RUTHFULLY YOURS

Jews are being cast in various roles with respect to their response to the Klinghoffer opera: Bold, Terrorist-Humanizing, and Meek

Peter Gelb has generated a drama worthy of an important new opera about the American Jewish community. And here, in The Jewish Press, is an exclusive of the cast and the story line.

Gelb is the managing director of the Metropolitan Opera. It was Gelb’s decision to stage John Adams’ opera about the terrorist murder of a disabled, elderly American man, Leon Klinghoffer. The Arab terrorists shot Klinghoffer in the head and in the chest and had him and his wheelchair thrown overboard as evidence of their unyielding position to swap innocent lives for convicted terrorist Arab prisoners in Israeli jails.

Klinghoffer was selected for the sacrificial murder because he was a Jew. Not an Israeli, but a Jew.

John Adams, along with Alice Goodman (born a Reform Jew, now an anti-Semitic Anglican minister), who wrote the heinous librettos, in their own words, set out to “humanize” the terrorists. That is the goal of the opera.

For the past six months, a stalwart collection of grass roots activists, largely based in the New York City area, have been working to inform a critical mass of Americans that it was a grotesquely offensive decision to stage the Klinghoffer opera (falsely titled: the “Death of Klinghoffer” – he didn’t just die, just as Daniel Pearl did not just die – each was murdered because, as Jews, they were powerful propaganda tools).

Should a dramatist decide to write an opera about the sturm und drang on the streets of New York regarding the Klinghoffer opera, there would be three distinct types being cast.

PROUD KLINGHOFFER JEWS

The first type to be cast would be what we’ll call the Proud Klinghoffer Jews, PKJ. This is a new group of actors/activists on the scene. These are the ones who have been forged in the crucible created by years of passive Jewish leadership and streetwise but unwieldy passion. It has been unleashed by the staging of what many consider an inciteful (not insightful), anti-Semitic, philo-terrorist opera at a time of rising anti-Semitism and global terrorism. There would be starring roles amongst these singers.

Gates of Vienna has published a new essay, posted below, that sets American Betrayal into a novel historical perspective.

Baron Bodissey writes: Regular readers know JLH as our German translator, but he occasionally ventures into original commentary. The essay below connects the dots between Diana West’s American Betrayal and the current Islamization of the Western world.

It Depends on What the Meaning of IS Is”

by JLH

This is about American Betrayal being not only a critical remembrance of things past, but a harbinger of things to come — what I would call a “gateway” event. Following is the event that, for some reason, brought this thought to my mind:

Johann Peter Zenger was a German immigrant to New York and the editor and publisher of the New-York Weekly Journal, in a city whose other newspaper was essentially a house organ for the governor of that time — William Cosby. Cosby lived up to his reputation as a tyrant and resented the Journal’s anonymous, critical editorials. At that time, someone who criticized the government — no matter how truthfully — could be charged with libel and sedition. This is what happened to Zenger, who was arrested in 1734 and tried in 1735 for seditious libel. Since Cosby had preemptively disbarred all the New York lawyers who might have defended him, Zenger was defended by Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia — the most illustrious lawyer of the Colonies. Hamilton by-passed the hostile judge and appealed directly to the jury. The jury in turn, found Zenger and his newspaper not guilty.

Of course, the trial was public knowledge, and the result certainly appeared in print, at least in Zenger’s paper. It was not as sensational and/or violent as other events along the way to the Revolution, but it was a paving stone on the road to the formation of a new country. The attempt to suppress unwelcome opinion, and Hamilton’s advocacy of the right to print it, had combined to establish the principle that the truth is a defense against the charge of libel — a principle not widely evident in the Western world then, and under assault today. It was also a precursor of the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment.

The Top 10 Qur’an Verses to Understand ISIS — on The Glazov Gang
Dr. David Wood unveils the Islamic State’s Islamic inspirations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-top-10-quran-verses-to-understand-isis-on-the-glazov-gang/

Kafka Was the Rage

The email arrived on the last Friday afternoon of the spring term shortly before 5:00 p.m. Anastasia Coleman, Fordham’s Director of Institutional Equity and Compliance, and its Title IX Coordinator, wanted to meet with me. “It has been alleged,” she wrote, “that you may have acted in an inappropriate way and possibly discriminated against another person at the University.”

I was stunned. My wife, kids and friends have been warning me for years that, in these prudish times, my outrageous sense of humor and intellectual irreverence (my last book is about bestiality) could get me in trouble. I imagined myself brought before an academic disciplinary tribunal from Francine Prose’s Blue Angel, where all my past transgressions would be marshaled to prove that I don’t belong in the classroom. My mind raced, recalling the many slips of the tongue I had in three decades of teaching. I perspired profusely and felt the onset of a stomach bug. What would I tell my mother?

