images first appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission.

Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar admits she supports BDS, after saying it was ‘not helpful’ before election

The BDS movement is frankly neo-Nazi in its goals, as the Nazis staged nationwide boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses early in the life of the Third Reich. So Ilhan Omar had every reason to distance herself from this movement before the election. But now Representative Omar has nothing to lose.

“Muslim Trailblazer Ilhan Omar Admits She Backs BDS — Now That Election Is Over,” by Aiden Pink, Forward, November 13, 2018:

Tuesday marked the start of “freshman orientation” in Washington, D.C., where new members of Congress arrived to meet their colleagues and learn how the House and Senate actually work.

Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minneapolis and one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, quickly met up with some of her fellow trail-blazing colleagues like Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

But back at home, many of her Jewish constituents were grappling with remarks her office made on Sunday to a website called MuslimGirl, claiming that Omar supported the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

This seemed like a bait-and-switch to many Jewish Minnesotans: When she was asked at an August primary debate held in a synagogue to specify “exactly where you stand” on BDS, Omar said that BDS was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution” — never explaining that she in fact supported the policy.

“She’s either misrepresenting or misunderstanding. And I hope to be able to have a dialogue with her that clarifies which of those is the nature of her stance,” said Rabbi Avi Olitzky of Beth El Synagogue, which hosted the debate.

However, he added, “Just as I have with all of our previous elected officials, I hope to be able to continue a dialogue once Congresswoman-elect Omar is in office. However, this starts her tenure off on the wrong foot.”

Omar’s office did not respond to an interview request….

What a surprise.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. House Reverses 181-Year-Old-Rule To Appease Newly Elected Muslim

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured image of Ilhan Omar is from Facebook.

VIDEO: What Boycott, Divest and Sanction Movement Really Wants

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a video on the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement. IPT notes:

While the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is often portrayed — especially by mainstream media — as a peaceful movement aiming to “right” injustice, IPT’s video lays bare the true, far from peaceful agenda of BDS.


Steven Emerson

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. It is recognized as the world’s most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups. For more than two decades, the IPT has investigated the operations, funding, activities and front groups of Islamic terrorist and extremist groups in the United States and around the world. It has become a principal source of critical evidence to a wide variety of government offices and law enforcement agencies, as well as the U.S. Congress and numerous public policy forums. Research carried out by the IPT team has formed the basis for thousands of articles and television specials on the subject of radical Islamic involvement in terrorism, and has even led to successful government action against terrorists and financiers based in the United States.

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Tax deductible contributions should be made to its fund-raising arm, the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

Founder and executive director Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and author. Consulted by the White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies, Mr. Emerson is in great demand as one of the most astute, insightful and knowledgeable experts in the world today on the threat and prospects of militant Islamic terrorism. He has been quoted in more than 500 news articles and has appeared frequently on network television. His 2002 best-selling book, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, provides the first context and understanding for how one of the most notorious terrorist groups in the world could have plotted the worst terrorist attack on American soil without detection or scrutiny by American authorities.

Jewish students harassed and assaulted during Israeli Apartheid Week

“Frequently during Israeli Apartheid Week and BDS campaigns, Jewish students are singled out, harassed, intimidated and even assaulted, regardless of their feelings on Israel. Jewish students report feeling afraid to display their Jewish Star necklaces, wear their Jewish sorority or fraternity letters, or walk to Hillel for Shabbat dinner during these heightened weeks.” This is unconscionable in itself, and even worse given the official sanction that craven university officials all over the country give to this behavior.

“‘Apartheid Week’ really does threaten Israel, some experts warn,” by Matt Lebovic, Times of Israel, March 18, 2016:

BOSTON — For more than a decade, “Israeli Apartheid Week” has appeared at dozens of campuses worldwide, as the Jewish state’s detractors take center-stage to condemn the “settler-colonial project” where “apartheid policies over the Palestinian people” amount to “ethnic cleansing,” according to IAW’s mission statement.

