Have you seen the Report on Global Anti-Semitism?

Released by the U.S. Department of State in 2005

The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.

Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources:

* Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world.
* Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.
* Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq.
* Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both.

PLO Arabs

Israellycool

After months of blogging, I have decided to change my policy of referring to the Arabs who claim to be "Palestinians" as "palestinians".

Where possible, I shall now refer to them as "PLO Arabs."

I strongly encourage all other right-wing bloggers to follow suit, since even the word "palestinian", with no capital letter, somehow aknowledges their claim that they were a distinct national group living in what was then known as Palestine. But the more I learn about the history of the time, the more I realize that the only group referred to as "Palestinians" were the Jews living there at the time.

As Alan Dershowitz (by no means politically right-wing) states in his excellent book The Case for Israel:

..the small and decreasing Arab-Muslim population of the area was also a transient and migratory population, as contrasted with the more stable, if smaller, Jewish population. The myth of a stable and settled Palestinian-Arab-Muslim population that had lived in villages and worked the land for centuries, only to be displaced by the Zionist invaders, is simply inconsistent with the recorded demographic data gathered not by the Jews or Zionists but rather by the local authorities themselves.

--------------------------------------------------
Sites for younger Jews:
JewSchool
JewLicious

Zionism thread from metafilter

Gives you a disturbing glimpse into how some people thinks...
Jews Against Zionism

Jews for Conservative Politics

American Jews have been a bedrock of the Democratic Party for centuries, a trend which we believe is not only naive and misguided, but unwise. Liberals take the Jewish vote for granted in elections, and they should, because they are right. Such arrogance on behalf of the left and blind adherence by the greater Jewish community was the motivating factor behind the establishment of our organization.

Jews for Conservative Politics exists to work in educating not only American Jews, but all Americans, and all Jews, to recognize the other perspective, while at the same time attempting to bolster the ever growing Jewish base within the political right.

Through speaking events, dinners, and associations, JCP is attempting at Harvard to build and grow conservatism on campus, while expanding our efforts to other college campuses at the same time.

We are affiliated with Harvard Hillel and the Harvard Republican Club. While much of our leadership serves in some capacity within the HRC, our members are of all identifications and backgrounds, but all share a common goal: to spread the truth.

Anti-Semitism

One in Four Americans Believe Jews Were Responsible for the Death of Christ and more resources about Anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism, Pure and Simple

Anti-Semitism, Pure and Simple By Abraham H. Foxman National Director of the Anti-Defamation League

This op-ed originally appeared in Jerusalem Report magazine on May 5, 2003.

The saying goes, "if it looks, like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be duck." So why is it when anti-Jewish statements are made they are not seen for what they are - expressions of anti-Semitism - but are explained away as merely offensive or ignorant?

That question has been particularly pertinent in recent weeks, during the run-up to and the early stages of war in Iraq. In America for the most part, those questioning US military action made thoughtful arguments against going to war. But not everyone has engaged in rational debate of the issues.

While there have always been the likes of the Pat Buchanans, the Joseph Sobrans,
and anti-Semites, what is disturbing today is that those extremists are being joined by a voices in the antiwar movement and the media, on the left and the right, who are promoting a canard that America's going to war has little to do with disarming Saddam, but everything to do with Jews, the "Jewish lobby" and the hawkish Jewish members of the Bush Administration who, according to this chorus, will favor any war that benefits Israel and the Jews. The accusation about Jews and Jewish interests is being aired almost daily, on the airwaves, in the nation's editorial pages and from a range of pundits who want to pin the blame for this war on the Jews. The spread of this new lie is not surprising, because it is really not so new. In times of crisis, in times of uncertainty, at times nations face danger, Jews continue to be a convenient and tempting option for scapegoating.

This "Blame the Jews" phenomenon has now moved far beyond U.S. Rep. James Moran's notorious statement that, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." Moran has since apologized - but by repeating an anti-Semitic canard that had previously been heard only on the margins of the debate, Moran moved blaming the Jews into the political and media mainstream. A whole chorus of accusations followed his.

Who are the purveyors of this anti-Semitic charge? In a recent interview, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," was asked what he believes is driving
America's policy in Iraq. His response: "Well, the right-wing policy with regard
to Israel - the people who don't want to deal with Arafat, who don't want a Palestinian state - the whole sort of right wing view is consistent with the
view toward Iraq. It's the same policy and the same people."

James O. Goldsborough, a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune, wrote on
March 3, 2003 that the idea to go to Baghdad is "to serve Jerusalem," that
Bush's war "has nothing to do with peace and security," but is the "brainchild
of a handful of neo-conservatives … who have argued that Iraq was the main
threat to Israel." The neo-conservatives he mentions - Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas
Feith, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, David Wurmser - are all Jews. No mention of
the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys.

Robert Novak has called the conflict, "Sharon's war." Liberal writer Ian Burama
cites "Jewish-American hysteria." And others, including Paul Schroeder in the
American Conservative, Georgia Ann Geyer and Alexander Cockburn have referenced
the canard of Jewish and Israeli influence.

Almost as disappointing are the writings of respected journalists such as Bill
Keller (The New York Times) and Richard Cohen the (Washington Post), who in
their attempt to show the absurdity of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories missed
an opportunity to provide a teaching moment - to educate about the roots, the
history and the impact of such charges against the Jewish people.

At the same time we have seen a proliferation of columns and articles by respected mainstream commentators who insist that all of this is not really anti-Semitism, but simply ill-informed statements. But to suggest that it is something other than anti-Semitism is a grave mistake. Even in America, where Jews are more at home and secure as equal citizens than anywhere else in 2,000 years, the unsettling fact is that fully one-third of Americans still accept the notion that Jews have "dual loyalties." This was apparent in the Anti-Defamation League's June 2002 survey of Anti-Semitism in America, which also found that 20 percent of the American public agrees that, "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today."