“Did it have anything to do with a student?” I shot back anxiously, hoping to get a sense of my predicament before the director left for the weekend. I was lucky. Coleman responded immediately. “This does not involve students and is about your behavior regarding American Studies.”

What a relief. But it was also very odd. The decision of the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli universities in December 2013 had upset me. I wrote emails, circulated articles, and was pleased that my university president quickly declared his opposition to the measure. I joined a national steering committee that set out to fight the boycott and participated in the drafting of a few statements. As an American historian who delivered in 1987 his first paper at the annual meeting of the American Studies Association and served on the executive committee of Fordham’s American Studies program, I wanted Fordham’s program to sever official ties with the national organization until it rescinded the measure. Other programs have taken this courageous symbolic step, and I thought it proper for the Jesuit university of New York to take the moral stand against what most scholars of anti-Semitism consider anti-Semitic bigotry.

IDF’s Chief of Staff Benny Gantz’s troubling assessments
The outcome of the donor conference for Gaza reconstruction that was held in Cairo on Sunday was not surprising.

Representatives of 50 countries convened to pledge funds to Hamas and the PLO. The Palestinians had hoped to receive $4 billion in pledges. They raised $5.4b.

Most of the money will be transferred to the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas. But at least $1b. will go directly to Hamas, from its primary financier, Qatar.

With its $1b. Hamas will be able to pay its terrorist operatives and rebuild its terrorist forces.

The air force revealed last week that Hamas is rebuilding its rocket arsenal already.

As for the money that will be transferred to Abbas, the billions in funding will give the PLO the money it needs to finance Abbas’s rapidly escalating political war against Israel in the international arena. At least some of the money will also go to Hamas, Abbas’s partner in the unity government.

The entire nature of the conference was surreal, but again predictable.

Back in the West after an extended stint amid the burning sands, our correspondent recalls the Wahabi way and wonders why so many are so eager to overlook what makes Islam what it is: a contemptuous and thinly veiled intolerance for all other creeds.

There is an old Irish joke: A new Pope was on his first tour of Ireland when he found himself alone in the back of a limo. He reached forward, tapped on the window and said to the driver, “You know the thing I miss most about being a Pope is that I can’t drive — someone drives you everywhere. Would you mind swapping places so that I can enjoy the feeling of driving in this fine country”. The young driver protested that he would lose his job, but was eventually persuaded.

The lead-footed Pontiff took the driver’s seat and the limo went hurtling down the narrow roads, soon passing a policeman, who pulled the vehicle over. Upon recognising the driver, the policeman called his sergent for advice. “I don’t care who it is,” the young cop was told. “Book him!”

“But this is the highest VIP you can imagine,” protested the policeman, “I don’t recognise who’s in the back, but he must be important because the Pope is his driver”.

In many jokes, you can switch the characters’ race or religion and they will still be regarded as harmless and funny. In today’s world, you cannot safely switch the religion to Muslim. And quite rightly, for Islam is no laughing matter (unlike Catholics and Jews, who are fair game), because Islam truly is the True Religion, and just as important, it is the Religion of Peace.

Let me explain to all the unsympathetic Kaffirs out there.

My name is Mahammad, not to be confused with Mahammad PBUH, who died many years ago. This can be confusing, particularly in a room full of Mahammads, which often happens in Saudi Arabia (where naming sons after Mahammad PBUH is almost mandatory, and adding names like Kalifa (chief) and Al Kalifa (THE chief) doesn’t help much. As to naming daughters, well, who cares? When referring to Mahammad PBUH one must ensure “peace be upon him” or the abbreviation, follows immediately after the name. When referring to me, PBUH must not be used. To do that would be blasphemy, and in that neck of the woods blasphemers are only a stone’s throw from a grisly death.

Voting for a Palestinian state at a time when Islamic State-level terrorists like Hamas are in the ascendancy risks making Westminster less the mother of parliaments, and more the mother of utter (pro-terror) stupidity

Monday’s vote in the House of Commons aiming at recognising a Palestinian state is certainly historic, and in several senses. It’s a historic mistake; a historic instance of ignorance and bigotry at the heart of the British political system; and a historic gift to Islamist terrorism.

The mind boggles. With opinion polls showing that Hamas — as bloodthirsty a terror group as Islamic State — would win Palestinian elections if they were held any time soon, a bunch of Labour-led buffoons in Britain think this is exactly the right time to reward terrorism.

The more you think about it, the worse it gets. Britain is sending people into battle to stop one Islamist terror state emerging in Syria/Iraq, and now wants to give its imprimatur to the creation of another one in Israel/Palestine.