In the assessment of some Israel supporters, loud elements of the pro-Israel community have made mountains out of molehills with their reaction to IAW, the annual Israel-bashing fest of Students for Justice in Palestine. In the words of an anonymous “Northeast Hillel director” quoted by JTA this week, “Apartheid Week” and other SJP activities amount to “kind of a big nothing.

“Many pro-Israel activists say their most successful strategy is simply to ignore it,” said Nadya Drukker, Brooklyn College’s Hillel director, in the article.

But on another part of the pro-Israel PR spectrum, some activists vehemently oppose an “ignore it” strategy, and are ringing alarms about the growth of campus anti-Semitism catalyzed by SJP’s supposedly “big nothing” activities — notably including the group’s quest to eliminate Jews from student government, aided by partners like Palestine Legal.

“Israeli Apartheid Week is a tremendous source of anti-Semitic expression and incitement of hatred for the Jewish state and Jews generally,” said Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, cofounder and director of the Israel advocacy AMCHA Initiative.

As SJP’s most publicized anti-Israel fest, IAW icons include the ugly gray apartheid wall, usually covered in “facts” to demonize Israel; mock Israeli military “check-points” set up to “simulate” the daily lives of Palestinians, and ubiquitous calls to “de-normalize” relations with Israel and implement BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against the Jewish state. (IAW is held in various countries worldwide between February and April; in the US this year, it is largely taking place between March 27 and April 3.)

Since its creation in 2005 by Arab students in Toronto, rolling “Apartheid Weeks” have taken place on North American campuses during the spring semester, with funding and guidance from the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace. For Jewish college students who visibly identify as such, the annual hate-fest can be a dreaded ordeal.

“Frequently during Israeli Apartheid Week and BDS campaigns, Jewish students are singled out, harassed, intimidated and even assaulted, regardless of their feelings on Israel,” Rossman-Benjamin told The Times of Israel in an interview. “Jewish students report feeling afraid to display their Jewish Star necklaces, wear their Jewish sorority or fraternity letters, or walk to Hillel for Shabbat dinner during these heightened weeks,” she said.

Last week, AMCHA released study findings that correlate BDS activities and anti-Semitic incidents on American campuses. From swastikas spray-painted onto the porches of Jewish fraternities, to students being punched at pro-Israel gatherings, the study called BDS a key driver of anti-Semitic incidents at dozens of universities. On some campuses, faculty and administrators actively support SJP and the BDS movement, adding fuel — and badly needed legitimacy — to anti-Israel fires….


NYC: Leftist and Muslim anti-Trump protesters battle cops, scream “f–k the police!”

South Carolina bill would hold sponsors liable if refugees from terror states commit crimes, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged

Main target in Paris jihad attack: Jewish-owned Bataclan Theater

As Pamela Geller points out here, the jihadi mass murderers in Mumbai in 2008 also went out of their way to target Jews, making a Chabad House in the city a principal site for their jihad. The Qur’an designates Jews the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82), and this manifests itself in a burning hatred that all too many Muslims have for Jews — a hatred that easily turns murderous.

This also shows how the global jihad and the BDS movement are close bedfellows.

“Paris’ Bataclan Theater was BDS and terrorist target for years,” by William A. Jacobson, Legal Insurrection, November 14, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

An uncomfortable history for some.

Of all the attacks in Paris yesterday, the attack on the Bataclan Theater was the most devastating.

French authorities said more than 80 people died in the club where California-based band Eagles of Death Metal had been playing for about an hour. When the shooting started after four gunmen entered the front of the 1,500-seat theater, dozens struggled to flee out the back alleyway as shots were being fired.

Gunmen who had entered, dressed all in black and armed with AK-47 rifles, calmly opened fire randomly at patrons who dived for cover on the floor, according to radio reporter Julien Pearce, who was near the stage when the shooting started. “The terrorists were very calm, very determined, and they reloaded three or four times,” Pearce said. “I saw 20 to 25 bodies lying on the floor.”

But why the Bataclan, of all the theaters and gathering places in Paris?

The answer may lie in the fact that it is Jewish-owned, and has been a target for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions BDS movement and terrorist threats for years.

