dems is just the usual zionazi shit, is all

Hillary Clinton has a decision to make
Yakov Hirsch, MondoWeiss, Jul 8 2016

160321_POL_clinton-speech-aipac-1.jpg.CROP_.promo-xlarge2-1Hillary at AIPAC conference, Mar 21 2016. Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty

Elie Wiesel might have been the most moral man to have come out of the Jewish people in the last thousand years, but at the same time, he was also inarguably an enemy to the Palestinian people. That should not be controversial. The late Yossi Sarid called Wiesel an “ethnic cleanser in a prayer shawl” over his relationship with the settlement organization Elad in East Jerusalem. Peter Beinart tried to open Wiesel’s eyes and heart:

Again and again, Wiesel takes refuge in the Israel of his imagination, using it to block out the painful reckoning that might come from scrutinizing Israel as it actually is. “I can’t believe that Israeli soldiers murdered people or shot children. It just can’t be,” Wiesel said in 2010. But these are not questions of faith.

It therefore should be entirely understandable why people on the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, notably Max Blumenthal, the son of long-time Hillary confidante Sidney Blumenthal, would not partake in the hagiography of Wiesel going on after his death.

But “understandable” it was not. Pick your poison.

Fkyq9Wal.png

What is going on here? Why is it so difficult to understand that Elie Wiesel cannot be sacred to people whose sympathies lie with the Palestinians? That concept should not be so challenging to comprehend. Why is it so impossible to see things from a pro-Palestinian perspective? It doesn’t mean you have to agree with the Palestinian position. Just “role-play” and try to empathize. A pro Palestinian perspective does not ipso facto mean that it is motivated by an “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish perspective.” They are two separate things. Even though it undoubtedly hurts Avi Mayer’s feelings that these people don’t show deference to his religious icons, this particular icon Weisel was an enemy to the Palestinian people. The critiques of Wiesel are made by “proud” Jews as well. Peter Beinart is not carrying around a grudge against Elie Wiesel. And yet he still viewed Wiesel’s “faith” in Israeli “innocence” to be Wiesel taking “refuge in the Israel of his imagination.” Because Beinart wisely insists that these are not “questions of faith.” All you need to do is turn on the television these days: watch this video of an Israeli medic killing an incapacitated Palestinian under occupation, or read the newspaper/ This story of a Palestinian boy killed in a hail of bullets inside a car by “mistake” and again inside the occupation. There are a lot of reasons for this blind Jewish ethnocentrism and inability to role-play which I will be focusing on in future pieces. But I’d like to use the Hillary Clinton statement on Wiesel yesterday to show the egregious role that Pindo pols play in this phenomenon.

It doesn’t take politicians long to figure out where the money is. Just try to talk as crazy as the craziest Jew and watch the money pour in. You can see this dynamic play out at every AIPAC conference. This year the “progressive” candidate Hillary Clinton’s speech at AIPAC sounded more like Rabbi Meir Kahane than Eleanor Roosevelt. What is the message these ethnocentrics at AIPAC get over and over and over from the objective non-Jews: oh, they “understand” Israel is surrounded by the Palestinians who are trying to drive them into the sea and finish the job Hitler started. Every ridiculous tribal fantasy is catered to. And therein lies the rub. If Hillary doesn’t condemn Max Blumenthal by name for his Wiesel comments, Trump might very well pounce and prove that “crooked Hillary’s real loyalty is to the Jewish kapo rather than to the Jewish concentration camp inmate.” The result of all this is that Hillary Clinton felt it necessary to put out a statement condemning Max Blumenthal by name. With all due respect to Max Blumenthal, I don’t think his name gets such high poll numbers when Democrat voters are polled, as to what they wish Hillary spent more time on. But again what is the message? It’s that your Jewish flawed tribal saint Elie Wiesel is an “objective” saint, a saint to all mankind, not just to Jews. In fact a personal “hero” as well to Hillary Clinton! And anyone that questions Elie Wiesel’s sainthood is going to have to deal with Hillary herself. The inevitable result is the witch-hunt against Blumenthal, with Hillary of course taking the side of the most crazy. And of course you don’t have to be a mind-reader to know what Clinton’s big donor Haim Saban (whose “one issue” is Israel) thinks about our friend Max Blumenthal. There is another issue at play here too: why Clinton felt she needed her spokesman to mention Max Blumenthal’s name. Jeffrey Goldberg had been sending some shots across Hillary’s bow about Sidney Blumenthal in Jeffrey Goldberg’s inimitable way. He was demanding some action on Sidney! And Jeffrey doesn’t take no for an answer. The last thing Hillary Clinton needs right now is Jeffrey Goldberg causing trouble. Plus he is doing such a fantastic job with his Trump coverage. Condemning Max Blumenthal by name should calm him down. He should behave. We both know how desperately he wants to get into the Clinton White House.