Who do these people think they are helping? Certainly not peace-loving Palestinians who are terrified at the prospect of a Hamas-led state. But, as we write this article from Jerusalem, and right after a trip to the West Bank, it is perfectly clear who would feel that they have benefited from British folly.

Hamas, in the most appalling fashion, sacrificed its own children — see related articles below — in a recent war which had the sole aim of slaughtering Israeli civilians. Hamas knew they were never going to beat the Israelis.

The handbook, endorsed last week by the U.S. State Department, is an alarming joint venture between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which has connections to terrorism.

The handbook recommends discontinuing the use of the words “jihad” and “terrorism,” and balks at the use of the word “moderate” to describe Muslims.

Counter-terrorism specialist and lawyer David Harris testified that “there are many individuals and groups who masquerade” as moderates, who are really “faux-moderates.”

“[T]heir [Muslims’] work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands… so that God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” — Mohamed Akram, Muslim Brotherhood operative.

Racism and labeling are indeed social ills, but a different issue altogether. They are not to be used to hide the face of Islamism, terrorism and jihad under a veil of trying to marginalize or silence whoever points them out as “racists” or “Islamophobes” — even as violent jihadi terrorism rampages throughout the world.

A handbook entitled United Against Terrorism, supposedly aimed at preventing youth radicalization, was endorsed last week by the U.S. Department of State, according to a report by Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online.

The handbook, however, released at a mosque in Winnipeg (Manitoba), Canada, is an alarming joint venture between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] and the National Council of Canadian Muslims [NCCM], formerly CAIR-CAN — now conveniently renamed — which has connections to terrorism.

In rolling out his new memoir in media appearances, former defense secretary Leon Panetta has explained that from the start of the Benghazi terrorist attack, he told President Obama it was, in fact, a terrorist attack. This conflicts with the president’s implausible account. Mr. Panetta, moreover, has acknowledged the obvious: namely, that unanswered questions about the attack, including why no meaningful effort was made to rescue Americans under siege, demand additional congressional attention.

It has been five months since the House established a select committee to investigate this act of war in which our enemies attacked a sovereign American compound, killing our Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, and wounding many others. Yet the public continues to get more significant information about the episode from Fox News programs than from the panel created to establish what happened and ensure accountability for governmental decisions made before, during and after the attack. Consequently, I’ve joined several other concerned citizens, including several former government officials, in the following open letter to select committee chairman Trey Gowdy, calling for more energy and more expeditious inquiry.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you are well aware, on May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 567 “Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya”. With the publication this week of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leaders in War and Peace, the need for such an inquiry has become both indisputable and even more urgent.

In particular, it is clear that there is more – and likely much more – that has yet to be established about the murderous September 11, 2012 jihadist attack on American facilities in Benghazi and those assigned to them. Indeed, former Secretary Panetta is providing an account of the Benghazi attacks that differs dramatically from what President Obama and his spokesmen presented in the hours, days and weeks after the attack.

For example, when shown a video clip of the former security contractors who defended the CIA Annex, who described how they were told to stand down that night by their superiors, Mr. Panetta agreed that Congress needed to investigate their story. Secretary Panetta has claimed that he set in motion a number of military units that night. Why was none of them directed to actually reach Benghazi? Who gave the ultimate order to U.S. military forces not to come to the rescue of our people in Benghazi that night? Was it the Secretary of State? The President? Or someone else? If so, on whose authority?

The newly elected Swedish government of Prime Minister Stefan Lofven began its term with a clear pro-Palestinian tilt. In his inaugural speech on October 3, 2014, PM Lofven declared that his left-center Social-Democrat party led government would recognize the state of Palestine. “The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution, negotiated in accordance with international law. The two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to co-exist peacefully. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the Swedish government’s statement the following day saying that “Unilateral steps would not advance peace, but would, rather, push it off.”

The US was also unhappy with the unilateral Swedish move. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called international recognition of a Palestinian state “premature,” and said, “We believe that the process is one that has to be worked out through the parties to agree on the terms of how they will live in the future of two states living side-by-side.”

Responding to the Swedish Prime Minister’s announcement, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote an exclusive Op Ed in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter. “This announcement” Lieberman wrote, “was not intended to serve as a genuine solution to a foreign problem. It was intended, so it seems, to placate a certain sector in Swedish public opinion. It is to be regretted when internal considerations determine a counterproductive and irresponsible foreign policy.”

Lieberman added, “With the entire Middle East aflame, not to mention other regions in the world experiencing strife and instability, the undue focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict runs counter to all logic. Beyond reflecting internal matters, it seems that this focus serves to compensate for the many failings that the organized international community has encountered in attempting to resolve the many complex problems on the global agenda. For some reason, five words are spoken of time and again as both an imperative and as a magical solution to many other problems in the region: resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”