This history was first publicized yesterday by the French Le Point magazine (via Google Translate):

Le Point Le Bataclan Theater Headline

“We had a planned attack against the Bataclan because the owners were Jewish. “This sentence, chilling under the taking of hostages and the carnage that would have made ​​this Friday,” a hundred dead, “according to police sources, was delivered to the offices of the DCRI, in February 2011. The French services then questioned members of “Jaish al-Islam,” the Army of Islam, suspected of the attack that killed a French student in Cairo in February 2009. They were planning an attack in France and had therefore taken targeted the famous Parisian theater.

Rehearsals threats

In 2007 and 2008, the Bataclan was already under the threat of more or less radical groups.At issue: holding regular conferences and galas of Jewish organizations, including the “Magav”, a border guard unit depending on the policy of Israel. In December 2008, whereas the Israeli military operation takes place in the Gaza Strip, the threats around the Bataclan are more accurate. On the Web, a video showing a group of a dozen young, face hidden by keffiyehs, threatening officials Bataclan about the organization’s annual gala Magav. At the time, Le Parisien devotes an article without this handful of activists to be truly identified. In the process, the annual meeting will be postponed.

Since then, whenever a Jewish organization meets at Bataclan, many hostile comments flourish on the Web. Yet in recent years, they seemed to have faded. Nevertheless, the Israeli press recalled that the rock bandEagles of Death that occurred Friday evening 13 had toured Israel. The group was then faced more calls for a boycott, which had not prevented from producing it.

The Tower Magazine provides this video from 2008:

Israel’s i24 News reports:

The threats against the Bataclan go back several years, with the venue often being a target of anti-Zionist groups. In 2007 and 2008, the theater received threats from radical groups due to its regular hosting of the conferences and galas of Jewish organizations, including one for the Israeli border police.

In December 2008, during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, threats to the Bataclan intensified and became more specific. A video was posted on the internet showing a group of youths with their faces masked, threatening the concert hall for its support of an event in honor of the Israeli border police.

Furthermore, pro-Palestinian associations have launched numerous petitions and encouraged their supporters to write to the authorities to protest the Bataclan’s hosting of pro-Israeli military events.

In 2011, Le Figaro reported that Farouk Ben Abbes, a Belgian national arrested in Egypt after the terror attack on a group of French students in Cairo in February that killed 17-year-old Cécile Vannier, had confessed that he “was planning an attack against the Bataclan in France.”

Three days after the attack on the French students, a report written by the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) in Cairo indicated that the teenagers had been targeted by a militant group who wanted them “to pay for France’s participation in Germinal boat blockade of Gaza” [a French-Israeli operation to stop the transfer of weapons to the coastal enclave].

In a series of arrests in May 2009, Egyptian State Security arrested seven suspects in connection with the attack on the French teens, one of whom justified possible attacks on the Bataclan on the grounds that “the owners are Jews.”

Needless to say, BDS supporters are uncomfortable with this history.

But as we know from the Paris riots in the summer of 2014 directed at the Jewish community, and subsequent violence connected to BDS, there is a connection between the frenzy directed at Israel, and violence against Jewish institutions and Jews. See several of my posts:

That connection may not have motivated ISIS, it’s too early to tell.

But it’s still part of the ugly history of anti-Semitic violence in France, and needs to be discussed as France and Europe decide what types of societies they will have. And whether there is a place for Jews.


FBI top dog won’t release motive in Chattanooga jihad shootings: “We don’t want to smear people”

After Paris jihad massacre, Lindsey Graham wants to double funding for Syrian “refugees” and bring even more to U.S.

Rising European Anti-Israelism: Islam’s ‘War of a Million Cuts’

A festschrift was held in Jerusalem on June 22, 2015 to launch Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld’s latest book on the New Antisemitism; The War of a Million Cuts. The Jerusalem book launch was sponsored by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, where Gerstenfeld had been the policy think tank group’s long term Chairman prior to his retirement in 2012. Gerstenfeld’s latest book investigates the various dimensions, mechanisms and forces behind a global movement delegitimizing and demonizing Israel and world Jewry. Among those who were prominent speakers at the book’s launch were Steven Linde, Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post, Isi Leibler, Australian-Israeli commentator of note, and Amon Lord, author and editor of Makor Roshon and the webzine Mida. Praise for Gerstenfeld’s latest book came from former Spanish Premier Jose Maria Aznar:

Israel happens to be a centerpiece of Western civilization. This is why it is under constant attack, and why we should do everything in our power to allow Israel to remain strong, free, and prosperous.

