Posts from — July 2005

Victory was handed to the Kvetcher this morning, as Jewlicious is so rattled and defensive about my previous post that they actually inserted “evil Jew tax?” into the Badatz logo within the piece in question. Jewish pride is raging at Jewlicious. The logo used to look (exactly) like the one in my previous post.

Now that’s delicious.

I don’t think I would mind Jewish duplicity so much if I DIDN’T HAVE TO SEE IT ALL THE TIME.

The “think positive” editors over at Jewlicious have warned their readers in conspiracy terms (if not language) straight out of the Protocols that the Ultra-Orthodox Jews have a cartel on all food in Israel because of their kashrut supervision company in THIS story on the Badatz.

Go figure - the Jews in Israel have an even stronger “tax” on those uninterested in Judaism in their food than Americans do here, with the OU, OK, and the Khuf K, which is on many, many, packaged food products consumed by the general public in the U.S. and payed for overwhelmingly by gentiles.

I guess it’s okay for us to complain about religious coercion in Israel, but if gentiles (who are even less inclined to tolerate this sort of Jew tax extraneous inflation of cost than ourselves) complained, I guess that would make them ANTI-SEMITIC.

The fact that the coercion by these Kashrut organizations is greater in Israel should not detract from the issue that ANY coercion upon the secular gentiles of this country is not also still problematic, but far more absurd.

Jewlicious has volunatarily charged into a rather creepy place for an American Jew to make his secular stand.

The kicker is - the author at Jewlicious is upset because BADATZ isn’t ZIONIST.

Which makes sense - from what I’ve read, the Zionists control even more businesses and goverments than the Ultra-Orthodox.

There is a false sense of hope and confidence, if not quite Schadenfreude, that Britain and the West will now sympathize more with Israel in its struggle with Islam.

This will not transpire for the following reason:

Israel is still seen as a cause, if not the root cause - for the West’s new fight with Islam.

No one likes being dragged into a fight that they see as not theirs.

We can continue to feign shock and surprise at the blame and double standard that will continue to be hurled at the doorstep of the house of Zion, or we can understand the reason for it.

It is resentment towards us, not any love for Islam.

It is this resentment which translates into differentiating between “terrorists� and “militants� for the same massacre of civilians.

Not all Lefties are brave, or are really up for a fight. They prefer to pick on the most ignorant, extreme, and illiterate of the right-wing, pretending they are their ideological competition, as well as drawing contrast to their own worldliness and education.

So let me first state that Casual Asides is a fighter, and is unafraid of a fight - and I respect him for it. I also enjoy his site because of the nuance that often lurks within his generally leftist views.

But when it comes to a few core issues, the party line hardens, the nuance lessens. And any policy involving “racism” is such a core issue for Casual Asides.

Casual Asides, by DJ Waletzky, has attacked my piece “Time for the West to Close its Borders to Muslim Immigrants.� DJ’s diatribe can be read here, though his actual arguments are given only after a lengthy apology for engaging in dialogue with someone not comfortably in the “Left�camp. Apology accepted, D.J.!

1) D.J. claimed that because there are 5-8 million muslims already here, it is anyway useless to ban more from coming since “we are perfectly capable of breeding Islamic terrorists in our own country.�

Indeed we are D.J. – and if we have more, we are more perfectly capable still!

2) Casual Asides claims that such a policy would serve to “radicalize moderate Muslims�.
It might indeed antagonize some of them to some degree, but I think we can’t only be concerned with Muslim feelings. We also have to be concerned of the safety of our own citizens, even if it hurts feelings. No one likes to hurt anyone’s feelings, D.J. – but no one likes exploding subways and flying big planes into very tall buildings either.

I am not saying there is no cost to stopping Muslim immigration. I concede there might be.

I am saying it is worth the cost.

I would also argue that the Arab world is usually not exactly a melting pot itself - last time I checked, states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have rather tough immigration policies themselves, and yet the amount of terrorism against them by Christian and Jews has not remarkably increased because of these not quite open-door policies. Let us expect the same of our Muslims neighbors who will no longer be living among us in ever-larger numbers.

3) Casual Asides is concerned that my proposed policy would punish “moderate, well-intentioned Muslims.� Not letting someone into your country is not punishing them. They were not here before, they are not here now.

And there is a cost to letting in the not-so-moderate Muslims in order to accept the moderate ones. We learned that the hard way.

Also – we can do it in a less overt manner. We have treaties of immigration only with like-minded Western countries. It’s not racist, it’s reciprocal!

4) Casual Asides argues that “Stopping Muslim Immigration is a poor, poor, substitute for actual national security measures.� Wow is that weak. As if they are mutually exclusive, and as if I had said we should choose!

Casual Asides also brings up domestic terrorism as an arguement against stopping Muslim immigration to slow terrorism.

Indeed DJ, we have domestic terrorism – so therefore we should accept international terrorism? Also – the examples you gave (and what liberal rant about terrorism would be incomplete without reference to Oklahoma City?) are just that – domestic. If we find that Finland or Sweden is bent on our destruction through suicide bombing, then we should indeed change our immigration policy towards them as well.

But so far, that has not happened.

5) Causal Asides fears that my immigration proposal would “put the lie to our claims of moral superiority.� We can still do it, D.J. I can get you a list of comparative advantages if you need! Thanks for the sudden Western-centric concern, though, buddy.