We have full faith that Americans, whether they are for or against the war, will
reject this latest anti-Semitic conspiracy charge. Yet that charge reminds us that anti-Semitism has a life of its own when crisis and anxiety erupt -- and must be denounced and rejected for what it is.

So much for apartheid -- the release of Azzam Azzam

But there is more. At a time when some are damning Israel as an apartheid state, when an academic conference is being held in London bashing Israel as a racist and fascist country, Azzam -- not a Jew – tells Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "I love you very much," and adds "I am fortunate and proud to have been born in Israel."

So much for apartheid.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

To destroy "gun control" and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone.

Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

Making Firearms Safety Fun

U is for UNITED NATIONS – The United Nations is a very bad organization made up of foreign countries who do not want you to be free. The United Nations doesn’t like your Bill of Rights, and they are trying to destroy freedom in America. Brasco Buddies™ are smart and they don’t believe the lies of the United Nations. If you believe the things the United Nations tells you, you will never know the fun of a gun.

More CAIR and its' links to Hamas

David Frum: The Question of CAIR

Two weeks ago, the National Post and I were served with a notice of libel by the Canadian branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The Post and I are not alone. Over the past year, CAIR’s Canadian and U.S. branches have served similar libel notices on half a dozen other individuals and organizations in the United States and Canada. Each case has its own particular facts, yet they are linked by a common theme: That we defendants have accused CAIR (in the words of the notice served on me) of being "an unscrupulous, Islamist, extremist sympathetic group in Canada supporting terrorism."

Lawyers for individuals and newspapers served with libel notices will normally urge their clients to avoid any comment on the matter--to avoid even any acknowledgement that they have been served. This is usually good advice. A notice of libel is not a lawsuit, but a warning of a lawsuit to come. If the potential defendant keeps quiet, the potential plaintiff will often drop the suit altogether. But wise legal advice often comes at a cost, a cost in public information. So I was heartened that the National Post’s lawyers have encouraged the paper and me to continue with this important story.

CAIR is understandably protective of its reputation. Until recently, it has had considerable success winning acceptance in the United States and Canada as something close to an official spokesman for local Muslim communities. CAIR has been influential in advocating for a sharia court to arbitrate divorces and other family-law matters in the province of Ontario. CAIR’s strong criticisms of Canada’s anti-terror legislation have won respectful hearing in Ottawa. Any reporting or commentary that cast doubt on CAIR’s carefully cultivated image would deeply threaten the group’s mission.

What is that mission? The public record offers some clues:

CAIR was founded in 1994 by alumni of an older group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. The IAP, founded by senior Hamas figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state under Islamic law in Israel’s place. (In 1996, CAIR would condemn the U.S. government’s decision to deport Marzook as an "anti-Islamic" act.)

CAIR’s first executive director, Nihad Awad, publicly declared himself a supporter of Hamas at a 1994 forum at Barry University in Florida.

One of CAIR’s original advisory board members, Siraj Wahhaj, served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman is the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks. CAIR described Rahman’s conviction as a hate crime.

CAIR’s founding chairman, Omar Ahmed, also an IAP alumnus, is said to have declared at a public event in California in July, 1998: "Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." Ahmed has since disputed the accuracy of the quote--five years after it was reported by a California newspaper.

After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, CAIR’s Web site featured a link titled, "Donate to the NY/DC Disaster Relief Fund." The link connected to the Web site of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity closed down by the United States three months later as a Hamas front.

Over the past 10 years, CAIR has grown rapidly. It now claims a total of 29 affiliates, including CAIR Canada. CAIR’s media savvy won it much official attention after 9/11. With that attention, however, also came a higher degree of scrutiny.

Since 9/11, three CAIR associates in the U.S. have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.

In September, 2003, CAIR community relations director Bassem K. Khafagi, pleaded guilty on immigration and bank-fraud charges, in Detroit. Khafagi interestingly co-owned a print shop with another man who has since been charged with illegally sending goods into Iraq.

Randall Todd Royer, a communications specialist at CAIR’s Washington headquarters, pleaded guilty in January, 2004, to belonging to the Kashmiri Lashkar-i-Taibi terrorist group and illegally acquiring firearms and explosives in order to train for terrorist missions against India. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

A founding member of CAIR’s Texas chapter, Ghassen Elashi, was convicted of conspiracy and money-laundering charges in connection with the shipment of high-technology items to Syria and Libya in July, 2004.

This record has drawn increasing notice in the United States. CAIR officials were invited to join President Bush at his September, 2001, visit to Washington’s mosque, but were omitted from the invitation list to the 2003 and 2004 White House Iftar dinners (an Iftar meal is the fast-breaking at the end of a day in Ramadan). New York Senator Chuck Schumer has charged that CAIR members have "intimate links to Hamas." Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, a political leader noted for his sensitivity to Islamic concerns, has said that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect."

CAIR Canada describes its relationship with CAIR as "close but distinct." It is not clear what this means. On its Web site and in its publications, CAIR lists CAIR canada as one of its local affiliates, giving it the same stauts as a state or regional CAIR chapter. CAIR Canada has its own board; so do many of CAIR’s local chapters. It should of course be stated that no criminal charges have ever been filed gainst CAIR Canada or any of its officers.

These are the facts behind the commentary that the National Post and I have published. They are facts that the Canadian public and Canadian officials are entitled to know. The National Post and I are confident that Canada’s courts will agree that no proper interest would be served by suppressing them.