Just prior to the JCPA launch of A War of a Million Cuts, Aznar was interviewed in Ha’aretz about news reports drawing attention to the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. He said: “Its aim is to put pressure on the Israeli government. BDS does not only want to change the government’s policy, it wants to empty the country of Jews.”

Messrs. Linde, Liebler, Lord and Gerstenfeld’s response to Aznar’s Ha’aretz interview was that while BDS is currently prominent, the overarching problem is “delegitimization in general and Holocaust inversion.”

In the wake of the untimely passing at a conference in Rome in May 2015 of renowned expert on Antisemitism, Hebrew University Professor Robert Wistrich, Gerstenfeld has emerged as the leading authority and analyst of European Antisemitism. In 2013, we reviewed and interviewed him on his book Demonizing Israel and the Jews. We also reviewed his latest book, The War of a Million Cuts in the June 2015 edition of the New English Review.

In preparation for this interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld, we conferred with him and decided to concentrate on issues that he had raised in his new book about how the New Antisemitism is transmitted and the impact on both Israelis and especially European Jewish communities.

Against this background we conducted this interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld.

Jerry Gordon:  Dr. Gerstenfeld thank you for consenting to this interview.

Manfred Gerstenfeld:  Thank you for the opportunity.

Gordon:  How has the abuse of language been used as a tool to convey hatred of Israel, the new anti-Semitism?

Gerstenfeld:  One has to understand that semantics are not neutral. A French scholar of rhetoric Georges-Elia Sarfati has undertaken a detailed linguistic analysis of the defamation of Israel. He says that any discourse is formulated on the basis of the ideological views of those who engage in it. Thus words are not neutral. They serve the purpose of the person who uses them. This is explained in detail in the War of a Million Cuts.

One example Sarfati gives, which is an excellent one is the terminology used by the Nazis. One of the words the Nazis invented was, in German, Vernichtungskrieg; meaning a war of total destruction, extermination. Nowadays Israel is accused of conducting a war of extermination of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, there is wide agreement to this hate statement in the mainstream of European society. There are 400 million citizens of 16 years and older in the European Union. Of them 40 percent-plus, certainly more than 150 million think that Israel conducts a war of extermination against the Palestinians. They agree with such a statement when asked in polls. We have seven studies on this subject. The first one dates from 2004 with the most recent one done in 2015. We have many more statistics on Germany than on other countries. In 2004, a great majority of Germans, who should really know better, in view of their own past, saw Israel as a Nazi state.

Gordon:  Did the rumored French-sponsored UN resolution seeking to declare a Palestinian state mask domestic problems in Europe resulting from mass Muslim emigration?

Gerstenfeld:  In the past, in what we call “modern times,” the main force behind anti-Semitism was Hitler. We now live in post-modern times, and everything is very fragmented. It is very important for many European parties to obtain Muslim votes. Their votes may make the difference between winning or losing in national or local elections. In France — where the Muslim population is about 10 percent — in the Presidential elections of 2012 there were indications that the number of Muslims who voted for the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande was much bigger than for the outgoing president Nicolas Sarkozy. Analysts estimate that the Muslim votes may have made almost all the difference between the two candidates. So the Muslim vote is certainly a consideration. But there are also other ones. For instance, France today has sunk to be a secondary or tertiary force in the world. It may want to play a role again in the Middle East which is a much publicized area. France would like to polish its image by doing something which makes an impact in that area where it once was a major power, and today has lost virtually all its influence. France, until after the Second World War, was the second major force in the Middle East after the UK. They were the main foreign influence in Syria and Lebanon. Today, it would be unthinkable for France to take on militarily the Islamic State. It can at best be an also ran. Another consideration is that France for many years has been pro-Arab in its foreign policy.