How big an enemy was Hillary Clinton’s hero Elie Wiesel to the Palestinian people? How about we let Wiesel’s supporters shed some light on Wiesel’s thinking:

Let’s try to unpack this tweet. First notice it sounds like an old Jeffrey Goldberg slogan when he was running with the JDL. Also the winking quality to the tweet. like it’s only for the smart Jews to understand, not for the stupid goyim. But before publicizing a tweet like that, maybe you should have listened to your “Rabbi” Jeffrey Goldberg, who has warned you that there are “smart Jews” like me around who are “part of a tiny minority of Jews who believe that the destruction of Israel will bring them the approval of non-Jews, which they crave.” In my own defense, there is this one particular shiksa “I crave” and am trying to get the “approval of” that might very well be worth the destruction of more than a few countries, though admittedly far less worthy than Israel. Back to that tweet.

Some criticize Wiesel as a fraud for failing to apply the lessons of the Holocaust to the Palestinians.

So people like Max Blumenthal think Wiesel is a “fraud” because when it came to Palestine he was an “ethnic cleanser” as charged by Yossi Sarid, and at best a “bystander” according to Beinart. It is worth quoting Beinart in full again:

Again and again, Wiesel takes refuge in the Israel of his imagination, using it to block out the painful reckoning that might come from scrutinizing Israel as it actually is. “I can’t believe that Israeli soldiers murdered people or shot children. It just can’t be,” Wiesel said in 2010. But these are not questions of faith.

Those who are concerned with Palestinian rights believe that it is too not much to expect more from a Nobel peace prize winner, some of whose most famous quotes are:

We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.

Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must at that moment become the center of the universe.

These critics were only asking Wiesel to “practice what he preached.” And the response to this very reasonable sounding request is what? Again that tweet:

Maybe that’s exactly what he did.

Pagano is saying that Elie Wiesel’s “lesson from the Holocaust” is that the Palestinians are somehow connected to the Nazis or implicated in the Holocaust, and so standard Nobel Laureate no-no’s like ethnic cleansing do not apply in this instance. Do you guys ever wonder how all very convenient this all looks? If the world will let you get away with it, why not even implicate the Palestinians in the original idea of the Holocaust? That would really be a neat trick. But think of the dividends if it succeeded. It’s even worth exculpating Hitler. Serbia would have paid a fortune for your PR people a few years back. For a more in-depth look at the “lesson of the Holocaust” see my piece on Netanyahu and General Golan. So, if I have this right, Hillary wants Palestinians and those fighting for their cause like Max Blumenthal to admit to being Nazis, because that is how Israel and its supporters are every day justifying its actions against them. And when these people reject the outrageous “blood libel” as Blumenthal did, well, guess what? You’re a Nazi, too!

YTifIJDl.png

It’s really not as easy being a self-hating Jew as it used to be. Back to the the Pagano tweet and the Jamie Kirchick retweet. What exactly are these two saying? Do they even know? What would they say if asked to explain in what way Wiesel believes Palestinians resemble Nazis? They would no doubt talk a lot and maybe use a few big words and say nothing. But there is at least one pampered benighted ethnocentric who is less reserved. Who feels strongly that Jews should be a lot more aggressive and forcefully spell out the Palestinian = Nazi/ISIS analogy. Because we Jews have nothing to be afraid of any more, says Bret Stephens of the WSJ:

Rare is it in history that we’ve been blessed to live in a country where we can say anything we want and actually get away with it. And it is a scandal, it seems to me, if we fail to live up to the promise of our Pindo sheeplehood to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

And if in Bret Stephens’s tribal ethical code, “survival” demands this:

Palestinians have been seized by their present blood-lust, by a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. … Above all, it’s time to give hatred its due. … Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil. To call it anything less is to serve as an apologist, and an accomplice.

You sure better hope that this video doesn’t turn up.

Bret Stephens gives the most moral army in the world an EXCUSE to shoot this young woman, with her whole life ahead of her, without asking themselves if they NEED to shoot this young woman with her whole life ahead of her. It is very important that Hillary Clinton realize that what starts off ”innocently” as demanding Max Blumenthal show more respect to Elie Wiesel ends up with having to see the young woman in this video as a Nazi/ISIS member. Mrs Clinton, I urge you to keep them at arm’s length. I understand if you won’t take my word for how toxic they are. Why don’t you ask the much more reliable, and monk-like Robert Wright about your new friends? This is what he wrote about them when they defamed former Sec Def Chuck Hagel:

Still, these smears have been hugely counter-productive from a truly pro-Zionist standpoint. What you’re seeing now is one of the final desperate spasms of a group that has already helped destroy the thing it loves, and will probably destroy a few other things before finally, like Joseph McCarthy, destroying itself and receding mercifully into the pages of history.

Strong words. Mrs Clinton, why don’t you send over one of your minions to Mr Wright and ask him to explain what he means here? Because more and more, thanks to you, it sure looks like they have a few “desperate spasms” left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s