Transl. Michael Colhaze

The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel (Daily Mirror) launched an online survey on March 6^th, asking its readers in faulty German of how the West should react with regard to Russia’s incursions into Ukraine. What follows were the different answers from which the readers could choose.

• Russia’s exclusion from the G8 summit should be considered 
• The conflict can be only solved diplomatically, and the G8 summit is important in this respect
• Western censure is hypocritical, since Russia defends legitimate interests
• If the escalation continues, a military intervention by NATO forces should not be excluded

By four o’clock in the afternoon, 9420 readers had answered the survey, and what they had to say filled the presstitutes from the Tagesspiegel with sheer horror.  Because only a puny four percent, and we know who those are, favoured a military intervention by NATO forces. Whereas a staggering seventy eight percent believed that Western  hacks like Kerry or Merkel were mere hypocrites and that Russia defended indeed legitimate interests.

So what happened? At four o’clock and five minutes, the survey was abruptly taken off the net  and never seen again. Which clearly indicates that the propaganda lies of our hostile elite and their once invincible  media outlets are losing ground. And which, as you will agree, is a ray of hope in the murky Western skies, particularly since the once so totally indoctrinated and docile Germans are seemingly waking up.

Freeman of All Noise and Smoke , posted Saturday, 8 March 2014

In my article on Abe Foxman’s retirement, I discussed Foxman’s letter complaining that Jonathan Pollard’s continuing incarceration is “an intimidation that can only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community, one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the years, the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, the United States.  … So Pollard stays in prison as a message to American Jews: don’t even think about doing what he did.”

My response was that Foxman should be happy about the long list of Jews who should have been imprisoned for spying on behalf of Israel but were not. And now we have the outrageous example of Arnon Michan not only admitting  that he stole nuclear secrets on behalf of Israel, but continues his high profile life in Hollywood with no fear of prosecution (“Admitted Spy Shows Up for Oscars — and Wins“). Michan was at the Oscar ceremony because his film, 12 Years a Slave, was nominated (and won) the Oscar for Best Picture.

Though Milchan, an Israeli citizen, admitted in November that he engaged in espionage against the U.S for many years, including helping to smuggle American nuclear bomb parts to Israel, his appearance at the Oscars was pretty much proof not all spies are treated equally.

Forbes columnist Dorothy Pomerantz, who writes about Hollywood for the magazine, noted in her morning after rundown of the Oscars, “The Billionaire Winners of the 2014 Academy Awards,” that it is “unlikely the admission will affect his standing in the film industry.”

Since revealing his “James Bond”-like past on Israeli television in November, Milchan has apparently not generated interest among U.S. law enforcement agencies. The FBI won’t even acknowledge that it investigated him previously (it has) and would not say it has plans to interview him about his spying activities now that he’s admitted to them. …

Grant Smith, author of Divert, about the decades-long Israeli operation to funnel U.S. nuclear secrets, uranium and parts to Israel, was not surprised that Milchan was “unconcerned and on stage” at the Oscars. Smith said Milchan has dodged prosecution for more than 30 years, even as a colleague in the smuggling of nuclear triggers, Richard Kelley Smyth, ultimately was arrested and jailed.

What has made Milchan untouchable, according to Smith, is his connections. These include long time associations with Israeli leaders including Shimon Peres and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who worked at Heli Trading, a Milchan front company used for smuggling, according to Smith, who cites Justice Department documents that he acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

So cheer up, Abe. It could be a lot worse.

One has the feeling that the pro-Israel community in the U.S. is increasingly on the defensive. Jonathan Tobin’s “Anti-Zionists Must Not Be Allowed to Hijack the Jewish Community” is Abe Foxmanesque in its tone of embattled righteousness — and for two (two!) uses of the canard strategy (i.e., the strategy  that if a belief related to Jews is common, it must be false and so obviously false that there is no need to come up with rational arguments).

Canard #1:

This week the Jewish world is discussing two incidents in which large community institutions were forced to account for invitations to prominent writers who are virulent foes of Israel. In one case New York’s Jewish Museum was under fire for inviting academic Judith Butler. In another, the Museum of Jewish Heritage, also in New York, canceled an appearance by New Republic editor John Judis. What both these figures had in common was their bitter opposition to Israel. In Butler’s case, she is a prominent supporter of the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement that seeks to wage economic war on the State of Israel. Judis is the author of a book that questions the legitimacy of Israel’s creation in a revisionist history of President Harry Truman’s role in the creation of the Jewish state, as historian Ron Radosh pointed out in the Jerusalem Post.

Taken together, along with other incidents in the last year involving other BDS supporters being invited to Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y, the decision by the two museums to let outraged members and donors derail the events is seen as a sign of a wave of repression in the American Jewish community. Sounding a theme that has become a constant refrain on the left, supporters of Israel are being accused of cracking down on dissent. But the issue here isn’t free speech or even whether Israel’s policies should be debated. It’s whether an extremist anti-Zionist minority will be able to hijack Jewish institutions.

The accusation about free speech is a canard.

Why is it a canard? Because both Butler and Judis can find other venues to spew their venom outside of venues within the Jewish community. The Jewish community itself should be spared having to listen to “the voices seeking Israel’s destruction.” (Judis has since been reinvited, doubtless infuriating Tobin.) Read more