Gordon:  President Obama has recently hinted during an Israeli Channel 2 interview that the U.S. might not veto a Palestinian state resolution should one be introduced at the UN Security Council. You have analyzed Mr. Obama in this context. What can you tell us about what he’s doing?

Gerstenfeld:  In order to understand President Obama one has to get to the essence of what characterizes him. He is an extreme moral relativist. To put it differently, Obama is a man without a moral compass. That is the case even though he tries to present himself as a moral person. One has to brush off the overgrowth of his words which mislead. I’ll give four examples of his extreme moral relativism. The first one is that he considers that the Islamic state is not part of Islam. That is pure fantasy. If I put it a little bit harsher, it is a lie. There is no doubt that the Islamic State is a minority segment of Islam, which is nowadays a fragmented religion. Also the binary division of Islam into Islamists and Muslims is a fallacy. We are dealing here with a continuum to the extent that you have on the one hand radical, extreme genocidal Muslims; on the other hand, moderate Muslims. But I am not convinced that if you deduct the indifferent Muslims and those in between the two extremes that the number of moderate Muslims in the world exceeds the number of genocidal supporters of Islam. In between, there are people of various degrees as well as a substantial number of Muslims who may want to mind their own personal interests and avoid these ideological fights. That is the first example of Obama’s moral relativism.

The second example concerns Christians. In an Easter statement, Obama expressed his concern about hate speech from Christians. Of course, he is a man who was married by an extreme Christian hatemonger, his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This inciter said: “God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme.” Obama was part of his church community, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for many years. This is a sign of extreme moral relativism and a demonstration of his lack of a moral compass. He was one of the last who should have made such a remark about hatemongering Christians.

Thirdly Obama spoke about the Muslim terrorist killers of Jews in the Paris Hyper Cacher Market in January 2015 as “’violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The victims were not random targets they were Jews. And the location was not just a deli, but a kosher supermarket.

Fourthly, Obama speaks about his tough love for Israel. He did not mention that the largest Palestinian party is Hamas; an Islamo-Nazi party with a genocidal agenda. The easy part for him is to criticize Israel. That is another sign of the extreme moral relativism of a person who has no moral compass.

Gordon:  Popular culture and art have become a graphic means of conveying anti-Semitism along with social media. How important are they, particularly in Europe and in the Middle East, and can you give us some specific examples?

Gerstenfeld:  These are two different things. The best example of graphic means is always cartoons. They appeal to the prejudice of the people who look at them. If one publishes a hate cartoon in the mass media, one can only successfully do that if the audience is receptive to the hate message. A cartoon is not an essay. A cartoon expresses only one idea. In the Arab World, where so many people are illiterate, the cartoon usually takes on a bigger importance. Now, this has been studied in great detail by a Belgian scholar, Joel Kotek who published a book in French and in English on Arab anti-Semitic cartoons. He makes there a selection of a few hundred out of many thousands of anti-Semitic cartoons. Cartoons are an important tool for transmission of genocidal hate in the Arab World. Over decades, each Israeli prime minister has been presented as a Nazi in the Arab world. The same occurs in Europe, but to a much lesser extent. If you ask me which European countries the past years have produced the most extreme hate cartoons, two come to mind – Greece and Norway. The third largest Norwegian daily Dagbladet has published a number of extreme anti-Israeli hate cartoons. Those have depicted the late Prime Minister Sharon as a Nazi, Prime Minister Olmert as a Nazi and compared Gaza to Buchenwald. All these cartoons were drawn by a left-wing German who lives in Norway. In Greece, hate cartoons are spread all over the press. We have seen anti-Semitic hate cartoons also elsewhere. For instance in leading papers in the U.K., in the Netherlands, France, Italy, Germany and other EU countries. Now social media are a very big transmitter of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli hate. Anti-Semitism is not well monitored in many countries. However, it is monitored in the Netherlands. There anti-Semitic hate on the internet by far exceeds hate of Muslims. There are many such cases on the internet.