6) Lastly, Casual Asides fears that my closed door policy would leave “19 million refugees around the world� without a new home, and bitingly suggests that I think “that American lives are intrinsically worth more than anybody else’s, right?�

No, D.J., I am not saying that, but I am saying this government’s responsibility is first and foremost to its own citizens. Not to Sudan’s.

Congrats to UnOrthodox Jew for challenging the Yated’s cry of Anti-Semitism on this one.

Holocaustism, the religion of many secular American Jews, has made new inroads with a push made possible by funding from the Righteous Persons Foundation, an organization dedicated to promoting Jewish victimology tolerance.

According to CNN, not only will Holocaustism be taught more at colleges, but despite the separation of church and state, Holocaustism will be taught in public high schools and junior high schools more as well, as more states mandate it as part of their curriculum.

As a student who attended an overwhelmingly non-Jewish high school that taught about the Holocaust, I question the wisdom of this push.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of what Holocaust studies will accomplish by foisting it to the general American population, only what those pushing Holocaustism would like it to do.

Those are two different things, and my own ugly experience as one of the only Jews in the school suggest it will not accomplish the hoped for goals.

Rather, it illuminated other, darker feelings about this period than the expected ones of sympathy and tolerance. I guess you can’t expect everyone to look at your own tragedy and feel about it the same way you do.

And yet we do.

What is glossed over by American Jews - and it should not be - are the Jewish leaders of the time - such as Rabbi Stephen Weiss, who knew what was happening, but declined to galvanize American Jewry, because he was worried about his relationship with President Roosevelt the Jew hater incurring anti-Semitism. Weiss still has a synagogue named after him. Conservative, of course.

I know this isn’t the “teach tolerance” outlook, but we have to remember these facts:

1) The Holocaust did not happen here.

2) The Holocaust is over.

3) The Holocaust is not everyones prism for looking at the world.

4) There were domestic tragedies, even genocides, here.

5) People resent us continuing to push “education” about the Holocaust. This is understandable. It does not in and of itself mean they are bad people.

6) You can’t control how people will react. What is clear is they will not react the same way Jews will react to “education” of our tragedy.

7) If we can’t explain the purpose and incremental gain of an extra museum beyond vague platitudes of “teaching tolerace”, we shouldn’t build it. It is a waste of communal funds.
The Holocaust has become a religion to us - it is our religion, and we shouldn’t push it into the public space.

Congratulations to the Simon (Teach Tolerance!) Wiesenthal Center for calling the United Church of Christ “anti-Semitic” for their recent resolution on Israel.

Even among Jewish defense groups, the Wiesenthal Center is uniquely consistent in calling all their ideological opponents “anti-Semitic”, and with fundraising competitors the likes of the ADL, this is a serious victory.

It is imperative that Jewish groups emulate the Wiesenthal Center, and avoid engaging in either substantive or respectful disagreement.

Remember:

We Jews are victims. No group has any right to victimhood without deferring to and including our suffering as the primary suffering.

No one can actually disagree with us without being anti-semitic, even if there are Jews who have the same views.

Calling people names is always constructive in “dialogue”.

We can babble the night away about how we shouldn’t blame entire communities for the actions of the few, but this proposed policy isn’t about blame. This is about defense in a war that targets our civilians.

The idea that if we close our borders we “have let the terrorists win� is rubbish. We “let the terrorists win� when we allow death cells to operate under our noses.

Jewry is orgasming over the new study suggesting 70% effective rate for circumcision against Aids.

It’s a bogus reason, and not our motivation anyway. Here in the U.S., we can buy condoms pretty much anywhere, and they are 80%, not 70% (like the new study suggests) against AIDS. Doesn’t that make a whole lot more sense? Does anyone NOT use a condom because they are circumcised?

Jews should probably stop pushing this issue which isn’t and never has been about health concerns for us.

I didn’t remember to take pocket change on my way out, and didn’t want to break a dollar – so I ended up with a freebie, amNew York, instead of paying a quarter for the Sun or the Post.

I have been acting under the false assumption that because amNew York was free, it wouldn’t have the same quality as the other two papers I frequently read.

Boy, was I wrong!

Most New York newspapers would shy away from taking the brave and controversial stand that tribal gang rape is an unacceptable form of protest for a different sibling’s actions.

But in today’s amNew York, Felice Cohen actually dares to attack this form of retribution against women in Pakistan, such as Mukhtaran Mai, which those “other� papers that cost money did report, but without a designated Felice Cohen op-ed.

Cohen adds that “honor� is often the motive behind these attacks, but that gang rape is “Some Honor.� She meant it sarcastically! Take that, tribal guys!

A call for radical change was asserted by Ms. Cohen, who went so far as to suggest that Pakistan’s President Musharraf needs to “reevaluate his priorities.�

Ouch!

Like most Manhattanites, I wasn’t sure where I stood on brutal gang rapes of women (at least, for something her brother did) before I read Cohen’s poignant op-ed, but now I get it. Thanks, Felice!

Apparently, though, she doesn’t speak for amNew York, but speaks only in amNew York, as they did qualify that “Opinions expressed in this space are of the writer, not amNew York.â€? So I guess her radical platform isn’t shared by all.

Tomorrow, Felice Cohen will offer another controversial piece entitled “Genocide – NOT Okay�

Tomorrow, I will spend a quarter.