Gordon:  How has the UN conveyed messages demonizing and delegitimizing Israel?

Gerstenfeld:  The UN is a major demonizer and hatemonger of Israel. That includes UN-associated bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission, UNESCO, UNWRA and many others agencies. The UN is supposed to be a moral body. When it comes to Israel its views reflect the extreme moral degradation of this largest supranational body. Hate expressions and double standards against Israel symbolize that. Witness for instance the statements by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Gordon:  Related to that is the Palestinian use of Lawfare against Israel. What can you tell us about these troubling episodes?

Gerstenfeld:  It has become a question whether international humanitarian law is really a branch of law. Perhaps it is not more than a construct in the mind of a bunch of left wing academics as Alan Dershowitz has said. It is certain that the application of international humanitarian law by so-called humanitarian NGOs often is an expression of double standards or racism. The Palestinians have skillfully abused it. I have a number of years ago coined a new term: humanitarian racism. It is a kind of reverse continuation of the colonial racist types who said that there is a law for the natives, or the colored people, and there is a law for the white people. That has conflated itself nowadays where there is a law for Israel and there is a law for the Arabs. The Palestinian entity is on average at least as criminal as many Arab states. The largest party Hamas in fact, is more criminal. Hamas is a genocidal Islamo-Nazi party, which means it’s a Nazi-like party, not in the name of Hitler, but in the name of Islam.

Gordon:  In Europe, how have violent Muslim public protests and attacks intimidated Jewish identification?

Gerstenfeld:  It is not only the fault of Muslims, but it is mainly the Muslims. Europe has led in an unselective way massive numbers of Muslims from countries where anti-Semitism is rife. This has introduced into Europe a large number of people, not all Muslims of course, who have brought with them, a harder anti-Semitic language and more extreme anti-Semitic incidents. You see that best in France, where we have had a number of cases of Muslims murdering Jews. The most recent one was the Hyper Casher Market attack in Paris, this past January.  So, you can’t only blame Muslims for that because the governments in Europe should never have let in so many people from hatemongering anti-Semitic countries. This is the worst thing that has happened to Jewish communities since the end of WWII. I would add that a 2013 study by the Fundamental Rights Agency in Europe shows that a large number of European Jews will no longer publicly identify as such.

Gordon:  While European leaders have condemned the rise of anti-Semitism, European Jewish communities no longer believe they can rely on national and local governments to protect them. What realistic options do these communities have other than possible immigration to Israel and perhaps North America?

Gerstenfeld:  I don’t think that – unless something extreme happens – more than a limited minority of European Jews will emigrate. I think the people who emigrate are right because Europe is an increasingly decaying continent. You leave a continent whose glory is in the past for other places which have more drive and a future. The realistic options are, one, keeping as low a profile as possible, two, assimilating if you don’t chose the emigration option, which only a relatively minor percentage will choose. I don’t see the majority of any European Jewish communities moving out of a country unless the situation deteriorates extremely.

Gordon:  What incidents occurred prior to and during Operation Defensive Edge in 2014 that underscore the uncertain future prospects for European Jews?

Gerstenfeld:  I can give you examples of such incidents in two countries which go beyond what we have ever seen since the end of the Second World War. The first one is France. We had attacks on synagogues by groups of violent criminal Muslims in Paris and elsewhere. We have never seen that before. Before that, we mainly had attacks by individuals or a few people.

In the Netherlands, we had in the summer of 2014 during Israel’s Protective Edge campaign the phenomenon, of about 15 Jewish businessmen hiring bodyguards. That has never been seen before. The chief rabbi of the Jewish communities outside the major cities like Amsterdam the Hague and Rotterdam said that he was actually thinking of leaving the country. He concluded that he cannot do that because the captain must be the last to leave the ship. Never has a leading Jewish personality said that in the past 400 years of the Jewish community in the independent Netherlands.

Not everywhere in Europe was the year 2014 the worst one as far as anti-Semitism is concerned. In 2009 the Muslim anti-Semitic riots in Oslo were the biggest ever  in Norway. There 2009 was worse than 2014.

Gordon:  Why, in your view, have many European social democratic parties on the left formed alliances with domestic émigré Muslim communities espousing fundamentalist anti-Semitism?

Gerstenfeld:  They haven’t really espoused fundamentalist anti-Semitism, but they want Muslim votes. This is a major reason. Both in national and local elections in European countries that have significant concentrations of émigré Muslims, the Muslim vote may determine who is elected. In many European countries you have trade unions who hope to replace their declining membership partly with members drawn from the Muslim community proletariat. So if these Socialist parties are inattentive they go beyond supporting the weak. That leads to include both non-Muslim and Muslim criminals. These left Socialist, Labor orprogressive parties are in fact indirect supporters of the Palestinians, of which the largest party, Hamas, has a genocidal agenda. Thus, you can say that many progressive parties in Europe are indirect supporters of genocidal Muslims. We have seen various Socialist and Labor parties in Europe supporting a Palestinian racist state; the current President of the Palestinian Authority says that no Jews can live there. The majority Palestinian party is Hamas an Islamo-Nazi party. Socialist parties in Europe often go hand in hand with Palestinian genocide-promoters and racists. That is true for the ruling Socialist Party in France, for the Labor party in the U.K., for the socialist government in Sweden and the Labor party in the Netherlands.

Gordon:  Will the rise of anti-Muslim immigration political parties in domestic and EU parliaments exacerbate or alleviate the situation of beleaguered European Jews?

Gerstenfeld:  This is a very difficult question. You have to understand that the right-wing parties are nationalistic parties. That, by definition means that they differ from country to country. Let’s take two examples which are among the more acceptable ones, even though they are very different from each other. The Front National in France, which in the next Presidential elections in 2017 may become the largest party. Marine Le Pen its leader tries to diminish as much as she can the anti-Semitic character which was its hallmark under her father. But it is very difficult because there are fascist, anti-Semitic elements in this party, and they are not insignificant. On the other hand, if you take the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders its leader came out of the Dutch liberal party. He has seen to it that you have no people in his party that have either a fascist or neo-Nazi past. You might say that the Swedish Democrats are in between. Then you have, of course, parties which go totally beyond this, such as the extreme racists of Jobbik in Hungary. Golden Dawn in Greece or the neo-Nazis in Germany. These are clearly neo-Nazi parties, and they are also anti-Muslim. Of course the rise of these parties may have various consequences. It’s not very comfortable for Jews to live in a society where there is racial hatred, including if it is against Muslims. Another development could be where other left-wing parties try to get Muslim votes that are anti-Israeli. Now you may get a fight for the white vote among the other parties. Other parties seeking the white vote may thus become more anti-Islamist. That will create a very unpleasant climate in European countries. It is difficult to foresee because the Muslims may react by scapegoating the Jews even more. So it is very unclear unless the anti-immigration parties create such an unpleasant reality for Muslims that many of them return to where they came from.

Gordon:  How effective has the Israeli propaganda war been against international critics, whether in the Middle East, North America or the EU?

Gerstenfeld:  There are 15 million Jews in the world, including Israelis. There are an estimated 1 billion anti-Semites so unless you are smarter than your enemies, you cannot survive. Israel has a high technology industrial base and a powerful military, the Israeli Defense Force. Israel has three very effective domestic, military and international intelligence services. They are Shin Bet, Aman and Mossad. Israel’s cyber defense and security is among the most advanced. There is a United Nations report that says that Israel is on the way to become a cyber power. On the other hand Israel has totally failed combating hostile demonizing propaganda. It is explained in my new book, The War of a Million Cuts. Israel has missed every opportunity to create an anti-propaganda structure. That is one of the reasons – not the only reason – why Israel has allowed its critics to have a free anti-Semitic lunch. If there were an anti-propaganda agency, UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, who is an inciter, would never have been able to do that. Israel has allowed the rise of the international boycott divestment and sanctions movement. That could have been avoided if Israel had analyzed the situation and financed an anti-propaganda agency

Gordon:  Manfred, we want to thank you for this, informative interview.

Gerstenfeld:  You’re welcome. Thank you for inviting me.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.